Comments for Thoughts from India

Comment on Gandhian Economics? by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:40:48 +0000

Never underestimate the power of a charismatic leader to inspire people to subvert self interest in pursuit of a higher goal—-happiness can come from self-sacrifice for the common good.

Comment on Electrical Grid Interdependence by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:08:27 +0000

See: Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2008: Changing China: What they talk about when they talk about democracy.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

Comment on Electrical Grid Interdependence by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:04:28 +0000

The Rotary speaker was obviously over-optimistic –however, I think his idea does present a model for attempting to surmount the political differences among the countries –informal relationships connecting elites(Rotary Club) promoting development plans (hopefully not explotive)–opens dialogue and fosters communication on potential opportunities that are more positive than military prowness. These informal conversations can result in business investment that doesn’t threaten institutional sovereignty —thereby maintaining stability –while resulting in economic opportunity. As to the question-can stability precede development– the historic correlation between modernization and democratization is certainly being challenged by the Chinese example except that even there the acceptance of democracy as a universal value(Sen) is certainly evidenced in their rhetoric although not in their actions. I think the Rotary man needs to keep talking.

Comment on Who is to blame for Africa’s troubles? by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:21:51 +0000

What a fascinating discussion! I marvel at the comment that Africa should be one country–no other continent has come close to that with the exception of Australia-could centuries of tribal conflicts, Western exploitation, and resource differences ever really result in such a political arrangement? Perhaps the EU will turn out to be a model for that–but even they continue to grapple with unity issues in the current Lisbon treaty.
The conflict between the African Union and the Arab League is troubling—it speaks to divisive religious cleavages that may be insurmountable–unless a different unifying factor can be found. Typically, economic and educational opportunities could be used. The challenge is to control the exploitive actions of firms and countries. That is where moral authority comes in—the United States and other developed countries need to restrict unscrupulous activities by its firms—paying bribes to operate in Nigeria for example. Public pressure/buycott/boycott actions by individuals and interest groups can also have impact. More social intervention by NGO’s –like the Gates foundation/Invisible Children/Heifer can make a difference. Outside pressure helped South Africa break from apartheid–hopefully it will restore control in Kenya–but there will be no one universal answer—each country will have to find its own way–but the rest of the world can help with aid, technology, opportunities–and the political will to control the exploiters from the outside.

Comment on The US and military governments by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:48:49 +0000

I certainly agree that our elections are an excellent example of American exceptionalism–but I would disagree that our military is a purely nonpolitical force. Although prominent current military officers do not publically take stands on candidates or issues (even at the State of the Union Address the generals stand down as do the SC judges)–they do take on political roles in congressional committee testimony, mobilizing troops for elections (in Alabama we only allow military personnel oversees to vote online–you were stuck in a straw poll),talking with the press, and then there is the whole military-industrial complex presiding over a $500 billion dollar budget–outspending the rest of the world combined (almost).
While we may not be facing coups–we do encounter extensive lobbying and PAC financing to procure weapons systems instead of social spending. Now on the other hand, some may argue that in fact it is the civilians in charge of our defense systems that have caused the problems we face now (Cheney and neocons)–that a more empowered military could have kept us out of Iraq for example. Probably what is needed by all societies is a balance with political and military authority that is legitimately accepted by the people–and the US has certainly been shortsighted in its support of pseudo-democratic regimes like Pakistan–except the regime that may be best for a particular country–may not be best for the United States. Take Hamas, for example, the people voted for them not soley because of their anti-Israeli position–but also because they spent millions of dollars on education and social spending–and were viewed as less corrupt that Fatah. The problem with Pakistan is the havoc that an anti-US nuclear weapon could cause. In both cases, I don’t think that the US can simply pull back and wait and see what happens. What we can do is emphasize economic and cultural ties–and support police action on terrorism over military build-up.

Comment on Bureaucracy, Me, and Why it exists by Suzanne Bailey

Suzanne Bailey — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:04:52 +0000

I’m glad that you survived the bureaucratic run-around–but is it that much different from standing in line at the DMV or signing up for classes at UGA? Are these bureaucrats inefficient or corrupt? Should you have offered a bribe? Did your arrogance or authoritative manner get you respect and service? How could these people offer some flexiblity only on your attitude change? Is this a merit or patron-client system? Could your Rotary contacts have gotten you faster service? What is interesting is that you had to jump through hoops for a bank account as well—so privatization of institutions doesn’t necessarily result in more efficient behavior. The double influence of traditional culture and classic bureaucratic behavior sounds very hard to deal with on a daily basis—I certainly sense your outrage, and appreciate the time it took to write this blog—however, public acceptance of inefficient government action is universal. All the parents of 15 year old potential drivers of my acquaintance talk about how to go to Guntersville for the test instead of waiting for hours in Huntsville. Nobody talks about writing letters, protesting, media attention, etc to force political change. Did students at Georgia really act differently towards the administration and the learning process itself? Is bureaucracy something that can be changed? or do you just learn how to deal with it? Do developing countries lack a professionalism in their services that could or should be improved? Improving bureaucracy stumped even Weber.

