Last week, NPI gave an overview of fiction (in two parts!) of the Aughts. Yesterday, Josh pointed out the popular economics trend in this decade’s nonfiction. Today, Josh and John are going over (in two parts!) what they believe are the biggest nonfiction books of the Aughts.

America: The Book – Jon Stewart and The Daily Show writers

I bought this book for a good friend at a surprise birthday party in high school, as did another friend of mine unbeknownst to me. My copy was not kept since I didn’t write a note inside mine. I considered frowning. But, this situation nonetheless demonstrated the book’s appeal.  America: The Book is funny and representative of the politically satirical form of comedy that Stewart engendered in the Aughts through The Daily Show. The book is filled with little tidbits like: “Were you Aware? Cloture is something all Senators seek when a piece of beloved legislation dies.” There are also asides written by Stephen Colbert and Ed Helms. But, America: The Book is insightful as well as humorous; if a scholar in a future decade wanted to understand the American political climate in the early 2000s, this is one book he should examine, particularly the chapter on The Future of Democracy.

–Josh

The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It - Paul Collier

In this book, development economist (and a former lecturer of mine) Paul Collier looks at the most impoverished countries in the world (home to about one billion individuals) and asks why they are experiencing so little growth. Explanations seem to occur in fours in the Aughts; there are four development traps that each of these countries typically suffer from: the conflict trap, the natural resource trap, landlocked with bad neighbors, and bad governance, particularly in small countries. While many of Collier’s suggestions are difficult to implement, the most promising is that trade policy needs to lower trade barriers for the Bottom Billion, giving preferential access to their exports. Another important highlight of this book is his attack on the misguided policies of NGOs and other charitable organizations. Ultimately, Collier popularized and integrated his important and informative empirical studies into one of the Aughts’ best development nonfiction books of the decade.

–Josh

Consider the Lobster – David Foster Wallace

David Foster Wallace’s follow-up to 1997’s A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, his (sadly) final book of essays covers topics like John McCain’s first presidential run, the AVN Awards, John Updike, Franz Kafka, Dostoevsky, 9/11, and, of course, American Usage (in an essay NPI has linked to way too many times; we’ve reached our quota). Oh, and lobsters. Wallace approaches some of these topics with humor and some with reverence. But all the essays, however, have Wallace’s trademark inquisitiveness and cerebral quality.

–John S

Everything Bad is Good for You – Steven Johnson

Steven Johnson takes a generally accepted myth—that popular culture makes us dumber—and completely annihilates it. Pointing to data that shows that the average IQ has actually increased steadily over at least the last half-century, Johnson credits this increase to the growing complexity of television, films, and video games. He highlights how these things have, on average, become much more intellectually engaging than their predecessors, and that they are actually making us smarter. In a decade that saw both television and video games become much more culturally accepted, this kind of validation showed that the rise of these parts of culture was not necessarily a bad thing.

–John S

Freakonomics – Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

Freakonomics single-handedly caused the rise of popular economics. It even prominently featured the word “rogue” in the subtitle before it was hijacked by Sarah Palin. Levitt and Dubner explain Levitt’s research, which applies economic reasoning to understand a variety of different phenomena and topics. Some of these topics got a ton of publicity (e.g. Chapter 4 on legalized abortion causing crime reduction), and all were interesting, particularly Chapter 1 on cheating and Chapter 5 on naming children. Check out the Freakonomics blog for an array of intriguing posts and analysis.

–Josh

The Game –Neil Strauss

Neil Strauss’ oft-misunderstood look at the “seduction community” was one of the more revealing books of the decade. Ostensibly a look at how men (or at least a certain sect of men) endeavor to pick up women, the book actually offers complex insights into group psychology. The way men and women interact is, of course, explored, but the book’s look at how women interact with women, and men with men, are just as important. Of course, the book will probably always be remembered most as a guide to “manipulating” women, and for the great reality show it spawned.

–John S

Generation Kill – Evan Wright

Evan Wright’s account of the invasion of Iraq is written with virtually no political agenda, which makes it all the more powerful. Wright, who was embedded with the First Reconnaissance Battalion of the U.S. Marine Corps during the opening weeks of the American invasion of Iraq, gives an almost frighteningly blunt account of the soldiers at war. He gives equal time to their lust for violence and their thirst for honor and glory; they seem both like brave (and often insane) heroes, and immature kids—which, of course, they are. At the same time, Wright’s portrait touches on the bureaucratic nightmares of the invasion, and the many institutional fuck-ups committed by the Battalion’s commanders and the war’s engineers.

–John S

The God Delusion – Richard Dawkins

We don’t like God too much, or at least the misguided concept of God’s existence. Neither does Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, partially because of his prominence and biological background, brought more attention to atheism than it had received in the past several decades. In The God Delusion, despite what its critics say, Dawkins lays out compelling arguments justifying that belief in God is a delusion: a persistent false belief held despite strong contradictory evidence. Dawkins does a great job offering direct responses to the criticisms of atheism: that atheists can’t be happy and moral, that really smart people (like Einstein!) were theists, and that atheists ought to be moderate rather than proud. People who complain that The God Delusion is simply an extremist, angry attack on religion could not have read and considered Dawkins’ logic with any seriousness. To alter Barry Goldwater’s formulation a little bit, extremism in the (logical) defense of truth is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of half-truths is no virtue.

–Josh

Here, There, and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Beatles - Geoff Emerick and Howard Massey

If you’re a Beatles fan (John S and I are), this book is awesome. Even if you’re not, it’s still interesting. Emerick was the sound engineer for The Beatles from Revolver to the White Album. Because of his position as not-quite-an-insider-but-kind-of-on-the-inside, Emerick offers a knowledgeable, but unprejudiced perspective. Perhaps the most fascinating parts of this book are when Emerick discusses how some of The Beatles’ most memorable sounds (e.g. the chaotic end of “A Day in the Life,” Lennon’s vocals on “Tomorrow Never Knows”) were created. Nearly as fascinating are his in-depth descriptions of the Beatles’ recording sessions and the dynamic between Paul, John, Ringo, George, and George Martin. But, what really makes this book great is that it’s about the music.

–Josh

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them – Al Franken

There was a time at the beginning of this decade when media bias was not taken for granted by everyone, when half the country still respected George W. Bush, when the partisanship and rancor that characterized most of the Bush Administration had not yet boiled over. This was before Al Franken published his book. It’s not that Franken was a pioneer or a trailblazer—his book actually coincided with books by Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, and Jim Conason—in the crusade against the right; he was merely the most iconic, thanks largely to Fox’s lawsuit against him. In response, of course, the right only got more closed-minded and intolerant, and the left, in turn, more hostile and critical. And while the book may seem dated and obvious now, at the time of its publication it was actually a funny and revealing look at the political climate.

–John S

Me Talk Pretty One Day – David Sedaris

David Sedaris may be the funniest writer working today. The first of three books of essays published this decade, Me Talk Pretty One Day details his childhood in Raleigh, his time as a bachelor in New York City, and his move to Paris—and subsequent trouble learning French—with his boyfriend Hugh. This book may be the best example of Sedaris’ absurdist outlook and darkly comic perspective.

–John S

In a great new article, Andrew Chambers of the Guardian rips into fair trade:

Fairtrade provides a minimum baseline price for commodities, allowing farmers to hedge against market volatility. The co-operative system allows small farmers better access to global markets and encourages democratic representation. Each commodity price also includes a “social premium” which can be reinvested in social or development projects.

He continues by pointing to evidence of its harm:

[E]conomist Paul Collier argues that Fairtrade effectively ensures that people “get charity as long as they stay producing the crops that have locked them into poverty”. Fairtrade reduces the incentive to diversify crop production and encourages the utilisation of resources on marginal land that could be better employed for other produce. The organisation also appears wedded to an image of a notional anti-modernist rural idyll. Farm units must remain small and family run, while modern farming techniques (mechanisation, economies of scale, pesticides, genetic modification etc) are sidelined or even actively discouraged.

