DevPolitics

On China's property tax reform

On April 8th, Prof. Yu-Hung Hong from Lincoln Institute of land policy has given a lecture on China’s property tax reform in Wagner school. He was assigned by the Chinese State Administration of Taxation to conduct research on individual property taxation (which is currently exempt from the property tax regime).

He seems quite optimistic about the proposed reform, saying it will be ample local revenue sources, thus increasing local public goods and service provision, reducing local government’s reliance on land lease so as to reduce housing price, etc. Everything seems so nice except the fact that he assumes local government in the first place would want to reduce land lease when they have individual property tax.

From my rough calculation, to replace land lease revenue, the equivalent annual burden of the proposed tax for Shanghai residents would be 686,000RMB(more than 100,000USD). So without gigantic central transfer, it will never serve as a sufficient substitute of land lease.

This is a classic example of China’s public finance reform, central government almost always want to have both: come up with nice policies and not spend a dime on it. However, usually large policy changes like local revenue adjustment would need, at least temporary, central assistance.  Assignment without proper supporting funding usually ends up with misconduct of local officials to find revenue to cover their fiscal gap. The current land lease driven local finance is a perfect example. And How can China’s central government still doesn’t seem to learn the lesson when they are actually addressing the very problem! 

 

A Realistic Vision of Peace

Jody Williams received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her work as chief strategist of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which established the first global treaty banning antipersonnel mines. In her TED talk this past winter for the “Women Reshaping the World” TED conference, entitled "A realistic vision for world peace," she describes what she calls a “realistic vision for world peace.”

This realistic vision focuses on the need for human security – peace, according to Williams, means “sustainable peace with justice and equality.” To achieve human security, Williams emphasizes the need for action. She identifies women from around the world who are working together to create participatory democracies – democracy beyond just voting – such as Wangari Maathai and the Women’s League of Burma. Williams’ final message is one of action, taking on the hard work of achieving peace, one volunteer at a time.

Defining peace is just as difficult as defining development. World peace has become something of a taboo term, because, I think, it is seen as too naïve, too optimistic. The idea of a “realistic” vision for world peace is appealing, but Williams seems to make peace less of a “dirty word” by defining it in poverty reduction and human rights terms. I wonder if peace can actually hold another dimension besides what she calls human security, or whether a more philosophical idea of peace must come after basic human rights are achieved. I’m curious to know how the vocabulary of peace plays into international development, and whether the frame put forward by Williams can re-integrate “peace” into the language of development.

 

Failure and Development

Expanding on the theme of admitting failure in development from past classes, Idealist just posted a piece about Engineers Without Borders and other forums to share lessons learned - where "the overarching goal is to encourage people to see falling on your face not as shameful or embarrassing, but a necessary part of creating change."  They're asking for stories if you want to read others' or join the conversation and share your own...  Idealist.org : Do you have what it takes to admit failure?

Does talking about the "Ethical Implications of Development" make you elitist???

Allow me to begin by asking a question...

Who is this particular entry (ethical implication/responsibility of development) for? Is it for us? It must be...It certainly isn't for the people we are helping as they are unlikely to have received an invite to this particular weblog. In this same vein it is unlikely for our philosophical or developmental enemies, as well.

So why justify it if only to ourselves? Fellow Wagnerds are unlikely to call one another out for faux-public service between all the back-patting; in front of one another at least. Perhaps it's the West Guilt (see: younger more celebratized cousin of White Guilt, also still prevalent; see western world) in which we acknowledge the glamorous or the, as Natasha may put it, "sexy" nature of international aid that so often trumps funding the single non-English speaking mothers of the Bronx in becoming gainfully employed. We now also acknowledge that a sizeable portion of the aid necessary is in response to shortsightedness, lack of cooperation with and/or direct exploitation of the under-resourced countries throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America. Not to mention the travesties that have beset the US (see: Detroit, Michigan) following the same model of success. However the exploitations and shortcomings don't seem to get the same pr attention that the ground-breaking and the church-building and the vaccine deliveries do. Interesting...

Recently I went to an absolutely lovely restaurant to enjoy (nothing short of elitist) hot-pot with some amazing people to discuss opportunities and the subsequent impacts we will have when visiting Shanghai this summer; and I had to walk over at least two homeless people sitting in the cold to get there. Moreover, I will likely refuse many dozens more of my pithy donations which I justify by my pricey (but worth it ;D) trip to the new Mecca of urbanization...

