Waylaid Dialectic

June 19, 2013

An end to tied US Food Aid

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 8:45 am

Ok – so I’ve been living in a cave (the cave of PhD write up) but even so can’t believe I was completely unaware of this. It seems like very big aid news, and in need of more coverage in the aid blogs:

These next 48 hours [the blog post is from two days ago] are critical for advancing reform of US international food aid, which I have blogged about previously.  Short version: because current rules essentially demand that we provide aid in food grown in the US via government subsidy, our current aid regime wastes money, delays delivery of aid by weeks, lines the pockets of agribusiness and big shipping, often undermines farmers in the Global South, and leaves 2-4 million people starving who could otherwise be helped.

The basic answer is to allow food to be procured locally; the Obama Administration’s budget proposal did just that, and was given the back of the hand by special interests in the Senate.  The Senate bill, which passed the Upper House, did add some extra money for local procurement, but fell far short of what was really needed.  The pathetic justifications offered by the agribusiness and shipping lobbies show just how weak their policy position is.

And now — maybe the House to the rescue.  The House? The current House?  You gotta be kidding, right?

Wrong.  The hero here is House International Relations Committee chair Ed Royce, a very conservative Republican from Orange County, who studied the way food aid rules work, and got outraged.  That’s hardly odd for a conservative, because farm policy represents about the clearest case of government waste we have.  It didn’t hurt, of course, that allowing for local procurement would also take much food aid from the Agriculture Committee and give it to the IR committee, but that really wasn’t what was happening here: this is an outrage and everyone who looks at it realizes it.

Read more at the link above, and if you live in the states, lobby your congressman! This matters.

June 14, 2013

Suburban Escape Dreaming

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 5:37 pm
Tags: ,

escapedreaming

It seems a cruel thing to wish upon a country: that its suburbs be swallowed by their hinterland. But when that hinterland is as magical as Australia’s it’s hard not to hope, at least on the grey days, and amongst the ugly bits.

Postcard: of Shark Bay, based on a photo taken by Trent Park, from the series Welcome to Nowhere. City: Sydney.

Missionary, Mercenary, Mystic, Misfit and Ayn

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 10:09 am

Following from my previous effort I now have a more substantial review of Missionary, Mercenary, Mystic, Misfit up at Devpolicy. This time more LRB than Game of Thrones.

There have been a couple of other reviews too: at Why Dev, and at Humansophere. Both take issue with Jonathan’s sermons in the book, Tom at Humanosphere going as far as to call them Ayn Randesque. They’re not. But it is fun to try and re-imagine sections of the book as if Rand had written them (ridiculing Rand is a pass-time of mine; she needs it).

The first thing that struck Mary-Anne was how different he looked. The bar was the same – dreary, sandy, shabby – but Jonathan was turned out in crisp, tailored clothes. A collar. Shoes of distinction. He was drinking single malt. He looked animated, fervent even. Alive!

“The goat is dead. I shot it. Tonight you call me John.”

She went to speak but he waved her into silence.

“You know what’s wrong with development…[insert 4 hour speech in here]…so you might say Easterly’s correct, but not correct enough! He’s soft…[two
more hours and now we're well past curfew; the Australian guy from the Red Cross has passed out in a pool of his own vomit]…A is A! And M and E is for sissies!”

At first she’d wanted to object (what about Robert Chambers? Gender Mainstreaming? Jeff Sachs?) but now all she could think about was growth models: endogenous; the big push; binding constraints – you name it. His truth was so savage. So objective. So true!

She looked at the other men in the bar. Weary, worn, weak. Mediocre! She winced…she looked back into his eyes.

‘John, I’m yours!’

June 12, 2013

Vaccinate

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 3:10 pm

The Origins of the Word Vaccinate:

In 1796, Edward Jenner took some matter from a cowpox sore on the hand of dairymaid Sarah Nelmes, and inserted it into the arm of an eight-year-old boy…The boy was “perceptibly indisposed” on the ninth day, but recovered the following day. Six weeks later, Jenner inoculated him with matter taken from a smallpox pustule, “but no disease followed”…Jenner published 23 case studies to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of “vaccination,” as his procedure came to be called: vacca is the Latin term for cow, and vaccinia is another term for cowpox.

Freedman, D. A. (2010). On Types of Scientific Inquiry: The Role of Qualitative Reasoning. Rethinking Social Inquiry. H. E. Brady and D. Collier, Rowman and Littlefield: 221-236.

The Bay

Filed under: Conflict,Human Rights — terence @ 11:53 am
Tags:

It’s hot, there is no wind, and the sun is starting to melt the day. I am sitting uncomfortably on the deck of a large leaf hut. In front of me are the leader of the local church and two village chiefs. They are asking questions in Pijin and I am doing my best to reply. I’m trying to concentrate. I need to concentrate, not just because of the language, but also because I need their permission to interview people about elections. It is less than 10 years since the Solomon Islands’ civil war swept over this part of Guadalcanal and the last foreigners to visit, who weren’t soldiers or police, were missionaries in the 1990s. So I am trying to explain carefully what I want to do and to reassure them. I’m trying, yet my efforts are being overcome by a distraction. An old, familiar distraction.

Behind the leaders’ heads, out beyond the village, across the shingle beach, on the edge of the South Pacific, a line of swell is bending in around a point, steepening on a shelf of coral reef, and starting to break.

I don’t have a board. I don’t surf anymore. And yet, once you’ve learnt how to read the sea, it’s hard to ignore. The swell is clean. The waves are mostly lefts. They aren’t perfect but they look fun.

In my mind I’m surfing: trimming down the line, racing the wall, swooping through a cutback…The church leader notices me staring.
He is a skinny, bumpy man, with a big, bald head and slightly sunken cheeks. His accent is strong and he speaks in anxious bursts of words that outwit my language skills.
“Luk luk long si?” (You’re looking at the sea?) He frowns.

“Um, yeah, um. Mi luk luk lo olketa waev saed go lo san bis?” (I’m looking at the waves on the other side of the beach.)
And then, because this sounds stupid on its own: “Taem mi iang man mi laek ski lo waev.” (When I was young I liked to surf in the waves.) Ski, according to my dictionary, is the Pijin word for surfing.

“Oh,” his mouth bends into a smile. “Iu laek sof? Mifala savi hao fo sof.”
The easiest sentences in another language are the ones I expect. Anticipation helps when matching sounds to words. On the other hand, I struggle when sentences come out of the blue, even if I know the words being used. And in this instance I have no idea what the ‘sof’ means. Sof?

I’m silent, trying to conjure sense from the sounds. And his smile is starting to fold back towards a frown.
Sof? Sof? Surf! He’s talking about surfing.

“Iu laek sof? Mifala savi how fo sof.” (You like to surf? We know how to surf.)

“Savi ski? Lo waev? Usim wanem? Kanu?” (You can surf? In the waves? What do you use? Canoes?)

“Nomoa. Usim sago fo makim ski.” (No, we make boards from sago palms). “Taem skul finis, bae me talem olketa pikinini mekem ski fo iu and soem iu hao fo kasim waev.” (When school’s finished I’ll tell the kids to make you a board and show you how to catch waves.)

