DevPolitics

Bribe away!

“Who to punish” published on May 5^th, 2011 in The Economist discusses a recent policy proposal by Kaushik Basu, an economic advisor to India’s Finance Ministry. Basu’s proposal suggests exonerating “bribe-givers” of a crime when demanded to pay “harassment bribes,” bribes for public services they are entitled to. Basu’s policy would then entitle bribe-givers to go to court and re-coup their money. He argues that corruption will therefore decrease because people will be more likely to report bribery without fear prosecution.

Basu’s policy has the obvious flaw of condoning corruption, leading to potential increases in bribery by causing previous non-bribe-givers to give bribes. Nevertheless, it might also successfully combat corruption. Considering the widespread corruption in India, I therefore support his policy, but only in conjunction with other policies. The three policy recommendations I propose and elaborate upon below include: increasing pay for public officials, drastically improving the court system, and raising taxes.

In addition to legalizing bribe-giving, it is necessary to also increase thee salaries of public workers. Government workers demand bribes because they earn such poor salaries. Further reducing their income by impeding bribes, will therefore do little to get rid of their incentive to demand bribes in the first place.

My second policy recommendation, that the court system must be made cheap, quick and efficient for citizens, will remove any opportunity cost for citizens who go to court to file a claim against a bribe-recipient. This is necessary, because if it doesn’t occur the entire point of not paying a bribe or paying it in hopes of being reimbursed later, will be undermined. Implementing and enforcing such a policy will be extra challenging, however, considering that the courts will at the same time be confronted with an increase in cases, resulting from the people filing complaints against bribe-recipients. In addition, the entire policy might backfire if the court employees view this as an opportunity to supplement their own salaries by demanding even more bribes for themselves.

Raising taxes to pay for the salary increase of public officials, the restructuring of the court system, and the marketing campaign informing the Indian people of their rights and educating them on what constitutes a harassment bribe is necessary. If the cocktail of anti-corruption policies is effective, the tax effect on people’s pocketbooks might even be zero, as the money citizens would have paid for bribes would instead be used for taxes. It would have the benefit, however, of increasing government program efficiency, and decreasing deep-seated frustration and government mistrust. 

In conclusion, in addition to recommending Basu’s policy in combination with the above three policies, I also recommend randomizing the combination and implementation of these policies across states. This will enable the government to best determine what policy strategy would be most effective. This is especially important considering the potentially dangerous flaw of Basu’s policy I identified above.

 

Luckily, my Oma still wanted me

The International Herald Tribune Magazine issued a special report on the Global Agenda 2011, which includes several articles on many of the topics we discussed in class regarding development. I focused on “Not the Child My Grandmother Wanted” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The article recounts the author’s childhood experience in Somalia where her grandmother teaches her the value of a woman in their culture (women are worth as much as a piece of fat). Ali continues to analyze the differences between two books - Eat Pray Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced by Nujood Ali. She discusses the freedoms (or lack thereof) of woman in marriage and divorce in both books, and claims that Western feminism has created a disconnect between women in the Western world and women in the Eastern world. She calls for a new form of feminism that reminds Western women of their struggles to get to the freedoms they currently enjoy. Ali writes, “For the dream of liberation to come true for women in the East it is imperative that we seek to shatter the underpinnings of their subjugation, which are now enshrined in religion and custom.”

I agree with Ali. Her article reminds me of conversations I had with my Oma, who spent her first 35 years in the Dutch East Indies (today’s Indonesia), where she was raised to believe that women were lesser than men. My Oma’s claims that divorce was harder for women than men (because men could easily support themselves and find another wife, while women struggled to do so – and it was okay for men to be single, but not okay for women to be single) appalled my liberated American self. Luckily, my Oma still wanted me. Although western women have come far to enjoy equality and the freedom to choose their lives and place in the world, there is a long way to go for women empowerment globally. Ali’s case is one where human rights trump culture. Our culture changed, why can’t other cultures change? All women need to stand in solidarity and fight for women empowerment around the world.

