Sangam
Thursday, November 27, 2003
Georiga's "Velvet Revolution"
I'm glad you put "Velvet Revolution" in quotes. The term, as you know, originated in the now late Czechoslavakia. It was led by Vaclav Havel, a beast. The Georgian experiment was not as sophisticated but had the same end result. Since Havel's approach and buildup was more organized and sophisticated, the Czech and Slovak republics have fared well. The same cannot be said of Georgia, although it's too early to call. Such overthrows are becoming Eastern European traditions. Remember the scenes in Belgrade. It is nice to see the people taking charge.. but I hope that they don't have to keep doing this.
On PATRIOT II.... I've known this clandestine pushing through of the act in bits in pieces for a while now. It is sad and outrageous. The activist community must be congratulated for bringing so much attention to this very serious issue. They finally shamed the media into covering it.
Monday, November 24, 2003
Divide and conquer
I wanted to add a small update to my thoughts on USA PATRIOT II and how it had been thwarted by public response to the first act. Well, I think I was wrong on this. I've been hearing more and more news about how bits and pieces of what PATRIOT II would have covered are being passed individually and as parts of much, much larger bills. This is quite concerning since it makes it much more difficult to protect civil liberties. At the same time, I'm relieved by the fact that we're finding about these bills through the media and the ACLU. Granted, it's much too late to do anything about these provisions, but tracking it is very important.
Democracy flexes its muscles
Our busy schedules have left if pretty quiet here, but two important happenings over the weekend cannot be forgotten without some commentary:
The biggest international news event was about the "Velvet Revolution" in Georgia. Since I'm not too familiar with the situation, I can't say if this change in governments will be for the better or not, but suffice it to say, a mass movement built up over this month forced an upheaval in the government there. A string of broken promises is what tends to lead people to discontent with their government and it seems that Eduard Shevardnadze was the focal point in Georgia. It was quite a dramatic turn of events since we had not heard anything about the furor in Georgia until Saturday morning when NPR covered the occupation of governmental buildings. Before I knew it, Shevardnadze had resigned.
The dark-horse candidate for biggest international news event would have to be the results of local elections in Hong Kong. HK is, of course, under pseudo-dictatorial rule by Beijing and since the 1997 handover of HK, the people there have been subjected to more regulations and less freedom than they're used to. This seemed to come to a head over this summer when Beijing had to back off on an anti-subversion bill due to mass protests. These elections are just the latest turn of events. I find the results quite startling since Beijing is quite well-known for cracking down on anti-government movements. Granted, these elections are not for control of HK itself, but apparently many campaigns had been run on the grounds of freedom and civil liberties. I'll be very interested to see what happens here and it may indicate Beijing's flexibility on the mainland as well.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
"Full Access" : It's advantages, please?
Today civil liberties are being are being suppresed because of the "threat" of "terrorism". Let it be state at the outset itself that there is no denying that there are "suicidally-homicidal" individuals and groups out there who do pose a threat to innocent individuals. But these groups would not amount to much had there not been reasons that engender a large albeit misinformed base of support. The curbing of civil liberties is being presented to us as a "symptomatic response" to the problem. The problem is that the "causative" responses are seriously lacking.
The law enforcement response to terrorism is essential. Absolutely. Terrorism is a crime and hence must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Note the word prosecuted. That's where the heart of the problem is in some sense. I would have much less of an issue if there was any judicial oversight of this process. There is little to none. Given this lack of oversight the agents in the field may end up pursing innocent civilians and harass them. Also, this may end up distracting the real law enforcement challenge of actually preventing terrorism by wasting time on non-threats. All in all, the PATRIOT ACT is counter-productive without judicial oversight. So is POTA in India and similar legislations that have been passed across the globe. The states must realize that these acts are not useful in furthering the end that they seek. Unless they seek unholy ends!
Before I conclude let me get back to the "causative" point I made in the first para. These acts that undermine civil liberties are tools to tackle problems. Our mission must be to solve problems not just prevent them. Prevention cannot be the full effort. Citizens must push their govts to strive for more "holisitic" solutions. And sincere visionary leaders must respond to this demand. If there was ever a time for visionary leaders... it is now.