I can still remember the first wave I ever caught. I was thirteen. After school one day I took the bus to Nick Coney’s house and we rode pushbikes in our wetsuits through the rain to the local surf spot. Our boards were ‘pollies’: three feet long, surfboard-shaped polystyrene beach toys brought from a department store. The wave was a shore break, inside Wellington Harbour, that only broke in Southerly storms. We paddled out down the beach from the older kids on fiberglass boards and tried to surf. At first the ocean got the better of me: I missed waves; I got caught inside; I wiped out into churning, sandy water. It was icy cold. My lungs started to rattle with asthma.

Then it happened, a steepening chunk of stormy sea rolled towards me, I spun around, and with a flailing paddle coaxed enough speed out of my polly to have a chance of catching it. The wave sucked me back, right to the critical point of its crest, and for a moment I hung there, on the edge of disaster. Then gravity took over and I was let go. Skimming, I flew down the face and out into the flats in front of the exploding swell. The white water swallowed me and then spat me out again. I shot towards the shore, lying prone, clinging to the bouncing piece of styrene foam and travelling faster than I ever imagined a wave would take me. I rode its surge all the way to the beach, where the swash carried me up the pebbly sand. There, I leapt up, giddy with happiness, and ran round in circles hollering victory to myself. I was so stoked. From that moment my path was set.

I surfed my way through high school, getting a fibreglass board and learning to stand on it. I got my driver’s licence and escaped the harbour. I cruised through university choosing courses that left me free to surf. I worked a bit, saved, and spent six months in Indonesia, followed by a winter in the Canaries. I worked in London and surfed wherever I could. Frozen beach breaks in New York, points in New Hampshire, sandy tubes in Mexico, giant green walls in Madeira, hidden lefts in Chile. There were flat spells and broken boards. And there were crowds and long hours worked in lonely, grey cities. But, all things told, it was a good surfing life.

Surfing Escondido 97

Then, in 1999, while chasing waves off beaches of Harmattan-blown sand in the Cape Verde Islands, I caught dysentery, which led to Reactive Arthritis, an auto-immune disease, and surfing was replaced painful uncertainty. Since then ill-health has come and gone along with doctors, diets and medications. At times I’ve been well enough to surf, other times I’ve been unable to walk. Recoveries are slow, relapses happen overnight. And the inflammation has started to damage my body. In 2008 I had open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve, which had been wrecked by inflammation, and an acute relapse in the wake of surgery lead to permanent damage in my hip. I haven’t surfed a short board since then; I’m too slow to my feet. At times I’ve been able to longboard, but two hours of surfing are followed by a two days of pain. Worth it. But hard. By the time I made it to Solomon Islands, my hip and back were bad enough that I wasn’t even really able to longboard. I guess I could have travelled with a body-board, but that didn’t seem like surfing to me. I didn’t even consider it.
Around all this the rest of my life has kept moving. Travel in developing countries sparked an interest in aid, and work for the New Zealand government’s aid programme. From this I became interested in Solomon Island electoral politics, and that became the subject of my PhD. Fieldwork was the start of a road of its own, taking my wife and I weaving from coast to coast and island to island through Solomons. In November 2011 we travelled along the southern shore of Guadalcanal: the Weather Coast.
When it rains on Weather Coast, paths turn into rivers and rivers torrents. Some years it rains nonstop for months. Trade-winds blow clouds against the island’s jungle-tangled dividing range, and the water falls with a fury. The heart of the Coast is hemmed in between mountains and a shoreline of gravel beaches and surf bashed cliffs. There are no harbours and when the swell is big sea travel is impossible. When the winds blow and the rains come, villages become isolated, islands of their own, and people go hungry. Schools close and health clinics run out of supplies. The soil becomes too wet to grow anything except Swamp Taro.

On fine days the Weather Coast is stunning – big, empty, and beautiful. But it is not an easy place to live. It isn’t far from the bustle of Honiara, Solomon Islands’ capital, which lies on the other side of Guadalcanal, but it might as well be another country.

Indeed, Solomon Islands only became a country thanks to the colonial carve up of the Pacific. There was nothing resembling a nation there before the British arrived and drew lines around a bunch of islands north east of Australia, calling it a colony. Bundled into it were speakers of more than 90 different languages. Villages and clans were the only real coherent pre-colonial political entities and there were thousands of these. In Europe nations grew over centuries, in the Western Pacific they were dreamed up in days.

Colonial rule in Solomons wasn’t as cruel or as bloody as it was in parts of Africa but it wasn’t a time of nation building either. Independence was granted in 1978 and shortly afterwards the logging companies arrived, corrupting politics with money. Life for ordinary Solomon Islanders got worse.

In 1998, this led to conflict. Groups of young men from Guadalcanal drove migrants from the neighbouring island of Malaita off land on which they had settled. And the Malaitans formed their own armed groups. The inter-island conflict quickly reached a stalemate but at this point the armed groups of youths morphed into criminal gangs. On Malaita drunk young men with guns terrorised businesses. In Honiara armed groups extorted money from government departments. In rural Guadalcanal the Weather Coast had the misfortune of becoming a base for the most notorious of all the militant leaders: Harold Keke.

Keke’s troops were based first at the eastern end of the Coast but, harried by armed police, he marched them west to a camp close to the surf spot that would distract me eight years later.
I didn’t ask questions about the conflict years while we were on the Weather Coast, and for the most part people avoided the subject. We heard bits – in Keke’s home village our host kept apologising for not having cutlery, hers had all been lost when police burnt the village – but it was only near the village of the surf spot anyone offered me real detail about the time of Keke’s soldiers. Even then it was just one man. He can’t have been any older than me but he had the frail, stooped posture of a 60 year old. He spoke with a quiet, careful voice and one day he started telling me about Keke’s time at their end of the coast.

“He told us to feed his troops, but we couldn’t. We didn’t have enough food for ourselves. When I told him this he lined some of us up on the beach and gave a gun to one of his soldiers and told him to shoot us. But the soldier wouldn’t. He was just a young boy. He didn’t want to murder people. So Keke took his gun, shouted at him and gave it to another soldier, telling him to kill us. But the other soldier couldn’t either. He started crying. So Keke took the gun and threw it to the ground and told us. ‘You are lucky; god doesn’t want you to die today. Go home.’”
“You see the tree, the large one on the edge of the beach. One time some of his soldiers tried to run away, but he caught them. And he tied them to the tree and beat them to death. He made us watch.”

