Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2002. Show all posts

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Unleash Tiebout forces


Unleash Tiebout forces by Sauvik Chakraverti

EDITORIAL, TNN Apr 4, 2002, 01.46am IST The Economic Times

A survey carried out by this newspaper has ranked hyderabad as the cheapest indian city to live in, and mumbai the most expensive. delhi follows a close second. What this means is that your salary goes further in hyderabad than anywhere else: on the same salary, if you live in mumbai, your monthly expenditure goes up by a whopping 87 per cent. Therefore, salaries are necessarily higher in mumbai. If this continues, the city will get outcompeted eventually by market forces. Goods manufactured in mumbai will cost more than goods made in hyderabad. When cities compete, and when citizens 'vote with their feet', a phenomenon occurs which economists call the tiebout effect. charles tiebout had solved the 'public goods' question in a rather unique manner. He said that if mobility could be assumed, then, cities and towns would compete with each other on the basis of public goods provided and their costs as measured by taxes. People will flock to cities where taxes are low, and where public goods are excellent. They will abandon cities where taxes are high and where public goods are not provided adequately. It is this competition, and not local democracy, that will yield functioning municipalities. In the indian context, the depressing truth is that public goods are undersupplied everywhere. mumbai is so expensive only because of high housing costs. This is because of archaic land laws like the land ceiling act and rent control act as well as undersupply of a critical public good: roads. With good roads into the surrounds, more land would be colonised, and prices would fall. This is already happening in delhi. With accretions to the available stock of housing occurring in noida and gurgaon, real estate values in posh south delhi have collapsed by 40 per cent in the last two years. Of course, even in delhi, if roads to satellite towns were excellent, prices would have crashed further. This is the line indian cities and towns must pursue. The focus must be on functioning, competitive municipal organisations. They must treat citizens as customers. in this scenario, those cities that provide the best services and quality of life at the lowest cost will see more 'customers' — and hence more development. Bad cities will gradually see decline, as businesses, factories and people shift out. The greatest benefit of this approach is that we, the citizens, will no longer be viewed as a 'population problem'. We will be viewed as customers.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Alternative Nation The Public Administration of Anarchy


Alternative Nation The Public Administration of Anarchy by Sauvik Chakraverti           


Published in the Times of India on 25/04/2002

Statism has failed both India and Pakistan. The future of both nations lies in a completely free market with free immigration. This is perfectly Islamic. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a free trader. The Islamic calendar starts on the date of migration from Mecca to Medina. Islam is based on free trade as well as free immigration. These are also in total agreement with the basic tenets of the Hindu faith which said Shubh Laabh, or profits are auspicious, aeons before Adam Smith laid down the philosophical foundations of modern capitalism. The Hindus also said that the four ends of Man are dharma, artha, kama, moksha. We can all happily and unitedly reject statism and opt for a vast free market. Both nations can reject the Hobbesian Leviathan together – that which has brought ruin, degradation, poverty and corruption to one of the most beautiful places on the planet, peopled by a deeply moral people.

The question does arise: Does anarcho-capitalism have a public administration? To answer that, let us imagine a scenario when there is no state, when there are no rulers, and let us think of ‘what’ and ‘where’ we will have to ‘organise’ things? We will feel the need for collective action mainly in our cities and towns, where people are densely crowded. We will scarcely need any organisation in scantily populated villages. This means that we will have to set up sound municipal organisations.


Now, contrast this with the socialist state’s public administration. Socialist India does not possess a single properly functioning municipality other than the NDMC which services the VVIP class. All talk about local government relates to panchayati raj, as though villages are in need of government. What villages and villagers need most of all is good connections to urban markets. Without roads, panchayati raj is just clientelism of the most perverted kind. As Arundhati Roy says: India does not live in her villages; India dies in her villages.
Hence, if we abolish the state, we will think up a far better alternative system of social organisation based on our needs. We will have municipalities that will focus on garbage collection, traffic regulation and the provision and upkeep of urban roads of good quality: because we will need just these services and nothing more. Today, municipalities run schools! Tomorrow, these municipalities can be run by just a handful of honest public spirited public functionaries, who can ‘contract-out’ the work to competing private firms. In this way, we can build an India and Pakistan of some 600 free trading cities.