Friday, November 14, 2003
More on civil liberties
I just found this interesting piece of news regarding rules for FBI investigations of suspected terrorism. While it's good that this news is available to us (although no media outlets focused on it) and the ACLU is already on the case, what concerns me (as I think it concerns you) is that such decisions are made without the public truly being involved. I think the overall ebb and flow of security vs. liberties is swinging very slowly back to the side of civil liberties, but these types of things make you wonder what would happen with the legal ability to challenge such laws or the public conscience striving to find a balance.
Thoughts on Governance
Sorry for the delay, but I'm just now getting around to posting the further thoughts I wanted to relate with regard to the bit on Singapore, governance, and civil liberties....
I think the key things to take away from this are how any government treats its citizens and the checks in place to balance what the government is doing (either built into the law or built in the public conscience). In the Singapore example, I've noted that there is really a parent-child relationship. The hope is that a parent has the best intentions in mind when giving the child rules to obey. But with a government, you can't just lay down rules for an entire nation without expecting kickback from the populus. The Singapore govt has handled this by essentially numbing the citizenry to the effects of the rules placed upon them. As noted, most citizens seem to shrug off the fact that they don't really have free speech in public circles.
While Singapore's citizens are resigned to this, citizens in many other countries would be up in arms. And that's where the balance comes in. Specific individuals in a government may want to enact laws limiting civil liberties, but the public usually has the recourse of a legislature or constitution to ensure that the laws being proposed by such leaders are amenable to society as a whole. In Singapore, very few people seem to care about such a balance (or at least fight for it). In India and the US, the fearmongering you've mentioned has people either too scared to speak up or drowned out by "rubberstamp" opinions that blindly support anything fighting terrorism.
What I'm getting to here is about democracy as a working system. You've said that democracy balances this out, but the fearmongering limits the true extent of democracy. If people cannot or are too scared to voice their opinion then the meaning of democracy has been lost.
I think the balance within the US has tipped back a bit to the middle ground. Plans for a PATRIOT 2 have been scrapped since the citizenry is up in arms over the first act (after diligent work by many). The rubberstamping that was present over anti-terror laws has faded a bit and the sobering idea of free society has come to light again. Of course, ideologues will always be around, but enough people are willing to stand up and can actually be heard now.
What are your thoughts on where India is headed with such anti-terror laws that cut at the heart of civil liberties?
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Governance & Civil Liberties
I found something which I wrote last year while staying in Singapore. It's more focused on goverance and the attitude which Singapore's government takes towards its citizens, but I think it can be applied in our discussion about civil liberties. I'll post my actual comments & further thoughts about this in a separate post in a bit...have a read in the meantime. Note, however, that I haven't cleaned this up so parts may not make the most sense :)
Originally written Monday August 26th, 2002.
I've been in Singapore now for almost three weeks. The previous times I've been here I had already developed an impression of the amount of freedom one has while living here. More accurately, I should say I had developed an impression of the restrictions on freedom in this city-state. This trip to Singapore has been my longest and I've been able to learn quite a bit more about what Singaporeans themselves think of their personal rights. And more interestingly, I've gotten a better understanding of how the government wants its people to behave. I say behave for a reason - I get the impression that the govt here thinks of its citizens as children who need to be taught right from wrong and reminded of their roles and responsibilities.
Before this trip, I had really thought of the Singaporean govt's approach to governance as very heavy-handed. That impression comes mainly from my knowledge about strict laws here. What should you avoid doing here? Distribute chewing gum. Spray graffitti. Throw cigarette butts on the ground. Have anything to do with illicit drug. It's become a joke here. Doing any of the above will get you a stiff fine or even death (get caught with even the smallest amount of pot and you're more than likly going to get death). I think most people know about these strict laws though.