Finally, after nearly five years of conflict, Australia led a peacekeeping mission into Solomon Islands. Australian troops swept up the Weather Coast, Keke surrendered and the militia disarmed. By that point no one wanted to fight anymore, least of all the soldiers, who were just village boys pumped up on power and promises of victory. Militia men went home to their gardens, and a few of the leaders went to jail. Keke is in prison. The conflict stopped, and people’s lives went back to normal. Which on the Weather Coast meant hard and isolated.
When school ended on the afternoon of our first day in the village kids swept past our leaf house laughing and shouting, and pointing at us. Shortly afterwards a group of teenage boys arrived armed with large machetes. There was some hushed discussion in the local Ko’o language, and they raced off into the jungle, returning ten minutes later with the long slender trunks of freshly cut sago palms. Then the machetes were put to work. Trunks were cut into three foot long pieces and their green outer layer sliced off. Underneath, the wood was light, white and soft, a bit like polystyrene. Then they cut long thin ‘nails’ from the branches of another tree and used these to pin the peeled sago trunks together into rafts about 18 inches wide. And then they carefully rounded the fronts of their rafts. The result was three foot long, light and kind of surfboard shaped. A lot like the polly that I had caught my first wave on all those years ago.

shapingbay2

“Now they can teach you how to surf” John, the church leader said laughing. I wasn’t sure that trying to go surfing with the local kids was the best way of convincing him that I was a serious researcher. But, on the other hand, he looked happy, and there was still surf. It had been a long time since I’d ridden waves.

P1010781

A light onshore had come up but the surf looked alright: small and shifting about the reef, bumped up by wind wobble. The young teenagers couldn’t speak much Pijin and I didn’t know any Ko’o but we didn’t really need to communicate what we were going to do next. I grabbed the board I was given and, along with about ten of the teenagers, paddled out into the line-up.

I wish I could tell you about the great waves I got, and how I amazed the locals by getting barrelled on the inside, but the ocean got the better of me that evening. A three foot long 18 inch wide board is fine when you’re thirteen, but I almost sunk mine. Without flippers I couldn’t kick effectively and if I tried to paddle into waves the board would twist out underneath me. I didn’t catch a single wave. The locals, on the other hand, caught plenty. They knew what they were doing, scooting around sliding into anything that broke.

That night, covered in mosquito repellent sitting under the waning light of a solar powered lamp, I asked John who had taught them about surfing.

“No one. Kids here have always known how to surf”. And so it was, one day I spoke to an ancient old man who told me he’d surfed the reef with his brothers just after the Second World War. Each generation of kids would learn from their older siblings. They’d learn how to ride waves when they were six or seven, eventually giving up in their late teens. Surfing wasn’t considered an adult sport, although the older men did still catch the occasional wave in their canoes as they paddled home after fishing.
John and I spoke some more. They’d never seen fiberglass boards or anyone stand on a surfboard. The only other foreigner who’d tried to ride waves there was a missionary in the 1980s or 90s who’d been made a sago palm board like me.

P1010774

I asked John if they’d ever seen a surfing magazine. They hadn’t. All that they knew about surfing came from a few photos of men riding waves inside a bible printed by Australian Christian surfers, delivered to the village by a friend of the wave riding missionary. It was the bible that had also given them the word ‘sof’, their attempt to pronounce ‘surf’.
That was their sole connection to the rest of the surfing world. Everything else they had learned about riding waves had evolved in isolation.
Convergent evolution is the term biologists use to describe the process through which different species evolve similar features via natural selection. It explains why hummingbird moths look almost identical to hummingbirds. In an environment rich with nectar filled flowers high up trees there is a niche to be filled by a creature that can hover and extract the nectar. So both a species of bird and a type of moth evolved to fill the niche. Bird and moth look remarkably similar. Form follows function. And, I thought to myself, the next afternoon as I tried again to catch waves, something similar to this explained a lot of what I saw around me. Much that would be familiar to a surfer in Wellington, or Cornwall, had evolved in in the village too. The kids would paddle out through the channel behind the peak – the easiest and quickest way to the line-up. When large waves broke in front of them they duck dived exactly as you or I would do. The kids surfed waves too, rather than white water, and they rode along them angling across the face.

Some things were different. No one stood on their boards. And in between waves I was told tales of the crocodile that had moved into the swamp in the next bay. This, I thought anxiously, was something I hadn’t had to worry about back home. The biggest difference though, was how friendly they were. While they despaired of my surfing ability they kept offering tips and they made me a board. There aren’t many surf spots on Earth where a chubby, limping beginner would be welcomed, let alone offered pride of place.

As I mulled this over, my thoughts were interrupted – the tropical sea finally sent a wave straight to me. I barely needed to paddle. The wave pulled me back, up to its crest, where I hung for an instant, and then let me go with the familiar sensation that every surfer knows: the start of a ride. Sago palm bouncing underneath me, I shot down the face, clinging to the board, marvelling at how fast the water sped by, just inches away.
After the first ride, it became easier. Along with my local companions I surfed for hours.

Later, I stood on the beach, holding my board while the evening light folded gold over the mountains behind the village, and I thought about things. My muscles were aching in a pleasant, exercised way. I was stoked. Riding waves lying down would never bring me the same happiness that surfing had but it promised a lot more joy than a life spent trying to forget about the sea. And so I decided that I would become a body boarder for the time being.
As I thought about this, a slender woman with a shock of curly hair strode down to the beach and started shouting at one of the kids still in the water. She waved her hands and he called something back. She shouted some more.
The conversation was entirely in Ko’o but I knew exactly what was being said.

“Get out of the water Henri, you have chores to do, and dinner is almost ready!”
“Ok mum, just one more wave.”
“No! Get out now!”
“Just one more.”

In a world of conflict and poverty, the freedom to surf is a tiny, trivial thing. And yet often it’s the trivial things that thread much of the happiness through our lives. Likewise, the tale of the point and its return from being a place of fear to a surf spot, is a small story when set amongst the on-going struggles of the Solomon Islands. But, small as it may be, it is also a happy story. From war to surfing.
While his mother continued shouting, Henri paddled out to sea, spinning at the last moment to catch a set wave. He sped down the face, turned, and flew past section after section, taking that last ride the length of the point and into the sunset-coloured bay.

[This story was published in the Surfer's Path earlier this year.]

kidtakesdrop

splittingthepeak

meandboard

surfers1

P1010993s

June 8, 2013

The Answer is Blowing in the Wind (somewhere)

Filed under: Development Theory — terence @ 8:39 am

Ever wondered what the solutions are to global poverty and conflict? What we know? The state of the knowledge in development economics? In peace studies?*

This video sums it all up beautifully. H/T Humanosphere.

 

*I know, I know, a little unfair — knowledge is inching forwards and some great insights exist.

June 5, 2013

The Game of Aid

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 7:00 am
Tags:
game of thrones

Everyone says Paul Collier looks different when you meet him in person…

When asked what he was trying to achieve in writing his fantasy mega-hit ‘The Game of Thrones’, George Martin said (as paraphrased by John Lanchester) his ambition “was to create an imaginary world with the atmosphere of the Wars of the Roses.” A different type of heroic fiction. Gone are noble Elves and evil monsters. Instead we’re given a realm without saints, where some people are truly vile, but most people are at least a little bit good. A world where problems, fiendish undead aside, are born of normal human failings and complexity.