By guaranteeing a minimum price, Fairtrade also encourages market oversupply, which depresses global commodity prices. This locks Fairtrade farmers into greater Fairtrade dependency and further impoverishes farmers outside the Fairtrade umbrella. Economist Tyler Cowen describes this as the “parallel exploitation coffee sector”.

He continues:

Coffee farms must not be more than 12 acres in size and they are not allowed to employ any full-time workers. This means that during harvest season migrant workers must be employed on short-term contracts. These rural poor are therefore expressly excluded from the stability of long-term employment by Fairtrade rules. Indeed, The International Development Committee declared in 2007 that “Fairtrade could have a deeper impact if it were to target more consciously the poorest of the poor”.

We might think of sub-Saharan subsistence economies when we think of Fairtrade, but the biggest recipient of Fairtrade subsidy is actually Mexico. Mexico is the biggest producer of Fairtrade coffee with about 23% market share. Indeed, as of 2002, 181 of the 300 Fairtrade coffee producers were located in South America and the Caribbean. As Marc Sidwell points out, while Mexico has 51 Fairtrade producers, Burundi has none, Ethiopia four and Rwanda just 10 – meaning that “Fairtrade pays to support relatively wealthy Mexican coffee farmers at the expense of poorer nations”.

mmm.

Genius is always a turn on. eh?

Seriously though:

Peter Parker, aka Spider-Man, cannot and will not save the entire world; at the same time he doesn’t have dark insensitive streaks anymore, at least as on today.  C.K. Prahalad’s bottom of the pyramid (BoP) model that argues for eradicating poverty by making profits – it appears – is no superhero in the global war on poverty. Combating poverty (like many others) is essentially complex; there is no singular straight-line answer. However, unlike the shotgun arguments emanating from anti-globalization crowd, the BoP model isn’t evil either.

Prahalad claims that over 4 billion poor with less than USD 2 (PPP) per day would form “latent” consumers, serving who, companies, particularly MNCs, can make profits taping into this multi-trillion dollar market. However, there are two blind beliefs here:

1. Such a blanket thesis lumps the poor as a monolithic group[1]. Even in terms of income, there would be good number of people who would be earning zero (or at times negative) to less than USD 1 per day. Most important, even if the poor are lumped into a monolithic group, such individual families would be just one accident away from a grotesquely miserable life; road/work-related accident, illness, natural disaster, neighborhood violence, death of the bread-winner and so on would shunt them into immensely severe poverty for at least a generation (if not, let’s assume, generations). In such contexts, BoP would be a supremely sexed-up model.
2. In addition, the claim that there are over 4 billion people with less than USD 2 per day (PPP) is an overestimation. In 2005, there were 2.65 billion people with less than USD 2 per day (PPP), and 872.32 million who were ultra poor – less than USD 1 per day (PPP) (data calculated from World Bank’s PovcalNet). Moreover, PPP (income or potential markets) is not a great measure for trade and profits at the global level; Karnani (2007) rightly argues: “From the perspective of a multi-national company from a developed country, profits will be repatriated at the financial market exchange rates, not at PPP rates”. He further says, unlike the claim – USD 13 trillion market (PPP) at the BoP – it is actually 1.2 trillion dollars (PPP) as the average poor would fall at USD 1.25 per day (PPP); not USD 2 per day (PPP); and also as it isn’t 4 billion people.

Paul Collier’s influential book – The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it – argues around 60 countries largely from Africa, Central Asia, and Asia (excluding India and China) are home to impoverished one billion poor in this known world who diverge “from an increasingly sophisticated world economy, integration will become harder, not easier” (2007: 4). How would BoP model fit in such economies is a fair question to ask.

Furthermore, in addition to the above two alleged basic beliefs, there are more on the list. A few of them: among the bottom billion countries, one can also notice sheer absence of capabilities among governments to facilitate business activities and also to rationally regulate such activities. Absent the “fairly” “competent” “governments”, markets (formal economy) hardly thrive. Moreover, Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, forcefully argues that markets are not efficient on its own, particularly the role of government is crucial and necessary:

“At least since Adam Smith, most economists believed that competitive markets are efficient, and that firms, in pursuing their own interests, enhance the public good ‘as if by an invisible hand.’ A major achievement of economic science during the first half of the twentieth century was finding the precise sense in which that result is true. This result, known as Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics, provides a rigorous analytic basis for the presumption that competitive market allocate resources efficiently. In the eighties economists made clear the hidden information assumptions underlying that theorem. They showed that in a wide variety of situations where information is costly (indeed, almost always), government interventions could make everyone better off if government officials had the right incentives. At the very least these results have undermined the long-standing presumption that markets are necessarily efficient.

… The older theory said that no government, no matter how well organized, could do better than markets. If that was true, then we had little need to inquire into the nature of government.”

BoP essentially piggybacks, solely, on market-based economic activity mechanism [i.e. approaching market as a stand-alone entity]. Thus, BoP assumes everything about the markets is working well. Put differently, given a well-functioning and monitored markets, BoP would be successful. However, this assumption itself will be a huge challenge. Another Nobel laureate Amartya Sen (2006: 136-138) cautions against such presumptions as “[m]arkets do not – and cannot – act alone. There is no ‘the market outcome’ irrespective of the conditions that govern the markets” (p. 137) which could be achieved by public policies to “supplement” market economy to promote the enabling conditions like, regulatory body, distribution of physical resources, human capital development, social insurance, prevailing rules of business engagement, political & economic institutions and so on. Thus, sole focus on BoP would necessarily overlook such enabler conditions needed for a market economy. Atkinson (1995: 30) states that “lack of absolute capabilities” would also “depend on the supply side of economics”; he further argues that high-quality products with low price would reduce the number of people excluded, at the same time firms might not find it profitable “to supply poor households unless, for example, they are required to do so as part of regulatory process”. In this backdrop, the BoP model anchoring only on economy of volumes might be a challenge.

To be fair, Prahalad (2004: 83-85) provides some factors that are essential for market economy, which he calls Transaction Governance Capacity (TGC) – its components are: laws to protect property, micro regulations, social norms, institutions for enforcements. However, all of it would only provide a restrictive and ungenerous outlook on the enabler conditions needed for markets (when compared with what Sen and Stiglitz argue for, most vigorously and eloquently).

And, crucially, BoP doesn’t talk about basic or formidable old-school arguments about the essentials needed in poverty reduction: universal literacy, education, employment, health, gender equality, and governance. Of course, Prahalad talks about health issues, but his examples are restricted to providing minimal assistance for selective ailments that fall under ophthalmology.  Do only eye related selective ailments hinder humans? Health is arguably, essentially, and easily a bigger field and a challenge in poverty reduction. Countries like India need more doctors, medical colleges, health workers; not just couple of cute examples.

More so, BoP model is rooted in emerging markets like India, Mexico, Brazil et al; not the bottom billion. Of course, this doesn’t mean that BoP model is not at all instrumental; it provides important role for companies in emerging markets that also are home to largest number of poor in this known world. Emerging markets also potentially offer larger market base as opposed to bottom billion countries that are small and chaotic compared to India. What about: Somalia, Haiti, Malawi, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Central African Republic and all. To add, emerging MNCs are found in emerging markets like China, India, Mexico; not in bottom billion.

However, the positive ripples caused by the BoP model is promising and needs immediate focus, for which Prahalad should be enormously appreciated. For instance, Bill Gates’ concept of “creative capitalism” that is hugely influenced by C.K. Prahalad – and builds on BoP – calls for a mix of profits, public recognition, altruism (philanthropy), and collaborative effort. Put differently: serving the poor would help in brand building; governments in developed countries should recognize such initiatives and should provide such companies with monetary and policy incentives. These observations of Gates, in sum, clearly demand focus and wider debate rather than solely making profits directly from the poor, particularly in the bottom billion countries.