This will be the best thing that can be done for our villagers. Urbanisation will allow them to find niches in the market economy and reduce dependence on agriculture. Today, the share of agriculture in GDP is declining; but more people are dependent on it. Poverty is the inevitable result. With urbanisation, rural India will depopulate, reducing pressures on land. Agriculture will commercialise. There will be no need for land reforms. Mere property rights will suffice.


Now, in public administration, as in management, there is no one correct method of organisation. With 600 free trading cities, each can experiment with laws, rules, and systems. This will allow for diversity. Thus, there can be towns like Haridwar where it is illegal to consume alcohol or eat meat but it is perfectly legal to smoke a chillum of hashish. The US local government scenario presents us such a view: the system is not uniform. There is strong mayor-weak council; weak mayor-strong council; there are city managers. The same can be allowed in India. Let the ants decide how to run their anthills. Thereafter, free immigration will force the municipalities to compete for tax-paying citizens. If Karachi offers better public goods at lower taxes than Bombay, it will prosper as more people flock there.


In this scenario, politics will be restricted to the polis, as it rightly should. There will no longer be the politics of empire: no New Delhi lording over Kohima, Kargil, and Kanyakumari. There will also be no small imperialists either: like Kolkata lording over Darjeeling, or Patna over Muzaffarpur, or Mumbai over Pune. It will be each to his own. Without the politics of empire, and without the economics of statism, it can safely be predicted that there will be very little need for collective action on a national level. Inter-city expressways can be provided by the private sector. Without statism in India and Pakistan there would be very little need for a large defence establishment. In either case, cities can contribute to a fund to finance a small force for the region for emergencies. Today, the defence establishment is hopelessly corrupt. After Bofors and Tehelka, the socialist state cannot be trusted to handle even national defence honestly.


Now, cities are not self-sufficient. They procure their needs from outside. Cities have ‘footprints’. In anarcho-capitalism, rural roads will be provided because this will be in the interest of the cities. It is said that every great city sits like a giant spider on its transportational network. Socialists have reduced our cities to blobs of jelly on the map. Tomorrow, reason will prompt us to build nimble spiders, so that the maximum amount of trade can take place at the least cost of both money as well as time. Today, our trucks do 250 km a day compared with 600 km a day in the rest of the world.


The poor will prosper in anarcho-capitalism. With 600 free trading cities, there will be plenty space for hawkers, who are a hounded lot today. Without rent control, there will be no slums; instead there will be a vibrant market for cheap rentals. Any poor villager will be able to opt for a city or town of his choice, shift, and rent a room with a toilet. Urban overcrowding will end as more land is colonised by roads. There will be a huge real estate boom. Land in the villages will also become real estate as cities and citizens spread out, equipped with modern transportation.


We must think we can do it. We must believe in ourselves. We have too long been dependent on the state. We must now believe that we do not really need it. We do not need our rulers. We can manage perfectly well without. After all, Man is a socially co-operative, moral creature.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Bt Cotton Should Be Formally Approved: Interview/ C. S. Prakash

Bt Cotton Should Be Formally Approved: Interview/ C. S. Prakash

Biotechnology is a fast growing area filled with controversy. Is it the answer to Malthusianism? Or is it a Frankenstein's monster? To get answers to these questions, Sauvik Chakraverti spoke to Professor C S Prakash, who teaches plant biotechnology at Tuskegee University. He also advises the government of India on these matters. Excerpts from an exclusive interview:

*What is your reaction to what happened in Gujarat regarding the release of Bt cotton seeds?

- It was inevitable. For two years, the Indian regulatory authorities have been dragging their feet on the issue. On June 19, they had absolutely no logical, rational or scientific reason to say 'No'. My reaction is of mixed delight. But I would not like to condone any illegal cultivation of unapproved biotech crops, since it undermines consumers' confidence. The situation the government finds itself in is like finding your daughter pregnant. There is no other choice but to get her married. So, I do hope that the use of Bt cotton will be formally approved and that farmers will not have to go for contraband seeds.

