Lingo Wars: Urban Dictionary v Academie Francaise

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 4/17/2012 12:09:00 PM
While most things Anglo-Saxon are taking a well-deserved beating nowadays--neoliberal economic policies and a penchant for soaring rates of obesity among other things--there remains considerable vitality in their common language. As the Global Transformations crew rightly pointed out sometime ago, having the most speakers of a language doesn't make it a "global language." For, if this were the case, then Mandarin would be the world's lingua franca. Instead, it's English that makes the claim, being the language expected to be spoken among business and political elites. With the coming of the Internet, those most able to propagate their views remain English speakers, for better or worse.

It was not so long ago when French aspired for similar status. While it may have currency in certain diplomatic circles even in this day and age, its claims to widespread use in commerce and pop culture are iffy at best. In a way, the treatment of these languages by their respective progenitors mirrors their respective government's penchant for economic intervention. The (mostly) laissez-faire English couldn't care less about the adaptations and proliferations the language has undergone, from pidgin English to American English. So, for instance, the global financial crisis and the the tubby nature of many Anglophone residents are symptomatic of "first world injury." The Urban Dictionary is a vast complilation of such colloquialisms--many more offensive than these, and some of which eventually make the gold standard for such references, the Oxford English Dictionary.
 
Meanwhile, the dirigiste French still have a high-faluting body which guards the sanctity of their language--especially against intrusions of lowbrow English terms (the likes of which you're likely to find in the aforementioned Urban Dictionary). Our friends over at the World Policy Journal have an interesting feature concerning the Academie Francaise, guardians of French against poor language use. English slang, mon dieu!
In 1635, Cardinal Richelieu, chief minister of Louis XIII, established an institution known as L’Académie Française—the French Academy. Its mission was then and remains today to serve as the guardian of the integrity and sanctity of the French language. At its full strength there are 40 members, elected by their peers for life. Each takes the seat vacated by the death of his or her predecessor and named for the individual who first held that seat in 1635. Accordingly, they are known as The Immortals. Each Thursday, they gather beneath the cupola of the Institut de France, which has dominated the Left Bank of the Seine overlooking the Pont des Arts since its construction by Richelieu’s successor, Cardinal Mazarin, in the 17th century.

They are at work today on the ninth edition of the authoritative French dictionary. The last edition, the eighth, was completed in 1935. The first volume of the ninth, A to Enzyme, appeared in 1992. Since then, the Immortals have picked up the pace. The second volume, Éocène to Mappemonde, was published in 2000. The Immortals are an elite group, and even leading figures of French language or politics have been ignored. Through the years, Rousseau, Sartre, Balzac, Descartes, Diderot, Flaubert, Moliere, Proust, Verne, and Zola have all been shunned for one reason or another.

Today, l’Académie is at the center of a raging controversy over “Anglo-creep”—the rampant and unrestrained import of English terms into French. Accordingly, the Immortals have urged that walkman, software, and email be avoided, replaced by their equivalents—baladeur, logiciel, and courriel. They also waded into the controversy when the nation’s former Socialist prime minister, Lionel Jospin, insisted on calling women cabinet members la ministre, the Immortals maintaining that the masculine le ministre designate both sexes.
There is also a thought-provoking interview with one of its newer members further in the link. To me at least, it's a rearguard movement by elitists who've been overtaken by the times. French can adopt like any other language. Why not? However, the language police certainly have done their part in forestalling fertile adoption. Why can't French borrow from English and come up with something unique? It's the linguistic equivalent of Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome. The important point here is that new terms are mostly developed spontaneously and adopted in a similar fashion instead of being dictated by a bunch of geezers.

While educators like yours truly require a certain standard for academic work, it's how people actually communicate with each other that sets possibilities for propagating a language instead of pronouncements from distant language police, methinks. So, to understand why English language trumps French, look no further than the difference between the Urban Dictionary and the Academie Francaise.
Read More

EuroPissants: Should Germany [!] Leave Eurozone?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 4/16/2012 10:14:00 AM
Having lived on and off the continent during the past few years, I am a follower and sometimes patron of various things European: Euratom. Euro currency. Eurofighter. Eurostar. Eurotunnel. Eurotrash. Not wanting to be left behind in all this naming fun, I've come up with the EuroPalin and EuroNasty. Today, dear friends, I must indulge your patience as we consider yet another term as indicated in the post title. You see, it is not enough to acknowledge that the PIIGS economies are the weak ones in the EMU. Rather, gaping current account and budget deficits coupled with general uncompetitiveness bedevils more than Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain. That's the unfortunate truth.