Re: ‘Israel to allow clothes, shoes into Gaza’

‘Israel to allow clothes, shoes into Gaza’ http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE6330WT20100404?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

Relevant quotes from the article:

“Israel bans shipments of cement and steel to Gaza on the grounds that Hamas could use them for military purposes. Its long list of controlled goods also includes items that critics say have no apparent military value, such as children's crayons and books… Gaza's merchants, who imported the goods privately, said Sunday's shipment was not enough to replenish their stocks and demanded Israel release more goods held at its ports since 2007. "Some of it even smells bad. I can say half of the merchandise is still good, but the other half is damaged. I fear I may not be able to recoup my outlay," importer Ziad Barbakh told Reuters while frantically inspecting his clothes shipment…Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the December 2008-January 2009 Gaza war.”

This article on clothing imports to Gaza highlights the absurdity of the blockade of Gaza and the desperate circumstances of impoverished people there. Gaza is one of many places where development is impeded by U.S. and Israeli politics – and where silence on these political issues severely undermines both the effectiveness and the integrity of development practitioners.  It is difficult for Gaza to develop in any way, given the Israeli effort to starve Gaza into submission, with Egyptian and U.S. complicity. The civilian population of Gaza can be assumed to be suffering horrifying casualties to the specters of infant and maternal mortality, basic privation of food, shelter, clothing and opportunities to earn an income. While many have died in the bombings of Gaza, many have likely also died due to denial of their basic rights to clean water, food, modern health care, and access to markets. While direct relief if needed, the helpfulness of minimally-allowed service provision is highlighted in these stark circumstances. Rights to  basic food, water, and health care should not be a political issue subject to debate.

A democracy can occupy and colonize other countries for self-defense reasons George W. Bush argued. His excuse for invasion and occupation was that the U.S. would bring the joy and trappings of electoral democracy and free markets. While this entire assumption is highly suspect, it puts the U.S. is in the awkward political position of having to defend Israel’s denial of the most basic of Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories; due to the heavy influence of a knee-jerk ‘defend Israel no-matter what’ lobby.

At minimum five to six times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed in the simmering conflict since 2000. According to Iraq War Body Count and iCasualties.org, more than 15 times the number of civilians have died in Iraq, than 9/11 victims and coalition soldier combined.  I find this a profoundly disturbing question for development and democracy. While majorities in the U.S. and Israel still exercise a wide range of rights, their international practice (not rhetoric) is often undemocratic.  In a world where the dominant regional democracies in the Americas and the Middle East are the most heavily armed, most aggressive, and dominant players in international intelligence, detention and assassination – what does this mean for democracy? 

This raises the question of how democracy, conflict and development ought to be related in international fora. Development funding, sometimes in the form of military support and arms sales, is used to express political support to allies of the United States, and occasionally to undermine governments with which the United States does not agree.  Israeli receives the highest level of aid per capita from the United State of any nation - $3 billion on average (2008 figures); Egypt receives billions annually as well.  In other words, aid has been and is used to fuel conflict and political agendas - sometimes undercover, sometimes in the name of building democracy.  I believe that, with the exception of direct service providers in some circumstances, avoiding addressing the politics of international development is not an effective way of pursuing development.  Many seeking expedient solutions to severe suffering avoid the difficult political choices and base-building that participation in development politics necessitates. I would argue that this approach is short sighted and damaging.

Gaza is an extreme example because the politics of the situation makes discussion of humanitarian aid to the territory, at least for most pro-Israel US government officials and many media outlets, taboo. As we have seen with the nebulous and vague U.S. ‘War on Terror,” at a certain point politics trumps all basic rights and eliminates the development discussion entirely.  This is not to argue that we must “do the hardest thing first” always, this is no more practical than doing the easiest thing first. I am arguing that we should start from the hard problems, be they gender inequality and oppression, or ghettoization and bombing of civilians. Focusing on the power dynamics at the root of problems, can help us find strategies to unravel them bit by bit. I feel we should keep the heart of the problem at the heart of the work we do. In other words, yes, moldy clothes should be brought to Gaza. Yes, they are better than nothing. But, don’t forget about the blockade.

