Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Great charts from The Economist
Friday, April 20, 2012
Links for April 20, 2012
China's economic development has a potential demography problem
Over the past 30 years, China’s total fertility rate....has fallen from 2.6, well above the rate needed to hold a population steady, to 1.56, well below that rate...... Because very low fertility can become self-reinforcing, with children of one-child families wanting only one child themselves, China now probably faces a long period of ultra-low fertility, regardless of what happens to its one-child policy.......Shanghai reported fertility of just 0.6 in 2010—probably the lowest level anywhere in the world. According to the UN’s population division, the nationwide fertility rate will continue to decline, reaching 1.51 in 2015-20........Scotland is voting for independence from the UK in 2014. Is it a good idea?
The political and cultural issues around independence are hotly debated. Yet fittingly, in the birthplace of Adam Smith economic arguments seem to weigh heaviest. Opinion polls suggest that they will determine whether or not Scots go for independence. One poll found that just 21% of Scots would favour independence if it would leave them £500 ($795) a year worse off, and only 24% would vote to stay in the union even if they would be less well off sticking with Britain. Almost everyone else would vote for independence if it brought in roughly enough money to buy a new iPad, and against it if not.Massive corruption in the Chinese military
...."Certain individuals exchange public money, public goods, public office and public affairs for personal gain, flouting the law and party codes of conduct, even resorting to verbal abuse and threats, clandestine plots and set ups," he said. "They physically attack loyal and upstanding officials, kidnap and blackmail party leaders, and drag in their superiors to act as human shields. They deploy all of the tricks of the mafia trade within the army itself." The way Liu describes it, the web of military cliques, factions, and internal knots of organized crime sounds more like the workings of warlord armies before the communist revolution than the rapidly modernizing force that is currently rattling China's neighbors.Open border between India and Nepal is a cause of concern: Akhilesh Yadav, the newly elected Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
....the newly-elected UP CM said the 550km-long border with the state requires special policing arrangement to put a check on any possible anti-national activity....
Labels: border, china, corruption, economy, India, scotland
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Development and Politics in Nepal
I had an article in Republica today. The direct link is here. The unedited version is below.
Development
and Politics in Nepal
The problem with developmental process in Nepal is this: it is mired in
politics. We in Nepal, involved in the developmental processes, have a hard
time realizing the fact that development should be an apolitical process. If we
wish to succeed, we need to separate the politics from the developmental
process. However, there is a noticeable feeling in the Nepali development community
that in order to achieve true and effective development in Nepal, the
bureaucratic and the political actors need to get involved in any and all
development processes. That, I think, is a fallacy that we continue to suffer
from to this day.
Development activities in Nepal will not succeed if the targeted group
knows that political actors are involved in the process—either as facilitators
or as decision makers. This is because the Nepali public has a genuine distrust
and loathing towards politics and politicians. And, this is where many
development organizations in Nepal have gone wrong. They have clearly been
affected by the political process and actors. Many openly cavort to those in
the political spectrum while at the same time claiming to be apolitical and
non-partisan to their core customers. When the public discovers this, it views
it as a charade and a façade. This negative vibe in the public, then, hinders
the effect and influence of such organizations. As a result, the desired
outcomes do not occur, and the developmental activities become ineffective and
a failure. This has become a common storyline among donor funded agencies
operating in Nepal today.
Now, it would be unfair to put 100 percent of the blame on these organizations
for this inability to separate the politics from development. I guess cavorting
and cohorting with politics is a survival strategy. Without active support and
participation of political parties and actors, these programs face greater
difficulty succeeding in Nepal regardless of the strength and/or capacity of
the program or the organization running that program. These organizations have
come to the brutal realization that in order to succeed in Nepal, the political
“connection” is a must. And, so, they do in Rome what Romans do: establish and
enhance political connections.
Unstable politics and government in Nepal is one reason why these
organizations cavort to the politicians. We have lost count of how many prime
ministers we have had since the democracy in 1990. We have lost count of how
many governments we have had. The constantly changing political and
governmental landscape makes it difficult for development organizations in
Nepal to carry on their activities if they do not establish political influence
and links. Therefore, the political connection and hobnobbing continues today while
claiming to be apolitical to the public, potential donors and funders.
The claim of being apolitical has been nothing but a tactic to provide
refuge and a safe working environment for their workers who work with the
public day in and day out all over Nepal. The hobnobbing with the politicians
has been nothing but a tactic to provide a safe bureaucratic and political
environment for continued presence in this country.