Note: 1. Prahalad in his response to Karnani (2007) says: “The focus of the book is on 5 billion underserved. They are also poor. But it is naïve to believe that 5 billion represent a monolith (are one segment) [emphasis added by me]. Every experiment described in the book does not necessarily have to serve all the segments of the 5 billion underserved. No single bussiness model can do that.” However, Prahalad’s idea of poor not being a monolith is extremely restrictive – as it ignores, like: existing level of governance (central, local), health, literacy, life expectancy, infrastructure, employment oppurtunities etc. in different countries (and also within countries).

References:

Atkinson, A.B (1995), “Capabilities, exclusion, and the supply of goods”, in Basu, K., Pattanaik, P & Suzumura, K (ed.), Choice, Welfare, and Development: A festschrift in honour of Amartya Sen, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp. 17-31.

Collier, P (2007), The Bottom Billion: Why the poorest countries are failing and what can be done about it, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Gates, B (2008a), “A new approach to capitalism”, speech delivered at the World Economic Forum, Davos, January 24. Reprinted in Kinsley, M and Clarke, C (ed.) 2009, Creative Capitalism: A conversation with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and other economic leaders, Simon & Schuster: London, pp. 7-16.

Gates, B (2008b), “How to fix capitalism”, Time, vol. 172, no. 5, 11 August, pp. 24-29.

Prahalad, C.K (2005), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits, Wharton School Publishing/Pearson Power, New Delhi.

Sen, A (2006), Identity and Violence: The illusion of destiny, Allen Lane, New Delhi.

Stiglitz, J (1993), “Information”, in David R. Henderson (ed.) The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics, Warner Books, pp. 16-21.

The Boston Review has an interesting essay debate on Paul Collier’s thinking and the potential for international intervention to help the World’s poorest countries. Definitely worth a read.

As I read through it I took some notes. When I get time I’d like to write them up into a post of their own, with my own thoughts. For now, they’re over the fold.

The Collier Thesis:

Paul Collier would have us distinguish between the parts of the developing world that are, indeed, developing and the parts that are not. Countries such as India and China, along with much of south East Asia are still poor but they are on the pathway to development. Their economies are growing rapidly and this won’t be reversed. Poverty is being reduced. On the other hand there are a group of about 60 countries, home to approximately a billion people, mostly (but not exclusively) in sub-Saharan Africa, which have shown little progress over recent decades. They are trapped. Condemned by a vicious cycle of poverty, poor-governance and conflict.

Elites in these countries are confronted by a perverse set of incentives which reward the extremes of bad governance, preventing the provision of essential public goods and impeding the functioning of markets.

The nations of the bottom billion are usually small (in an economic sense), resource rich, landlocked, former colonies, and conflict prone.

Size matters because it renders them unable to afford essential public goods. Being landlocked hinders trade. And in the absence of good governance, the irony of resource wealth is that it makes nations poor by rewarding rent seeking and corruption amongst elites. Most important, perhaps, is former colony status – these ‘nations’ are in fact collections of different peoples cobbled together by colonial map drawers. They lack a strong enough national identity to override internal divisions. This contrasts to European states, which formed “organically”, over time through and in response to warfare, which allowed the crafting of national identities and necessitated taxation, which in turn lead to demands for accountability.

Lack of national level identity means that politicians often find the easiest route to power being to appeal to a particular ethnic group and reward them with some of the trappings of rule. This contributes to atrocious governance and conflict and tensions.

Finally, often the biggest threat to despotic leaders in the bottom billion is their own armies, thus they are incentivised to keep them weak; however, this leaves such countries prone to civil war.

In the poorest country, ‘nominal’ democracy doesn’t help solve these problems, in fact it actually makes them more conflict prone as leaders use patronage politics to win votes from their own ethnic group, which enhances underlying divisions.

The solution? The developed world needs to intervene, the countries of the bottom billion won’t escape on their own. As intervention collier suggests: aid, (to governments conditional on democracy), but more importantly peace-keeping and, most controversially an over the horizon guarantee; that is a promise to would-be bottom billion leaders: if you govern democratically and with some ability we promise to protect you. To intervene on your behalf if a coup should occur. On the other hand, should you subvert the democratic process or govern poorly we will withdraw our protection. Providing a ‘green light’ for your army to topple you should it wish. This, Collier argues, will provide an incentive for good governance and nation building.

Stephen D. Krasner:

“Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University, is Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute and the Hoover Institution”

Essentially agrees with Collier, citing RAMSI as a successful intervention in this vein. Does point out that external intervention can be very difficult to undertake, but argues that sometimes it is the least worth option.

Highlights the Millennium Challenge Account as an example of incentivising good governance – it rewards better governance through more money.

William Easterly:

“William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University”

Charges that Paul Collier has fallen prey the human impulse to see patterns where there are none. The bottom billion isn’t a homogenous group of countries facing the same problems but rather a mishmash of countries, some which have always been poor, others that have recently declined. At the end of any two decades you will always have a ‘bottom billion’ but this doesn’t mean they will be so two decades from now.  In fact, if there’s one thing we know about grow episodes their volatile, across countries and across time.

Collier places great weight on his statistical studies but methodologically they are unsound. He is guilty of ‘data mining’ and running enough regressions until he gets one that tells the story he wants to tell. He’s also guilty of claiming causation where in fact all that exists is correlation.

Easterly, fulminates against Collier’s arguments for peace keeps (a euphemism for people who nevertheless kill people) and argues that Colliers arguments are imperialism reheated. And that they provide an excuse for international intervention – something that has all too blood a history to be any type of a solution. As an alternative Easterly argues for evolution from below and incremental change, rather than big ideas.

Easterly’s points are often unfair (Collier does try and tackle endogenaity in his regressions; and what he’s doing doesn’t really seem like data mining to me). Moreover, peacekeepers may sometimes kill people, but that’s not the purpose of their work. And evidence does suggest that what they do, however messy and imperfect, does – to a degree – work.

Easterly, is more interesting when he charges that the bottom billion is coincidence not category (were Collier’s book a couple of decades older he could have easily included India – diverse, terribly governed, dirt poor, home to several civil wars– in his list.) His point about the unintended consequences of grand interventions is also a good one.

Larry Diamond:

“Larry Diamond is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University.”

Takes Collier to task on his categorisation of the bottom billion. India is large and heterogeneous, and has managed this. While Botswana and Mauritius should have been bottom billion countries but have actually done well.

In terms of solutions Diamond, supports the Millennium Challenge account – financially incentivising good governance. While arguing that the ‘green light’ should never, ever be given to the military, who are too destructive to be relied on, in any way, as a pro-democracy force. Instead we should be discouraging the military’s involvement in politics, through sanctions international actions and the international court.

Edward Miguel:

“Edward Miguel, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, is author of Africa’s Turn? and coauthor with Raymond Fisman of Economic Gangsters.”

Argues along a similar line to Easterly – Africa has grown recently. Since 2000 up until the GFC the continent has had respectable growth, including Sub-Saharan Africa. We shouldn’t assume that being in today’s bottom billion is inevitability or even that it necessitates major intervention.

Miguel also argues that the trouble with promising intervention is that interventions to date have often been very poor – the problem in Rwanda wasn’t absence of intervention but terrible intervention (witness the culpability of the French). Also Miguel argues harder still than intervention is nation building.

Mike McGovern:

“Mike McGovern is Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Yale University.”

Contests Collier’s taxonomy of the bottom billion arguing that there are too many exceptions to Collier’s defining characteristics. (Singapore and Belgium ‘work’ for example).

He also argues that while intervention can be warranted success depends on context and defies grand proposals for global promises: what works in Liberia and Sierra Leone won’t work in the DRC.

Finally, he argues that Collier falls into a common trap: comparing the realities of Africa, with the non-existent idea of Europe and America. (Where all the problems of the bottom billion can be seen to some extent, without apparently being crippling).

Nancy Birdsall:

“Nancy Birdsall is President of the Center for Global Development.”

