America Longing for Moses

WASHINGTON – Whatever the eventual outcome of the democratic party primaries, we have a Barack Obama phenomenon that is more then just a momentary blip. Whether he will eventually prevail or not against Senator Hillary Clinton, Obama’s staying power, in fact growing profile, in terms of widespread support across races and age groups and his ability to attract massive financial contributions to his campaign demonstrates that, yet again, at least a sizable portion of the American electorate is transfixed by the idea that a “New Type of Leader” will get us on “The Right Path”.

This large segment of the electorate seems to conceive the political process as an exercise in spiritual self-renewal, as opposed to a process aimed at selecting a competent chief executive. What is held against Obama by the traditionalists –lack of experience—is indeed a virtue for his supporters. He is not tainted by the process. Barack Obama is new; indeed extra new. A junior Senator from Illinois with a negligible political record (at least compared to many more seasoned politicians). He is different not for what he is (who knows really…) but for what he seems to symbolize.

Among other things there is an assumption regarding his purported ability to make us finally heal and thus transcend the race issue through his very physical being as a biracial man. All this is mixed with an ideal blend of youthful vigor and principled, ecumenical idealism, finally pasteurized by an enlightened and wise pragmatism of post-partisan politics. “The Man with two Races” represents himself as the Uniter. The One who can lift us beyond petty politics by disclosing a “Vision” that sets all of us onto a “Higher Purpose”.

We have serious problems –he tells us– and we should confront them with the appropriate gravitas blended, though, with the “can-doism” of a reawakened American Pragmatism. And here we go again. We really want to listen to someone who tells us that if we only put our minds to it, the sky is the limit. We are Americans. United behind a Genuine Leader who will tirelessly exhort us to be the best that we can be –the New Coach of Team America– we shall regain our sense of purpose and be once again an unstoppable force for good.

Back in 1995 we had another African American whom we flirted with: General Colin Powell. After Powell had retired from being the first soldier, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, there was intense speculation that he would run for president. So, we were told by U.S. News & World Report ,(Cover story August 21, 1995), that Colin Powell is “The Man to Watch”. But what did Powell have that made him so attractive?

He was an ex soldier with no recognizable political base or clear political program. Well, that was precisely the point. He was unknown and thus he could make us dream whatever we wanted to dream. This deep fascination with the “good outsider”, now renewed through the Barack Obama phenomenon, reveals a great deal as to what many Americans unconsciously expect from a president.

At least for some Americans, and the young first and foremost, the qualities desired in a elected public officer are not primarily intelligence, common sense and steadfast pursuit of a goal until it is accomplished.

No. We want “Leadership”, “Vision”. We may not say it openly, yet we are usually bored when we hear from a would be president about what his administration will do about energy, taxes or infrastructure spending. We want to sit, riveted in front of the TV, transfixed by the eloquence of a Man who introduces us to His Vision. We want to hear stirring rhetoric about our “Unique Destiny” as Americans; our Nation’s “Bright Future”.

This, of course, does not mean that we like to give unchecked, dictatorial powers to the presidents. No Mussolini, Hitler or Peron for America.

Yet, we want to be seduced. We want to be inspired. Deep in our hearts we want a Prophet in the White House. We want a man whose vision surpasses all others, a man who will touch our spirits, a man who will energize us to accomplish great deeds.

The attention given to General Colin Powell months after his retirement was based on the fact that we could believe that he had these qualities, while Bill Clinton, the incumbent president at the time, did not seem to.

Of course nowadays Bill Clinton has been reconstructed as the inspired good president who gave us peace and the roaring ‘90s. But, at the time, he did not appear so inspiring. The crushing defeat of his party in the Congressional lections of 1994 attested to that. Deep in our hearts, in the elections of 1992, we wanted a champion; and instead we got a policy wonk of questionable moral character. Bill Clinton extolled the merit of “Reinventing Government”. He pushed government-business alliances to produce a new generation of cars. He wanted a comprehensive health reform but in the end he could not explain it. For a time, he forced many journalists to understand and explain to a confused public what a “BTU” (British Thermal Unit) is.