‘Missionary, Mercenary, Mystic, Misfit’ (MMMM), is the second novel from J., the more or less pseudonymous blogger behind the humanitarian blog Tales from the Hood, and it is not a book about a magical kingdom, it’s set right here in the distinctly non-magical world within which we live. And set, for the most part, in one of its least magical bits: a refugee camp in Ethiopia, somewhere near the border with Somalia. Which is where we become reacquainted Mary-Anne, the aid worker star of J’s first aid book, currently the employee of a small upstart NGO.

Crisply written, with a plot that pulls you over the pages, it is a very good read. And as I read it I was reminded of the Game of Thrones books. There are no dragons of course. Murder is less frequent. And castles are replaced by aid agency tents. There aren’t any dodgy sex scenes either, and aid sceptics will be disappointed to discover that none of the major characters, not even the UN staff!, are engaged in incest. And yet the genius of the books is similar: people get to be people. Neither villains, nor heroes, just ordinary folk, with ordinary faults.

Actually, that’s not quite correct: in Game of Thrones we find hulking horse lords, kings and princesses, and their failings, while ordinary, are writ large. Whereas in MMMM we have to be content with aid workers, with failings about the size of your failings, or mine. But the main thing, the thing that makes both works interesting, is the reality and ambiguity. Especially in MMMM the characters are just like you or I. Which is a major strength, given that you and I both work in (or are interested in) the world of aid.

And aid is so many people’s fantasy kingdom. It’s the place where they dream of taking their fantastic ideas and saving the world, redeeming themselves in the process. Or it’s a place they gaze at resentfully from their Econ101 classes, outraged that people might have the temerity to IGNORE THE MARKET’S WILL. A place they can disdain while reading the latest author de jure decrying the vested interests that corrupt it. But the thing is, the world of aid is none of that, or — if it’s any of that — it’s all of it. People, with mixed motivations, working hard, occasionally corrupting, amongst corruption, doing good, and f#$king up. People who don’t save the world. Who can’t save the world. But who do quite often, in spite of their failings, in spite of our failings!, make it a better place.

Like Game of Thrones, MMMM also uses the narrative trick of short chapters that hop between different character’s points of view, this not only keeps the pages turning, but also does an excellent job of conveying the coordination problems of humanitarian work. MMMM isn’t a perfect book, and I have a review of it coming up later in the month on Dev-Policy where I’ll point out some of its faults, but for now let me just suggest you read it. Read it especially if you think the problems and solutions of aid are simple ones — you’ll be educated. But read it too if you’re interested in, or work in, the world of aid: you’ll be informed, and entertained.

Highly recommended.

M4 Version 5

[Update: you can read other reviews here and...more to come]
The author’s page on GoodReads.com: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/6485147.J
The book’s blog home: http://stuffexpataidworkerslike.com/2013/06/03/213-missionary-mercenary-mystic-misfit/
The book’s facebook home: https://www.facebook.com/MisMercMysMis

June 4, 2013

Do Amnesty International Campaigns Work?

Filed under: Human Rights — terence @ 8:27 am
Tags:

I’ve been a member (if that’s what my donations made me) of Amnesty International in the past and will likely rejoin once I have an income again. I support their view of a world where Human Rights are respected. I have always wondered though whether their campaigning on behalf of political prisoners in repressive regimes ever made much of a difference. Not because I think anything bad of Amnesty but success in this is a very hard ask.

Some suggestive evidence from the latest British Journal of Political Science. (Although, caveat lector, I haven’t read the article yet):

When Is the Pen Truly Mighty? Regime Type and the Efficacy of Naming and Shaming in Curbing Human Rights Abuses
Cullen S. Hendrix and Wendy H. Wong July 2013
British Journal of Political Science, ,Volume43, Issue03, July 2013 pp 651-672
http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007123412000488

Does naming and shaming states affect respect for human rights in those states? This article argues that incentives to change repressive behaviour when facing international condemnation vary across regime types. In democracies and hybrid regimes – which combine democratic and authoritarian elements – opposition parties and relatively free presses paradoxically make rulers less likely to change behaviour when facing international criticism. In contrast, autocracies, which lack these domestic sources of information on abuses, are more sensitive to international shaming. Using data on naming and shaming taken from Western press reports and Amnesty International, the authors demonstrate that naming and shaming is associated with improved human rights outcomes in autocracies, but with either no effect or a worsening of outcomes in democracies and hybrid regimes.

[ungated version here]

June 2, 2013

Layla

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 9:19 am

After a delightful evening out at a cozy restaurant in a safe part of the suburbs Eric Clapton’s music is mugged on the way home by a posse of lesbian cowpunks. Anarchy ensues. And the song Layla becomes much better, and so much more alive.

As one of the audience members cries out: “play forever!”

h/t The Guardian

June 1, 2013

Pow!

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 2:21 pm

From the New York Review:

Meanwhile, gun violence in the United States continues to far outpace that in other developed nations. Since 1960, more than 1.3 million Americans have died from firearms, either in suicides, homicides, or accidents. By this grim metric, we are unquestionably a world leader. The US firearms homicide rate is twenty times higher than the combined rate of the next twenty-two high-income developed nations. Between 2000 and 2008, there were more than 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US, for an average of more than eighty every single day. And in 2010 alone, emergency rooms treated more than 73,000 people for nonfatal gunshot injuries.2

We read with horror of terrorist attacks around the world, mostly in far-flung places that regularly endure suicide bombings, improvised explosive devices, and the like. We breathe a sigh of relief that we don’t have to live with such violence, while we spend billions of dollars annually to prevent such attacks occurring here. But every year, about twice as many people are killed in the United States by guns than die of terrorist attacks worldwide. Americans face a one in 3.5 million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack, but a one in 22,000 chance of being murdered.

May 29, 2013

If pro-lifers were really pro-life…

Filed under: Development Philosophy — terence @ 7:33 pm

…wouldn’t they be ardently in favour of promoting birth control?

May 24, 2013

The Little Push

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 11:11 am
Tags: , , ,

Once, back in the dark old days of development economics, the thinking was: to grow, countries need to invest capital, but very poor countries have no capital to invest, so they are stuck in a poverty trap, which is why we should give them aid; with our aid they can invest (in human capital, in infrastructure, in industries), and then they will grow.

Trouble was, we gave the aid and they didn’t grow.

Theory extinct.

Yet here comes Chris Blattman* to exhume it. Except he’s claiming we had the unit of analysis wrong. Don’t give money to countries. Give it to people. And they’ll invest it in training, and businesses, and so develop their countries**. Or, if not, at least develop themselves.

Call this the Little Push.

His evidence looks good. Although, of course, all he’s showing is temporary improvements, not a new trajectory.

My only question would be, how dependent is this result on Uganda (i.e. a country with bad but not terrible institutions and at least some national level economic development taking place)? If you did the same in the PNG highlands what would the impact be? I certainly wouldn’t count on it being positive, but I’m interested enough to want to do the RCT.

*Ok, so this is a simplified narrative (the refund’s yours): the big push never completely died, and others (Sachs, Collier) have exhumed it in interesting ways. And unconditional cash transfers aren’t Chris Blattman’s brainchild.