Agrees with much of the diagnosis but is much less keen on Collier’s prescribed cure. She agrees with him on sovereignty and intervention – sovereignty is of the people, not of their rulers. And if rulers are terrible, then there’s no good ethical reason to allow them to hide behind borders. But argues for less grand, although not necessarily convincing interventions: rewarding leaders who step down, conditional aid, non-national leaders, regional infrastructure building, strengthening police forces, and good old fashioned peace keeping.

Collier’s Rejoinder:

Argues with Miguel that while Africa has grown recently there’s no guarantee that this will be sustained, some indicators of performance have improved but others have got worse. Let’s wait and see.

Against William Easterly he defends his statistical methodology and defends collective action and intervention – it can work!

To McGovern argues that actually there is good evidence across countries to highlight the problems of the bottom billion (such as ethno-linguistic fragmentation).

To the proponents of less grand intervention rather than defend his particular position he effectively retreats to a position that he is simply trying provoke informed debate about interventions, where they can work and how they should be undertaken.

Photo by Anastasia Giannoulas, Sierra Leone 2008

The “bottom billion” are “a cesspool of misery next to a world of growing prosperity,” (p 99). Inside Paul Collier’s book it’s apparent that providing support to poverty stricken countries is a slippery slope. Increased educational efforts often create a “passport” for citizens to travel away from turmoil. Although, without educated people it is hard to build strong reliable governments, industry and communities to strike for reform. It is a balancing act, and this might contribute to some hesitation in thinking these countries will ever dig their way out. Education seems to be the key in helping make a country successful, but only if they can retain their talent by subsequently offering opportunity.

The book spells out a sad story that most people already know. Within the first few paragraphs Collier talks about the reason the “bottom billion” are failing: because they are not living up to 21^st century standards. These standards, like communication structures, government and industry are sometimes too far to reach; “their reality is the fourteenth century: civil war, plague, ignorance,” (p 3). These two worlds are so brilliantly dissimilar because of their difference; the bottom billion has failed to integrate. 

Humans are individuals, but there is an innate need to belong to the larger population, and if you don’t belong a wedge is driven between the two. In a TED talk, Collier states that these people are “diverging from the rest of mankind.” This books touches on a larger vision of human individuality in a cultural sense; we are a part of a specific culture that defines who we are. He states the future implications of divergence are grand, “by 2050 the development gulf will no longer be between a rich billion in the most developed countries and five billion in the developing countries; rather, it will be between the trapped billion and the rest of humankind,” (p 11).

Within the traps he defines: conflict, natural resources, landlocked with bad neighbors and bad governance, I see an opportunity for digital media to help unite. “There is a black hole, and many counties are indisputably heading into it, rather than being drawn towards success,” (p 6). Technology might be able to aid in bringing corruption to light by generating more communication channels. But I feel the technology curve doesn’t need to continue here in the US, it needs to happen inside these “bottom billion” communities. Charity given from the developed world is often donated with some sense of guilt, guilt that they lived a decent life and have only recently been introduced to the gravity of the bottom billion. Therefore I believe focusing on internal communication programs with area sponsors could be a valuable option.

Much like a football fan waving their arms in disapproval of a play, it’s easier to look into a situation like in sub Saharan Africa and dictate how order should be achieved; being on the field brings a completely different perspective. As we see in Collier’s book the slightest ripple of charity, support, industry and much more can make a big difference depending on the time it’s introduced. Building a stronger internal structure for communication that promotes alternatives for citizens could have a brighter outcome than being dictated by policies and parties 10,000 miles away.

TED: Paul Collier on the “bottom billion”

“The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It” by Paul Collier, 2007

I’m commitment phobic.  Okay.  Being committed is serious business.  There’s no turning back.  Till death do us part and all.  And I’ve been scared to start this Triple Goddess challenge. Afraid to do it.  Scared to succeed.  But I committed anyway.  Even though statistics say that one in two long term commitments end in failiure.  I’m taking my chances.  I have to. 

Those odds really aren’t so bad, are they?  Actually, they suck.  But I’m going Out on a Limb here.  Shirley Maclaine would understand.  Sometimes you just have to take risks. Chances.  Shit. I might fall out of the tree, but at least I climbed it.  At least I’ve shown up.  I’m living.  I’m trying.  And today everything seemed to be working against me.  But it didn’t stop me.  And it won’t because I learned a valuable lesson today.  It’s not about how good you are or talented or smart or anything like that.  Success comes from dedication.

If I really want to be pain free,  a bank account that’s chock full o’bucks, and ultimately happiness, then I need to dedicate myself to myself.  That 4 hours of sleep I got last night  because I wound up with disappointing news from my father, well actually step-mother… won’t matter.  I’ll do my yoga, write, paint, dance and meditate.  Those ugly, re-bounding, deeply rooted core beliefs -you know the ones that relight themselves after you blow them out -that say I’m not worthy of love and happiness and success.  Those bastards won’t mean a thing because I’m committed to loving myself and following through on what’s important to me .   The truck outside my apartment- the one with the weak ticker and burnt out nervous system…Bryan’s truck-yeah, that sucker ain’t gonna stop me from my path. Even if we spend an hour and a half trying to jump start her when I should be at yoga class.  Because no matter where this challenge goes, no matter where it takes me…I’m right there.  Funny thing is, I’ve been there all along and never knew it.  Yeah, self discovery in a blog.  Tell that shit to Perez Hilton.

  The Triple Goddess Experiment / Challenge:

 BODY- Yoga:  One hour of yoga everyday for a year.

I didn’t get to the yoga mat until 10:30 pm – not exactly the class I planned on taking.  I had to resort to the internet and work it out on my slippery blue fuzzy livingroom/bedroom/office carpet.  I did find a video I liked  quite a bit after trying several other videos…they all added up to an hour, I swear. 

This particular one is taught by Sara Ivanhoe.  I thought she was not so well known, even though this video is part of  The Yoga for Dummies  DVD series.  Her teaching style is incredibly simple and basic…beside her YouTube hits weren’t so spectacular, and she’s very unassuming.  Well, ends up she’s this superstar of yoga and owns Yogaworks- a studio that boasts 23 or so locations from Los Angeles to New York City.  Now she must have some self-dedication under her yoga mat!

After just three downward dogs, I was able to actually press my heels into the floor-  my flexibility seemed to increase from doing the sun salutations even though I was working the muscles in my legs at the same time.   I also felt a substantial increase in my energy by the time I was through with the video. 

5 star video (outta 5)

SPIRIT – Meditation: Begin with 10 minutes of meditation a day. At the end of a year- an hour.

After my hour of yoga,  I lay down and listened to a guided meditation. This one twice.  With a nap in between.

Paul Collier wrote the music, which was quite beautiful.  The guided mediation was typical, I think, of deep relaxation guided meditations.  Walk down a staircase and you will be more and more relaxed…zzzz!  Relaxed right into a deep snore.  Repeat.

If goal is to sleep, then 5 stars.  If goal is to meditate, then 2 and 1/2 stars. (Outta 5)

MIND – The Law of Attraction

 Well Mama Cheryl sent me my homework, and since I couldn’t play my computer-burned cd on my Mini Cooper stereo system (fucker couldn’t read the format)…I called her up and asked me for three affirmations to do on the way to work. 

1. I give and receive money easily.

2. My bank account is chock full.

3.  My health is perfect in every way.

I spoke them, sang them and screamed them in my car.   I noticed that when I started them, I felt self conscious and a little dumb.  But I kept it up and noticed that I started thinking more positive thoughts the more I said them.  I kept screwing  them up by saying stuff like: My bank account is perfect in every way and my health is easy in every way! Same difference, right?