But he had not defined for us a “Heroic Journey”, a “Manifest Destiny”. There was no “New Deal” to be struck. No “New Frontier” ahead of us. No “Great Society” to be built.

Further, at the time there did not seem to be real dragons to slay across the Oceans. America was the Superpower, but we could not congratulate ourselves anymore for being the “Leader of the Free World”. The few attempts aimed at defining something new in foreign policy, such as humanitarian intervention in Bosnia, democracy building in Somalia or drawing the line on human rights in China excited very few people.

While we contemplated unenthusiastically the political horizons, fate had it that a new suitor with all the right credentials seemed to be coming along. Powell had all the qualities to become the object of our next infatuation. He had an impeccable resume. He was (is) a self-made American, a product of the military meritocracy which tempered his character. He led the military during the Gulf War. A black man universally respected by whites. Serious, witty and humble. Even better, he was politically untested. He never held elected office, so he has no record to defend or to distance himself from.

Hence the flurry of speculation. What was Powell going to do? Would he really be running for president in 1996? Was he a Democrat or a Republican ? As a General turned politician, was he going to be more like an Eisenhower or a Washington; a Jackson or a Grant ?

But the real (even though not fully articulated) question was: “Is this self-assured, competent soldier the hero who will lead this disoriented tribe away from the swamps of uncertainty and doubt and into the Promised Land of Prosperity and Security?”. Will a president Powell succeed in the task where all the other false prophets (President Bill Clinton included) failed us? Will he finally “fix” America for us?

While the context and the cast of characters have changed somewhat since the 1990s, the dynamics and the emotional drivers behind the Barak Obama phenomenon are pretty much the same. So, the hope of his many supporters is that Obama, with his exotic resume, his gravitas, his beautiful voice, seriousness and appeal to our moral principles will fix America for us. Unfortunately this is not just the proverbial wrong issue. The fact that an issue can be framed in these terms in the context of an election in a modern democracy reveals profound misgivings on the part of the public, as well as the opinion leaders who fuel these debates, on what the political process in a democracy should be about.

Would Colin Powell have made a good president? Of course, we’ll never know that. He snuffed the dream by taking himself out of the picture. But, had he decided to stay in and become president he probably would not have been worse than average.

As for Obama……who knows? Maybe what he lacks in experience he can make up with good instincts. But the real problem which reveals a profound misgiving about the nature of the political process is that the enthusiasm for his candidacy does not reside on the political plane. It resides on a semi-transcendental plane. It has to do with Faith and Belief rather than with the mundane bricks and mortar of the public policy pitfalls that should consist in the wise allocation of limited resources. Obama is not about policies; but about our need to be inspired by “Leadership-and-Vision, Moral-Character-and-Conviction-of-One-Man”.

But if this is the reason for the appeal of an individual who is running to be the head of what, after all, we call an “administration”, then we have a misunderstanding about the role of the political process in a democracy.

Let us make this clear: Nobody, nobody can “fix” America relying on his own inspirational abilities. Most of all, nobody will be able to fix it within the four years of a presidential mandate (or even within eight years –should he be reelected). America’s problems, like those of any complex, modern society, are systemic and as such they can be seriously addressed only over a long period of time.

“So what –one might say– even if we need long term solutions, let’s put someone in charge who will put us on the right track to begin with. That surely beats doing nothing or having another half-witted character in the Oval Office”.

Here is another fallacy. A president may identify problems and even suggest the right cures; but he cannot transform the soul of a nation. Not even if he is another Ronald Reagan-style “Great Communicator”, a politician who can rally diverse constituencies behind controversial programs. And the obstacles on the way to the implementation of Grand Designs, (taking for granted that sensible policies are indeed contained in them) are neither “congressional gridlock” nor the entrenched “interest groups”, nor the “bureaucracy” –and not even outside dangers such as Al Qaeda, or emerging rivals such as China.

