Being a Searcher = Successful aid

Bill Easterly writes:

One approach to a successful aid project just is to immerse yourself in the local community, put local people in charge who are themselves highly motivated, be adaptive and flexible to respond to whatever the local people think about how they can help themselves, so that you customize the “standard project designs” to fit local circumstances. Most aid projects fail because there is nobody in the field making all these necessary adaptations and fixing unanticipated problems as they arise. The moral of the story is: be a Searcher and not a Planner.

He also writes that the secret to successful aid “is that there is no secret.” He does not believe in RCT methodology applied to aid effectiveness.

This kind of aid project is based on a lot of personal, face to face interaction, developing trust and a shared vision, so it is small scale, it has to let things proceed at their own pace, it can’t meet rigid pre-set output targets, it could never be judged by a rigorous “randomized controlled trial” methodology. In short, it involves the kind of tacit knowledge and individual adaptation that could never be converted into a routinized project implemented by the official aid bureaucracies. It breaks all the rules, and it works.

US capitalism and government involvement

The US was a developmental state with numerous cases of successful government investment to stimulate entrepreneurship , writes William Lazonick.

In all the advanced economies over the past century, first and foremost the United States where the ideology of ’free market’ entrepreneurialism is most virulent, successful entrepreneurship  has depended heavily upon government investment in the knowledge base, state sponsored protection of markets and intellectual property rights, as well as state subsidies to support business investment strategies.  Scholars of the developmental state have tended to see it as a Japanese, and by extension East Asian, phenomenon, while neglecting the role of the developmental state in the United States, the world’s largest and arguably the most entrepreneurial of the advanced economies. Yet, during the twentieth century, the US state has been far more developmental than the Japanese state. Scholarly works have been written on the evolution of particular US industries – for example, agriculture, airliners, aircraft engines, computers, the Internet, biotechnology- that support this proposition. Biopharmaceuticals provide a case in point.

As a precondition for absorptive capacity and hence indigenous innovation, a nation has to have already made the most strategic and most expensive investment of them all: investment in a public system of primary, secondary and tertiary education.

It is a mistake, therefore, to associate growth enhancing entrepreneurship with free market individualism. There is no shortage of entrepreneurial individualism in American-style capitalism, but its transformation into higher standards of living has depended critically on investments, protections and subsidies provided by the developmental state… The state must be regulatory, but it also must be developmental. At the same time, the instability and inequity that accompanies economic growth under American-style capitalism should lead policymakers in developing countries to seek to identify those varieties of capitalism in the advanced nations that can serve as superior models for generating stable and equitable economic growth.

Links of Interest (04/09/2009)

Causes of the financial crisis by Viral Acharya and Matthew Richardson

Vegetable self-dependency in Nepal

The G20’s uncertain roadmap

Social mobility and statistical immobility

Remittances and the Philippines’ economy

Africa open for business

5.5 million telephone subscribers in Nepal

That’s 45% increase from last year, yet the telephone penetration is exceedingly low when compared to other counterparts in the region (see the figure below). A news report says that the current telephone penetration rate is around 20.45%. Good news? Probably yes, but still there is a lot to be achieved. There is tremendous demand of telephone services, however supply has not been consistent with demand. The government still tightly controls this industry and has only allowed two private firms to enter the market.

Nepal’s telephone penetration rate also shot up to 20.45 percent from less than 1.5 percent seven years ago on the back of easy availability of mobile phone lines. The country now has a total of 4.7 million mobile phone users and they make up almost 85 percent of telephone users in the country.

It is not surprising that even with the entry of new players in the market, profits and subscribers for all the three telecom providers (including the state-owned NTC, which used to enjoy monopoly until few years back) have increased by multiple folds. There is nothing to lose by further liberalizing this sector. More subscribers, more penetration, more firms, more employment, more revenue, more connectivity, more (probably) productive economic activity…its all win-win-…-win situations.

India, which has been adding 8 million new customers to its telephone network every month for the last two years, has a tele-density of 33.28 percent. Maldives has already attained 100 percent telephone penetration. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are also ahead of Nepal. And even a closed country like Bhutan attained a tele-density of 20.6 percent back in 2007.

The state of corruption in Nepal

This is a part of growth diagnostics exercise on the Nepali economy I did in the past three months. Low appropriability due to corruption is one of the strongest constraints holding back economic activity in the Nepali economy. Here are similar posts on diagnostics of the economy.

