de-constructing

de-constructing: De-constructing Ricardian

2006-06-25T04:26:00.001+05:30

de-constructing: De-constructing Ricardian

de-constructing: BLOG OR WRITE?

2006-06-25T04:26:00.000+05:30

de-constructing: BLOG OR WRITE?

de-constructing: Yes, France Will Win!

2006-06-25T04:25:00.000+05:30

de-constructing: Yes, France Will Win!

de-constructing

2006-06-25T04:24:00.000+05:30

de-constructing

HELP NEEDED!!!

2006-06-05T21:47:00.000+05:30

Urgent!

As on 4th June 2006, 24,225 people died of poverty.

This piece of information is being delivered on the web via the site, www.povertyticker.com

Beyond letting the users download a screensaver/ticker, unfortunately the website is silent on any other information required.

I am trying more as to how, who, and on what basis is this website run. What parametres are being taken into account when one decides that an individual died of poverty? Questions like these and more are buzzing in my mind, and it would be of help if any one of you reading this can also help me in finding more about the website.

The website is "not" being run by UNDP. I e-mailed to their office and one of their representative (in Brazil) says that it is "definitely not an UNDP initiative".

I did personally e-mail some of my "socially conscious" journalist friends. But guess since most of them, rather all of them, are occupied with some other priorities, I failed to evoke a reply.

Whether the website development is grotesque or good is debatable and the point will be discussed in another post.

Hope this works.

Yes, France Will Win!

2006-06-01T16:46:00.000+05:30

Much to the chagrin of non- French and to the disdain of all soccer enthusiasts, I believe that France, will be the winners at this year's world football championship in Germany.

This I believe is because it's clear for all to see. After all, they are among the top favourites. Has there ever been a world champion that was not among the top favourites? No, never.

But that's not all. The team has an ideal number of players: eleven. That is nether too many, nor too few. Personally I'd have nothing against ten players more. But as it is not allowed to play with ten, unless the person overseeing the play on the field forces one team to go ahead with it, so be it. French will win with eleven. Even if one of them is an old man called Zidane.

The ball used at this World Championships will be spherical in shape. That is a very decisive advantage for the winners at France'98, because it is learnt from Ministry level sources that the team has been secretly been training the players for months with just this kind of ball. Even the bald Zidane has got used to kicking it around, and he can do things with it that are going to amaze more than a few people.

A football pitch is comprised of a lawn. The French know this type of grass very well, because it grows abundantly in their latitude (plant in March then water regularly). The French media informs that even Zidane grows it in the gardens surrounding his manor.

On top of that, a game lasts 90 minutes. For a Frenchman that's nothing: they eat for two hours at breakfast, three in the evening and four at lunch. Zidane eats the whole time.

And finally, "football" is a typical French word deriving from the English "foot" and the English "ball". But "foot" is in fact much more French than English, because the French are the only people who call running "footing".

And no apologies even if any French fan's sentiments were hurt. Would be wonderful, if this could start a new wave of street protests or media uproar!

Is Sub-continet Near A Nuclear Flash point?

2006-05-02T23:09:00.000+05:30

For all the talk about technology and globalization, basic governance remains a huge challenge for many states. And to the chagrin of champions of economic liberalisation, free-market economics and propogators of democracy, the recent survey of the phenomenon of state instability by the Fund for Peace, an independent research organization, would not be good reading.

With nuclear neighbour in Pakistan standing tall at 9th position, Burma at 18th, followed by Bangladesh and Nepal at 19 and 20th places respectively, it makes the policy wonks at Delhi jittery and a billion-strong country worried. And when the southern most neighbouring country, Sri Lanka too occupying a not-too comforting place (25th), one cannot hope for things going any worse. And the infamous club is finally joined by Bhutan (at 39th) and surprisingly, by China, which is at 57th position.

