Issue with Stiglitz

In Chapter 5 of "Making Globalization Work", Stiglitz briefly mentions the case of (former) Russian Oil Tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, citing him as an example of one of Russia's oligarchs that was righteously toppled by the Russian government in an attempt to reassert state control of former publicly owned assets. Stiglitz takes that stance that Khodorkovsky was a member of the group of oligarchs who were "stealing money from their own country". 

I don't know if this assessment is entirely fair. If I were a rich business man, and the government declared it would be selling the rights to the country's natural resources, I'd probably recognize the opportunity for major profit. No matter how cheap the prices for the resources were, they were BOUGHT, not stolen. Whats more, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that Khordorkovsky was arrested more for the growing traction of his political aspirations, than for the legality of his actions. When Khordorkovsky was arrested for not showing up as a witness in a court hearing, he was immediately presented with an enormous list of wrongdoings, suggesting that the government had been concocting an accuse for his arrest for sometime. In 2011 the European court ruled in favor of Khordovsky in a human rights violations case against the Russian Government. Just days before Amnesty International declared Khodorkovsky a prisoner of conscience in response to the Russian governments extension of Khordorkovsky's jail sentence through 2017. 

Stiglitz seems to support Putin's actions against Khodorkovsky, because he protected that states resources (or as Stiglitz would say, assets) from being stripped. But evidence suggests that Khordorkovsky was actually arrested because he posed a legitimate political threat to Putin's regime. Does this mean that Stiglitz prioritizes political stability and the protection of state resources more than he values the integrity of the political system that operates in a country?

Response to Imagine India

“Imagine India”, by Nandan Nilekani considers the past and present challenges that India has faced and is currently facing, and attempts to offer to insights on how India will continue to develop in the coming century. Nilekani is a successful entrepreneur in the burgeoning IT sector of India’s economy and represents the new face of India’s growing ingenuity on the global stage. “Imagine India” breaks down India’s troubles with education, urban planning, the IT sector, and healthcare, while also highlighting the enormous gains that India has made both economically, and culturally (specifically in the realms of education and expectations for a better future from the general populous). Ultimately, “Imagine India” is an optimistic vision and compelling argument for the future success of India in the global market. 

One of the themes that Nandan Nilekani explores during the course of “Imagine India” is the idea that India and China are both quickly developing nations, but their development is taking two very different paths. China represents an autocratic controlled capitalistic regime, where the government is able to make snap decisions without the input of the population. This has enabled China to accomplish enormous feats, such as the Three Gorges Dam without worrying too much about civilian dissent. India, despite all of its infrastructure and corruption woes, possesses a very healthy democracy, perhaps the healthiest of all the developing nations in the world. The difference in approaches to development means that China and India are experiencing different growing pains, and Nilekani contends that though India’s democracy presents challenges for growth, it also ensures that no major mistakes are made. He writes, 

“A common grouse we have in India is how slow we are—to reform, adapt and change, especially compared to our neighbor China. But my belief is that while democracies may be slow, they are also more cautious than autocracies, and this makes them less prone to committing truly egregious errors. Standing and ruminating over voter considerations after all is much more preferable to dashing straight into a gorge.”

An example that Nilekani cites is the two populations’ different methods for pursuing population control. Because China is an autocratic regime, it decided on and implemented the One Child Policy without the consent of its constituents. While efficient, the One Child Policy has resulted in unforeseen social tensions in China—there is a disproportionate number of men to women, their population is now rapidly aging, and human rights atrocities have been committed as a result of cultural preferences for male children. The flip side is India, where the government has never been able to effectively instigate a national birth control program because voters have never approved one. As a result, while India is still struggling with a massive population, this massive resource of human capital may prove beneficial to India as it continues to develop. The concept that Nilekani cites in this instance is the idea of “demographic dividend”, the idea being that civilizations progress the fastest when their birth rate remains high but their mortality rate drops, essentially a baby boom, that ultimately results in higher productivity and innovation in the following years.

            The point that Nilekani really wants to get across here is that China’s autocratic regime is often lauded for its high efficiency when it comes to implementing government programs, but this can sometimes be a major detriment. Take for example China’s Three Gorges Dam. A marvel of human ingenuity, the dam boosts China’s hydroelectric power and makes the Yangtze river more navigable. But at the same time the dam has displaced 1.4 million Chinese citizens, who had no say in the matter, and the dam now presents ecological problems within in AND outside of China (Check out this article, it is suspected that the Three Gorges Dam may be wrecking havoc on India’s rivers), including contributing to a major draught in China last year. The Three Gorges Dam and the One Child Policy are both examples of wide sweeping policies enacted by the Chinese government that have had major unforeseen consequences. Such sweeping projects with negative side affects would never occur in India, because the citizens have a voice in the government.