This analysis shows that corruption is the second strongest constraint on economic activity in Nepal. In almost all the standard ratings and analysis on corruption and regulatory regime so far, Nepal has not fared well when compared to countries with similar income level. Similarly, a survey of business personnel, conducted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), shows corruption as the third most problematic factor for doing business in Nepal.

Source: World Governance Indicators 1996-2007[1]

In the figure above, the data correspond to 95% confidence level. In 2003, Nepal was better than 50% of the countries on control of corruption. This slid down to 30% in 2007, meaning that control of corruption has become less effective and 70% of the countries considered in the report have better anticorruption measures in place than Nepal.

In CPIA transparency, accountability and corruption index in the public sector, Nepal had a score of 2.5 in 2006 and 3.0 in 2007 (1=low and 6=high). The figure below shows how Nepal compares with other low income countries in this rating. The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) rates countries against a set of 16 criteria grouped in four clusters: (a) economic management; (b) structural policies; (c) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (d) public sector management and institutions. The World Bank produces it.

Even though Nepal’s rating in transparency and corruption in public sector is not that different from other lagging low income countries, the median (and also mean) score of 3.0 is still not considered to be business-friendly.

The Corruption Perception Index 2008, published annually by Transparency International (TI), also shows corruption to be at a high level. Among the members of SAARC bloc, Nepal is ranked as the country with the fourth highest level of corruption. Overall, Nepal was ranked 124 out of 180 countries included in the report.

Source: CPI 2008 (1=highly corruption and 10=highly transparent)

In regulatory quality for controlling corruption, Nepal fares pretty bad. In fact, as shown by WGI, Nepal’s regulatory quality in 2007 was not that different from that in 1996. Still more than 70% of the countries have better regulatory quality than Nepal.

Source: World Governance Indicators 1996-2007

Moreover, in a survey conducted by the WEF for Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, business executives ranked corruption as the third most problematic factor for doing business in Nepal. The business sector is more worried about corruption than macroeconomic risks such as tax rates and regulations and human resources.

Source: Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009

In addition, there is evidence that firms are taking alternative routes to avoid corruption and taxation at customs. It is estimated that 40% of trade with India occurs through informal channels.This shows that traders are bypassing the normal system- a feature of a binding constraint.

All these reports and rankings show that corruption is one of the strongest constraints on stimulating entrepreneurial activity in Nepal.

In an earlier post I argued that bad infrastructure is the most binding constraint on growth in Nepal (well, after that post I have refined my argument further with much better information and analysis. I will post the whole discussion on bad infrastructure later in a different blog post). However, corruption also seems to be equally binding.

It is easier for policymakers to zero in on policies to relax constraints if we can identify the most binding one so that relaxation of that constraint would lead to largest change in the objective function (i.e. growth rate).Taking note of this argument and WLOG, it is consistent to argue that bad infrastructure is the biggest constraint because improving on this constraint in the short term is much easier (and faster) than clamping down on corruption, which is already institutionalized in the economic and social system. This constraint (corruption) cannot be relaxed in the same time as is the case with infrastructure. Therefore, it cannot produce bigger change than relaxation of infrastructure does in the same period. Based on this argument, I argue that bad infrastructure is the most binding constraint on economic growth in Nepal. (However, this does not mean that we do not tackle corruption, which is equally strong constraint as is bad infrastructure. I am just trying to be a little bit more practical in terms of optimal use of resources in the short run. Moreover, the main purpose of this exercise is to identify the most binding constraint on economic activity in Nepal).

---

[1] ^{The chart shows the percentile rank of Nepal on control of corruption, one of the governance indicators considered by Kaufmann and Kraay. Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country. Higher values indicate better governance ratings. Percentile ranks have been adjusted to account for changes over time in the set of countries covered by the governance indicators. The dashed lines indicate the statistically-likely range of the governance indicator. For instance, a percentile rank of 75% with the dashed lines at 60% to 85% has the following interpretation: an estimated 75% of the countries rate worse and an estimated 25% of the countries rate better than the country of choice.}

Discussion about heterodox economics with Prof. Garnett

A majority of the stuff we learn in econ classes are the neoclassical stuff, which is fascinating and stimulating with rich insights on the markets and economy. However, as we start with (unrealistic) assumptions and build on the theory and prove them in a slick way by using equations and analysis, we are never told about its actual applicability in the real world. This is kind of frustrating but still learning the theory itself is stimulating! A relevant question is: how can realism be brought to the standard stuff we learn in econ so that it has some life? Can learning heterodox economics fulfill this purpose?