    ...This trip shall make me a more effective public servant for the under-resourced!! He proudly and altruistically thought to himself as he hurried past a homeless man reeking of urine asking for help... 

That sounds like public service the same way that profit-seeking sounds like healthcare.

This makes me think of Illich (To Hell with Good Intentions), when he calls Americans, excuse me, United States-ians, the height of arrogance in that we would "aid" countries while the US is littered with problems relatively no different than any society on Earth. 

So the question becomes...

How can I, as someone who sees social problems every few blocks in my everyday life, ethically justify leaving this land to fight the problems of somewhere/one else?

PROs)     share best practices and avoid same mistakes;

              Early intervention = larger impact & cost saving;

              Plant the seed so grows the tree, etc;

              Global community/ were all brothers and sisters.

CONs)     people are content with or believe it too labor intensive to change the institutions that regulate social wealth and stratum in the US;

              International efforts make for a highly-visible and therefore praiseworthy aid venue;

              Not to mention the indoctrination that the west superimposes on the world, even by the least biased US anthropology student who may be blogging right now, thinking how he is exempt from all this because he REALLY understands the people...

All this post-development NGO band-"aid"-ing meanwhile, is reinforcing the developers and governments/agencies that have established these ineffective, biased or false institutions that they can continue at the current trajectory unimpeded. 

That’s my conflict...

Also, and finally, the fact that oil drilling, mineral excavation, etc. is still seen as a viable source of sustainable development is so consumption-based it borders on childish. I could not agree with Lomborg more (...Yes, if we listen to green extremists) that UN money should shift from fluff global warming projects (much of which is likely earmarked anyhow) to serious large-scale renewable energy-namely solar. Moreover, the next slew of public service jobs will most definitely be green inspired and will eventually lead to tech and blue-collar jobs alike through invention and the everyday maintenance, respectfully. Once we acknowledge that the earth is finite AND THAT EFFECTS HUMANS ON EARTH then and only then will we begin to truly view ourselves as consumers and seek actual sustainability....whatever that means...

 

 

Outsourcing: An ethical issue with development

From my own experience, one ethical issue associated with development/globalization comes with outsourcing. After I graduated from college, I joined a multinational IT company which was in the process of outsourcing the documentation work for several of its products to my country. I was on the new team with other about 10 new graduates. We all felt lucky and excited about our job and the upcoming training since the type of work we would do was completely new in my country. At that time, the remote documentation team we worked with also had about 10 people, but all these people were very experienced and had served the company for 10 – 20 years, but since the product had a bad sale, the team was already cut. Some senior members were asked to mentor us. We all knew tacitly that our relationship was both collaborative and competitive, but we did have a true feeling of camaraderie when working together. When my mentor had to move to another team a year later, our sadness was sincere.

We know that companies need to make money, but even so, is it ethical for them to outsource and fire workers in order to maximize profits, especially when their workers are diligent, competent and loyal? How much should the cost of labor weigh in companies’ measure of a worker’s value? Some may think that workers in developing countries are those that benefit from outsourcing, but even among developing countries, labor costs are varied, and companies driven by profit-maximizing can always change strategies and move jobs to more cost-competitive places. In a sense, workers in less developed countries can be more vulnerable if their "value" is only cheap labor, since one can argue that foreign companies hold less moral obligation to them. Sometimes it just feels that in this increasingly competitive and globalized world, anyone can be the winner and the loser.

Personal obligation, takeout, and a world in poverty

Our class discussion on development and its attending personal obligations/ethics was uncomfortable, but in a good way. (Walking home that night, I stopped in front of a new Mexican place, Dos Toros - but kept going and went to Trader Joe’s instead.) Peter Singer’s view is thought-provoking at minimum, and the “How much is ‘enough’?” question is one I’ve struggled with over the years. I come from a Christian tradition in which Jesus states, “From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required,” and also tells a rich guy, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Interestingly, whenever the latter passage came up in church, the consensus seemed to be, “Oh, Jesus doesn’t really expect us to give up everything for the poor--we just have to be *willing* to do it if asked.” Some Christian ethicists such as Ron Sider [“Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger”] would disagree.) While I believe those of us with more than enough do have an ethical obligation to help those of us with less, it’s hard, if not impossible, to create blanket rules for how that plays out. For example, Melissa brings up the issue of Individual efficacy in the anecdote with Paul Farmer and Tom White. Everyone has gifts and skills that include certain circles of influence and effectiveness. If someone is good at advocacy and fundraising within high-powered/moneyed circles, and perhaps needs a higher-end car in order to have credibility and respect, it could be argued that this person is doing as much good or more than if she or he just lived simply and gave away extra wealth. There are also the questions of whether in fact the funds given would really help in the most effective way. In short, Singer’s view might be a good direction in which to head, but it’s too simplistic as a “solution” to poverty in itself.