India is ranked at 93rd place in the total of 146 countries tabulated in the survey. As expected, Norway, Finland and Sweden are the safest while Sudan seems to be the most vulnerable, as it tops the list of failed states index for 2005. Democratic Republic of Congo and Cote d'Ivore are the other two African nations at 2nd and 3rd places, leaving the volatile Iraq to be contend with 4th rank. Robert Mugabe tries his best to take Zimbabwe to 5th place, leaving Chad and Somalia at 6 and 7th place respectively.

USA and France take 128 and 129 places. Full list can be viewed at http://www.fundforpeace.org/programs/fsi/fsindex2006.php

So why is it a worrisome thing for India when six of the top ten and 11 of the 20 vulnerable nations belong to the African continent? By all standards, it is well known that the sub-continent is not the most peaceful of places. Experts might scoff by even saying that its North and South Korea which are sharing and occupying the most militarised places on earth.

But try De-constructing, as always, and I conclude that it is the Asian sub-continent which is more closer to a flash point with three nuclear armed states. Nuclear diplomacy might have proved to be a deterrent in the cold-war era but in times of rogue states and terrorist's firing all cylinders, we are not very far from a Chernobyl like disaster.

Intriguingly, the world should also realise that in spite of all the talk of world economy doing well and the two rising power houses ofthe new globe -China and India- it is still basic governance and more importantly, political stability,which will drive the future of states. In fact, China, the new found poster-boy of advocates of growth, witnessed more than 87,000 peasant strikes and protests over land seizures last year, as well as mounting corruption and unemployment.

Using 12 social, economic, political, and military indicators, the survey ranked 146 states in order of their vulnerability to violent internal conflict and societal dysfunction.

The category of a failed state has become part of the strategic vernacular, and it has many definitions. For the purposes of this index, a failing state is one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force.

Yes, so with our religion being not pessimism, our faith also should not be wavering too. Right?

Naah, i'm not i-Pod fan

2006-05-02T14:32:00.000+05:30

Yes i just cannot be always hooked on to my i-Pod.

When people ask why I don’t have an i-Pod or its ilk, I usually give the flip answer that I don’t fancy walking or driving around with plugs in my ears, thus reducing awareness of my surroundings (shouts of “fore”, car horns etc).

Friends say I am nuts, a techno-neanderthal or just old, all of which may be true. And I do understand these wonderful little machines can transform your car radio and home stereo, are easy to use and sound fabulous.

My resistance is mostly because of a singular obsession, the way I like listening to music. Hear something that grabs me and I’ll play it, to the exclusion of all else, until something else comes along. There is nothing “random” about it.

How can i be expected to sleep into my self constructed world when so much of activity is going around?

Passing Away Of A Great Economist

2006-05-01T08:10:00.000+05:30

One of the most respected economists of the last century, John Kenneth Galbraith died on Saturday of natural causes in a hospital in Cambridge, Mass. News inform that he was 97.

For the uninformed, John Galbraith was one of the most widely read authors in the history of economics; among his 33 books were "The Affluent Society" (where the economist writes as to how the consumer culture has gone wild and rich in goods but poor in the social services that make for community), "The Great Crash" (one among my favourites, where the revered author outlines the causes, repercussions of the 1929 US stock crash) and "American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power" (where John Galbraith debunks the myths about the free market economy).

Member of liberal school of economics, John Kenneth Galbraith was often viewed as the bellwether of the American institutionalist school of economics, commonly associated with Thorstein Veblen (another respected economist and author of brilliant book, "Theory of the Leisure Class" and his idea of conspicuous consumption).

A staunch supporter of issues like equitable distribution of wealth in society (as reflected in many of his writings), he advocated government intervention to solve these social problems.
A libran, this teacher, journalist, diplomat (He also served as the American ambassador to India in the early 1960s) and policy maker had a profound influence on an entire generation of economists, including our own Amartya Sen.