* Do you think that the popular adoption of genetically modified seeds in Gujarat is something that was waiting to happen in India? Did you expect the farmers to adopt Bt cotton, given all the protests and demonstrations we have seen around the world?

- Definitely. It is just that farmers have finally spoken out. We knew all along that, given a choice of superior solutions, farmers make rational decisions, based on simple economics and cost-benefit analyses. Quite rationally, they are willing to bear additional costs if these bring them substantial returns.

* What do you think explains the contrast between the reaction of environmentalists overseas and in India? While internationally they have gone around uprooting trial fields, in India they have not entered any field planted by farmers.

- It is surprising that Indian environmentalists are now so quiet. Earlier, they maintained that BT is not good for Indian farmers, that the technology has no value, and that we have to preserve the existing system of saving seeds for the next planting. The fact is, these environmentalists have absolutely no knowledge of farming and do not speak for farmers. So, when real farmers get involved, environmentalists do not have any say.

* Did the company that released this BT variety violate IPR regulations?

- No, they did not since the patent has not yet come into effect. What they did violate is the bio-safety regulation of the Indian government. Under it, any genetically modified product requires a local approval before it can be released into the environment or commercialised. India has a two-step approval process. We have six years of Indian data on Bt cotton, and so far its agronomic performance has been spectacular. There is not one single safety incident of any concern. The irony is that India imports over ten lakh bales of cotton, much of it being Bt cotton from such places as Australia and China. It is absurd that we force our farmers to spend on pesticides, given the often irresponsible manner in which these are used, rather than just approve Bt cotton.

* The introduction of genetically-modified products has been slow since existing food and environmental regulation is based on the precautionary principle. If this principle were to be thrown to the wind, what is the worst case scenario?

- The worst case scenario would be the introduction of minute levels of allergens into food. Take the case of peanuts. Some people are highly allergic to them and may have a fatal reaction from eating just one. Now assume a genetically-modified chickpea, in which one peanut gene has been introduced. A peanut-allergic person would have to eat about a tonne of chickpea to get the same level of protein present in a single peanut. In fact, there is far more danger in eating normal food.

The reluctance of the Indian authorities to approve Bt cotton has interesting historical parallels. For instance, when the first motor car was introduced in England, the British government ruled that the speed limit should be five miles an hour. Moreover, regulations required someone to walk in front of each car and announce its imminent arrival. Needless to say, the development of the motor car was blocked in Britain.

Similarly, electric lights were banned in Britain for thirty years after they were first introduced, due to the gas industry lobby. Italy has absolutely little or no corporate bio-medical research, due to overt regulation, despite its robust economy and high per capita income. Mindless regulation is similarly killing agricultural biotechnology in Europe.

Everything has a risk, but that the risk must be put into its proper framework. About 300,000 children die in India every year due to rota virus, which causes dysentery and diarrhoea. A vaccine was developed in the National Institute of Health, Washington, but was abandoned this year since it caused rashes in few US children.

In the United States, just one or two children are hit by rota virus every year. The risks in vaccinating against this virus are, therefore, unacceptably high. It is outrageous that the Americans shelved the vaccine, given that in India the risk factor is irrelevant. Every society must look at risk for itself.

* Please explain the BT concept for a lay reader.

- BT stands for 'Bacillus thuringiensis', which is a common soil bacterium. This bacterium has been used as an organic pesticide for about forty years. When you spray the bacillus onto the plant, caterpillar larvae eat it. The bacillus is only toxic to caterpillar larvae. It does not kill butterflies, beetles or bees. However, the bacillus never caught on commercially as a pesticide, because it gets degraded in the sun. Farmers have to keep on spraying all the time. Genetic engineering came along and took the Bacillus thuringiensis gene and put it straight into the relevant crop plant. So the plants produce the protein, instead of it having to be sprayed on.

*So, if BT was sprayed and the product was sold, it would be called organic food?