Response to post: "The Fantasy of China’s Collapse" (http://www.brokenpowerlines.com/)

Here, the author is pointing at an emanating Western/American/liberal democracies’ desire to see China collapse, or more specifically, its Communist “utopia” (in but not limited to the Western eyes ) and the political regimen that has ensued. What the author has described as “a teleological fantasy” of the collapse for the West, as it seems to me, shares the same teat as what was “the enduring fantasy of the twentieth century, the pseudoreligion-cum-pseudoscience of Marxism-Leninism” described by historian Martin Malia until its own emblematic collapse in the Soviet Union.

I want to stray, however, from perhaps the more interesting discussion about the validity of socialist or democratic principles as they pertain to our understandings of human nature which then inform our beliefs of what the ideal construction of the social, economic and political apparatus ought to be. Instead, I want to suggest why this watch or hunt for communist-turned-democratic success stories are not just fantasies in pragmatic, calculating policy. Let’s say, the notion of “a democratic peace”? It helps–kind of–when you can expect–kind of–that others play by the same rules–kind of. (It is also possible to question whether peace is in fact just modern "invention". See Michael Howard.)

It is the same babbling talk when it comes to development. There is an institutional structure and world order dominated by power-players who have set out to define countries’ agenda to be “developed” and exactly how. Expectantly, it may also be that the same institutional structure and dominant players who harp on [fill in the blank] are those who provide the same mechanisms to maintain the status-quo. Similarly, in other words, the “fantasy” is actually less about promoting the freedom to choose, opportunity, or capacity for democracy for China and the values that the people of China may identify and desire in a democracy, but instead more about the grasp of control, recruit, in some extreme cases, to colonize, imperialize for a democratic project for unrealized interests? This ought to not necessarily raise questions about the values of democratic principles, but rather the maladies of institutions and politics that no regime has ever been immune to. (Really? Wow, good news.)

Participatory Budgeting

I went up to Montreal for a few days over break and met a Brazilian musician from Porto Alegre.  Does anybody recall the articles we read for IGID about Porto Alegre and how citizens are allowed to comment on the budget before it goes to the municipal government?  Here's a description from UNESCO to refresh your memory: http://www.unesco.org/most/southa13.htm.

So, long story short, I asked him what he thought about participatory budgeting.  First he said that he thought it was great.  When I prodded him on whether anyone can attend the meetings, he gave me a knowing looked, raised his eyebrows and laughed, "Yeah, everyone can attend.  You get some interesting meetings."  He said he hadn't participated, though, since the meetings are in the mornings and as an artist he doesn't exist in the mornings.

Democracy in action!

Illiberal Democracy Alert

I was recently reading Nicholas Schmidle’s article in the New Republic about the current crisis in Pakistan.  The author suggested that despite the demonization of Musharraf by the Western press, in reality his regime has brought in an era of modernization and liberalization in Pakistan, including the emergence of a healthy civil society, vibrant media, an independent judiciary, progress in protections for women’s rights, and strong economic growth. Unfortunately for Musharraf, the author suggests, the same freedom that he has enabled during his regime has undone him, as the lawyer’s movement and private television stations, which never would never have existed in an alternate regime, have developed the strength to reject his recent authoritarian impulses.  As calls for his ouster, both domestically and internationally, rain down, shouldn’t we first ask: is he really all that bad? After all, which is more favorable: an illiberal democracy that Fareed Zakaria condemns in the piece we read, or a liberal dictatorship, under which Pakistan seemed to flourish?  What role do the fundamentalists play in a post-Musharraf democracy? Is a new regime really good for “development” or not?

Pakistan Today - Asia Society Event

I tuned into Asia Society's webcast of "Pakistan Today:  The Musharraf Government Makes its Case".  I have to say that I came away with a slightly different perspective, a little more sympathetic towards the Musharraf government and a little more skeptical of the Pakistan judiciary.

American Democracy in Eastern Europe?