Galbraith was a Keynesian, inspired by the great British economist John Maynard Keynes, whose theories gained wide currency during the Great Depression. Keynesian economics argues for greater state intervention as it could smooth out the boom and bust cycles of capitalistic economies. This, debatable though, could be achieved by spending more to prime the economy and create jobs during bad times and raising taxes in boom times to build budget surpluses and check inflation. Ironically, Keynesian theory lost its gloss after the 1970s, when oil prices jumped (the Iranian revolution), and inflation jumped too, despite frantic state efforts to keep it under control.

And as expected, some of Galbraith's theories too lost its sheen and were discredited by the marketplace.Along with Paul A. Samuelson, Paul Krugman and Jagdish Bhagwati, John Kenneth Galbraith has helped non-economics students (like this writer) to break into the complex world of economics.

A social economist par-excellence. That is how John Kenneth Galbriath will always be remembered.

BLOG OR WRITE?

2006-04-30T08:13:00.000+05:30

Grazing food at my road-side cafe on a lazy weekend afternoon. That's how i can live my simple life without a moment of humdrum. Oh, before i proceed further, this is just one of the occasional ramblings i am going to proceed with.

Sitting around the cafe this afternoon, pondering the many ways in which technology has contrived to screw up my otherwise placid existence, the talk of my journalist friend turned to the art of writing.

My business journalist friend at Indian Express shoots off by saying that there's a case to be made that the internet has actually helped improve the quality of writing in general. I, for a moment, lean in close to see if any alcohol was present on my friend's breath. Detecting nothing beyond the usual halitosis, I surmised that he was being serious.

"Go ahead," I said, though i must confess i did not have an alternative either.

"Since the easy access and limitless nature of the web allow one to expose yourself to tons of writing, both good and bad, the average educated person will define the best from the worst", said my friend, ignoring his cold arabian coffee and chocolate brownie, kept at arms length from me.

In other words, he implied that a swine will gravitate toward good writing and, as a result, improve his own skills as he increases his knowledge. I, as always, expressed skepticism.

Why did i do that? Looking longingly at the almond-eyed feline dusky, twenty-two something behind my friend, i tried De-constructing it, and in a moment came up with an argument, which later made me feel good about myself.I realised that only a relative few in our post-literate society can tell good writing from bad, whether it's online or in print. Then what's the point?

I have always been advised in vain that if I dream of becoming a good writer, I should not just pen down a few words everyday but write more, day and night. More than that, I should read good writing every day. This can be accomplished on the internet as easily as it can by reading a book or magazine. But if you're the sort who prefers the venerable The Times of India (as some of my friends call it so) to, say, The Hindu (though again i do not think it to be good enough but so be it), well, again, what's the point?

So my riposte to the cub business reporter was that while the internet may be a nifty vehicle for delivering one's polished prose and penetrating insights to an impatiently waiting world, it can not in any way help one become a better writer.

Moreover, the internet leads to all sorts of unsavory writing practices, like blogging. You know, as some of my tech-savvy friends, to my horror, call it the 'journal of the 21st century'.

But i believe that blogging is not private, but very public. And very few blogs involve the kind of introspection that characterizes a serious journal. Most blogging is sheer exhibitionism, either the self-absorbed ramblings of an individual blogger (please excuse this one) or the corporate site that exists for the sole purpose of making money (again, please).

And also let's be fair and balanced like the BBC news. Of the 27 million blogs, only a handful are good enough to be read. Its like looking for a precious few needles in a mighty big haystack.

The parting dialogue from my side. Trying to surmise my friend's present favourite character, Truman Capote, i concluded that had the guy been alive today he might have been moved to say, "That's not writing. That's blogging."

LIBERAL IRAN

2006-04-29T08:28:00.000+05:30

Iran may be in a stand-off with the west over its nuclear ambitions but one of the biggest issues gripping Tehran is whether women should be allowed to attend football matches. Some of Iran’s most senior clerics issued rulings this week condemning a decision by the President, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, allowing women to sit in the stands at top matches.