Conventional thinking, reinforced by brainless "reality show" fare in the popular consciousness, suggests that the solution lies in eliminating the weakest link(s): We vote you off the island, Greece. You're fired, Portugal, and so on and so forth. This sort of logic dominates the thinking of those who believe that all that will remain in the EMU are a small cotorie of muscular economies alike Germany and the Benelux states.

Well guess again. Michael Sivy over at the TIME displays fresh thinking by suggesting that it's Germany which should leave the Eurozone, pronto. The logic is again that Germany's overwhelming competitiveness buoys the single currency and makes the rest uncompetitive. It's an argument favouring the good of many (most Eurozone countries) against the few (German and a few others). Given the Germans' dislike of significant devaluation, it may be better for them to pursue this objective in a national context away from those desperate enough to benefit from it. After arguing that little girlie man economies leaving the Eurozone will be worse for them than staying in, Sivy proffers his novel solution:
By contrast, if Germany were the one to leave, the euro would be the currency that falls in value, relative to Germany’s new national currency and also to the dollar. The weaker European countries would get to keep the euro but still get the devaluation they need, which would reduce their labor costs far less painfully than through wage cuts. In addition, the value of their outstanding debt would decline along with the value of the euro, and they would be more likely to be able to make payments on that debt and avoid defaulting.

The standard argument against this solution is that as the value of euro-denominated debt falls along with the euro, banks in many countries would have big losses on bonds they own. But losses from falling bond prices are less disruptive than sudden defaults. And the fact is that those losses have really already occurred, they just haven’t been acknowledged. The goal at this point is not so much to prevent losses, but to find a way for banks and other international financial institutions to absorb their losses without triggering sudden bank failures or a global financial crisis. In short, it’s not about the money, it’s about stability. And for once, it may be easier to maintain order without the help of Germany.
In a way it's positive reinforcement for boorish behaviour in forming the EuroPissants, but there you are.

Finally, you may be thinking: Can a group of weak-kneed, overindebted and devaluation-loving states secure continued existence? Why, yes of course. Check out that lame-o republic called "The United States of America."
Read More

Pope 1, Obama 0: LatAm United vs Cuba Embargo

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 4/15/2012 06:42:00 PM
I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven - Mateo 18:18

Here's yet another example of how the gringos are unwelcome in their own backyard: A few weeks ago, I discussed the skillful diplomacy the Vatican has conducted over the years with the brothers Castro, culminating in Pope Benedict XVI's open-air mass attended by hundreds of thousands in late March. This is the same Fidel Castro, let it not be forgotten, who jailed (or worse) countless Catholic priests. But His emissary has loosed the chains in dealing with Cuba, even denouncing the antiquated US embargo on the island nation. As Cuba appears poised to re-enter the mainstream of the global community, then, there remains that significant obstacle--as if the Cold War never ended.

By contrast, a still very influential coterie of Cuban-Americans refuses to change hardline attitudes towards Cuba. In turn, their policy influence has ensured that folks like one Barack Obama must carry on the same old tune. So, while the media has had a tawdry fixation on the whoring of Secret Service agents, I have been more captivated by the wretched reception Obama has received at the Americas Summit. The real story with geopolitical significance is that, while seeking to drum up commerce, what Obama has actually reaped is nonstop criticism over Cuba. Even the more US-friendly Colombian hosts hate their treatment of Cuba:
Latin America's militant opposition to the decades-old U.S. isolation of communist Cuba put more pressure on President Barack Obama at the Americas Summit on Sunday and threatened to sink a final declaration...
For the first time, conservative U.S-allied nations like Colombia are throwing their weight behind the traditional demand of leftist governments that Cuba be in the next meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS).
Diplomats said the dispute could block the final declaration planned for Sunday at the closing of the meeting, and originally intended as a hemispheric show of unity."The isolation, the embargo, the indifference, looking the other way, have been ineffective," summit host and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said of the Cuba issue.
There may not even be another representative Organization of American States (OAS) summit if the US does not change its ways. They promised redemption for Cuba but have no delivered. Already, the more left-leaning nations vow to boycott OAS events unless Cuba is given representation (it bears remembering who came up with the OAS in the first place):
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa boycotted the meeting over Cuba, and fellow leftist Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua also stayed at home. The leftist ALBA bloc of nations - including Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and some Caribbean nations - said they will not attend future summits without Cuba's presence.
So it has come down to this. The Monroe Doctrine folks are so washed up nowadays that they can't even cajole their neighbours into inking a declaration that does not mention Cuba. Overall, the trend seems to be of the Anglophone US and Canada splintering off from the Latin American nations in regional diplomacy. That is, the real gathering of the Americas may no longer include those presumptuous to name themselves and their country after two vast continents inhabited by others with clearly diverse cultures and opinions.

