Transparency International has posted its new Corruption Perception Index. I've heard from both insiders and news articles that these rankings, while widely read and used as fodder, are more subjective than many would hope. But more data is becoming available that will eventually lead to more objective means for calculating corruption. Due to new laws in the US and abroad, many of the world's largest companies will be forced to disclose every dime "donated" to governments and their officials. Until then, however, let's enjoy these rankings, which are constructed based on surveys of experts and international business people.
Enjoy!
Oh, and you all know how I love maps.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
When do we trust? When they offer $60 billion.
We've had an uncomfortably comfortable relationship with Saudi Arabia for a long time. Since WWII, we've had our ups and downs while maintaining peace and attempted cooperation. Now the Pentagon has approved an arms deal possibly worth up to $60 billion.
I am struggling very hard to paste my opinion here. Let's just say that it will be imperative to track these sales. I'd be interested (and terrified) to see where these planes, helicopters, etc, have landed in five or ten years, and what they are being used for.
Quick note of clarification: Saudi Arabia has shown strong support for US initiates in recent history, and I don't mean to imply corruption or incompetence. But historically, when $60 billion or some obscene amount worth of US military equipment goes into a turbulent region, people like Victor Bout get giddy.
I am struggling very hard to paste my opinion here. Let's just say that it will be imperative to track these sales. I'd be interested (and terrified) to see where these planes, helicopters, etc, have landed in five or ten years, and what they are being used for.
Quick note of clarification: Saudi Arabia has shown strong support for US initiates in recent history, and I don't mean to imply corruption or incompetence. But historically, when $60 billion or some obscene amount worth of US military equipment goes into a turbulent region, people like Victor Bout get giddy.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Trust the Nigerian People Like We Trust Alaskans!
Earlier in the year, while preparing a literature review for a paper on natural resources and economic development, I was lucky enough to read an article by the famed economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin. I've enjoyed his papers in the past, as he's brilliant and quite a character. Here is his website, if you want proof.
Who said economists lead boring lives?
Anyway, the paper in question, linked here, co-authored by Arvind Subramanian (awesome name), is quite unique, as it offers not just rigorous econometric analysis but also some clear, novel, and ambitious policy suggestions.
The suggestion that hit me is that to avoid corruption, underperformance, and all of the social ills that come along with both, the government of Nigeria should simply distribute all of the oil revenue to its people. Directly. Tax them if necessary, but don't keep it. This is similar to the policy they have in Alaska, where they pay people to live there. When I was in French camp, the amount was $1000 per person per year. Apparently, this amount has varied over the years.
The reasons that this is a good idea are many. The most important one involves keeping a democracy healthy. If a government is the recipient of massive oil wealth, that means that a large portion of their budget does not come from taxes. If this country has a very poor population, and an even poorer system of tax collection, the proportion of government budget that comes from taxes turns miniscule. This means that the government is not dependent on its people in the same way as non-oil rich countries, often resulting in oil-rich countries turning a blind eye to their peoples needs and requests.
Another reason why this is important is it requires the government to collect taxes from people using a known tax rate. This leaves less room for corruption, as the government's budget should be much easier to calculate. Additionally, people will receive money (happy!) and then be taxed (sad...). When government takes money away from its people through taxes, people want to make sure that it was for a good reason. In this way, there will be much more public pressure for government to spend the oil wealth (first distributed to the public and then taxed) properly than if they bypassed the people altogether.
While there are more reasons why this would be an awesome idea, I'll just end with this simple one. If you're a Nigerian, and you realize that not only could you get some of this oil money in which your government is bathing but it's also economically and politically the right thing to do, wouldn't you push for this? I'm not a Nigerian, but if I were, I would. And therefore it's the job of the Nigerian media to push for this kind of political-economic reform. Push!!!
Anyway, the paper in question, linked here, co-authored by Arvind Subramanian (awesome name), is quite unique, as it offers not just rigorous econometric analysis but also some clear, novel, and ambitious policy suggestions.
The suggestion that hit me is that to avoid corruption, underperformance, and all of the social ills that come along with both, the government of Nigeria should simply distribute all of the oil revenue to its people. Directly. Tax them if necessary, but don't keep it. This is similar to the policy they have in Alaska, where they pay people to live there. When I was in French camp, the amount was $1000 per person per year. Apparently, this amount has varied over the years.
The reasons that this is a good idea are many. The most important one involves keeping a democracy healthy. If a government is the recipient of massive oil wealth, that means that a large portion of their budget does not come from taxes. If this country has a very poor population, and an even poorer system of tax collection, the proportion of government budget that comes from taxes turns miniscule. This means that the government is not dependent on its people in the same way as non-oil rich countries, often resulting in oil-rich countries turning a blind eye to their peoples needs and requests.
Another reason why this is important is it requires the government to collect taxes from people using a known tax rate. This leaves less room for corruption, as the government's budget should be much easier to calculate. Additionally, people will receive money (happy!) and then be taxed (sad...). When government takes money away from its people through taxes, people want to make sure that it was for a good reason. In this way, there will be much more public pressure for government to spend the oil wealth (first distributed to the public and then taxed) properly than if they bypassed the people altogether.
While there are more reasons why this would be an awesome idea, I'll just end with this simple one. If you're a Nigerian, and you realize that not only could you get some of this oil money in which your government is bathing but it's also economically and politically the right thing to do, wouldn't you push for this? I'm not a Nigerian, but if I were, I would. And therefore it's the job of the Nigerian media to push for this kind of political-economic reform. Push!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)