**Actually Blattman isn’t, in his blog post, making national development claims, he’s just making improved welfare claims, but today is simple narrative day, sorry.

 

 

May 22, 2013

Money to Burn

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 2:52 pm
Tags:

From the latest issue of Perspectives on Politics (pay-walled):

“By mid-2010, the US Agency for International Development alone was spending [US]$340 million on Afghan reconstruction per month, often on questionable projects (p. 198)—but few were willing to register formal objections.”

US$340 is about NZ$416, which puts the total annual NZ aid budget of a bit over $500M in perspective somewhat…

May 17, 2013

Fun Facts About New Zealand Aid

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 6:07 pm
Tags:

There’s an amusing buzzfeed thread on the challenges of being a New Zealander. To which I’d add Australia envy. Budgets have just come out in Australia and New Zealand and it turns out that the increase in Australian aid next year will be larger than the entire New Zealand aid budget. My wife and I have some more New Zealand aid budget analysis up at DevPolicy.

Austerity

Filed under: Economic Development — terence @ 1:45 pm

Paul Krugman:

Noah Smith recently offered an interesting take on the real reasons austerity garners so much support from elites, no matter hw badly it fails in practice. Elites, he argues, see economic distress as an opportunity to push through “reforms” — which basically means changes they want, which may or may not actually serve the interest of promoting economic growth — and oppose any policies that might mitigate crisis without the need for these changes…

I always thought the bad-faith of those pushing for austerity was evidenced by one simple fact: they, almost to a person, suggest budgets be balanced through cuts, or increases in sales taxes when the obvious, least painful, way of balancing the books would be to raise income taxes, particularly at the top. That this never seems to be a significant part of the austerity package suggests to me it’s never really been about balanced budgets. Cutting social spending, which will increase the odds of lower taxes in the future, is the order of the day. Naked self interest posing as policy. Charming.

Meanwhile, in the Guardian, discussion of evidence from the book ‘The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills’:

In a powerful new book, The Body Economic, Stuckler and his colleague Sanjay Basu, an assistant professor of medicine and epidemiologist at Stanford University, show that austerity is now having a “devastating effect” on public health in Europe and North America.

The mass of data they have mined reveals that more than 10,000 additional suicides and up to a million extra cases of depression have been recorded across the two continents since governments started introducing austerity programmes in the aftermath of the crisis.

In the United States, more than five million Americans have lost access to healthcare since the recession began, essentially because when they lost their jobs, they also lost their health insurance. And in the UK, the authors say, 10,000 families have been pushed into homelessness following housing benefit cuts.

…The consequences [in Greece] have been dramatic. Cuts in HIV-prevention budgets have coincided with a 200% increase in the virus in Greece, driven by a sharp rise in intravenous drug use against the background of a youth unemployment rate now running at more than 50% and a spike in homelessness of around a quarter. The World Health Organisation, Stuckler says, recommends a supply of 200 clean needles a year for each intravenous drug user; groups that work with users in Athens estimate the current number available is about three.

In terms of “economic” suicides, “Greece has gone from one extreme to the other. It used to have one of Europe’s lowest suicide rates; it has seen a more than 60% rise.”

 

 

May 14, 2013

Everyone knows the UN’s a Hopeless Failure Right?

Filed under: Governance — terence @ 8:46 am
Tags:

Forthcoming in the American Journal of Political Science:

United Nations Peacekeeping and Civilian Protection in Civil War Lisa Hultman, Jacob Kathman, Megan Shannon

Does United Nations peacekeeping protect civilians in civil war? Civilian protection is a primary purpose of UN peacekeeping, yet there is little systematic evidence for whether peacekeeping prevents civilian deaths. We propose that UN peacekeeping can protect civilians if missions are adequately composed of military troops and police in large numbers. Using unique monthly data on the number and type of UN personnel contributed to peacekeeping operations, along with monthly data on civilian deaths from 1991 to 2008 in armed conflicts in Africa, we find that as the UN commits more military and police forces to a peacekeeping mission, fewer civilians are targeted with violence. The effect is substantial—the analyses show that, on average, deploying several thousand troops and several hundred police dramatically reduces civilian killings. We conclude that although the UN is often criticized for its failures, UN peacekeeping is an effective mechanism of civilian protection.

The UN has many faults, but when you consider the magnitude of the faults of almost all the states that it is built from, I think it’s actually possible to claim it as a remarkable success. A work in progress, of course, but then again so are all the nation states that I’ve ever lived in.

May 9, 2013

In common

Filed under: Development Theory — terence @ 1:49 pm

At Jacobin Magazine there’s an interesting interview with Marxist academic Vivek Chibber(VC) who’s written a book critiquing sub-altern studies. One little extract I think has a lot of relevance to post-development types, and other cultural essentialists, who are pretty common in development studies in my neck of the woods (JB is Jonah Birch, the interviewer):

JB: A lot of the appeal of postcolonial theory reflects a widespread desire to avoid Eurocentrism and to understand the importance of locally specific cultural categories, forms, identities, and what have you: to understand people as they were, or are, not just as abstractions. But I wonder if there’s also a danger with the way they understand the cultural specificity of non-Western societies, and if that is a form of cultural essentialism.

VC: Absolutely, that is the danger. And it’s not only a danger; it’s something to which Subaltern Studies and postcolonial theory consistently fall prey. You see it most often in their arguments about social agency and resistance. It’s perfectly fine to say that people draw on local cultures and practices when they resist capitalism, or when they resist various agents of capital. But it’s quite another to say that there are no universal aspirations, or no universal interests, that people might have.

In fact, one of the things I show in my book is that when the Subaltern Studies historians do empirical work on peasant resistance, they show pretty clearly that peasants [in India], when they engage in collective action, are more or less acting on the same aspirations and the same drives as Western peasants were. What separates them from the West are the cultural forms in which these aspirations are expressed, but the aspirations themselves tend to be pretty consistent.

And when you think about it, is it really outlandish to say that Indian peasants are anxious to defend their wellbeing; that they don’t like to be pushed around; that they’d like to be able to meet certain basic nutritional requirements; that when they give up rents to the landlords they try to keep as much as they can for themselves because they don’t like to give up their crops? Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this is actually what these peasant struggles have been about.

When Subalternist theorists put up this gigantic wall separating East from West, and when they insist that Western agents are not driven by the same kinds of concerns as Eastern agents, what they’re doing is endorsing the kind of essentialism that colonial authorities used to justify their depredations in the nineteenth century. It’s the same kind of essentialism that American military apologists used when they were bombing Vietnam or when they were going into the Middle East. Nobody on the Left can be at ease with these sorts of arguments.

JB: But couldn’t someone respond by saying that you’re endorsing some form of essentialism by ascribing a common rationality to actors in very different contexts?

VC: Well, it isn’t exactly essentialism, but I am endorsing the view that there are some common interests and needs that people have across cultures. There are some aspects of our human nature that are not culturally constructed: they are shaped by culture, but not created by it. My view is that even though there are enormous cultural differences between people in the East and the West, there’s also a core set of concerns that people have in common, whether they’re born in Egypt, or India, or Manchester, or New York. These aren’t many, but we can enumerate at least two or three of them: there’s a concern for your physical wellbeing; there’s probably a concern for a degree of autonomy and self-determination; there’s a concern for those practices that directly pertain to your welfare. This isn’t much, but you’d be amazed how far it gets you in explaining really important historical transformations.