The obstacle is us. All this yearning for inspirational leadership indicates that we have forgotten that an effective democratic government is premised not on the extraordinary qualities of a few; but on the deep and reasoned understanding of our condition and our real (as opposed to imaginary) choices on the part of the many. Further, democracy can function well only if the many do understand what can be addressed by us collectively, through the political process; and what has to be addressed instead by the people, individually, or in association with one another, on their own. Put it differently, the vaunted concept of the “Bully Pulpit” –the opportunity of a principled president to literally force the country on the way of wisdom, is a myth. At times it is a dangerous myth; as it creates expectations of a renewal engineered from above that routinely go unfulfilled. In an ideal republic, Good Government is the product of a healthy society. It is not the result of choosing the Superior Man as President.

Those individuals whom we reverently call our Founding Fathers grappled from the very beginning of the Republic with these issues. They found no final answers; but they certainly agreed that a democratic form of government requires a great deal of reason on the part of the people who make up the Republic. Indeed, democracy is premised on abundant reason. And reason, here, is to be understood as a clear sense of individual responsibility and self-reliance accompanied by a shared sense of justice and human decency that will prevent prevarication and abuses at the expenses of few or many. It also means a pragmatic understanding of what it takes to get something meaningful done in terms of time, effort and money.

But the record shows that, at least when we consider the highest elective office in the nation, many of us use little or no reason as the criteria to assess potential candidates. We crave someone “who will put things in order”. This person must look and sound persuasive. He must look good on TV. His positions on the issues are far less important than his rhetoric. He does not have to be right. He just has to sound right. Mesmerizing speech is far more important than content.

This state of affairs indicates a peculiar dichotomy in the American Collective Psyche.

On the one hand, we have a tradition that looks at government in a skeptical and somewhat suspicious way. And thus we sing the praise of a system of checks and balances which was designed to prevent any individual, faction or interest to entirely dominate the system. Indeed, as James Madison wisely put it long ago, men are not angels. So we must have a system of government which will create some healthy protection, a hedge against the power-hungry, the silly or the incompetents who are bound to be among our political leaders. Thus, a simple idea: do not give too much power to anybody. In fact, create a healthy competition among the key institutions of the Republic.

Make sure that no sweeping plan will be adopted too quickly. Let the Congress be in the way of the president, let the Courts check on the laws, let the president veto imprudent legislation, and so on and so forth. The marvelous result of a rather weak government will be that the citizens will not be hindered in their own private pursuits for whose protection, (remember the Declaration?), governments were created.

On the other hand, to this commonsensical, realistic, pragmatic approach enshrined in our Constitution, we juxtapose a romanticized view of government. We look at politicians –and presidents in particular– not just as chief executives, as the heads of what is still called, (after all) an “administration” but as the equivalent of Biblical leaders. Deep down, we do not want an “administrator” in the White House. Deep down we are on the lookout for a Moses who will lead us from the wilderness of confusion (economic, social, national, international, ecological –you name it) into the Promised land of Self- Assurance, Hope and Prosperity.

So, we are really torn between two opposite ideas about the political process. We have the world of the harsh everyday reality that makes us suspicious of any politician and skeptical about any and all of their claims. And then we have another world in which we invite politicians to tell us that they will fix everything. We want them to tell us that, if only we will vote them into office, nothing less than the Full Restoration of the American Dream will be bestowed upon us alongside with Justice and Dignity for All.

Is there a way out of this confusion? Of course there is: but it is complicated, as it summons our personal sense of responsibility. We need to rediscover what we have forgotten. We need to learn again that the premise for a successful democratic government consists in an informed, politically and policy literate citizenry which understands issues and can formulate reasonable opinions about them. Such a literate populace will tend to choose from within its midst elected leaders who will be (hopefully in most cases) at least not below average in their understanding of the needs for the common good.