My next assignment was to make a list of things I’m appreciative of ( I even lied a little bit): my good health (ahem), my big blue eyes, my family, Bryan, great weather, taking care of baby Jazzi, Cara and Michelle, my great brothers, Sarah, my talents, my brain, my shit-hole apartment (its better than my brother’s couch), my MiniCooper, my fun shelf, my aunts, reading, great movies, my art, sun in the morning and the moon at night, the Beatles, Dovey, my computer, being asked to do photography and getting paid for it.  Yikes.  That’s all I could come up with in two minutes.  Well, I better start being more grateful then.

I also noticed my thoughts through out the day.  I’m sneaky. When I’d think something positive, a little sneaky voice would pop in my head and say something negative.  My very own Great Gazoo buzzing around my head. 

My negative thoughts were mainly criticizing my body, commenting a million times a day that I was tired and thinking that I had too much to get done and not enough time to do it in.  That one stressed me out alot.  Occasionally, I would think that I didn’t have the money to buy something.  In particular a camera that I really want to take pictures of the bands around here in L.A.  It’s $499 and I kept thinking that I couldn’t afford it. 

I did replace most of these thoughts with the positive equivalents, but I’m sure a few of them gave me the old slipperoo.

Hey! This is where my new blog is at, feel free to check me out at http://littlerayovsun.com

Thanks!!

Hey! It’s my first paper of the semester! The topic is, as you can see by the title, about the effectiveness of foreign aid. I had to make my opinion known in 1000 words max, which is actually pretty difficult to do on such a hugely controversial topic! There is a poll at the end of the paper in which you can cast your vote about what you think; does foreign aid do more harm than good? Also, if you’re interested in watching the Munk Debates, which you should be because they are fascinating, click here! Anyway, here is my attempt:

Be It Resolved That Foreign Aid Does More Harm Than Good

By:  Sandy Anger

The question of whether foreign aid does more harm than good is one which even those well versed in the particulars of foreign aid and policy cannot agree upon. The subject of the third annual Munk Debates strove to answer precisely this question. After a heated, two hour long debate between experts in the field, it was resolved by an audience vote that foreign aid does in fact do more harm than good.  Although in truth the answer is not as black and white as the results would have you believe, I support the resolution. Without getting into the semantics of words such as “development” and “good”, words whose meanings are often relative according to situations and ones own perspective, this reflection will attempt to explain that although aid is intrinsically good, foreign aid as it is structured today sometimes results in more harm than good by touching on three things: 1] foreign aid is not sustainable and creates a relationship of dependency between the donor and recipient countries; 2] foreign aid causes corruption in recipient countries; 3] foreign aid is often ineffective because it is tied or earmarked aid.

Foreign aid, in the strict, Left view of the definition, is the financial flows of loans and grants allocated towards development assistance.[i] In approximately the past 60 years, since the inception of the concept of foreign aid, over $1 trillion U.S. dollars has been provided for development assistance.[ii] I am not disputing that this money was spent without benefit; there are countless examples of aid that has assisted countries in need. Canadian politician Stephen Lewis makes a great case for aid in that just a few years ago it saved Botswana from the highest prevalence rate of HIV/AIDS in the world.[iii] But aid as it is structured today does not cultivate sustainable development.

Large donations of money and food are useful in short term, emergency relief from natural disasters and famines, but do not encourage the growth of security, capital, good governance and so many of the other ingredients that developing countries are lacking in order to stabilize. It creates a relationship of dependency between the donor and recipient countries that is dangerous for those receiving aid; the recent U.S. recession has lead to uncertainties surrounding future income flows that could have drastic negative effects on recipients who rely heavily on foreign assistance, such as Rwanda that generates 70% of its budget from foreign assistance.[iv] This dilemma can only be resolved with the assurance of a stabilized economy and a reliable source of income that can be attained through the autonomy of recipient countries. As the Confucian proverb says: “Give a man a fish you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.”

Foreign aid is often a misguided and poorly targeted attempt to help those countries that are ‘worse off’ than those countries providing the funding. Aid that is transferred by donor countries often focuses on the volume rather than the effectiveness of the aid given[v]; without investigation into the quality of public policies and programs that recipient governments maintain, aid contributes to the corruption and the dysfunctionality of recipient states. Recent examples have shown us that corruption continues today; just this year, the president of Malawi was indicted for stealing aid money.[vi] Although both economists and panelists of the Munk Debate Dambisa Moyo and Hernando De Soto were from recipient countries of foreign aid, both were also against the continuation of foreign aid as it is structured today.[vii] This is not to say that recipient countries are ungrateful for the billions of dollars in donations towards development, but unfortunately in a situation where well-meant assistance is misused, it is more than just the thought that counts.

Earmarked aid, by definition, is aid that is dedicated to specific public services or programs within the recipient country that are deemed important by the donors.[viii] Studies have shown that earmarked aid can “reduce or even eliminate recipient countries’ commitment to ongoing projects, thereby undermining country ownership and long term sustainability of development programs,”[ix] which is a serious problem when approximately 80% of official development assistance can be classified as earmarked.[x] Tied aid has a similar definition, but requires that any loans or aid given be based on the condition that any contracts or goods purchased are guaranteed to the donor country.[xi] This has significant consequences for recipient countries, not only making it difficult for them to reinvest in their own economies, but tied aid can also increase project costs by up to 20-30%.[xii]

Foreign aid as it is structured today does more harm than good, but that is not to say that it needs to be abandoned. The effectiveness of aid needs to be measured qualitatively, not quantitatively. Not only to be targeted, but targeted to projects that are of a quality that will help to guide recipient countries towards a sustainable future rather than relying on development assistance endlessly. Rather than continuing to pump increasing amounts of money into developing countries, we should be looking at aid that holds governments accountable to the public and exit planning from foreign aid programs.

__________________________________________________________________

[i] Jean-Philippe Thérien, “Debating foreign aid: right versus left,” Third World Quarterly volume 23, no. 3 (2002): 451.

[ii] Ibid., 449.

[iii] Paul Collier et al., Munk Debates, Royal Ontario Museum, June 1, 2009.

[iv] Ibid., June 1, 2009.

[v] William Easterly, “The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid,”Policy Reform volume 5, no. 4 (2002): 227.

[vi] Paul Collier et al., Munk Debates, Royal Ontario Museum, June 1, 2009.

[vii] Ibid., June 1, 2009.

[viii] Abebe Adugna, “How Much of Official Development Assistance is Earmarked,” prepared on behalf of the World Bank (Working Paper: The Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships, July 2009), 2.

[ix] Ibid., 4.

[x] Ibid., 7.

[xi] OECD, “Glossary of Statistical Terms,” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/search.asp.

[xii][xii] OECD, “Development Co-operation Directorate,” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_18108886_29412506_119699_1_1_1,00.html.

Bibliography

Adugna, Abebe. “How Much of Official Development Assistance is Earmarked?” Prepared on behalf of the World Bank. Working Paper: The Concessional Finance and Global Partnerships, July 2009. http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/09/11/000334955_20090911032625/Rendered/PDF/503040NWP0Box31g1Paper1No201PUBLIC1.pdf (accessed Sept. 20, 2009).

Collier, Paul, Hernando De Soto, Stephen Lewis, Dambisa Moyo. Munk Debates. Royal Ontario Museum, June 1, 2009, http://www.munkdebates.com/media/MunkDebates3_transcript.pdf.

Easterly, William. “The Cartel of Good Intentions: The Problem of Bureaucracy in Foreign Aid.” Policy Reform volume 5, no. 4 (2002): 223-250.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Glossary of Statistical Terms.” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/search.asp.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Development Co-operation Directorate.” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_18108886_29412506_119699_1_1_1,00.html

Thérien, Jean-Philippe. “Debating foreign aid: right versus left.” Third World Quarterly volume 23, no. 3 (2002): 449-466.

As detailed in Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It, economic incentives can play a pivotal role in civil conflict. I’d like to take a closer look at the role of economic incentives by examining Collier’s work on civil conflict in connection with Jared Diamond’s analysis of the Rwandan genocide.