For two hundred years, anybody who called herself progressive embraced this kind of universalism. It was simply understood that the reason workers or peasants could unite across national boundaries is because they shared certain material interests. This is now being called into question by subaltern studies, and it’s quite remarkable that so many people on the Left have accepted it. It’s even more remarkable that it’s still accepted when over the last fifteen or twenty years we’ve seen global movements across cultures and national boundaries against neoliberalism, against capitalism. Yet in the university, to dare to say that people share common concerns across cultures is somehow seen as being Eurocentric. This shows how far the political and intellectual culture has fallen in the last twenty years.

May 3, 2013

comments off

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 4:54 pm

Too much spam. Even with Askimet. So comments off for now. You can always contact me via the about page.

April 18, 2013

And in the distance they spotted a herd of white elephants

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 2:03 pm
Tags:

So, pushed by its minister, the New Zealand government aid programme (along with the EU) hosted a grand summit in Auckland where Pacific countries brought proposals for renewable energy projects they want funded, aid donors brought cheques, and energy companies brought wares. Lots of money was promised. Projects were married to donors to companies. And the Minister proclaimed that the enemy now was “process”.

Me? Well I like the idea of renewable energy. And I like the idea of getting things done. But I really, really, really hope ministry staff can insert a little of that hated process right now. Because the world of large aid funded infrastructure projects is strewn with corpses. A lot can go wrong. Especially if you’re in a hurry. Even more so if, like NZ’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, you think you know all their is to know about aid work. Process — the one thing standing between NZ taxpayers and their hard earned money buying white elephants. My wife and I have a longer, somewhat more considered blog post on this at Dev-Policy.

April 15, 2013

Ownership?

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 1:47 pm

Duncan Green writes:

At a more meta level, my main takeaway from this and other panels was that people always stress the need for national ownership (eg of any post2015 goals), which usually involves adapting  whatever is globally agreed to meet national circumstances. But they then deny any trade-offs with global goals. But is that credible? If every country adapts a global instrument differently, they just become part of national political processes (and a good thing too), but lose international comparability.

Maybe I have a skewed view because I’m researching a very clientelistic polity, but I think there’s a much more fundamental problem with this national ownership thing: most countries that receive a lot of aid aren’t nation enough to make it meaningful to talk about them owning goals, or policy or anything similar. ‘Not nation enough’ in the sense that their governments don’t reflect their peoples’ aspirations for their nations. Rather the governments in question are either: non-democratic (i.e. Viet Nam); non representative because political inequality has led to elite capture of democratic institutions (much of Latin America, at least in the past); or strongly patronage based, where collective action dilemmas force people to vote in search of personalised benefits rather than national political vision (Solomon Islands, probably much of Africa); or a combination of the above.

When the aid world talks about national ownership it is, I hope, talking about ownership by the people of the nations involved. That is, aid work which reflects the development they would like to see happen to their countries. Yet in the types of nation that I’ve just described that formal state isn’t a conduit of this. But still they remain the main partner in crime in this partnership gig.

And so what we get is mostly a charade. Aid agencies speak of partnership, which sounds great, almost as good as mom and apple pie. And recipient country politicians repeat the language in order to get the aid (in Solomons PM Gordon Darcy Lilo is a master of this). But the people who ought to be the real partners — i.e. the mass publics of developing countries — are barely partners at all.

This, I would say, is the central problem of aid partnership. It would make sense if we gave aid to countries like Sweden, where the politicians might reasonably be said to be representative agents steering their nations in the direction that their people want them to. But we don’t give aid to Sweden, nor to countries remotely similar to Sweden. Which seems to me to render this whole partnership thing kind of nonsensical — at least with respect to government to government aid.

But maybe I’m too cynical?

April 12, 2013

Chavez de Novo

Filed under: Governance — terence @ 7:21 pm

Presumably because they’re liberals and the rules of the game mean that Amercian liberals are prohibited from saying too many nice things about Chavez the New Yorker (famed fact-checkers and all) f*ucks up its reportage on Chavez. Crooked Timber has the tale although, because it’s Chavez and because this is the internet after all, the comment thread there descends into fisticuffs and tears. Oh well.

Meanwhile, Gallup’s been asking Venezuelans what they think.

On Leadership

Views of Chavez’s Leadership: In 2012, the last full year of Chavez’s presidency, the leader enjoyed a 57% approval rating, among the highest Gallup found during his last six years in office.

wnggwhodxum7fbrwk9wmca.gif

My thought: plenty of OECD leaders would be over the moon with those ratings.

On corruption in business

Venezuelans Perceive More Corruption in Business: During Chavez’s tenure, he nationalized more than 1,000 companies, but this does not appear to have positively influenced Venezuelans’ views of their country’s businesses.

In 2012, nearly three-quarters (73%) of Venezuelans said corruption was widespread in businesses, up from 56% in 2007. This upward trend also stands in stark contrast to other Latin American countries run by more market-friendly governments such as Brazil and Mexico, where the percentage of residents judging businesses as corrupt has steadily declined over the same time period.

dhdbjhmiue-rqhk-74i9oa.gif

My thought – having a look at the time series here this has trended up (beyond error bars) over the years since 2006 that surveys were conducted. What is this actually telling us about Chavez though? It might tell us more about his opponents in the private sector than about anything Chavez did.

On corruption more generally

Venezuelans Saw Chavez Government as Corrupt: Chavez’s critics in Venezuela depicted him as a near-tyrant with a record of cronyism. In fact, the government became much larger and more powerful during Chavez’s rule, and large majorities of Venezuelans saw it as corrupt in his final six years. In 2012, 63% of Venezuelans believed there was corruption in government, similar to the 68% who said so in 2011. This would seem to support the opposition’s narrative that Chavez ran a corrupt, unaccountable government. Chavez also made combatting corruption a major plank of his platform in his original campaign for office, indicating much of the country believes his government failed to deliver on this objective. However, this failure does not seem to have had much impact on Chavez’s overall popularity.

oef7afcnsec-bbefwlzoow.gif

My thoughts…yes but there’s no real evidence here to suggest corruption increased under his tenure.

On poverty

Majority Satisfied With Chavez’s Efforts to Deal With Poverty: Six in 10 Venezuelans in 2012 said they were satisfied with the country’s efforts to deal with the poor, an objective of Chavez and his administration.

On democratic freedoms

Venezuelans’ Faith in Elections and Media Intact: If Chavez was granting himself an excessive amount of authority over the election system — as his opponents claim — many Venezuelans did not seem to notice. In 2012, 59% of the country believed in the honesty of elections, a record high, and a propitious number for a country about to embark on a new set of elections. And, 66% said the media has a lot of freedom — equal to the median for Latin American and Caribbean countries. The 66% saying the media has a lot of freedom in Venezuela also represents an increase from 2011, when 58% of Venezuelans said the same.