We were discussing these kind of issues with Professor Rob Garnett, an economics professor at Texas Christian University (TCU), who is visiting Dickinson College to share his knowledge on the important issue of heterodox economics and how it relates to academic freedom and philosophy of economics. We had an open, frank discussion with Prof. Garnett and Prof. McPhail about these issues yesterday evening. The whole discussion centered on how to bring realism in the study of economics and why there is a need to open up the enclosed box of economics, which is so far dominated with insights from just one school of thought--neoclassical economics, which is more stimulating theoretically but lacks practicability. He argued that there is a need to bring pluralistic views on the study of economics so that stuff we learn are real and that we are exposed to contending school of thoughts. This is kind of interesting to me because I am interested in policy-oriented research in economics, which has to be as close to reality as possible. And, all of the stuff I believe in are not explained by one particular school of thought.

We know that most of the stuff we learn in econ courses in school are not realistic and even then we force ourselves (or are forced) to learn them. Is there is way to break this up so that more realistic stuff is learnt along with the standard stuff? If we know that there is no perfect information, then why do we still learn complex models whose basic assumption is that there is perfect information? Same with the assumption of rationality. It is stimulating to learn the models despite shaky assumptions! However, what good would it do if it is not real? I have been struggling to find an answer to these questions. That being said, now I enjoy learning the models more than ever. It the end, I always ask: what’s its relevance to the world I live in? Sometimes, the very subject I love and care so much leaves me utterly disappointed for not being able to find an answer to a simple question!!

Here is Prof. Garnett’s paper on the future of heterodox economics. He combines Sen’s and McCloskey’s ideas and relates it with the need for heterodox economists to practice pluralism (after all, they all are going after the unrealistic assumptions of the mainstream economics!).

… paper proposes a philosophical framework for an egalitarian pluralist economics, combining Deirdre McCloskey’s vision of science as a pluralistic conversation (McCloskey 1998 and 2001) with Amartya Sen’s capability-centered view of human development (Sen 1999). From a Sen/McCloskey standpoint, the principal goal and tool of economic inquiry is intellectual freedom, defined in a dual Smithian sense: negative freedom from the tyranny of a prescribed Method for economic knowledge production, and positive freedom to live a choice worthy intellectual life.This freedom-centered, capabilities-minded view of academic discourse as a “civilized conversation among equals” (McCloskey 2001, 107) opens the door to a liberal rethinking of science in which the paradigmist and pluralist impulses of contemporary heterodoxy can be productively reformulated and rejoined. Such an approach is one that all economists, especially heterodox economists, can and should embrace.

I just had a good lunch and more discussion about these issues with Prof. Garnett. I will be having another dinner discussion with him in the evening.

G20 Summit, global recession, and Doha Round

So, the G20 Summit concluded today passing a communiqué that laid emphasis on fighting global recession ($1.1 trillion worth of arsenal at their disposal now), arming the IMF with more money and power, creating a strong regulatory framework, and resisting protectionism and promoting global trade and investment, among others. [Did you hear that British PM Brown said "the era of Washington Consensus is over."]

Here are new funding pledges:

• $500bn for the IMF to lend to struggling economies
• $250bn to boost world trade
• $250bn for a new IMF "overdraft facility" countries can draw on
• $100bn that international development banks can lend to poorest countries
• IMF will raise $6bn from selling gold reserves to increase lending for the poorest countries

Rodrik argues "the era of the World Bank and the IMF being run by Americans and Europeans, respectively, is over. And good riddance too." Here is a post by Green. Krugman is happy that the outcome was better what he expected. Meanwhile, Dadush feels that it fell short of agreeing on "measures needed to respond to the grave global situation." Here is Subramanian on the G20 Summit.

This caught my attention:

We remain committed to reaching an ambitious and balanced conclusion to the Doha Development Round, which is urgently needed. This could boost the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum. To achieve this we are committed to building on the progress already made, including with regard to modalities.

The estimation of benefits of Doha Round has been of a considerable debate among researchers. Generally, it is now agreed that the earlier estimations were inflated. Here is a research done by Sandra Polaski from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) about the winners and losers from the Doha Round under different scenarios. The general equilibrium model showed that total gains from trade to be between $32-55 billion, with rich nations getting $30 billion; middle income countries like China, Brazil and SA getting $20 billion; and poor countries getting $5 billion (about $2 per head). Here is my earlier post on this issue. Check this one as well.