A ban has been in place since the 1979 Islamic revolution but it has come under pressure as football fever has grown after Iran qualified for this summer’s World Cup in Germany. Women are also prevented from watching wrestling but have been allowed into basketball matches, which attract small crowds.

Worth mentioning that in the 1998 World Cup Iran beat the US, a feat that still inspires national pride. In fact, Ahmadi-Nejad is said to have trained with the national team and was an accomplished striker at school.His populist move has confused both fundamentalists and reformists who had regarded him as socially conservative.

He was elected last June on a promise to restore the values of the Islamic revolution and redistribute oil wealth.The president has instructed sporting authorities to build special areas in stadiums where women and families could sit safely.

Some supporters of the decision said the presence of women at games could calm boisterous all-male crowds.But the reform has met strong opposition from parts of the religious establishment. The so-called conservatives question the presence of women in the stadiums by countering that when everybody is at home comfortably watching the games, why should it be necessary for women and families to be in the unsafe atmosphere of stadiums?

But getting lost in this debate is the central theme of 1979 revolution. De-constructing the uprising's ideology and one finds that the 1979 revolution sought to encourage women’s participation in public life.

Are the conservatives listening?

Increasing Xenophobia

2006-04-28T08:21:00.000+05:30

Home-grown or Xenophobic?The recent Uefa's decision to demand clubs to have at least four home-grown players in Champions League and Uefa Cup squads from next season should be viewed in a much larger context than just sports.

Soccer crazy couch-potatoes want to see better football in the Premier League and think this move as being retrogressive. "Am I suppose to hanker after the old victorian days", informs one. In this cosmopolitan world, players have a right to play in any club, and the clubs consequently have the right to overlook domestic sentiments for want of better talent/quality.

The presence of foreign players in the team lifts the overall standards of the team. See the England team.(Apparently, Beckham's team is my favourite for winning this year's world cup). Fans view the present team to be the best squad for decades. Any comparison's to the 1966 team is sure to raise a point-counterpoint, but there is no denying that the present breed of players are faster, fitter and more skilful. That is because to succeed as an English player today, you have to be better than in the days of British-only competition.

The other side of the debate also has substance. The inclusion of non-native players at the expense of local players kills the spirit of the game in the long run (many even cite the same reason for the fall seen in the English domestic cricket). Moreover, so goes the argument, there is utter neglect for raising any domestic infrastructure, leading to utter neglect of players by the authorities.

But think a bit further on the current ruling. The governing body might raise the number to six. And, in next three years to even eight, with pessimists wondering whether we will eventually enter the age of "only native players". "So what's wrong with it", a skeptic might ask. He might scoff by saying, or rather paraphrasing Adam Smith, "but in the long run we all are dead".

Yeah. Dead we are. But I think the decision is audacious. Now, that's the last thing one expects because this marks the very step against democracy, it smacks racism, and more over, is a blow to the fabled spirit, pioneered and championed in the European continent- Enlightenment!

Ever wondered why the present Australian cricket team does not feature a single black player. It is simple. Aussies do not believe in the idea of affirmative action but rely solely on talent or what we Indians call, merit. Hence they are world champions.

De-constructing this decision and it appears the move reflects the growing uneasiness of the native population to foreign counterparts. First it was on the the pros and cons of outsourcing, thereby leading many in the developed/industrialised nations to remark that "recession is when a neighbour loses his/her job while depression is when you lose yours". Then the debate shifted on immigration, with Holland first making compulsary for all would-be immigrants watching a provocative movie, and then US debating on a legislation to be brought in for dealing with the 14 million immigrants, nearly half of them illegal. And now the action shifts to soccer fields, where i would label the decision as a protectinism atitude in sports.

Whoever said that the 13-letter word (GLOBALISATION) is not free of controversy was not entirely incorrect.

THE WORST DICTATORS

2006-04-27T20:14:00.000+05:30

A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. This is a standard definition. The worst commit terrible human-rights abuses.

This present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International.