Looking first at Collier’s work, he presents a theory of civil conflict that distinguishes the hyperbole about social grievances from the real driver of conflict:  economic gain. Through empirical study, Collier has determined that risk of civil war is tied not to social inequalities (as real as those inequalities may be) but instead to the economic conditions of the country. If groups can make a financially viable enterprise out of rebellion – perhaps by seizing mines or oil fields – the risk of violent conflict becomes more probable.

I found this economic theory of conflict to be particularly relevant to Diamond’s analysis of the Rwandan genocide from his 2005 book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In Collapse, Jared examines how an unchecked use of natural resources can cause a society or civilization to fail, with a devastating effect on the population. Diamond focuses primarily on historical examples, such as the disappearance of Vikings in Greenland or Anasazi of North America. However, he also looks at more contemporary examples, including Rwanda.

In his study of Rwanda, Diamond explores the role of economic incentives in fueling the violence that engulfed the country. The most significant incentive in play was land, a particularly critical resource in a poverty-stricken and overpopulated country.

Although Rwanda did have a long history of ethnic violence, Diamond convincingly argues that population pressure was one of the most important factors in the genocide and that it was the reason elites were able to manipulate and mobilize so much of the civilian Hutu population against the Tutsis. Population growth had divided and subdivided land holdings in a predominately agrarian society, continuously shrinking already meager household incomes. Competition for land and hence for survival had become fierce. After the genocide, suddenly more land was available to fewer people.

Collier’s economic incentives are working at two levels here: The political elites orchestrated ethnic violence in a bid to solidify their own power base while private citizens were given the opportunity to redistribute farmland to their advantage. This case also demonstrates how social grievances, such as purported inequalities between Hutus and Tutsis, can easily be used as window dressing to mask larger agendas. 

Diamond closes the chapter on Rwanda with a quote from a survivor who evocatively sums up the role of economic incentives in the genocide: “The people whose children had to walk barefoot to school killed the people who could buy shoes for theirs.”

Could the genocide have been prevented?  That’s a challenging and complex question. However, I would point to the economic factors that Collier outlines in “Economic Causes of Civil Conflict and Their Implications for Policy” and that Diamond essentially supports. An economic base diversified beyond agriculture and a society with less population pressure could potentially have made a significant difference in the course of Rwandan history.

Here is a cool video dealing with writers block.

I find that going to Chapters and reading some magazines, helps to give me ideas.

I’ll sit down and have some lunch at a trendy cafe, pick up a paper this gives me ideas.

I write down the words What If?  And this gives me ideas.

I’ll go to a bus station or train station, sit and watch people this gives me character ideas.

I’ll go to the library where it’s quiet to do some writing because it’s somewhere different.

I’ll go sit at a cafe have some dessert and tea because it’s a nice place to read my manuscript.

If I’m stuck for ideas for my manuscript I’ll lay it down and do some blogging or just surf the internet.

You can also go for a hike, walk, or do a physical activity for an hour or so.

Go run some errands, do your shopping and have a bite to eat.

Stay away from the computer for half the day.

If you don’t feel like writing then catch up on your emails or do some research.

You’ll feel like writing soon enough.

I think the best thing to do is lay down with headphones on, put on a mediation CD and enjoy a good rest!

Your mind needs a vacation every now and then.

Your brain is tired, it needs some rest.

It doesn’t rest when you sleep, it thinks and dreams.

Meditation clears the mind and helps you rest your brain.

It’s healthy , fun and refreshing!

After you have finished your mediation you will find that the thoughts just flow through the brain like a river!

Relaxing Piano with Binaural beats by Paul Collier – 10 minutes long.

Uma das palestras da conferência TED deste ano (que eu já mencionei neste post) foi apresentada não em Oxford, mas no Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos, pelo ex-pesquisador do Banco Mundial Paul Collier. Sob o título de “Novas Regras para Reconstrução de uma Nação Destruída“, ele explora pontos que parecem óbvios, e aí está a genialidade de sua apresentação.

Ele começa apresentando o fato de que o modo atual de reconstruir sociedades destruídas seja por guerras civis ou outros tipos de conflito leva inevitavelmente ao retorno do conflito em no máximo uma década. A abordagem topo-ao-chão, querendo construir um sistema político antes de garantir a estabilidade para o povo é errônea, só que continua sendo a regra.

A palavra-chave é segurança. E segurança não é garantida com tropas, mas com outro elemento-chave na recuperação dos países: desenvolvimento. Como bem dito pelo sr. Collier, não são idosos que causam instabilidade, mas uma juventude sem emprego ou perspectivas de crescimento.

O genial Tiago Recchia da Gazeta do Povo parece pensar o mesmo

O programa “Esporte Espetacular” da Rede Globo está fazendo uma série de reportagens sobre o esporte em ex-zonas de conflito, e o seu poder restaurador. No domingo passado acompanhei a matéria feita no Haiti, onde as “forças de paz” do Brasil têm tido papel fundamental desde 2004.

Ainda pior do que acreditar que a segurança possa ser garantida com a presença de tropas das Forças Armadas é acreditar que uma porção de ONGs promovendo peladas e rodas de capoeira pode trazer estabilidade em um país onde 70% das pessoas não tem um suprimento garantido de comida, sem falar em emprego, saúde e educação.

A página de notícias da MINUSTAH (Mission des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation en Haiti) é uma piada de mau gosto, com uma lista interminável de solenidades de troca de comando ou contingente e “visitas” das mais diversas entidades.

Soorrriiiiiaaaammm!

Paul Collier citou um dirigente político da antiga Iugoslávia que disse que ele não precisava da organização “Médicos sem Fronteiras”, e sim da “Contadores sem Fronteiras”, para controlar a quantidade de dinheiro que é despejada em esforços de reconstrução, muitas vezes desviados ou mal utilizados, como essas inócuas “visitas” e a promoção de eventos culturais em meio ao lixo e esgoto a céu aberto. Isso parece ser muito verdadeiro pelo que vi tanto no site da MINUSTAH quanto na reportagem melosa do “Esporte Espetacular”.

Empregos. Oportunidade. Claro e simples como “a + b” é o caminho para a restauração destes países. Mesmo assim ao redor do globo as nações estáveis parecem perpetuar o sofrimento de incontáveis civis para mover suas economias ao mesmo tempo que se sentem bem consigo mesmas.

Joga uma bola e um berimbau aí que fica tudo bem

escrito por Douglas

I just finished reading two excellent books: In defense of elitism by William Henry III and Dead Aid by Ndabisa Moyo.

The former book deals with how society (American but it can apply anywhere) may, over time, be dragged down by its less savvy members in the name of egalitarianism. I do not agree with Henry on all the issues addressed in his book. I particularly think that he is misguided on his views on education and the feminist movement. But overall I think he has a point about the ever increasing vulgarization of the mainstream – in an ever increasing tide of anti-intellectualism – in order to accommodate the common man.

Moyo’s book is one of the best I have read on development in a long time. It kind of reminded me of Collier’s the Bottom Billion. And the book is a fast read, with the chapters seamlessly connecting with one another. I am a terrible book critic so I am just gonna say: go read it.

And speaking of Paul Collier, check out this fascinating debate. I like this, I only wish there were one or two heavy hitters from the continent weighing in on this. Where are you Prof. Wantchekon?

Could the Philippines slip back into one-man rule?

This question has been posed to me by several friends these past two weeks with their concerns triggered by reports which have been criss-crossing in connection with:

- the continuing clashes in parts of Mindanao between government forces and secessionist rebels;

- pocket raids of the communist New Peoples Army and;

- fears that the continuing public indignation over the plan of the House of Representatives to convoke a Senate-less Constituent Assembly to amend the 1987 Constitution.

My friends asked me if the Arroyo regime could, in an extreme situation, use any of these events as pretext to declare emergency rule if not martial law.