While it is understandable that these organizations have had to cater
to the masses as well as to those in the political spectrum for their existence
and continued work, it is also true that their political relationships diminish
their essence. Although they do not wish to acknowledge, it cannot be denied
that their increasing connection with those in politics has contributed to increased
corruption and abuses of power in Nepal. The closer ties of our politicians
with these organizations enable the politicians to think that their
interaction, participation and influence on these organizations will blanket
them from any or all criticisms. The development organizations in Nepal are
making their own work difficult by providing this sort of sense of security to
our political actors. Can we deny the fact that free money that the Maoist
party kept getting from various foreign donors, in one way or another, helped
develop the thuggish wing of the party? That is, but, only one example. The
hobnobbing has hindered political accountability.
Marina Liborakina, a Russian activist, once said, “As citizens, we are
responsible for how we are governed. The main issue is…to broaden citizens’
participation…especially in decision-making on crucial issues of security,
peace and military”. However, in today’s Nepal, this has not been possible. Activists
have a difficult time fulfilling their responsibilities because the kind of
support they expect from various organizations is lacking. And, the reason it
is lacking is because those involved in the developmental process in this
country have not separated themselves from politics.
Labels: development, politics
Monday, April 9, 2012
Evolution of languages
I had an article published yesterday in The Kathmandu Post on the evolution of languages. The direct link to Kathmandu Post article is here with the edited title "Evolving everyday".
Evolution of
a language
Last week, I was in Boudha, in a clothing store. Two girls entered the
shop, and started checking out discounted jackets while talking to each other.
I kept looking in their direction with fascination. These girls were talking in
a mix of Nepali-English-Tibetan with occasional Hindi thrown in while talking
to the Madhesi shopkeeper. Only in a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual country like
Nepal would scenes like that even be possible.
Purists hate it when people mix
languages to create something new. English language scholars in the United
Kingdom keep fuming over Hinglish that
has been introduced by immigrants from South Asia. For these critics, the worst
news is that the other segment of the population seems to have embraced Hinglish
easily. The BBC has reported that badmash
and timepass have replaced their
English counterparts in everyday speech in the UK these days. Non-South Asian
children in the UK have started using the word katti to their friends with a thumb on their chins, indicating that
they’re no longer friends. “Isn’t it?” has simply been replaced with “no?” in
the typical South Asian way.
While English language puritans
in the UK are irritated due to the rise of Hinglish, they need not worry about
the demise of their traditional language. Since English is spoken by a huge
proportion of the people in this planet, traditional English will survive
another thousand years. However, it is not the same with German. According to
German language puritans, the language mixing phenomenon has endangered the
survival of the German language.
The Economist has reported the
rise of a new urban language, Kiezdeutsch,
has irritated German language purists. It fuses German, English, Turkish,
Arabic and other languages to create a melting pot of languages. To understand
it, one would have to live in Germany’s multi-lingual urban communities. German
kids these days use words like musstu (mix
of English words “must” and “you”), lan (Turkish
word for “dude”), and yalla (Arabic
for “come on”) that has the puritans in fits.
I remember myself, during my
high-school days, noticing that for those of us who came from outside the
valley, it was strange to see our classmates from the valley use so many
English words in a Nepali sentence. Conversely, our classmates from the valley
felt that those from western Nepal talked too
politely, and those from eastern Nepal talked too flamboyantly. They could not understand why those from
Biratnagar frequently used made-up words like aanch (meaning “wow”) and not-so-made-up phrases like baal chhaina (meaning “don’t care”) in
our sentences.
I think what the purists forget
in the language discussions is the fact that the world today is a lot different
than the one where they grew up. It is one thing to reminisce the language they
learnt and another to be practical about the evolution of language. They should
realize that the English they call “traditional” is actually radically
different from the English used by, say, William Shakespeare.
When Shakespeare was churning out
literary classics, he was also churning out “made-up” words—words that did not
exist at that time and place. Today, we cannot imagine an English language
without Shakespeare-invented words like assassinate, luggage, blanket, dawn,
arouse, cake, champion, and many others. English language purists during
Shakespeare’s time would have grinded a lot of gears hating Shakespeare for
inventing new words. Oh, and just in case the critics today do not know, the
word “critic” itself was invented by Shakespeare.
Language is like a landscape.
Passage of time through history constantly changes it. It constantly evolves.
There are hundreds of words in English that have become extinct because they
are no longer relevant or have been replaced by easier and better words.
Similarly, the English language, in its true global nature, keeps embracing new
and better words from other languages. Words like guru and pundit have been
borrowed from Sanskrit (the oldest living language), and popularized by English
(the most dynamic and evolving language).