1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

Since February 2003, Bashir’s campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians in Darfur in western Sudan and driven 2 million people from their homes. The good news is that Bashir’s army and the Janjaweed militia that he supports have all but stopped burning down villages in Darfur. The bad news is why they’ve stopped: There are few villages left to burn. The attacks now are aimed at refugee camps.

2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

While the outside world focuses on Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons program, domestically he runs the world’s most tightly controlled society. North Korea continues to rank last in the index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and for the 34th straight year it earned the worst possible score on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in “reeducation camps.”

3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

In November 2005, without warning, Than Shwe moved his entire government from Rangoon (Yangon), the capital for the last 120 years, to Pyinmana, a remote area 245 miles away. Civil servants were given two days’ notice and are forbidden from resigning. Burma leads the world in the use of children as soldiers, and the regime is notorious for using forced labor on construction projects and as porters for the army in war zones.

4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

Life in Zimbabwe has gone from bad to worse: It has the world’s highest inflation rate, 80% unemployment and an HIV/AIDS rate of more than 20%. Life expectancy has declined since 1988 from 62 to 38 years.

5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

Until 2005, the worst excesses of Karimov’s regime had taken place in the torture rooms of his prisons. But on May 13, he ordered a mass killing that could not be concealed. In the city of Andijan, 23 businessmen, held in prison and awaiting a verdict, were freed by their supporters, who then held an open meeting in the town square.

6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations.

7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims.

8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has created the world’s most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. The latest examples of his government-by-whim include bans on car radios, lip-synching and playing recorded music on TV or at weddings. Niyazov also has closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries.

9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

Over the past four years, the rulers of Iran have undone the reforms that were emerging in the nation. The hardliners completed this reversal by winning the parliamentary elections in 2004 —after disqualifying 44% of the candidates—and with the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2005.

10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea. There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

'Beavis' to play his last

2006-04-27T14:14:00.000+05:30

“Does Bergkamp have three feet?” asked Nick Hornby, novelist and Arsenal fan, during Bergkamp’s creative flowering in autumn 1997.

On May 17 Dennis Bergkamp hopes to play his last match: the Champions League final in Paris, for Arsenal (my favourite to win) against the Barcelona team now managed by Rijkaard. It would be the biggest game of Bergkamp’s career, an appropriate exit for a footballer who created moments that people will remember decades from now.

The early Bergkamp was a goalscorer. In my opinion he was one player who could hit the ball with any spin. Bergkamp, nicknamed “Beavis” in Italy after the cartoon character with the blond candyfloss hair, lacked the glamour that Italian fans expected of a superstar. Nor did he score much.

Who can forget the magnificent goal he score against Argentina in the last World Cup, when the two teams met?

He would sometimes play a terrible match but do one thing that no footballer had ever done before. There was his instant flick with back to the goal and then full-circle spin around Nikos Dabizas, of Newcastle United; the loblet that placed Fredrik Ljungberg alone in front of Juventus’s goal; or his outside-of-the-foot strike against Argentina.

Bergkamp was a master of space. He found openings that even spectators high up hadn’t spotted. It was as if he could see another dimension. Sometimes you had to rewind a move several times to work out what he had done.

A News inform me that how Bergkamp also liked the way the English experience football: "with love, but not as a matter of life and death". No wonder he has enjoyed his stint at Arsenal.

A quick review of the stats and one finds that Dutchmen have been voted European Footballer of the Year seven times, more than any other nationality except Germans. Yet Jan Mulder, a great centre-forward turned writer, chose a player who had never even threatened to win the award nor, at the time, a Champions League: “Bergkamp.” He had the finest technique, Mulder has been quoted. Guus Hiddink, the great Dutch manager, also feels the same and so does this blogger.

Lets hope the finest Dutch man signs off in style.