If you can't even pacify a rebellion against US-organized events in your own backyard, what chance do you have elsewhere? Don't forget either, dear heathens, that it's His will.
Read More

I Knew It: 61% of Treasuries Purchased by the Fed

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 4/12/2012 09:08:00 AM
What do you get when you cross the soppy Bushite Lee Greenwood with Obama's pastor? For one thing, you get a more accurate (financial) portrayal of the current state of that benighted land:

I'm cowed to be an American
Where at last I know I'm unfree
And I won't forget Uncle Ben
Who sold me into debt slavery

You can modify the rest of the lyrics accordingly--especially with Jeremiah Wright's trademark catchphrase replacing the title of the Greenwood tune. Anyway, this lyrical reassessment was brought about by a TIME feature I read recently that revealed the lie behind the "deficit's don't matter because US borrowing rates are so low" favoured by assorted (and rather ignorant) USA #1-style cheerleaders who inhabit the blogosphere.

As it turns out, the Federal Reserve flow of funds report for the entire year of 2011 reveals how "strong" demand is in the "market" for US treasuries. With 61% of Treasury purchases accounted for by Federal Reserve buying, both terms in quotation marks are cast in doubt. Yes, we know that open market purchases of treasuries are the result of policy decisions. But no, we did not know the cumulative extent of these purchases viewed in annual terms.

The proper analogy is one I made before: It's like calling your kid a "great salesman" after setting up a lemonade stand....only for the rest to find out that nearly two-thirds of all his "sales" came from you. So it is when monetary authorities justify currently bedraggled  American finances via some variation on the "deficits don't matter because US borrowing rates are so low."

The questions I would like to see answered are following:

(1) If demand from foreigners for Treasuries is so great anyway since the US is providing a "safe haven" through "liquidity services," why is there a need for another arm of government to undertake such large-scale purchases? Why make the state do what the market would do by itself?

(2) Related to (1), there is also a concern about bloating the balance sheet of the Fed. Why needlessly do so if others would willingly lap up these securities?

(3)  Lastly, would rates be this low if the Bernanke Fed deemed it unnecessary to make purchases on this scale?

The upshot is that they are intervening so heavily because they know the market, left to its devices, will not likely depress Treasury yields to a similar extent. The market-clearing price is, in all likelihood, significantly higher. The unprecedented expansion of public debt is thus matched by the unprecedented gaming of the market for these securities. The corollary to unparalleled indebtedness is unparalleled subvention of market forces. There's no need for Obama's pastor to damn America in speech when you have monetary authorities doing so in deed. The latter is certainly worse.

I guess the joke's on you, factually challenged America #1 cheerleaders, for nobody's quite as interested in your dollar-denominated detritus than yourselves. On my part and the rest of us who don't support your folly, you're more than welcome to it.
Read More

Developmental Authoritarianism: Burma's Turn?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 4/10/2012 01:18:00 PM
There's an interesting brace of articles [1, 2] from the Financial Times concerning Myanmar AKA Burma opening up to the rest of the world once again. Following Vietnam and China before that, Burma appears to be loosening up to the extent that it can profit from participation in the world economy. Ironically given the general goal of authoritarian development Myanmar's junta wants to promote, a major impetus for Burma right now is to avoid becoming too dependent on China. While the PRC remains Burma's investor of last resort with all sorts of mostly energy-related projects going on there, the junta tired of China exploiting its pariah status to obtain the best deal possible...for China, that is.