Therefore, critics of Hinglish or Kiezdeutsch need not worry. English and German languages are
evolving according to time just like all other languages around the world,
including our very own Nepali language. The real reason to worry would have
been if these languages were not constantly evolving.
We should realize that all
languages were “invented” by different groups of people living in different
parts of the world. They were invented as means
of communication, and there is no doubt that they have proven to be
effective means through the ages. So, when language puritans argue about preservation,
they argue as if the languages in their current form are the “end” result.
They’re not. Languages are still a “means” to communicate, and not the “end” of
communication. Therefore, by their very nature, they need to evolve through time.
Bringing this matter closer to
home, there is an ongoing debate in Nepal today regarding preservation of ethnic
languages. The Rai community wants to preserve their language, but cannot
decide which version to preserve. There are at least a dozen different dialects
of the “Rai language”. I have a Rai colleague whose parents are both Rai.
However, they speak different dialects of the same Rai language. As a result,
they resort to talking in Nepali to understand one another. The same is true of
Nepali, as well. Nepali spoken in the far-west is much different than that spoken
in the east and center.
Since “communication” is the main
purpose of a language, if a language that is better at communicating evolves,
it replaces the older languages. We have seen that happen in South Asia where
Sanskrit is on the verge of being extinct as a spoken language. Our languages
served us well when we were living as isolated tribes. But, the world has grown
smaller now. Therefore, just like in biological evolution, only the strongest
and the fittest will survive. Sadly, this means that languages spoken by huge
majorities will survive, leaving thousands of beautiful languages spoken by
smaller minorities around the world to become extinct.
Labels: English, German, Hinglish, Kathmandu Post, Keizdeutsch, language
Friday, April 6, 2012
Do we need inflation for economic growth? Yes
Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times:
Fundamentally, the right wants the Fed to obsess over inflation, when the truth is that we’d be better off if the Fed paid less attention to inflation and more attention to unemployment. Indeed, a bit more inflation would be a good thing, not a bad thing.This past December, I wrote an article in Republica about the International Monetary Fund arguing that their rigid stance on controlling inflation is not a productive stance. I wrote:
[...] no matter what the cause of any macroeconomic problem in a country in any corner of the world, the IMF’s most common solution is to ask countries to reduce inflation. The Fund has to realize that all diseases do not have the same cure. Macroeconomic conditions and problems in different countries are diverse and varied. For an organization that boasts of many eminent scholars, researchers and bureaucrats, the IMF’s repeated inflationary stance makes it look like a one-trick pony.Krugman goes on to write in his column:
Reducing inflation does not solve all systemic macroeconomic problems. You need inflation to achieve economic growth. If inflation really hampered macroeconomic stability and economic growth to the extent that the IMF policymakers think, why are high inflation countries like India, China, and Bangladesh achieving almost double digit economic growth while low inflation countries in Europe along with Japan and the United States growing below 3 percent?
Now, the Fed has, by law, a dual mandate: It’s supposed to be concerned with full employment as well as price stability. And while we more or less have price stability by the Fed’s definition, we’re nowhere near full employment. So this says that the Fed is doing too little, not too much. Indeed, some Fed officials — notably Charles Evans, the president of the Chicago Fed — have tried to make exactly that case.
To be sure, more aggressive Fed policies to fight unemployment might lead to inflation above that 2 percent target. But remember that dual mandate: If the Fed refuses to take even the slightest risk on the inflation front, despite a disastrous performance on the employment front, it’s violating its own charter. And, beyond that, would a rise in inflation to 3 percent or even 4 percent be a terrible thing? On the contrary, it would almost surely help the economy.Krugman feels that the rise in inflation is not always bad thing, and that a "good" increase in inflation today would actually be beneficial to the American economy because:
[...] large parts of the private sector continue to be crippled by the overhang of debt accumulated during the bubble years [...] modest inflation would, however, reduce that overhang — by eroding the real value of that debt — and help promote the private-sector recovery we need. Meanwhile, other parts of the private sector (like much of corporate America) are sitting on large hoards of cash; the prospect of moderate inflation would make letting the cash just sit there less attractive, acting as a spur to investment — again, helping to promote overall recovery.
Labels: IMF, inflation, krugman, paul
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Does this mean Russians and Israelis are pompous?
The following chart from The Economist is quite interesting. As I understand, the chart suggests that the Swedish and the Norwegians are the most "humble"?
Labels: perception, poor, rich
Monday, April 2, 2012
America's tax gap, Russia's GDP, world's poor
All charts are from different articles in The Economist (www.economist.com). If you're getting this in email, please visit my blog to see the chart images.
Labels: america, poverty, russia, usa
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