Pragmatism And Caution Needed

2006-04-24T08:12:00.000+05:30

Amid unchallenged globalisation, the rise of powers such as China and India has made the western nations insecure and apprehensive of their status and hegemony. The growing economic boom in many developing countries has made it pretty unfashionable to talk about the 21century being an Asian century. The future of developed nations, with Europe at the forefront, is painted bleak by the self-proclaimed analysts and media commentators. But without losing our sense of rationality and without being overly optimistic, we must question whether the develpoed nations need to be that pessimist.

I believe that these prophets of doom make two mistakes. They confuse the relative with the absolute and they project the present stasis into an indefinite future. Relative economic decline is far removed from penury; we must understand that the emerging nations have a long way to catch up with developed nations and moreover, Europe’s living standards. The Continent’s economies will remain among the world’s richest for many decades to come. Rich economies growing quite slowly still feel rich, the more so when their populations are stable or declining.

More importantly, nor does the rise of powers such as China and India condemn Europe to political irrelevance. History’s unipolar moment – unchallenged US hegemony – is passing almost as quickly as it arrived. Those who hankered during the 1980s and 1990s for a superpower status that would set Europe in opposition to the US were always going to be disappointed. We should be thankful for that. But there is no reason why Europe should not play a significant part in a multipolar landscape.

For now, affluence is the enemy of change and thus of influence. Globalisation has intensified and accelerated shifts in comparative advantage.The necessary adjustments needed are being made more painful by the fact that most of the present generation of political leaders do not admit their urgency.

Globalisation also demands Europe look at itself in a different way. A decade or so ago the fashion was to see the European Union as a fortress behind which the nations of Europe could set the terms of their relationship with the world beyond.

Globalisation has at once weakened nation states and demanded a different collective approach from the EU. Instead, in France especially but also elsewhere, the Union finds itself reviled as a transmission mechanism for the malign forces of globalisation. Weak governments have fanned the embers of economic nationalism.

There is no mystery about the remedies. Flexible welfare systems, adaptable labour markets, responsive education systems and incentives for innovation are scarcely controversial.

The medicine need not include the dismantling of a distinctly European social model. Quite the reverse. A fairer distribution of economic opportunities is essential to preserve the Continent’s social cohesion. Europeans should know well enough that exclusion fans extremism.You need not be a pessimist to see the potential for conflict between the generations – between those living out comfortable retirements after a lifetime of security and those threatened with job insecurity and higher taxes. But nor does one need to be a radical to see how a higher retirement age and flexible working patterns can address the challenge.

Relax my friends. Europe’s and other developed nations past and future do not stand in contradiction. A small thing, perhaps, but some of the best modern architecture now adorns some of the Continent’s most venerable galleries and museums. No, what Europe needs above all is a different frame of mind.Sure, we need to be hopeful of such a scenario arising.

Till then, we- in the developing and under-developed parts of the globe- need to be careful of blowing away another oppurtunity by continuing living in sand castles!

Whom Does The International Courts Serve?

2006-04-22T08:26:00.000+05:30

After the death of Slobodan Milosevic, the most famous indictee of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), we must question whether the set up of International Courts for justice needs a second look.

The 1993 and 1994 U.N. Security Council resolutions that established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its sister court for Rwanda (ICTR) both said the courts would contribute to the process of national reconciliation and to “the restoration and maintenance of peace.” Sadly, that has not happened.

A recent article highlights the pessimist view. In Rwanda, fewer than 36 percent of people polled in a 2002 survey said that the ICTR has promoted reconciliation in their country. And the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) announcement that it would investigate atrocities in Sudan has not ended violence there.De-constructing this argument and we find that modern tribunals have been prolonged and expensive. As of November 2005, the ICTR had handed down judgments for only 25 individuals. More than $1 billion has been spent on the tribunal so far, or about $40 million per judgment. By contrast, South Africa’s truth commission processed 7,116 amnesty applications for less than $4,300 per case. In postconflict Mozambique, programs to demobilize and reintegrate thousands of former combatants cost about $1,000 per case. Rwandan community leaders aren’t shy about saying that the more than $1 billion the United Nations has so far poured into the ICTR could have been better spent.One of the arguments posed by many is that today’s International Courts

Are the Legacy of Nuremberg. But here again the point is far from correct. Supporters of today’s international criminal tribunals say that their work builds on the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremberg and, to a lesser degree, Tokyo. As a matter of legal doctrine, that is true. The category of “crimes against humanity,” for example, was developed at Nuremberg and is now a central element in many prosecutions.