My thoughts…tyranny! not.

On safety

Safety Still Significant Issue: Both candidates have pledged to take on Venezuela’s crime problems for clear reasons. Compared with the rest of the region, Venezuela is unique in the relatively high percentage of residents who do not feel safe walking alone at night. In 2012, 74% of adults said they felt unsafe walking alone at night, far higher than in any other Latin American country — a region where residents feel less safe than in any other regions of the world — and one of the highest measurements in all of the 160 countries where Gallup surveys. Moreover, this figure has remained remarkably high over the past six years, suggesting a failure by the Chavez government and the need for whomever his replacement is to address this important issue.

8fg91ghui0yje76sxwv6ow.gif

My thoughts…I checked on World View, these numbers make Venezuela the least safe country by surveyed perception on Earth. Safety is, I think, the biggest failing that can fairly reasonably be laid at his feet.

April 8, 2013

A&R on the Middle Class and Democracy

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 7:29 pm
Tags:

Acemoglu and Robinson dispute the old argument that having a middle class is necessary for democracy by pointing to the example of democratically elected Berber chiefs in the Atlas mountains. I doubt this is the only example they could have used — many communities in Solomon Islands had non-hereditary selected leaders, for example, and I think careful examination would find, many small scale societies making use of something akin to democracy’s checks on power. However, the trouble is these examples, including that of the Berber, are still vastly different from the modern nation state. They are small enough and egalitarian enough societies to render large inequalities of wealth and power impossible. And it is the hollowing out of society associated with inequality that I imagine theorists of democracy hope a middle class can counter. Or, to put it another way, in small scale societies like those of the Berber and in Solomon Islands, most everyone *was* middle class, in the sense that they had about as much power and wealth as everyone else.

To be clear, I don’t know whether middle-class theories of democracy are correct but I don’t think the Berber can be used as evidence that they aren’t.

Link-a-rama

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 1:38 pm

Henry Farrell on post-democracy in Europe.

A nice summary of the numbers on medicare and social security in the US – making the obvious point: if you want these things to be sustainable, why not raise taxes?

Every year tax evasion costs New Zealand something in the order of between two times and twelve times its annual aid budget.

The seeds of a new (and natural) Green Revolution in India? Sounds too good to be true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t.

Betsy Stevenson – 5 myths about the minimum wage.
IGM Forum Eminent Economists’ views on the Obama Minimum Wage Hike. By a narrow margin most favour it.

April 4, 2013

Avoid

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 6:28 am
Tags: ,
Reasons why you should buy Telstra Elite Pre-Paid Mobile Broadband:

1. You are a masochist and enjoy suffering.
2. You are an internationalist and enjoy long pointless conversations with call centre workers in other countries.
3. You are a communist and wish to hasten the demise of capitalism by supporting a company that routinely shafts its customers by doing its best to artificially foster a natural monopoly while at the same time not actually providing the services it claims to provide.
4. You feel sorry for stratospherically wealthy white men and seek to donate money to them even if they don’t provide the services they claim to.
5. You are a creature from a distant dimension, living under the depths of the deepest sea. You despise light, love and humanity.
6. You are not sure about communism but have read Slavoj Žižek and like the idea of ‘heightening the contradictions’ even if it happens at your own expense.
7. You don’t like the internet and did not want to use it anyhow.

Reasons why you should not purchase Telstra Elite Pre-Paid Mobile Broadband services:

1. You live in Australia and wish to use the internet.

March 27, 2013

A Chart

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 9:15 am
Tags:

Totally nerdy but kind of cool. A scatter plot of Solomon Islands village coordinates (weighted by population although that only really shows up for Honiara). The fact that the scatter plot is also effectively a map tracing island outlines reflecting that in a country of steep bush clad islands, life is *a lot* easier on the coast.

Once, there were more villages inland — terrain provided security too. But with relative piece, access to trade, transport, and limited government services is almost always easier closer to the shore.

 

Image

March 20, 2013

A More Succinct Theory of Chavez’s Popularity

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 12:40 pm

Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson continue their examination of Chavez, offering some interesting political theorising on Latin American politics.

Interesting – yet, I think they get it wrong, missing a much more plausible explanation of Chavez’s success. In particular they go wrong right at the beginning of the piece when they wonder why “many Venezuelans continue to support Chávez even after 15 years of disastrous economic management in the midst of a huge oil boom from which Venezuela should have benefited much more?”

Yet there’s no mystery here, just mistaken beliefs about Venezuelan economic performance. This CEPR report on Venezuela’s economic performance provides all the numbers we need  — growth ok, poverty down, inequality down, human development way up.

Poor Venezuelan’s not voting for Chavez under these circumstances – now that would be a mystery.

In noting this I am not making an unqualified defence of Chavez. I agree that economic management could have been better. But the key question is: would it have been under under any likely political alternatives? I doubt it; and my guess is most Venezuelan voters shared my doubts. More than that though, at least as far as I understand research in this area, voters evaluations (not just in Venezuela) are based with respect to experienced history, not ideal world alternatives.

Life got better for them under Chavez and this, along with an impressive (if also somewhat repressive and clientelistic) electoral machine is why Chavez kept winning.

[Update: A&R write in a new post:

In our last two posts (here and here), we tried to articulate some ways of understanding the origins of Hugo Chávez’s rise to power, and his continued popularity despite the damage he caused to Venezuelan economy and politics.

We may have gotten it wrong of course. But probably not as wrong as the French minister of overseas affairs Victorin Lurel who eulogized Chávez by saying:

The world would benefit from having many dictators like Chávez.

Quite. Chavez was a lot of things, some of them bad, but he was not a dictator. As Greg Grandin writes: "Over the last fourteen years, Chávez has submitted himself and his agenda to fourteen national votes, winning thirteen of them by large margins, in polling deemed by Jimmy Carter to be “best in the world”..."

Chavez:

Something of an autocrat? Sure.

Bad leader? Maybe.

Dictator? Not a chance.]

March 19, 2013

Aid and Human Rights

Filed under: Aid — terence @ 7:17 am

When aid and human rights are discussed in the same breath it usually involves lamentations about the fact that we give aid to countries with poor human rights records. The idea that aid, if genuinely given, could lead to improvements in human rights is rarely acknowledged. Yet a recent study from researchers at Yale university provides some intriguing results, from an ingenious research design, to suggest that aid can help, although it’s legacy seems to last little longer than the aid itself. Some people might dismiss this on the fact that the improvements involved aren’t sustainable. I’m not so sure. A win is a win I think, and if it only lasts as long as we keep giving the aid…oh well, we’ve been giving aid for decades now, and will likely be doing so for an equally long period to come. More than enough time for millions of people’s lives to flourish in the presence of improved rights. Give aid. Give aid well. It can help.

I discuss the study in more detail in this post at Dev-Policy.