Or so these articles suggest. I remain convinced that Burma normalizing its relations with everyone else will likely culiminate in ASEAN giving it the stamp of approval by (finally) allowing it to take up the ASEAN rotating chairmanship in 2014. Surely, Myanmar has already done much to see to it that foreign sanctions against Burma will be lifted. Mainly to appease the pro-democracy crowd, Aung San Suu Kyi and her fellow National League for Democracy (NLD) colleagues have been allowed to run in by-elections and will now attend parliament. Given their overwhelming victory, it suggests the 2010 general elections where the NLD did not participate coupled with the by-elections gave the generals the best of both worlds. That is, they maintained their huge majority while subsequently giving enough of an impression of a turn to democracy so that longstanding US and EU sanctions will be much diluted.

The upshot is that Myanmar will likely be on its best behaviour until the end of 2014 when its ASEAN chairmanship--assuming it gets this designation--terminates. Acceptance by its regional peers would mean  a lot. After that, however, all bets may once again be off. For instance, will they use means both fair and foul to continue having a military-backed parliamentary majority? The 2012 "free elections show" may be a transitory thing to gain Western favour. To its credit, Myanmar does recognize that these Western powers are particularly keen in this day and age to rediscover Myanmar's vast resources.

Meanwhile, the military lurks in the background--as it has for decades now.
Read More

EuroNasty II: Carbon Taxes on Maritime Transport?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,,,, at 4/09/2012 10:26:00 AM
[NOTE: Out of curiosity, I Googled "euronasty" and was shocked, just shocked at the search results! As I've said before, the IPE Zone is a family-oriented site.] There has already been much controversy over the European Union beginning to levy carbon taxes on air transport. In particular, their application to foreign carriers makes them complain that the EU regulation constitutes extraterritoriality insofar as (1) obviously, they aren't European carriers and (2) "taxable" miles are those incurred not just within EU airspace but for the entire journey. So far the EU has avoided contestation of the legality of these carbon taxes--probably because there is no discrimination between EU-based and foreign carriers.

That said, these carbon taxes are tremendously unpopular, especially among the Americans and the Chinese. The latter have supposedly even told their airlines not to buy from Airbus to "punish" the EU. They've even been instructed not to pay these taxes. Well, well, well: guess what? Other developing countries are also up in arms against the EU's levies. What's more, it seems the EU authorities aren't nearly quite done losing friends and offending people. In a recent newsletter sent to me by the South Centre, the Europeans appear keen on extending these taxes to shipborne transport, which would obviously affect a lot more merchandise trade if passed:
On 21 February 2012, the EU Council of economic and finance ministers adopted conclusions that included one on aviation and maritime carbon taxes. The Council of Ministers reiterates that "the carbon pricing of global aviation and maritime transportation would generate the necessary price signal to efficiently achieve more emission reductions from these sectors and that carbon pricing of global aviation and maritime transportation have as well the potential to generate large financial flows."

The Council invites "the (European) Commission to prepare a reflection paper by June (2012) on carbon pricing of global aviation and maritime transportation taking into account the developments in IMO (International Maritime Organisation) and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) and previous work by AGF (UN Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Climate Change Financing) and by the World Bank and other international organisations for the G20." It also stressed "the need of taking into account national budgetary rules and the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) in the use of potential revenue". 
As before, China is at the forefront of countries sounding the alarm. Lest you think that American hypocrisy is all we talk about here in the IPE Zone, what we have now is a clear case of Chinese hypocrisy. When it comes to the infamous maritime territorial disputes with its neighbours concerning the South China Sea, the PRC staunchly refuses to "multilateralize" the issue where multilateral fora can help negate its overwhelming power over Southeast Asian nations. However, when it comes to carbon emissions, China is now calling for the EU to, ahem, "multilateralize" this issue to rein in European power which it believes the EU is wielding unilaterally.

Perhaps the Chinese don't perceive their own inconsistencies, but here's what it's worth in the environmental domain. Aside from not bringing up maritime carbon taxes in appropriate multilateral fora, we return to the complaint about the blanket application of such taxes going against the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities for LDCs which still need to develop and have less technical capacity for climate mitigation. Remember too that China--the world's largest merchandise exporter--has the EU for its largest trading partner. Hence, the sheer amount of trade these taxes would affect given that most Chinese goods come to the Occident by sea is...substantial:
Though the EU Council has called for a "reflection paper" at this stage, there were already critical reactions to this move in China, which is one of the vocal opponents to the manner in which such mandatory taxes are determined even though there is a need to address greenhouse gases emissions in these sectors. Objections centre on the unilateral and mandatory nature of the EU action even while discussions continue in the IMO and ICAO, the two global organisations responsible for such issues.