On my previous trip here, I learned that the government wanted to enfore racial integration. In some odd ways. If you want to buy an apartment flat in a building that has "too many" other residents of the same race as you, you will most likely not be able to buy that flat. Why? The government wants to see more racial harmony. And the best way to get that harmony is to enforce a more integrated society. Good goal. But the way to get there doesn't sit well with me.
This most recent trip I've been able to hear a lot more about the relationship between the govt and the people. I arrived here on Singapore's National Day - the day Singapore separated from Malaysia. The ensuing two weeks have been filled with a "debate" about what it means to be a good Singaporean. The reason I put debate in quotes is simple - it seems more like a lecture a parent would give to a child. Sure there have been opposing viewpoints, but in the end, nobody really descents from the majority viewpoint. Those that have done so in the past are now risking jail time. Oh, but this is a democracy...
Case in point - Speaker's Corner here in Singapore is the only spot in the country where you can make a speech without a permit. Even then, you still have to record your name and contact information with the local authorities. Even then, you still cannot say a word about race or religion. So what if you do really speak your mind? Go to jail. Earlier this year, a man, Chee Soon Juan, went to Speaker's Corner and questioned the government ban on Islamic headscarves in pbulic schools. He kept talking despite several police warnings and is now charged with 'providing public entertainment without a license'.
Getting back to the debate about being a good Singaporean...the prime minister gave a National Day speech here calling all citizens to put themselves in one of two categories: Stayers or Quitters. He basically said that those who will leave at the sign of a storm are fairweather citizens and not good Singaporeans. His point was that people should brace themselves and fight through tough times. Now that's a great idea and its certainly commendable for people to tough it out. But harping on people who leave for other climes?
Every week, there is a TV program where a former politician sits down with a dozen or so high school and college students to discuss various issues. They mainly come down to what good Singaporeans should do. If it's a discussion about NeWater (drinking water purified from waste and industrial water meant to reduce Singapore's need for imported water), the talk boils down to the fact that good Singaporeans should welcome this water because it will mean a better life for everyone.
My point here isn't that the people of Singapore should revolt against the overly harsh laws (well, maybe they should). It is more about the relationship between the people and their government. As I mentioned before, this is a democracy...but really, it's a parent defining right from wrong. A good Singaporean should follow all the laws and see that however unjust something may seem, it's really meant to keep things "free and easy" for the rest of society. And a good Singaporean should agree with the governments idea of a "perfect" society and do everything possible to fit into that society. Since when does a government define right and wrong for its people? Since when does a government defines roles for its people? Shouldn't it be the other way around? With the people at the helm?
I'll discuss the flip-side of this equation at a later date: The responsibilities of the populus. Granted a government should not take such control of its people, but the people have many responsibilities which go beyond electing their leaders.
As a side note...What it really seems like here is that people are just too content with what they have and they'll accept things they way they are because life is made easier for them. Well, "ease of life" is the impression given to everyone. (I'm sure I'll write about how easy life is here in Singapore another day). People are too busy fiddling with their cell phones to care about the real costs of living in Singapore...be it one's right to free speech or one's ability to improve their lot in life. Suffice it to say that neither can be taken for granted here.
So how can this apply to people who don't live in Singapore? Well, think of Singapore as governance taken to an extreme. Politicians have taken such care to create a "perfect" society that it's almost unreal and unbelievable. Government is not about a parent and child. It's about representation to benefit society as a whole. Luckily Singaporean politicians seem to do things they think will be better for everyone in society. There are many politicians (including India's) that do things to satisfy themselves and beat down those they see as opposition - clearly not for the betterment of society. No doubt, Singapore is not the only place where this takes place. It is only an obvious examples because of the heavy-handed approach the government takes and its complete control of all media. Look at other places in the world. Think about how your own government works and treats its people.
I know that when I go back to the States, I'll think of the US government in a different way. I'll be thinking about who should be deciding what is best for society. I'll be thinking about how government can be mis-used in a short-sighted means to create a modern Walden. I'll be thinking about the extremes to which current and proposed laws can be taken. I'm sure I'll still take many freedoms for granted, but one more critical eye on "the plan" can't hurt. I encourage you all to give it a thought. Look at the relationship people around the world have with their government. Look at your relationship with your government. Most of all, speak up when that relationship isn't in balance. It's the only way we can ensure a free and just society.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Civil Liberties..... hmmm....