- Ironically, yes.

* What about the growth of resistance to other pests?

- If Bt cotton is used too much, pests may become resistant to it. This, in any case, is likely to happen even with spraying or antibiotics. This is why we are telling farmers that 10 per cent of their crop should continue to be regular cotton. Pests can feed on that and not be compelled to adapt. This strategy seems to have worked. There are millions of acres under Bt cotton cultivation, yet no pest has developed resistance.

* What about the gene flow issue?

- Look at rice, for instance. After they discovered dwarf rice in Taiwan, every rice became dwarf because we put that gene into all popular rice varieties around the world. This is because dwarfness is a big asset in agriculture. Not one single wild rice has acquired this dwarf gene, despite thirty-five years of dwarf rice on probably 250 to 300 million hectares. The point is that dwarfness has no positive selection value in a wild rice. Even if the gene were to be there, it would just get eliminated.

So there are two ecosystems - the man made one and the wild one. The man made one began with the domestication of grain, mainly for making alcohol. The rice was shattering, so man collected a mutant where the grains did not shatter.

The seeds in the wild are always dormant, and now are germinating immediately depending on their survival mechanism. We are making sure that they do not germinate on the stock itself and also that they do not stay dormant for too long.

So we made a lot of little changes. Take the instance of corn that is in the wild, it looks like a small little pencil. But modern corn is about two foot long and big. They were all changed over ten thousand years. So, if you put most of the modern varieties of crop food plants into the wild, they would not survive for one day. It is like taking a little Chihuahua or Daschund and throwing it to a pack of wolves. It would not survive for one hour. So, similarly, except in a few instances, these new varieties are of absolutely no evolutionary significance.


Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Sustainable development is nonsense

Sustainable development is nonsense

Leon Louw is a libertarian from Africa, where state failure is the norm. He runs the Johannesburg-based Free Market Foundation and is the director of the Good Laws Project. He was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize along with his wife, Frances Kendall. These are previously unpublished excerpts from an impromptu interview with Sauvik Chakraverti when Leon was in Delhi to deliver the Julian L Simon lecture of Liberty Institute in 2002.

What is your central message to environmentalists in the developing world?

Environmentalists are enemies of the poor. What the poor and future generations need is maximum economic growth, maximum technology, and maximum utilization of resources, now. So we can a) alleviate human suffering, and b) leave a legacy of technology and wealth with which to deal with environmental problems that may happen in the future.

What is your view on ’sustainable development’?

It is nonsense. The world ’sustainable’ has no intelligible meaning. Sustainable for how long and for whom, we are never told. Development is sustainable. What is not is the absence of development. Without development, people will, in fact, starve and the environment will be destroyed. The most developed countries are the ones with the cleanest air, the cleanest rivers, the least human suffering, the best conservation of nature, and the least endangered species.

What is your reaction to sustainable development’s underlying premise - that there is a shortage of natural resources and that these will finish if markets are free?

Resources are increasingly plentiful. There are more resources of every description today than there have ever been before. The evidence of this is falling prices. Almost everything in the world is now falling in price, even though currencies have been inflated.

The real way to consider this issue is to look at how much time a human being has to work to buy, for example, a pound of potatoes. Absolutely every resource that human beings want is now cheaper. That is to say, you can get more of it with an hour of labour than ever before in history.

Furthermore, the earth’s surface contains enough resources to last for millions of years. Even if we do ever run out of resources on land, we’ve still got the ocean. Even if the oceans’ resources were to be exhausted in, say, five million years, we can harvest the asteroids.

You have described environmentalists as racists. Please explain:

When they talk about overpopulation, they - that is, the white elites of the First World - never call Holland, Monaco, Britain, or Liechtenstein overpopulated. In fact, the most densely populated continent is Europe. They speak of my continent, Africa, as overpopulated; yet it has the lowest density of population. Africa has too few people. What they want to do is limit the number of people of colour.

Even more conspicuously racist are ozone concerns. White people worry about ozone depletion because they do not want UV rays on their skin. On the other hand, dark people are immune to UV rays. Even white people who are slightly dark, like Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, Spaniards or South African whites, are immune to ozone depletion.