March 16, 2013

Meanwhile, in surprising news an economist decides the government is to blame

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 7:44 pm
Tags: , ,

Over at Aid Thoughs Matt reads Jonathan Glennie lets out an anguish plea:

What is slightly disconcerting is that Glennie managed to write an entire article on land grabs while only using the world “government” once. NGOs and the media have largely painted the land grabbing story as a situation where evil companies are parachuting in and snatching land away (for example, check out Oxfam’s recent campaigning). In reality, land acquisitions which circumvent local property rights are only possible when governments themselves are incompetent, corrupt or overly-impatient. Of course campaigners realise this, but it’s much easier to set this up as story of evil capitalism than it is of governance, the latter being harder to sell and even harder to treat. I’m not trying to pick on Glennie for leaving out a lengthy discussion of governance in his article, but it would be nice for people to start using the g-word a bit more.

Now Jonathan Glennie causes me as much anguish as the next bloke, and I also believe that governance matters — a lot. But I don’t feel the same sort of despair that Matt does when campaigning NGOs and writers ignore the failings of governments and focus on the evils of business. Why? Two reasons:

First, because a lot of the time one of the major causes of poor governance in developing countries is the corrupting efforts of large businesses. For example, in Solomon Islands, while there are also problems of low state capacity and a form of electoral clientelism, the logging industry has done a spectacular job of ruining governance at every level, from community to state.

Second, NGOs and campaigners need to focus on what they can change. And when they are based in London, one of the things they probably have least impact is the quality of governance in developing countries. On the other hand, if companies from the global north are undertaking land grabs, or financing them, then it is quite possible that NGOs can achieve something via naming and shaming. I can see the case for academics being judicious in apportioning blame, but campaigners? Surely they should just focus on doing good where they can?

No Poverty In the USA? You have to be kidding

Filed under: Random Musings — terence @ 7:27 pm
Tags: ,

Lee, at the always excellent Roving Bandit Blog, ponders – is there really poverty in the USA? He provides some stats (contested in comments below his post) suggesting that poverty in the US is no where near as acute as it is in most developing countries.

I think it is fair to say that deprivation for most of those living under the poverty line in the US is not as acute as that experienced by those living in least developed countries. But I find it very hard to see why this means there is no poverty in the States.

If we define poverty as material deprivation causing suffering, poverty clearly exists in the US and should be called that. The fact that it is more acute in Afghanistan doesn’t make the suffering of the poor in the US any less, it simply means that poverty in Afghanistan is more severe. Just because 39C is hotter than 38C doesn’t mean that the lower temperature isn’t still a fever.

If find it really hard to see how anyone could see this any other way.

Lee also, particularly in comments, seems to suggest that it is unethical to fund anti-poverty work in the US when the money could be used to help those worse off in other countries. This is also confused, I think. It’s only even an ethical dilemma if you concede the case on the third part of the trade-off triangle: raising taxes. Were the US to raise taxes it to Scandanavian levels it could both take care of its domestic poor and give a lot more aid. You can claim that this will never happen, but taxes in the US were, in fact, a lot higher pre-Regan. And there is no reason why that isn’t the first thing we should be campaigning for here.

What is more, even if there is a trade off it doesn’t necessarily follow that the funds should flow overseas. Before you can say that you need to know how well they will work. I’m in favour of aid, and want to see more of it given, but even I concede that aid is sufficiently prone to failure that we should at least factor that calculation into our estimates of the most just way of allocating poverty alleviating spending across countries including our own.

 

March 9, 2013

What are we to make of Hugo Chavez?

Filed under: Governance — terence @ 12:28 pm
Tags:

I guess the fact that the stakes were so high — revolutionary socialism brought back from the dead! — explains why so few people ever seemed able to do anything other than take sides on the phenomenon that was Hugo Chavez. Beyond a point somewhere to the left of mainstream US liberalism Chavez was a saint. If you sat anywhere to the right of the point he became something you scared you children citizens with when they wouldn’t eat their greens.

Here’s Greg Grandin doing the Chavez as saint thing. And here’s a pretty good piss-take of how Chavez gets portrayed in the mainstream media.

Me, being the good dithering left-liberal that I am, always wondered whether it wasn’t a bit more complicated than all that, and wanted for some sort of split the difference type analysis.

Here, free for a short time only, is what I thought to be a reasonable academic analysis, albeit one that I read as containing something of a anti-Chavez bias in owing to the fact that it made little mention of the anti-democratic impulse amongst Chavez’s opponents in the Venezuelan elite. And here if you scroll down, is some quite good critique of the same article.

Here, is Human Rights Watch taking Chavez to task.

And here is CEPR doing a very good job of showing Chavez’s positive socio-economic legacy.

Here’s Lula. And here, while still on the subject of people who I respect, is Rory Carroll offering a nuanced but fairly critical take in Mother Jones.

Here (via comment’s at CT) is an interesting looking (haven’t finished reading it) left wing political economy type analysis of what Chavez meant. And here’s my old, blog sized, investigation of Chavez’s achievements (or not) on inequality.

One charge levelled at Chavez is that he has presided over a dramatic rise in crime in Venezuela. I’ve just done some data digging on this too. With the chart below coming from this UNODC database. Data used are homicide rates (generally good for cross-country comparison of crime because there are fewer reporting issues.)

Chavez and Crime

Three things stand out:

1. Crime has gotten *a lot* worse. There is no denying this.2. Chavez was elected in early 1999 so the upward trend was born before his time. And therefore unlikely his fault. At the same time he has done very little to get on top of crime, except…
3. Things have started trending for the better since 2009.

So, what are we to say about Chavez?

My best guess as a conclusion is that:

1. There is some radical democracy in his participatory schemes but there is also patronage too.
2. His achievements in tackling poverty and under-development were impressive, although they arguably could have been better still given his oil revenues.
3. Some aspects of the state, such as policing, remained terrible under Chavez.
4. Even as he strengthened new democratic mechanisms he weakened the classic checks and balances. Even so, his regime was still a democracy, albeit an imperfect one.

Or, in other words, he was a net force for good, but also a deeply flawed one. And yet, in a country such as Venezuela with such high political inequality, and a state apparatus that was already corrupted by clientelism, what did we expect? Perfection certainly wasn’t happening. So least worst alternative doesn’t seem that bad.

And, ultimately, more important still is not assessing Chavez as a man, but rather figuring out those aspects of his political programme that we can learn from while at the same time abandoning the autocratic bits along with the bundle that didn’t work.

[Update: Acemoglu and Robinson discuss Chavez here, doing a nice job of making clear something that Mainwaring basically missed, that Venezuela was a very politically unequal society pre-Chavez. Formally a democracy but with a vast gulf existing between the ability of elites to influence policy and the ability of the masses to do so. At the same time I think A&R would be more use still if they didn't just focus on Chavez's formal democracy restricting reforms at the national level, and had a close look at what his supporters claim are successful participatory political initiatives at other levels. Also, the mere fact that his movement has mobilised the Venezuelan poor as never before, seems with noting. If they become an ongoing political countervailing force, and if they are freed from the shackles of patronage politics, then everything changes in Venezuela -- but it's a big if though.]

Next Page »

Theme: Rubric. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 125 other followers