I can write something quite superficial like the Patriot Act in the US and POTA (http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/actandordinances/POTA.htm) in India are just examples of how a certain political class wants to pay lip-service to democracy. They do all these shananagens in the name of "security". Of course, they trampled upon one of the most fundamental human rights - the right to express oneself without fear of retribution.
When idelogues seize power they want to maintain it. They seek tools to do that. The most foolproof and sophisticated way to do that is by enacting laws that superficialy exude logic but beneath the surface promote a certain ideology. POTA or the PATRIOT ACT basically try to promote fear. Because their authors are in power today primarily because they are good at creating fear in people's minds.
I think we need to broaden the question here a little. Rather than just talk of civil liberties we probably need to understand who is undermining them and why? The left hates it when the right expresses itself. The leftists find the right mean, irrational and illogical. The right feels the same way about the left. In general, in life we come across people who we vehemently disagree with and people whose "utterances" we cannot stand... BUT... democracy is a sobering concept. It teaches us to not just tolerate others but to respect them as well. In respecting my ideological opponent's right to expression I am actually preserving mine.
The discussion with civil liberties will have to encompass some larger issues. If limited to library records or video rentals it won't move a whole of people. Don't get me wrong these are very potent methods to get people involved.. BUT.. not sufficient. We have to take these so-called proponents of democracy to task and ASK them to respect it first!
Monday, November 10, 2003
Concrete method
I like what you've responded with. It narrows down the methodology and provides activists with some concrete examples of ways in which to get their point across. Of course, you've oversimplified my own question about "desire", but it's all good.
Let's change the subject a bit, to something which is still "undeniable", but seems to get hit from all sides of late: Civil Liberties.
Al Gore had a firey speech yesterday critical of President Bush and the USA PATRIOT Act. Let's leave aside the change in nature of Gore from robot to fire brand [...:-)...] and instead look at the fine line between increasing security and treading on inalienable rights. While the challenge in America is about finding the line and how close we should tread on it, I would suspect that in other parts of the world it's not even a question of civil liberties.
Before I go on too far, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
Saturday, November 08, 2003
It May be... but it's NOT Done!
I think you've oversimplified my response. Providing meaningful alternatives is quite a specific step compared to a "desire" to please everyone, which your posting is talking about.
There are two things that I must make clear. One, the idea of alternative institutions/solutions and second, what can be done today. When during WW-2 Hitler was intent upon making Denmark a satellite state to support the war effort the Danes rose up. And one of their methods of facilitating their non-violent resistance was to establish a comprehensive underground press. This press was the major reason that the Danes were able to non-violently co-ordinate their response to Nazism and save many upon many Danish Jews. So, they created an alternative institution. In the Danish case it was a media institution. Similarly, during the Indian freedom movement schools were created for all those students whom Indian leaders had urged to walk out of British run colleges and universities. As you can see can see an alternative institution made these young men and women feel that they weren't throwing away their lives. In similar fashion today this means two things -
a) provide alternatives to people who are ready to jump into a movement
b) provide alternative solutions to the third party (beneficiaries) to encourage them to join you. In the Narmada case that would be specifically to research and lay out an alternative water-management plan. Now, that may not be completely possible for citizens BUT a serious movement will take their efforts to the maximum limit their resources can take them to. Such efforts show to the beneficiaries the sincerity of the transformers even if they do not provide absolutely complete solutions.
Now, let's talk about WHAT alternatives (institutions/solutions) will help us today to achieve goals that are relatively less black/white to the larger population. Here our creativitiy will be tested. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said that visionaries see things 10-20 years down the road whereas the citizenry at large can barely look beyond a month or at the most a year. So, to make the citizenry at large to see what visionaries see... visionaries have to DRAMATIZE the situation. This comes from creative methods. In case of the Civil Rights movement it came through lunch counter sit-ins, through bus-rides testing anti-segregation laws, through voter-registration campaigns and many more methods that galvanized the population. We need to dramatize the situation!