I responded in the negative, finding assurance in the very clear words of Article 7, Section 18 of the Constitution, to wit:

ARTICLE VII

Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

http://www.chanrobles.com/article7.htm

This aside, I believe that despite the patent episodes of mis-governance and even betrayals of public trust by the incumbent, the entity in question knows full well that history will lower the boom of ignominy and condemnation if she goes over to the dark side.

Mrs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, I believe, will keep faith, and make peace, with the Filipino people at her term’s end.

POSCRIPT

The foregoing considered, I think it appropriate to share with our readers this thought-provoking pieace posted in ForeignPolicy.com titled The Dictator’s Handbook by Prof. Paul Collier:

The Dictator’s Handbook
By Paul Collier

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~econpco/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Collier

Why is democracy failing even as elections proliferate?

A thought experiment sheds new light on why aging autocrats remain so hard to dislodge.
The old rulers of the Soviet Union were terrified of facing contested elections. Those of us who studied political systems presumed they must be right: Elections would empower citizens against the arrogance of government. And with the fall of the Iron Curtain, elections indeed swept the world. Yet democracy doesn’t seem to have delivered on its promise. Surprisingly often, the same old rulers are still there, ruling in much the same old way. Something has gone wrong, but what?
To answer this question, I put myself in the shoes of an old autocrat—say, Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak—now having to retain power in a “democracy.” What options do I face? Hard as it is to bear, I have to be honest with myself: My people do not love me. Far from being grateful for the wonders that I have achieved, they may increasingly be aware that under my long rule our country has stagnated while similar countries have transformed themselves. There are even a few cogent voices out there explaining why this situation is my fault. I shake my head in disbelief that it has come to this, seize my gold pen, and start listing my options. I decide to be systematic, in each case evaluating the pros and cons.
–Paul Collier
Option 1: Turn over a new leaf and embrace good government
Pros: This is probably what most people want. I might start feeling better about myself, and I might even leave a legacy my children could be proud of.
Cons: I haven’t much idea how to do it. The skills I have developed over the years are quite different—essentially, retaining power through shuffling a huge number of people around a patronage trough. My God, I might have to read those damned donor reports. And even if I worked out what needed to change, the civil service wouldn’t be up to implementing it. After all, I’ve spent years making sure that anyone who is exceptional or even honest is squeezed out; honest people cannot easily be controlled.
Worse still, reform might be dangerous. My “friends,” the parasitic sycophants with whom I have surrounded myself, might not put up with it: They might decide to replace me in a palace coup. They would probably dress it up to the outside world as “reform”!
But suppose I did it. Suppose I actually delivered good government. Would I get reelected? I start to think about all those rich-country political leaders who over the years have met me, often lecturing me on the need for good governance. I do a rough tally: They seemed to win their own elections only about 45 percent of the time.
So, even if I pull it off, I’m still more than likely to lose power. Best to cheat. But how?

Truth is a terrible thing to waste.
Option 2: Lie to the voters
Pros: I control most of the media, so it is relatively easy. What’s more, my citizens have neither much in the way of education nor good reference points by which to tell how bad things really are. So, I can tell them how fortunate they are to have me as president.
Cons: I have been doing this for years, so people heavily discount anything I say. On balance, though lying seems to be worth doing, I simply cannot rely on it to deliver victory.
Option 3: Scapegoat a minority
Pros: This one works! I can blame either unpopular minorities within my country or foreign governments for all my problems. The politics of hatred has a long and, electorally speaking, pretty successful pedigree. In the Ivory Coast it was the Burkinabe immigrants; in Zimbabwe, the whites; in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Tutsi. Failing all else, I can always blame Israel America. I can also promise favoritism for my own group.
Cons: Some of my best friends are ethnic minorities. In fact, they have been funding me for years in return for favors. I prefer doing business with ethnic minorities because, however rich they become, they cannot challenge me politically. It is the core ethnic groups I need to keep out of business. Scare the minorities too badly, and they will move their money out. So, though scapegoating works, beyond a certain point it gets rather costly.

The article is an adapted excerpt from Wars, Guns, and Votes: Democracy in Dangerous Places, by Paul Collier, professor of economics at Oxford University. Copyright© 2009 by Paul Collier. Published by arrangement with HarperCollins Publishers.

As some of our readers may perhaps agree, the value of Prof. Collier’s tongue-in-cheek treatise is it can serve as a citizen’s checklist of tell-tale machinations by his society’s leadership which point to its dictatorial inclinations.

If we are ’street smart’ about such facets of governance then we are forewarned, and forearmed.

Paul Collier, professor of economics at the University of Oxford, doesn’t buy economists’ case for fighting climate change and writes this very good article about it. But right after asserting that “Most professional economists will at this point stop reading because they will think that rights are a quagmire”, he goes on:

Natural assets such as biodiversity, and natural liabilities, such as carbon, are not owned by the current generation, because we did not create them. We have them because previous generations passed them on to us, and we are obliged to do the same. If we deplete natural assets, or run up natural liabilities, we have an obligation to compensate future generations in some other way.

Which shows that he as an economist is not very competent with ethical concepts as rights and duties. If I receive a gift or purchase something that I have not created, don’t I own it? Do we only own what we create? Biodiversity is a circumstance of life, not something that could be owned or not owned. His statements about our obligations to the future generations are purely arbitrary: he just says it is so, without explaining why or groundinghis assertions; and in fact the opposite is true. We do not have any obligations towards the future; the fact that we have “received” something from the past does not imply that we must give it untouched to the future. Rights and duties are ethical concepts used to express rules that permit social life by minimizing conflict and maximizing freedom. There can be no rights or duties to people who do not exist yet (there can be no conflict with them). If future generations wanted to demand compensation from us when we are not here any more, how will they do it?

Google has a neat application that lets you track specific words as they pop-up across the internet. A couple months back I added the word “Haiti” and have been using to it keep track of news worthy developments.

After UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon’s recent visit to Haiti, where he touted a US-Haiti trade agreement cleverly named HOPE II, the internet has been buzzing with claims that the UN and US are trying to turn Haiti into America’s sweatshop. The bill gives Haiti’s garment manufacturers duty-free, quota-free access to American markets and is a central piece of Haiti’s development strategy. But not everyone is as excited by the agreement.

A recent comment on my “Advice to Donors: Give Haiti a Chance” post sums up the distaste for HOPE II:

My concerns about the Hope II bill are that it doesn’t take into account agricultural reform at a time when, as you noted, Haiti’s food security is critically threatened. I also worry that instead of promoting Haiti’s sovereignty, the bill will maintain Haiti’s dependency on the int’l import/export sector and basically maintain the cycle of neocolonialism. I picture mass-garment-producing sweatshops as a result. Although some kind of minimum wage is mentioned – $7/day seems pretty unrealistic for Haiti (that’s almost 300 gourdes!) when the going day rate for manual labor is 150 gourdes.

The concern isn’t totally misplaced. Haiti has suffered many foreigner interventions over its 205 years of independence – most conspicuously in 2004 with the US supported coup d’état that ousted a democratically elected and widely popular president. But let me explain why I feel like the critics just don’t get it.

I shouldn’t need to remind anyone that Haiti is the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country because this fun fact invariably accompanies any mention of the country. According to recent estimates, 70% of the population lives on less than a $1 a day, 80% on less than $2 a day. How on earth can so many people be living in such grinding poverty? One reason is an unemployment rate that hovers around 70%.

Here is where I should just stop. Haiti’s unemployment rate is about 70% and a noted expert estimates that HOPE II could create three hundred thousand jobs. Three hundred thousand jobs in a country of 9 million. When unemployment is this widespread – when there literally is no work – does anyone really think someone will pass on a job because it “perpetuates neocolonialism?” Really?

As for furthering a dependency on the international import/export sector, also commonly known as “trade,” well if countries don’t produce things, then their citizens starve, as is abundantly clear in Haiti. There is nothing wrong with trade. I produce something you want, so you buy it from me, I get a job, you get a product. We are both better off.