Is Africa going the libertarian way or is it keeping with the environmentalist agenda?

Unfortunately, Africa is as subject as India to the eco-imperialism of the West. Africa, therefore, signs all the international treaties and protocols that ban trade in its own wildlife. Yet Europe can farm and trade its wildlife, namely cattle, sheep, goats and pigs. This is imperialism of the absolutely worst kind.

In his writings, George Ayittey refers constantly to the ‘vampire states’ of Africa. Is there any libertarian upsurge against big government in Africa?

Africa, thanks to people like George Ayittey, has turned the corner. Most African countries are now moving towards market economies. Fifteen years ago, there was only one democracy in Africa — that is, Botswana. Now, most African countries are democracies.

Fifteen years ago, most African countries were in favour of socialism. Now most of them are liberalizing and privatizing. The reward for this has been that the continent is experiencing positive growth — about 3.5 per cent — for the first time since colonial times. Those African countries, which have made the most substantial moves toward market economies, are growing even faster: Botswana, Mauritius, and Uganda.

George Ayittey is absolutely right in saying that black oppressors took over when the white oppressors left. The absence of white oppressors does not mean the presence of liberty.

However, we are finally getting real liberation in Africa. Liberation from oppression, rather than just liberation from colonial exploitation. I am optimistic.

(More on Ayittey here. Yazad)

How is the new South Africa faring in terms of economic and political freedom?

The giant achievement, of course, is the liberation of black South Africa from apartheid, discrimination and humiliation. So this victory must not be trivialized.

Unfortunately, in many liberation struggles, those who take over the ‘liberated’ country often perpetuate far too much of what they have inherited. They keep the very institutions that caused oppression and discrimination in the first place. They should, instead, attempt to change the entire legislative system to one based on objective rules and minimal legislation. In South Africa, sadly, we do not see this.

At the same time, the absence of apartheid has created new opportunities and black South Africans have used these. In the informal, shadowy, underground economy, there has been an explosion of enterprise. Fortunately, they just ignore the government. In South Africa, ordinary people just pretend that the government is not there. They run their businesses, taxi services and so on without licenses and trade wherever they wish. In India, by contrast, people seem to take the government too seriously.

Why are legal reforms essential for developing countries?

One of the great transitions that have not taken place in the former colonies is the key element that has made developed countries prosper. This is the rule of law. We have identified a list of twenty-five jurisprudential components of what we call ‘good law’. They have nothing to do with ideology. Every lawyer agrees on the principles of good law. Most developing countries have failed to maintain these principles.

From your studies of regulatory systems, do you think they impose more costs than the benefits they provide?

Yes, this is almost always true. Certainly, since countries have introduced cost-benefit analysis for new laws, it is quite shocking to find how many new laws, that were taken for granted before, would not have been adopted.

In the real world, regulations have more costs and disadvantages than advantages. This is because regulation is subject to what political scientists call “goal substitution”, in which those implementing it have their own objectives and agenda. It is very rare indeed, in the real world, to find any regulation for which the advantages, properly calculated, outweigh the disadvantages.

How do you look at the impact of globalization, particularly from the perspective of the economic and political prospects of the poor?

Globalization is not new. The world was completely globalized up to the First World War, when capital, wealth and people could move freely across borders. Between the First and Second World Wars, borders closed for the first time in history. So what we now call globalization is a small modest shift towards what was commonplace and taken for granted by our grand parents. What they experienced as being normal, we now seem to think of as some new, scary concept.

What the poor want is maximum globalization. They want to be able to sell their products to everyone on earth. They also want to be able to buy from anyone who sells anything.

The opposition to globalization is completely inhumane. People who have seen real poverty cannot possibly support restrictions on trade. Globalization is, by far, the best hope for the world’s poor, and the quicker it happens and the more of it they get, the better.

Minor editing, title and links added by Yazad. Thanks also to Amol Hatwar who helped sort out an irritating formatting problem with MSWord