Yesterday on a satellite TV channel I saw a documentary on the current situation in Kabul. The Northern Alliance men where whipping and kicking women in burqas. If we are interested in human rights then we should acquire that tape and send it to media orgs, play it in our communities and show people that look who the US govt is cooperating with. We can expose the administration's terribly short-sighted foreign policy in our name!
In conclusion, we have to frame questions that can be answered. It may be that a set of questions end up expressing our challenge at hand and our insistence on one "unified theory" to find a general solution may not be beneficial. Incremental progress is the way to go. I would suggest that you provide specific human rights issues to which we can then provide specific solutions. Only through that process that we may arrive at general solutions.
Friday, November 07, 2003
It's Obvious
What you're saying is quite central and undeniable to the Gandhian methodology, or any method for that matter; True success can only come if you bring all parties to the table and consider everyone's benefits & losses. But my central concern remains: How is this really possible today? Moreover, how do you do it when you don't have a goal which is so obviously "right" like universal civil rights?
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives....
It will be very un-Gandhian to ask the beneficiaries to simply let go without providing them with alternatives. The way to get the Gujaratis on-board may be to research and show them alternative methods of meeting their needs that are not as offensive as the Narmada project is. Non-violence has to provide a holistic solution for it to make any sense. It can never flourish based on a deluded sense of self-righteousness divorced from realities. All parties need a solution to their water problem. What we must say is that a) Narmada isn't that solution and b) here are solutions X,Y and Z. Alternative solutions/institutions actually form a very fundamental basis of non-violent transformation. The transformer MUST address this question before launching a campaign.
Overwhelming Conviction
I like your points about the Transformer needing to see the situation from both (or many) sides. The onus is definitely on them to do so. While I agree on the need to use methods which Gandhi & MLK did, I have problems in seeing how one can truly implement such things in situations where such overwhelming conviction and "rightness" does not exist or is very difficult to explain.
I mean, only people who sit isolated in their coccoons could deny the benefits of Indian self-rule or civil rights for all. To take the Narmada example, it's clear that people can realistically not agree to the logic of a transformer's argument, because they see the logic in their own argument. I'd love to be able to go to the Gujaratis who will benefit from the dam and try to show them why other methods of water harvesting should be used, but the reality is that they have families to feed and livelihoods to maintain. When you're dirt poor, it's hard to show the logic of an argument which requires a longer-term approach to things.
Narmada provides narrow benefits in the here and now. Other solutions provide wider benefits in the much longer term. How do you provide that overwhelming conviction necessary for families to forgoe needed benefits in the here and now and work towards more distant changes which will benefit a wider swath of the population?
I should mention, that I'm against the building of the Narmada, but I'm trying to feel the realities which these people are facing and how tough it really is "on the ground" to change the way people think. While I firmly believe in the Gandhian method for change, I have great doubts about how it could be applied today.
Your thoughts?
Statistical Illusions and Delusions
The Hegellian principle of doing things that generated the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people is a great goal to strive for. But this argument assumes that statistical support for a cause alone makes that cause worthy of being pursued trumpeting any moral, humanitarian, environmental and scientific considerations. The MPs stand on Narmada falls in this category.
He is absolutely right in one thing - the case against the dam has not been made for the minority that may benefit from it. They have not been told that the overall cost of this project will be enormous from environmental and human perspectives. Or the way they have been told has only alienated them and forced them to take increasingly more recalcitrant positions.