But there is a critical difference between now and then.The courts in Nuremberg and Tokyo were part of a broader political project that aimed to rehabilitate the occupied countries socially and economically, not simply to try guilt or innocence or hand out harsh punishments.

The Allies enacted a punitive policy toward Germany a quarter-century earlier, with disastrous results. The U.S.-dominated courts established after World War II were streamlined and efficient—perhaps to a fault. At Nuremberg, defendants were given no meaningful right of appeal, and the prosecution was able to introduce documentary evidence into the record that defendants could not challenge.

But the fact that many due-process concerns were swept aside meant the court completed its work in less than 11 months; 10 of the 22 defendants were hanged on Oct. 16, 1946. These were military courts that operated with military efficiency, and the Allies could then focus fully on rebuilding the broken nations.

What the people of civil/ethnic war torn areas need most immediate is safety for their kin and getting the economy back on the wheels for sustainable development. The trials can continue later.

De-constructing Ricardian

2006-04-20T08:24:00.000+05:30

Introduction

David Ricardo. "Yes, have heard the name", informs one. Nudge a bit further and say, theory of comparative advantage. "Absolutley", heard collectively.

If someone reading this piece still is unsure about what we are discussing then chances are that the person might have just come out from a long seclusion, cut out from this fast-paced interconnected world. After our country opened its market in last decade of 20th century, I reckon, his name must have got more space than any other economist in academic journals or magazines or even in the newsprint, whenever the print was serious enough to discuss.

About David Ricardo

Okay for the uniformed, David Ricardo introduced theory of comparative advantage in 1821 in his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Ricardo proved his theory of comparative advantage using a two country, static model of the world, in which Portugal is assumed to be a more efficient producer of both wine and cloth than England, but with greatest superiority in wine production. Ricardo demonstrated that, in his created world, both Portugal and England would gain by an international division of labor in which each produced the good in which it had the greatest relative or comparative advantage. Thus, even though England’s production efficiency was inferior to that of Portugal in both goods, the logic of free trade would lead Portugal to concentrate on wine production and England on cloth production, with the resulting trade between them generating maximum benefits for both countries.

Present world

Predominantly, arguments promoting free trade generally rest on the theory of comparative advantage. And is there any reason to question the validity of this claim? Well reading Ricardian made me to question this premise. I feel the free-trade supporting policy recommendations that flow from the theory of comparative advantage rest on a series of very dubious assumptions, rarely discussed outside the academic cirlces.In fact, it is commonly misunderstood to assert the obvious, that countries have or can create different comparative advantages or that trade can be helpful. In fact, it supports a very specific policy conclusion: a country’s best economic policy is to allow unregulated international market activity to determine its comparative advantage and national patterns of production.

Conditions for the theory

But just like all theories, the theory of comparative advantage (and its conclusion) is based on a number of assumptions. Among the most important ones are that a country’s external trade should always be in balance and that a country’s gains from trade should be captured by those living in the country and spent locally. Morever, theory also seeks perfect competition between firms, and asks for maintaining full employment of all factors of production. Finally, labour and capital should be perfectly mobile within a country and not moving across national borders.

Misinterpretation and fallacy of the theory

A quick consideration of the above assumptions reveals that they are extensive, utopian and unrealistic. The above conditions are never practised on any part of the globe (including Cuba). So i say that, if they are not satisfied, there is no basis for accepting the theory’s conclusion that free-market policies will promote international well being.Moreover, think a bit more and we see that there is reason to challenge the assumption that external trade will remain in balance. This assumption depends on another, that exchange rate movements will automatically and quickly correct trade imbalances.