But I hope the criticism isn’t really as concerned with trade as much as it is based upon a discomfort with the idea of an export-oriented economy – an economy that produces goods for consumption outside its borders. Still, that’s a weak pretense.

For example, let’s look at one demonstrative case. East Asia as a region had a GDP per capita half the size of Latin America in 1960 and today it’s grown to twice that of Latin America (Gregorio and Lee 2004, 4). How? With export-oriented job creation (Birdsall and Jaspersen, 1997). First textiles and junk toys, later more complicated electronics, today a whole host of goods in industries once dominated by the West. The growth speaks for itself.

But an export-oriented economy and economic liberalism (“neoliberalism”) are not the same thing. East Asia pursued and continues to pursue the former without necessarily embracing the latter. But, to their detriment, it seems like the opponents of HOPE II are conflating the two (oddly enough, just as some ideologically driven right-wing economists would also have you do to further their own interests).

Then there is the sweatshop complaint. There is always the possibility for exploitation in this primarily female industry; however, garment production is not automatically sweatshop labor and it’s irresponsible to throw the term around so loosely. The $7 a day figure quoted by Ban Ki-moon is a healthy salary, a middle-class salary, in Haiti – and as long as labor is not abused – there is nothing wrong with that figure.

Lastly, the bill is a trade agreement targeting the garment industry, not a general trade agreement like NAFTA that encompasses nearly all sectors of an economy. Therefore, logically it only includes the garment industry and not the agricultural sector. The reasons for this are myriad, but simply put, a narrow agreement is much easier to pass in a US Congress where the average congressperson probably couldn’t even locate Haiti on a map.

Like conservatives that don’t support HIV/AIDS education campaigns if they include mention of condoms, liberals here are letting ideology fundamentally mislead their good intentions. They know they don’t like “free-trade,” and textile production might as well read sweatshop promotion, so they don’t like that either. But, instead of taking a moment to analyze how the issue at hand will affect life on the ground, they immediately dismiss it on purely ideological grounds.

What the nay-sayers don’t seem to understand is that jobs bring stability which is necessary if Haiti is to attain sustained economic growth. Haiti hasn’t enjoyed sustained periods of stability in recent decades and hence hasn’t enjoyed sustained economic growth. Anyone who is seriously concerned with the long-term growth of Haiti should hope for the best from HOPE II.

Finally, no one is claiming HOPE II to be the silver bullet that does away with Haiti’s deep poverty. But it is a start. It is one critical aspect – like investment in the agricultural sector – of a multi-pronged strategy to bring economic growth and poverty reduction to Haiti. Arguments based purely on ideology that have no room for nuance are counterproductive and weak and should have no place in a serious discussion of HOPE II.

I recently picked up The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It by Paul Collier, Professor of Economics and Director for the Study of African Economics at Oxford University and former director of Development Research at the World Bank. It has been a grim and simultaneously enlightening book, dubbed as a must-read by the New York Times and set to become a classic according to the Economist.

In a nutshell, The Bottom Billion states that our perception of development for the last forty years has been a rich world of one billion people facing a poor world of five billion people. However, this thinking will soon be outdated because most (80%) of the five billion live in countries that are developing, and at amazing speed. The real challenge for development lies in the one billion people at the bottom who live in countries that are falling behind and oftentimes falling apart.

These one billion remain mired in extreme poverty because of four “traps” that must be dealt with. The first trap from which poverty stems is “the conflict trap” – civil wars or coup d’états that are costly and can be repetitive. The second trap is “the natural resource trap” – dependence on certain resources (oil, minerals) that actually stifle economic growth. Third, poverty can come from being “landlocked with bad neighbors” – a lack of access to ports and bad neighbors translates to no trade. The last trap is “bad governance in a small country” – terrible governance and bad policies can quickly destroy an economy.

Collier also proposes several plans of attack on poverty that focus on the bottom billion. Wealthy nations have too often subscribed to the myth that the fight against poverty must focus on poverty everywhere. This might be why microfinance hasn’t been successful in accessing the absolute bottom of the pyramid and eliminating the most extreme poverty. Microfinance institutions have mostly been drawn to the more attractive business case of serving clients who are not in the bottom billion – in fact, only about 5-10% of microfinance funds ever reach the poorest of the poor.

What microfinance needs to begin doing, is to branch out beyond the mainstream to include a focus on the bottom billion. Tom Coleman, founder of Microfinance Consulting and former Director of Research and Development for the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), calls it Bottom Billion Microfinance (BBM). How can we re-channel our focus to highlight this population? Two-thirds of the bottom billion live in only four countries – so we can begin there. Further, a modest 15 countries have the highest concentration of people living on less than $1/day, and together represent 80% of all people who live on less than $1/day. A total of 31 countries have over 40% of their people in the bottom billion – most are in Africa.

The important questions we need to answer are: what kinds of holistic poverty-ending services should microfinance provide? What kinds of incentives can increase the number of bottom billion served, and the quality of services they receive? Ending poverty is not a financial services-only business. Microfinance has made remarkable strides since its conception in the 1970s. As our world continues to develop, we must continually revisit how we’ve been fighting poverty. We must establish new techniques and standards so that the bottom billion are not left behind.

“While government cooperation has declined”, writes Paul Collier in a fascinating article in the RSA Journal, “there has been an acknowledgement that global problems can only be addressed by common responses”. Gideon Rachman provides illustration of this decline in government cooperation in today’s FT. “If you look at Mr Obama’s top priorities, you get a sense of just how little the Europeans are prepared to give him. More help in Afghanistan? Most Europeans will do the bare minimum. A co-ordinated fiscal stimulus? Sorry, Europe is out of cash as well as troops”. If this really is the “most pro-American European leadership in living memory”, as Gordon Brown recently told a joint session of Congress, they have a funny way of embracing “the president that Europeans hoped and prayed for”, as Rachman correctly describes Barack Obama. It seems to me that European leadership presently provides more support for the thesis of Collier than that of Brown.

“Fortunately”, however, as Collier writes, “while the ability of governments to cooperate has declined, the ability of citizens to cooperate has increased. The Obama campaign was a spectacular demonstration of this at the national level, but there are examples internationally. It may be that cooperation at the level of civil society can be a substitute for that between governments in introducing common responses to global problems”. The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is an example given by Collier to support an argument that has much commonality with David Miliband’s thinking on the – apologies for the jargon - ”we can” generation. Essentially, this is about citizen-centric policy on a global scale, which is all very exciting, but apologies for layering jargon upon jargon.

The historian Peter Clarke distinguishes between the “moral” and “mechanical” reformers. Perhaps, I can escape charges of jargon by switching to this terminology. Collier is more optimistic about the potential for moral, rather than mechanical, reform. However, “moral and mechanical reform have to go together”, as Miliband has noted. The point here is that global problems seem so vast that we cannot be sanguine about the decline in the capacity of governments to cooperate. The development of a global citizenry is certainly to be welcomed but governments must also raise their game. This week at the G20 would be very good place to start.

ALPHA state brain waves relax, uplift and reconnect you to a Higher State of being. This enhances your life by reducing stress, tension, confusion, fear and depression and inducing a relaxed state of peaceful happiness.

INTRODUCING PAUL COLLIER - For a most effective alpha state inducement use PAUL’S amazing and beautiful music and visuals in these three to ten minute clips. Below are just three but click his name to see his YouTube profile and all his other videos.

Fantastic Offer! Go to his link for a 3 minute sample of Mind Paradise (on youtube) Then send him an email from his profile page for the download details. For July 2009 only, Paul will discount the price of his latest release, a 30 minute alpha brainwave entrainment session, from £4.50 to £3.50 (high quality digital download mp3) if you mention the code WENDY SALTER when making your payment via Paypal.

Now, while listening, look at the picture first, then close your eyes, looking up slightly.

‘This one activated my third eye and I ’saw’ beautiful colours’

‘Just three minutes to come out of that dark place’

‘Try not being happy with this one – bet you can’t!’