It’s been a crazy last half of the year for the Democracy and Society Crowd – we started D&S.com, put out a new call for papers, helped DG students host the very successful Dictators and Demonstrators symposium, welcomed new bloggers, learned how Barak spends his evenings, criticized the government, influenced foreign policy, and started a few fights.
In honor of all of our activities, here’s our list of Top Posts to review the year.
Top Posts
And while the stats aren’t in yet, Barak’s ‘Development first crowd‘ series is likely to be a hit as well.
Most Commented
‘Obama needs a vision check’ also has the distinction of being our most commented post of the year. Other top commented posts include:
Thank you for making it such a great year, but I think we can all agree it’s time to move on to the next one. Happy New Year from all of us at D&S and Georgetown CDACS!
none
based on the number of retweets I’ve seen of his ‘War on Flying‘ post.
none
Many countries are poor because economic development is a threat to political control. This seems to be the logic behind North Korea’s recent currency devaluation, which largely destroyed the emerging middle class in the impoverished country. It seems that the government feared the emergence of an economically-independent class of people, so it simply destroyed their wealth. This is not an isolated occurrence. Zimbabwe’s economic nightmare stems from Robert Mugabe’s fanatical devotion to clinging to political power, for example. Lack of political rights facilitates these types of wealth-destroying activities. The main point is that poverty in countries like North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe is a deliberate policy.
Even in countries with more benign governments, such as Nigeria, poverty is the result of elite corruption. The economic development first crowd often treats poverty as an accident. All to often, it’s politically engineered.
one
As I wrote in a recent post, the economic development first crowd is back. The crude version of this argument states “democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen.” There is a basic flaw to this argument I thought we had put to rest. Apparently, I was wrong, so let’s go back to the basics.
The point of foreign aid, as I understand it, is to help facilitate economic development in poor countries. The basic idea is that because savings are low in poor countries, aid finances economic development through investment. The problem is that the theory doesn’t fit the data. The graph below shows aid as a share of GDP and the current account balance (CAB) as a share of GDP for all aid-recipient countries in 2006. The CAB is investment minus saving. Thus, a positive CAB means more money is flowing into a country than flowing out, while a negative CAB reflects the opposite. The data make the startling point that most countries receiving foreign aid have a negative CAB. What this essentially reflects is that domestic savings flows out of aid-recipient countries.
In 2006, donors provided about $36 billion in foreign aid. In aid-recipient countries, about $27 billion of domestic savings – 75% of the total amount of aid donors provided in that year – were invested abroad. The basic question is why people in developing countries choose to invest abroad rather than at home. One important reason is because poor governance in these countries, such as rampant corruption, lack of adherence to the rule of law, and predatory government, discourages local investment. There are lots of investment opportunities in developing countries (think local basic manufacturing such as food processing, for example), yet people with money in these countries choose to invest abroad, mainly in countries that have better business climates.
The development first crowd is right up to a point: elections are far less important than having enough food to eat. Yet, we can’t solve the latter until we can reverse the trend of savings flowing out of poor countries. This will not occur without significant governance reform. The development first crowd means well, I suspect, but misses the basic point than pouring foreign aid into countries where the locals won’t invest will not encourage development.
none
Yesterday’s Washington Post editorial on Obama and democracy is getting a lot of attention. Much of the discussion is taking place around the framing of economic development versus democracy. Samantha Power’s argument that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen sums up the argument for the primacy of economic development crowd. Of course, lack of democracy does not solve these problems, either. Michael Cohen at Democracy Arsenal hits on the central flaw in the economic development first argument, economic and political rights are not substitutes, but complements:
But of course, political right and social rights are, on a practical level, not equal; because only with political freedom…can citizens ensure that any social service is being provided fairly to citizens – or even provided at all. Otherwise they are simply relying on the benevolence of their unelected and unaccountable leaders…
For most people around the world…free and fair elections take a back seat to basic health care, food security and education. Economic development is important, but when you have political leaders who rule by fiat and have little interest in providing for their citizens it ain’t going to amount to much in the end.
Thank you, Michael. This expresses my point of view exactly and sums up the scholarly consensus on this issue. The economic development first crowd either doesn’t understand or doesn’t want to understand that no amount of aid can spur economic development unless a government is interested in providing it. I don’t know a single person who advocates democracy instead of development or that the latter is less important than the former. Rather, the consensus is that political rights are the only guarantee of economic ones. I think it’s time to put the economic development first myth to sleep.
2 com
Flying is about to get even more annoying.
In the wake of the terrorism attempt Friday on a Northwest Airlines flight, federal officials on Saturday imposed a new layer of restrictions on travelers that could lengthen lines at airports and limit the ability of international passengers to move about an airplane.
Among other steps being imposed, passengers on international flights coming to the United States will apparently have to remain in their seats for the last hour of a flight without any personal items on their laps…
In effect, the restrictions mean that passengers on flights of 90 minutes or less would most likely not be able to leave their seats at all…
Does this mean I will not be able to hold a book or magazine for the last hour of any international flight coming to the US? That’s just great. I tend not to like to talk to people sitting next to me on a plane. I guess I’ll have to change this or get used to staring into space for an hour every time I fly. Also, I guess I’ll really have to watch my liquid intake before and on short flights, since I won’t be able use the bathroom.
As one might anticipate, getting on the plane is about to get more annoying as well.
…American Airlines said the T.S.A. had ordered new measures for flights departing from foreign locations to the United States, including mandatory screening of all passengers at airport gates during the boarding process. All carry-on items would be screened at security checkpoints and again at boarding, the airline said. It urged passengers to leave extra time for screening and boarding.
…Air Canada said…to be prepared for delays, cancellations and missed connections because of the new limits.
That’s just great. Another round of screening, and more missed and cancelled flights. I can’t wait for my next international trip. But, you might ask, don’t I worry about terrorism? Yes, I do. Nonetheless, I think we need to be reasonable about it, not bring international travel to a standstill every time some idiot tries to light a firecracker on a plane. Perhaps that seems reckless to you. Well, think how easy it is to blow up something. If Abdulmutalla wanted to really make a big splash, he could have easily bought some dynamite after he arrived in the US and blown himself up in Times Square; that would have been a big deal. The basic point is that it very easy to commit enormous acts of terrorism in the US, but we see almost none. What this tells me is that terrorism is not such a big threat. Al Qaeda spent $200,000 planning 9/11 and we have spent at least $1 trillion fighting “the war on terrorism.” Somewhere in a cave in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, Osama bin Laden is laughing hysterically – and he’s right.
Kevin Drum nails it:
Apparently al-Qaeda doesn’t need to bother with real terrorism anymore: just light off a firecracker on a plane and the U.S. government will react as if a major city had been leveled. Why not just ban air flight entirely and be done with it?
none
As if on cue, more bizarre news out of Italy. Yesterday someone tackled the Pope during Christmas Mass at the Vatican. This is not the most disturbing Christmas craziness in the country, however. I think this award goes to the mayor of Coccaglio, Italy, Franco Claretti, who wants to make sure his town has a unique type of white Christmas. It’s gives the lyrics “may all your Christmases be white” kind of a new meaning.
one