I had the wonderful opportunity to attend the AUDEM Conference in Katowice, Poland in early November as apart of my capstone project. AUDEM stands for the Association of Universities for Democracy and was founded in the late 1990's in order to promote democracy, human, and economic development in Eastern Europe. There were approximately 150 university professors from all over the world coming together in order discuss democracy, education, social work, and civic engagement. As a graduate student it was interesting to be on the "inside" of an international conference aimed at professors. The majority of the professors represented were from the United States and Eastern Europe (Romania, Ukraine, Poland, and Russia).
The confrence was composed of a few plenary sessions, with the main tracks being: Education and Civic Engagement, Transitional Societies, and Social Work. I attended the Education and Civic Engagement track. Each track consisted of different presentations of research of either students or faculty.
The purpose of conference is to promote democracy in Eastern Europe. It was interesting that all of those representing "democracy" were from the United States. My observation was that the dialogue was heavily American focusing on some "how to's" of democracy and civic engagement. It was no surprise that the question arose of how these same techniques of increasing civic engagement in the United States would be applied to the Eastern European context.
However, this question was never directly addressed. The context of the formation of the American democracy was an extremely unique context. People left their home countries in persuit of religious and political freedom. The founding fathers of this country founded this democracy on the ideal of justice and equality for all, as flawed as it was, it was a foundational ideal. These unique features, in addition to other factors in which the American democracy was created, are specific to the American democracy. The vision of AUDEM to promote democratic ideals and functions, is a good idea in the sense of promoting justice and equality. However, the majority of what the Eastern European professors took home, were applications of student involvement from clubs and organizations in an American university. The Eastern European context is not the American context. The past of communism, socialism, and war are historical and cultural factors that are difficult for americans to conceptualize. I feel that as much time and energy went into this conference, more concentrated effort could have been put into addressing the barriers to democracy in the universities that Eastern Europe is facing and what the professors of the universities in Eastern Europe would want to see, and working on how to move forward towards their goals, together.

Is democracy a good thing?

I believe that some countries will suffer if they lose their dictators. The chaos following the change will destroy whatever was built at this point. A country I am thinking about is Uzbekistan. The current “President” have ruled and reigned there since 1991, since independence. A friend of mine used to joke during "elections" in 2002, “The question asked is “Do you want me to be a President or do you want me to be a President?” Karimov is on the 5^th place among World Ten Worst Dictators. But when in May 2005 there was a rebellion in Andijan I was hoping that state troops would suppress it very fast. Because if they did not the country would have been totally lost in anarchy and disarray. I feel very sorry for the blood that was shed, I cried when I saw horrible pictures because I walked on those streets. But when the uprising was finally quelled I was almost happy...

And I would guess Uzbekistan is not the only country that benefits from dictatorship at this point. Iron hand is good sometimes… At lease we did not have a civil war like our neighboring Tadjikistan…

By the way, I was very-very surprised that not so many people in class consider the US a democratic state.

A question for comments.

I saw a demonstration near Ground Zero with signs “Thank God for 9/11” and “9/11 is the righteous punishment”. Or yesterday I saw in the news how portraits of Bush were burnt in the Middle East. Is it free speech? Isn’t that too free speech?

Blog Leader: Posting 2

I am in the middle of my readings for next week and my mind keeps wandering to a trip I took to Cuba in 2003. Although I had strong opinions about Cuba prior to my visit, from the moment I landed in Cuba, I have been unable to collect my thoughts.

My assignment was to gather information about Cuba’s HIV/AIDS policy, specifically, mandatory testing and quarantining. Paul Farmer’s book briefly touches upon this issue, and it was comforting to see that he too, was unsure, or unwilling, to place judgment on Cuba’s approach.

Nonetheless, my discomfort with Cuba went deeper than HIV/AIDS policy. I found the police at every corner frightening, the abundance of stray and diseased animals sad, the upbeat tempo of the people charming, and the architecture beautiful. Everything I experienced was bittersweet.

How does an aberration like Cuba fit into the development debate? With Evo Morales, a newly elected left-leaning president, in Bolivia, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and other left leaning leaders in Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, and Ecuador- could something be changing in Latin America?

I wish we could know what Cuba would be like today if Castro was unable to blame his imperialist neighbor for the problems Cuba is experiencing.