Comment on Gandhian Economics? by rcstaley

rcstaley — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:45:23 +0000

Obviously Gandhi would have opposed the state-led development model, and I thought I already adequately paid tribute to that concept by mentioning his attempts at Utopian-like local cooperative projects. The point I was making wasn’t that he would espouse a massive supervised national agenda, or even that he agreed with Nehru (which I mentioned they were at odds), but that the only way his “economic” ideas could be projected to the country would have to be through a something excessively extreme like a tightly controlled government platform. Yes, that’s undesirable, infeasible, and impractical, but that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise there would be no way to push villages into his type of economic arrangements nationwide without forcing most of them to do so. Giving them autonomy is one thing, but making sure that the autonomy follows through is another. It takes a special locality to agree to his prescriptions, just as it takes a special country to do so on a global scale. Frankly, it defies countless centuries of human nature.

Maybe I went too far by claiming villages would not accept these arrangements. Maybe I have misrepresented Gandhi, and for that I apologize only to the point that it actually matters to the actual argument (which I wonder if it really does). The fact is that I’ve never been too concerned with such assumptions on an overall theory that seemingly has little applicational value. I was trying to make some of his ideas relevant to today’s world on a whole, and if indeed I have failed there, I would be curious to hear further comment in regards to the global situation I have highlighted.

Comment on Gandhian Economics? by kuffir

kuffir — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:25:05 +0000

‘imagine if the government was supposed to be acting on such a closely “supervised” national agenda…’

that’s an incorrect reading of gandhi’s prescription. his formula also included ‘gram swaraj’ or autonomy for the villages. this was opposed on the ground that given greater autonomy, the indian village would revert to perpetuation of all the prejudices, ‘localisms’ of the past, as ambedkar put it. doesn’t that mean gandhi wouldn’t have supported the state-led development model that nehru later adopted?

Comment on Gandhian Economics? by Benjamin

Benjamin — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 03:51:21 +0000

A number of great points, too many to respond to each, so here’s a few:

It seems that most people will agree with Daly in regards to the basic economic assumption that the economy can grow forever and ever. The trouble is, if we acknowledge that a boundary exists around the macro-economy, we introduce a new set of philosophical questions that politicians and economists are not prepared to deal with, so we instead dismiss the viewpoint that gives rise to these questions.

For example, since the macro-economy can be described in terms of population multiplied by per capita consumption, if an ecological carrying capacity exists, then we acknowledge that the economy is in fact zero-sum, and thus that over-consumption today forsakes future generations, or that over-consumption in the developed world limits current consumption levels in the developing world. Yet somehow we promote growth to everyone, even though we know that this is NOT ecological sustainable and that we are consuming ecological capital to which future generations have a fundamental right of ownership.

Irrationally, our jiminy-cricket reliance on technology convinces economists, politicians and the general public that the global economy can continue to grow forever. For politicians, it’s obviously easier to espouse growth than discuss the necessary actions of population control and redistribution of income. For economists who have built careers based on these assumptions, the emerging ecological economics paradigm challenges the neo-classical foundations.

Speaking of Gandhi vision of limiting frivolous consumption, this is the ideal framework in which to open a discussion about the aims of our growth-centered economy. Regardless of where politicians, economists, policy-makers, or the average person falls on the issue of limited/limitless growth, perhaps we should step back and question the success of a growth-centered economy in delivering utility to the average person. After all, isn’t economics primarily concerned with utility maximization (e.g. happiness)?

If a growth-centered economy does potentially risk causing irreparable environmental damage, we should at least hope that at a bare minimum the economy delivers increased utility to the average person. Does this hold true for the developed world? No.

Recently, the field of economics has begun asking some pertinent questions related to economics and happiness, producing surprising results. Economists have found a strong positive correlation between income and happiness up to $10,000 (not surprising because this income is spend on services such as food, basic health care, education, etc.). However, beyond this value, the statistical relationship disappears, as expenditures beyond this threshold appear to satisfy positional rather than necessary goods. See:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8401269
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8450035
http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TJSQTPJ

Finally, let me quote Herman Daly regarding technological optimists:

“Technological optimists counter the above argument by claiming that technology can increase resource productivity without limit, and that therefore all nations can become richer. Even if technology could increase resource productivity without limit, so that the same physical resource flow would yield an ever greater value flow, we would still face the problem of keeping physical flows within ecological limits, and still could not generalize the current U.S. industrial economy to the whole world. We might generalize some new, as yet unknown system that made much more efficient use of resources, but that is more a concession to the impossibility hypothesis than a refutation of it. If the technological optimist really believes in unlimited increase in resource productivity, then limitation on the volume and distribution of the physical resource flow would be seen as desirable, since this would force technological effort in to increasing resource productivity and away from the path of increasing intensity of resource usage.”

Good stuff Rob, keep it coming.

Comment on Gandhian Economics? by devika

devika — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:52:04 +0000

Gandhian economics stems from Gandhian philosophy. It essentially views as all humans to be moral and virtuous, or at least capable of being so. However, according to the three main philosophers in the history of the human race, Confucius, Buddha and Aristotle, all individuals are fundamentally corrupt. They can be made honest and virtuous either by designing institutions around them or by spiritual preaching. Now economics does not incorporate the preaching part, however, it does revolve around institutions and markets to check human behaviour. So, for fears of over consumption and consequent depletion of resources, the elixir does not rest in Gandhian way of life. It does however require an economically sound solution. That can come from markets or even trade agreements. Telling people what to do is analogous to intellectual superiority and is no less and fascism. However, self correcting price mechanisms and regulatory frameworks in case of market failures are the more pragmatic ways out. With trade in carbon credits, worldwide initiatives like IPCC and certain regulations by international organizations, there is a starting point in sight.