A critical component of the Gandhian method of Non-Violent Transformation is that the other side's perspective be objectively studied and then the other side be made to see the utility of the campaign one is engaged in. First, through negotiations and then through direct action if the former fails. In both cases the goal is not just to convince the other side that what you are suggesting doesn't just pertain to what you may get out of it BUT also what the other side may get out of it too. That's the way we can take everybody together in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
Now, coming to the question of bulding a "mass movement". There are almost always three sides in a conflict -
- The preservationist (P), who wants to preserve the current order and supports policies that sustain it
- The transformer (T), who wants to change the current order bringing him/her in direct conflict with the preservationist
- The "third party" (TP), who is affected by the current system but has accepted it although it would like to see change... but that desire has somewhat succumbed to "reality"
The onus is on the T. He/She has to get everybody on board. The T has to understand issues from the perspectives of the P and the TP. Only then will the T be able to evolve a strategy that indeed gets everybody on board. In case of the Narmada situation the TP is divided into 2 further parts - the beneficiaries (Gujarat) and the victims (Madhya Pradesh + Maharashtra tribals). Our dear friends in the Narmada movement have made the victims an integral part of the movement, which is the pre-requisite of the movement to be meaningful. And they have done a remarkable job in doing that. But they have not communicated with the beneficiaries. They have indeed communicated with the representatives of the beneficiaries but not with their consitituents directly. I think that is the force that is lacking to compel the political establishment to respond.
One major aspect of the Indian freedom struggle under Gandhi was that in addition to opposing British rule it was important for the British people to see the injustice and inhumanity that accompanied the colonization of India. Martin Luther King, Jr. appealed to the white community in the South in a similar way. Through his non-violence he was able to expose the inhumanity of the racists and won over the white populace.
I hate to say that even though the MP has a sense self-assured objectivity and that the dimensions of his thought may have a much larger degree of freedom compared to others I believe his thinking is still tainted with realpolitik, which invariably is a hinderance. Great leadership does require diplomacy and compromise. No question. But it does require telling fellow citizens that their actions and ideas may be wrong. That is what separates the great from the good.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
I should add...
I forgot to mention, that in the case of Narmada, the MP may well have been mis-informed with respect to the people who support the dam and those who do not. Regardless, the concept still remains clear...everyone should be involved in the crafting of the solution, but how do gain that involvement and buy-in?
So then....
How do you involve the masses in a movement for change? Moreover, how do you ensure that this movement encompasses a wide variety of the populus?
The reason I ask the latter question is because of what I've learned about the Narmada Bachao movement. From the perspectives I've gained here in the US, it seems like there is quite a movement to stop the building of this dam for various reasons. I was always perplexed at how the political system could be ignoring these noble efforts. An interesting viewpoint was given to me by a Member of the Indian Parliament.
From his perspective, he saw the logic in the activists' work and why they believed the damn should be stopped, but his main concern was with respect to the nature of the mass movement. He saw a great number of people living downstream of the dam who were in support of stopping the dam project. But he saw hardly anyone living upstream of the dam who oppose the building of the dam. In short, he was saying that the people who would receive immediate benefits of the dam - water - had not bought into the idea of the longer term benefits of building smaller damns or of water harvesting. He was pointing out that what could be considered to be a mass movement is leaving out half of the puzzle and could also spend some more effort into looking for viable alternatives for everybody affected by the dam.
So besides just working towards mass action and ownership within the populus, you have to ensure that you've brought all possible parties into the fray to either buy-in to your arguments or to help you form a better argument. Afterall, what may be good for one population may be bad for another (in either the short or long term). If you hope to include both sides in your movement, you need to ensure everyone believes in the viability of the solution you propose either through collaboration or through demonstration. That is one of the key social realities of politics...political action needs to have buy-in from the majority otherwise you won't get re-elected. We, of course, have to hope for buy-in via demonstration of the benefits rather than through bullying or money, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Ball's in your court...
Yet Another Model
It is not fair to pass judgement on Mr. Le Grand's book without reading it but based on the review in the Economist some rudimentary thoughts can indeed be constructed.
The leftist approach, in my analysis, has good "intentions" but the elitism (intellectual) in its proponents takes it away from pragmatism. But then again the left is not a monolithic structure. It displays many shades. One of the shades could very well be termed, as Mr. Le Grande does - "quasi-market" oriented. That's in a nutshell the Bill Clinton way, the Blair way .. or in general THE THIRD WAY. Globalization in the literal sense quashes many isolationist/protectionist modes of leftist thinking. It also springs rather unpleasant surprises on the right as well. Finally the right has to contend with the domestic effects of "free market" policies - outsourcing, job losses and so on.