However, exchange rates can easily be influenced by speculative financial activity, or by the rather smart role played by hedge funds (sort that triggered the collapse of the British pound in 1992 orchestrated by the would-be-turning billionare, George Soros).

In addition, as trade increasingly takes place through transnational corporate controlled production networks, it seems far less likely that exchange rate movements will generate the desired new production patterns. To the extent that exchange rate movements fail to produce the necessary trade adjustments in a reasonably short period, imports will have to be reduced (and consequenlty, the trade balance has to be restored) through a forced reduction in aggregate demand, and perhaps recession.

Also worthy of challenge is the assumption that capital is not highly mobile across national borders. If capital is highly mobile, then free-market/free-trade policies could produce capital flight leading to de-industrialisation, unbalanced trade, unemployment, finally leading to, yes you guessed it correctly, economic crisis.

So am I trying to disapprove the theory? Obviously not. Being a non-economics student myself, I question the theory for more refined answers.

Reserving For Affirmation

2006-04-15T08:19:00.000+05:30

Reservations (oops, or was it "affirmative action"?.)After the much debated and failed attempt of the ruling class to know the status of minorities in the armed forces, the policy wonks are now rolling over to enforce reservation or affirmative action for making our society a more egalitarian one.

One weekend issue of a newspaper columnist even tells me that all developed and affluent societies have dealt with reservation, including Japan, and we must acknowlegde that time has come for it to be applied in private sector jobs too. No body doubts that. And no body even questions the veracity of reservation in eductaion and how it has helped the marginalised class to come up, as highlighted in a weekly magazine's cover issue. But we must question the premise as to whether the benefits outweighs the costs, and is the policy heading in the right direction.

A lot has been said, and written. And blogged, too. Without letting the cat run amok among the pigeons, it must be mentioned that one social group that needs government's new found word ,"affirmative action", is the Muslims. But ironically, though not strangely, it is politically incorrect to talk about it.

Those trying to fiddle with the education system in the country would also do well to study the statistics one gets if we dip into the 1999-2000 data from the National Sample Survey Organisation’s Employment & Unemployment Survey. The break-up of high school graduates and those enrolled in college can be observed from the survey. This break-up is important since, if one does not passes high school, one does not get into college—reservation or no reservation or affirmative action or no affirmation.

And what do we get? Well, the SC/ST and OBC children form 16.7 per cent and 25.9 per cent, respectively, of the population of high-school graduates. In the case of SC/STs, this is 68 per cent of their share in the population, and in the case of OBCs the figure is just 1.5 percentage points below their share in the population. De-constructing it, there is a systemic discrimination that manifests itself when it comes to SC/ST children, but not in the case of OBC children. So does the need arise for extending reservation for OBCs?

Analysing a bit further and we see that the share of Muslims is supposedly even worse. Their population share is 13.4 per cent, but they are just 7.4 per cent of the population of high school graduates. Interestingly, in all cases, the share of various groups in colleges is roughly proportionate to their share in high school graduates; in the case of the Muslims, though, they comprise just 5.8 per cent of those enrolled in college as compared to a 7.4 per cent share in the students graduating from high school.So what would have any rationalist done?

Well, as far as SC/STs and OBCs are concerned, the primary task undertaken would have been to raise their level of school education. If one is to judge by the figures, college education will then more or less take care of itself. Moreover, increasing the reserved seats for the OBC students in college immediately lowers the probability of both Muslim and non-reserved Hindu students getting in!

Hopefully, the "wise men" of the "reformist prime minister" would not jump into concluding that Muslims need reservation/affirmative action more than anyone else.I am not advocating affirmative action for muslims per se. But if a policy is being reviewed it should not be ignoring certain facts.

Lest, we undo the fundamentals we all are able to raise a toast to, even if occasionally.