Ethical Issues with Development: Happiness Index

The development field brings up so many ethical issues – both personal and institutional – that I find it hard to grasp all at once. However, I am very curious about using a happiness index to measure development or growth, rather than an economic or GNP index. If we use such subjective measures as happiness to measure development or growth, what are the ethical obligations to the people whose progress in happiness is at stake, and is happiness really the index that development programs should use? Do food security, education, or social empowerment programs take precedence?

Take a look at Nic Marks’ TED talk on “The Happy Planet Index”: http://www.ted.com/talks/nic_marks_the_happy_planet_index.html.  A statistician, he describes several interesting issues related to measuring progress through happiness, stating that the goal of every nation should be to have its population lead happy and healthy lives. The question in development is, how to get to the happy and health lives? Nic Marks ties together sustainability, happiness, and "progress" in a way that connects back to our readings from last week, so I'm interested to hear what other people think about his talk.

The Public Good

 

When working for development, I believe there is an ethical obligation to serve the public good. We cannot serve one community without thinking of the sustainability of others’. This means considering resources, the environment, future generations, and neighbors near and far. In today’s globalized world, it is often painfully clear how deeply communities affect each other. We must keep the public’s interest (on a global-scale) in mind at all times. 

We are not developing if it is at the expense of others. 

The Personal is Political- Obligations to "Development"

I don’t think there is one neat solution to solving world poverty and all of that entails. Yet, like Michael Clemens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB1hRNMGdbQ) I believe that giving people more fluid borders in a structured way would create tangible benefits for people who’s current domestic experiences seem hopeless. I have seen data on remittances and inflows of capital and goods from emigrated groups and the positive results are astounding (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/welcome-guest-workers/7517/).

I start with this because recently some of us have been asked what policy we would introduce that is both politically feasible and would have great impact. I believe that this could be it- is this THE solution? I don’t think so. I also know that there are many issues associated with migration (on both sides): immersion, marginalization, 2nd class citizenship- look at how Germany is currently struggling to deal with its more than 15 million “others” (http://www.economist.com/node/17469563).

Yet if you ask what personal/ethical obligations we have as a collective to this development concept- then the United States and others must rethink what we are willing to give up. Of course it is comfortable to gift charity/philanthropy to countries in the other side of the world- you as an individual, foundations, USAID, etc…pull out a checkbook and feel relief that you are tackling a problem- yet like a shareholder- you demand dividends in the form of incredible bureaucracy, evaluations, impact, gratitude and other phenomena that obstruct the very goal they are seeking to obtain. 

The real question is- if “aid” fails or has v. little demonstrated impact, what are some other solutions- solutions that perhaps are not so comfortable to deal with or as simple as writing a check or devising some program to be implemented in another place.  What are we willing to do to get our hands dirty in this process? Are we willing to stop subsidizing entire domestic industries so that others flourish? Are we willing to have thousands/millions of new workers migrate to gain the jobs that our low-skilled laborers currently have? Are we willing or more importantly ready to train and educate our labor force so that it can actually compete globally? Are we willing to truly reform our education system so that the systematic failure of children of color stops?

I am not sure what we as a society are willing to do that? I sometimes see so many students getting degrees to go provide “capacity building” services abroad when there is a lot of capacity building and structuring that needs to occur internally in order for our foreign service to be truly effective….i think that’s what I personally think are our obligations- to start at home…. 

There is a phrase in radical feminist theory- the personal is political by Hanisch. I think we need to start at home- where the battle lines drawn are more personal.  

 

"Fuzzy definitions or not, culture is back." - NYT

"Fuzzy definitions or not, culture is back." says Patricia Cohen in her article "‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback" in the New York Times today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html?_r=2&ref=homepage&src=me&pagewanted=all

So, whether I like it or not, it's insidious. This article goes through some aspects of the debate we had in our class on culture but is more focused on the U.S. I highly recommend taking a look at it. TypePad Conversations » Answer this question!

via oldmole.typepad.com