Critics also raise the issue of common but differentiated responsibilities that underpin the UNFCCC, arguing that since climate change is the result of the accumulated greenhouse gases emissions of developed countries over the past two centuries, it is not equitable to impose the same level of burden on developing and developed countries (in this case the payment of carbon taxes in the aviation and maritime sectors). 
I generally understand what the Europeans are trying to achieve. By leading a movement to applying carbon taxes, the EU hopes to ratchet up environmental regulation worldwide. I call it seeking the California-effect globally. In the US, the strictest emissions and safety regulations emanate from California, and car manufacturers just make all their vehicles meet California standards rather than make different models for one state and all the rest. However, there are indeed questions of fairness that China brings up which are legitimate alike extraterritoriality and CBD.

Again, the honest truth is that Mother Nature could care less about artificial distinctions humans make between developed and developing nations. That is, carbon emissions are a shared externality to economic activity.
Read More

Palace Coup? World Bank Vets Pick Okonjo-Iweala

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,,, at 4/06/2012 12:57:00 PM
News is becoming sparser as most of the Christian world slows for the Easter holidays. However, in the run-up to the selection of the next World Bank president which should happen in a fortnight or so, we've had ringing endorsements of Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. (See a previous post for further ruminations.) We begin with an interesting counterblast to the current climate of economist-phobia at development institutions post global financial crisis. While it may be trendy to put non-economists at these institutions, the Economist (surprise!) slams this trend in endorsing her as the best candidate for the job:
Okonjo-Iweala is an orthodox economist, which many will hold against her. But if there is one thing the world has discovered about poverty reduction in the past 15 years, it is that development is not something rich countries do to poor ones. It is something poor countries manage for themselves, mainly by the sort of policies that Ms Okonjo-Iweala has pursued with some success in Nigeria.
While I am nowhere near as partial to economists as a publication dedicated to them in name, I did enjoy the insinuation that the United States which encouraged World Bank lenders to avoid corruption was doing so by choosing its favoured candidate to yet again fill a top (international) job.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times seconded the motion, accentuating the positives of extensive work at the World Bank:
Its new leader should have a command of macroeconomics, the respect of leaders of both the funding and the funded countries, and the management skills to implement his or her vision. These requirements make Ms Okonjo-Iweala the best person for the role.

Having served as managing director under outgoing World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, she also has a unique knowledge of how the institution works. While one risk could be the temptation not to challenge the status quo, she might find it easier than other candidates to gain the respect of staff and build on Mr Zoellick’s legacy.   
More importantly for me, however, is that many World Bank veterans have come out in a strong show of support for Okonjo-Iweala. Lest you think that its employees don't matter, remember how the Ameriscum Paul Wolfowitz was eased out as World Bank president even during the Bush administration. From the Vanguard of Nigeria:
As the World Bank gets set to interview the three candidates vying for its presidency from April 9-11 before announcing its decision the following week, a group of former World Bank officials, including one-time chief economist, Francois Bourguignon, said it supported Nigerian Finance Minister, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s candidacy to become the lender’s president even as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi said Nigeria’s nominee was the best candidate for World Bank top job.

The 39 former managers, in a letter to the bank’s members, cited Okonjo-Iweala’s “deep experience in international and national issues of economic management” and said she had the ability to increase the bank’s effectiveness. Okonjo-Iweala, who was a managing director at the bank until last August, “would hit the ground running and get things done from the start,” the letter said.

According to the former World Bank officials, “challenges for the future president range from international fundraising to brokering agreements on global issues and while all the three presidency candidates, including former Colombian Finance Minister Jose Antonio Ocampo, have strong qualifications, Okonjo-Iweala’s skills cover the full spectrum of criteria. Uri Dadush, a former World Bank director of policy and one of the 39 signatories, provided a copy of the letter.
Before concluding I should also point out that an assortment of heterodox economists (including the LSE's own Robert Wade)--many from the Global South besides--signed on to a similar petition for the Colombian candidate Jose Antonio-Ocampo. Although they're both long shots given the history of the institution in question, Okonjo-Iweala is more of an insider to it and Ocampo an outsider.