Considering all that I have said above Mr. Le Grande is like us... attempting to come up with a system that solves, if not all, most problems. Trying to keep everyone somewhat happy. The happy middle. The problem is that such models don't answer fundamental questions but are rather trying to adapt to the chaning times. They are not creative or proactive but rather reactive in nature. That is where such modeling is doomed to fail.
What should any new system strive for? What are the current systems lacking that any new one would provide? Who will decide this new system? Where do democracy and human rights fit into the new system? Can we really continue to develop economic and political models in isolation from social realities? Any new theory for systemic change MUST address these questions. It MUST have a basis in MASS ACTION and OWNERSHIP. Sustainability MUST be one of the main goals of a new endeavor seeking to reconcile the various intellectual strands of thought that are strewn across the vast plane of political thought.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Excellence in Public Services
The Economist has published a review of an interesting study, "Motivation, Agency and Public Policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens" about public services and the balance between altruism and self-interest.
The issue of how best to serve the public rears its head in every society in forms such as school vouchers & nationalized industries. While I haven't yet read this study, it seems interesting in that it has laid down a economic structure on this question of what's best for society. What's even more interesting, it seems to do more than simply treat humans as numbers. As The Economist states:
The left's distaste for mixing markets and public services springs partly from two deep-rooted ideas. One is that governments and their officials, when acting as providers, do what they think is good for society, not what they think is good for themselves: as Mr Le Grand puts it, the left assumes that providers are "knights" not "knaves". Second, the left sees recipients of public services as having no scope for action on their own initiative. Citizens act as they do because of the economic environment into which society has put them. As consumers of public services, they are passive beneficiaries: "pawns" not "queens".
Mr Le Grand argues that these beliefs are not only wrong but also anti-egalitarian. He shares the left's concern about the inequalities that arise in ordinary markets, but this issue is not to the fore in the quasi-markets he concentrates on. Governments often pay for universal access to public services such as schools. The question in such cases is whether those public services - which may well matter more to the poor, who lack alternatives, than to the rich - are any good. The point is that properly designed quasi-markets improve quality and value for money.
One of the things I've found distressing the lack of concentration on the mesh between hard numbers and actual humans, especially when it comes to economic studies. When put in a vacuum, it can be easy to come up with econmic logic to implement certain policies, but the real struggle comes when you try to place such policies into the real world. As with everything, this is about finding a balance. This study seems to be clear on the fact that people can be acting both in self-interest as well as public-interest. It also seems to look for a balance between a totally free market and a quasi-market where there is indeed some public-interest watchdog trying to ensure that as a whole, the public is being served as best possible.
With respect to school vouchers, it's a tough question. The whole idea behind vouchers is to provide parents a choice for their childrens' education and to provide incentive for schools to improve. In a vacuum, such a policy isn't hard to agree with, but when looking at real-world implementation you run into various issues. How is public school improvement measured? How can public school improve if they lose funding up-front when parents send their children elsewhere? What about parents who want to send their kids elsewhere but can't afford to pay the difference between the voucher value and the price of admission at a private school.
These types of questions have long haunted policy makers. Perhaps this study will provide a basis for more inspection into regulated markets where the public can feel confident in the implementation and not just in the idea. Thoughts?
Why Now?
Throughout the years, we've had private online discussions regarding current events, their relationship to economics & politics, and how this all would affect the daily lives of millions of people. This blog is our attempt at capturing these thoughts and, hopefully, coming up with a better understanding of how politics and economics are interconnected and how they affect society as a whole. While we may focus on specific events or issues, we've always tried to "zoom out" to get a better feel for how other things may be affected.
We hope this blog to set itself apart by its collaborative nature. It's not a place just to post comments on the latest happenings, it's a place where we hope to build upon each other's ideas. Let's see where this takes us!
here we are....
so, here we are at the start of our journey that will hopefully lead to ever more optimal economic-political systems that let us all aspire in social harmony...