Still, the IPE Zone comes down in favour of Okonjo-Iweala if previous merit is the criteria. Nevertheless, what's obviously fascinating about the succession race is that it not only pits vested Western interests against rising ones from the Global South but it is also a trial of sorts for mainstream economics' place in development practice. Go ask Jagdish Bhagwati.
Read More

A Parisian in America: Comic Stylings of IMF's Lagarde

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in at 4/04/2012 11:58:00 AM
This will be short and unsweet as it demonstrates that you do not have to go very far to observe the mind-boggling ludicrousness of the world economy. My homepage ever since I hopped into cyberspace in 1994, Yahoo! News, is carrying an Agence-France Presse clipping about how IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde is now calling on the United States to contribute more to the IMF, especially to ensure that the European debt crisis does not spill over to America.

Given that the United States is the world's most superindebted nation, with a national debt over 100% of its GDP at $15.62 trillion and rising annually at a trillion-dollar-plus rate, it's reminiscent of cadging a bankrupt. And a haughty bankrupt at that who would rather not fulfil its international obligations despite hosting the institution. Call it Yankee UN disease. With US elections coming up, no politicians wants to be seen adding to American fiscal malaise:
But her comments will be anathema to politicians in Washington, as the country hurtles toward elections this November. US officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have for months trod a thin line between supporting the IMF's efforts to bolster its resources and actually kicking in some more cash. Washington has yet to ratify 2010 reforms which would see it send $63 billion more to the IMF's coffers, under a new quota agreement.
With the United States itself mired in high levels of debt, increasing IMF funding or shipping tens of billions of dollars abroad to help Europe could be tantamount to political suicide.
The corresponding press release on the IMF website is an odd mix of warning about the US about its dire debt situation while at the same time cautioning it about reining in spending at the current time (and asking for IMF funding in the meantime):
On fiscal policy, she warned that “a global undifferentiated rush to austerity will prove self defeating,” and that “countries like the United States with low costs of borrowing should not move too quickly.” But she also cautioned about complacency regarding U.S. public debt, and urged a stronger push to curb the growth of entitlement spending and raise more revenue. More action is also needed in the United States to ease the burden of household debt, which is holding back the recovery.
This returns me to my earlier criticism of this "stimulate now, consolidate later" approach insofar as the US federal budget has not fallen year-on-year since 1965! Once America goes on a spending binge, it will most likely stay on it. So, there is little reason to expect a major diminution in US deficits in the near future given these inertia and snowball effects. But, don't let that stop Lagarde:

She stressed that for the IMF to continue to be effective, it needed more financial resources. “Now that the Europeans have moved first with their firewall, the time has come to increase our firepower,” she said. The IMF is a good investment for all its 187 member countries, including the United States, she said, adding that no member country has ever lost money by contributing to IMF resources. 

Given that she made her name at the US law firm Baker & Mackenzie, it's no surprise that she has no distaste for asking for money unlike most other Europeans. Still, the high comedy of whom she is approaching is evident. Truly, it's the global neighbourhood equivalent of asking the long-ago millionaire but now hermit-living-in-genteel-poverty for lots of money.

Not gonna happen.
Read More

Got Fission? Debating Nukes 4 Development

♠ Posted by Emmanuel at 4/02/2012 09:56:00 AM
Our colleagues over at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists sent me a notice about a timely new feature of theirs concerning LDCs considering the adoption of nuclear power (the Atomic Scientists maintain the well-known Doomsday Clock). The impetus for doing so should be familiar to everyone: insecure supplies of crude oil and global warming are concerns that we in the Global South share with our peers in developed nations. That said, traditional problematiques that have bedevilled nuclear power adoption have never really gone away.

Post-Fukushima, it makes many LDCs wonder if one of the world's most technologically savvy nations cannot guarantee nuclear safety, what more developing nations whose technical expertise and institutional capacity are far below those of Japan? Moreover, despite the comparatively dearer price of fossil fuel, nuclear power is hardly a cheap alternative. There's also the question of how to dispose of nuclear waste. Recall the recent fatal accident (albeit non-nuclear) at France's Marcoule site that raises similar questions about waste handling in what is probably the country most experienced at utilizing nuclear power.

That said, no fatalities in Japan and one "industrial accident" in France are hardly mass casualties in the history of humans generating power. Meanwhile, unfortunately far more common coal mining mishaps receive little attention because such incidents generally fail to capture the public imagination. Perhaps prematurely, the Economist has already deemed nuclear power "the dream that failed."

Or has it really? Given the number of LDCs considering nuclear power, that verdict may be premature:
Over 45 countries that do not use nuclear power today are seriously considering its adoption; of these, 37 are classified by the World Bank as developing nations. Moreover, four developing countries -- Bangladesh, Belarus, Turkey, and Vietnam -- are expected to begin construction on nuclear facilities over the upcoming years. This vast potential expansion in the developing world's nuclear capacity raises tricky questions about proliferation, plant safety, and cost. Below, Brazil's Gilberto Jannuzzi, Malaysia's Shahriman Lockman, and India's P.R. Kumaraswamy tackle the question: "How can nuclear power for economic development be made available to developing countries without increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation?"
The contributors have interesting viewpoints concerning what I've termed "Nukes 4 Development." Kumaraswamy argues that Western nations have unfairly characterized LDCs pursuing nuclear power as potential nuclear weapons proliferators, all the while admitting that plant safety in the Global South is iffy. Meanwhile, Lockman is more concerned about the practicalities involved in using nuclear power such as multilateral mechanisms for addressing various stages in the fuel cycle and preventing this technology from getting into the wrong hands from LDCs. Lastly, Jannuzzi opines that there are more cost-effective alternatives to fuelling third world development.

Energy security--especially from nuclear power--is certainly an underresearched area in development studies that needs more attention. These contributions however help point us towards worthwhile research directions.
Read More

Money Talks? Bahrain GP Still On (Fortnight to Go)

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 4/01/2012 03:05:00 PM
Some have hunger games; Formula One has, well, anger races.
 
There has been a lot in the news about how the Formula One circus will not be disrupted this year alike how last year's Bahrain Grand Prix was postponed then finally cancelled due to the events of the so-called Arab Spring. During the Valentine's "Day of Rage" in 2011, the eyes of the world were also focused on Bahrain, where the al-Khalifa ruling family was not subsequently toppled. Despite more than a few observers questioning the human rights aspects of Bahrain's crowd control efforts up to the present time--another protester died this weekend--organizers say the race will go on.

The al-Khalifas view this year's race will proceed as one of national reconciliation, although I doubt the veracity of this claim since (a) fatal protests are still ongoing and (b) we haven't heard opposition figures extend their support for the race to go on. In any event, the billionaire F1 impresario Bernie Ecclestone believes that the race will be held on April 22, and team principals showed support at a Bahrain-sponsored event in London town. But, of course, it's exactly the same sort of thing he said last year...till the race was finally cancelled:
Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone says he has no doubts about holding the Bahrain Grand Prix this year. The race was cancelled last year due to civil unrest and human rights groups have called for the race to be axed. Asked by BBC Sport if he had concerns about safety in Bahrain for himself and the teams, Ecclestone said: "Not at all. It's business as usual...I don't need any personal security but I'm sure whatever's necessary will be looked after."

Ecclestone's remarks come a day after the president of Bahrain's Automobile Federation, Sheikh Abdullah bin Isa Al Khalifa, said he did not believe security needed to be stepped up. Al Khalifa said he was "not worried at all" about the safety of those attending the race, while governing body the FIA expect the race to go ahead. A FIA spokesman said: "We welcome the spirit of reconciliation expressed by all parties and look forward to an exciting F1 race at the Bahrain International Circuit..."

Ecclestone was attending a lunch held in London by the race organisers, which was also attended by leading figures from the Red Bull, Williams, McLaren and Mercedes teams and the motorsport chief of tyre supplier Pirelli.  
However, a human rights figure from Bahrain appeared on BBC HARDtalk stating the human rights record of the al-Khalifas puts hosting the race in question:
There are concerns that it could be a target for protesters as it is so closely tied to the Bahrain ruling family.Nabeel Rajab, president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, told the BBC's HardTalk programme on Wednesday that the race should not be allowed to go ahead in the country because of Bahrain's human rights record. Rajab told BBC HARDtalk's Stephen Sackur: "It should stop, at least out of respect for the Formula 1 staff."
Although this race looks likely to go on, the image it presents to the rest of the world depending on what happens in the days leading up to it shall be interesting to watch. Remember, the kids ain't alright to some.
Read More