This rather mundane truth is the simple secret of successful democratic government. Success lies in the nurturing of civic virtues and at least basic knowledge about issues on the parts of the citizens. The same citizens will also understand that it is impossible to ask government to fix problems –such as drug addiction and crime– which are deeply embedded in stratified bad personal habits for thousands and thousands of people. No doubt, well conceived public policy measures can help, but only if the rest of society agrees and changes its behavior.

But we do not want to bother with this simple yet harsh reality. A reality which summons our sense of personal responsibility. And we harbor instead a dream. We want to believe that somewhere, somehow there is a “Moses in waiting”. Just let him come along and He will sort out the mess.

The fact that a sizable percentage of Americans is prone to believe in these simplifications explains our infatuations. The Barak Obama phenomenon is largely a manifestation of this wishful thinking. While at the local and state level our political process is about the representation and the protection of vested interests, (taxes, zoning, infrastructures, basic services), at the national level it is a sequel of love affairs and disappointments with various politicians who carried “messages” that had very little to do with public administration.

How could all this happen in our Republic? Difficult to say. But, for sure, overtime we have lost the original sense of democratic government. Overtime we turned significant moments of our democratic life (such as party conventions) into rituals (at time solemn, at times ridiculous), which seem to celebrate extraordinary people. We seem to have forgotten that democracies can thrive only when everybody –governors and governed alike– display more virtues than vices.

Furthermore, probably unconsciously, we created physical symbols that seem to corroborate our distorted views. The Founding Fathers met on several historic occasions in a Hall in Philadelphia that is anything but grand. But we, the posterity, in order to celebrate them, have built shrines. Just go around the city of Washington and you will see not just monuments erected to eminent and worthy Americans. You will see Temples honoring Demigods whose lives and deeds are wrapped in the mist of legend. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln are not represented as men –however eminent. They are Heroes, Visionaries, Saviors. They are our “American Holy Trinity”. God the Father (Washington), God the Son (Lincoln, both Savior and Martyr) and God the Holy Ghost (Jefferson, worshipped for having inspired the birth of the Nation). Indeed, if we look up in the Capitol Rotunda, what do we see? A God-like George Washington looking at us from the Heavens.

Parts of the city of Washington are the functional equivalent of the Vatican for the Catholics or Mecca for the Muslims. Places of worship where perhaps we are also reminded of the lessons of democracy; but where we especially celebrate the “Mystery of American Renewal” (Bill Clinton’s words during his inaugural address) –as if it were a myth of Death and Resurrection.

So, if America is a “mystery” it is not part of the conscious experience. It is a miracle; an act of God. And the president must be a mix of a Biblical Prophet and the Roman Pontifex Maximus. As Prophet he leads. As Pontifex he celebrates, invokes and blesses.

Only in America, among the modern industrial democracies, do we find in the speeches of presidents so many invocations to God and his blessings. Imagine the French President routinely concluding a speech with the formula “God bless you and God bless France”. It would be odd, if not bizarre.

But not in America. We do have a special relationship with the Almighty who –as we can read on our dollar bills– “Annuit Coeptis“, (“Smiled on our Undertakings”) and it is “In God [that] We Trust”. From this vantage point, America is a mystical, rather than a political creation. This is not a state. For many at least, it is the New Jerusalem. As the Jews of old, we have a special Covenant with God and He will not let us down. In the hour of Great Peril he will send to us another Great Man. And this Hero may sacrifice himself in order to give us a better future. Thus Lincoln, and thus John and Bob Kennedy.

But the peculiar thing is that the celebrated heroes of our past certainly did not regard themselves as Gods. They were concerned members on their communities who acted to promote ideas which had gained wide currency among the educated elites of the late XVIII century. The concepts of individual freedom, representative government, tolerance and free expression were not conceived in America. America is unique in as much as these ideas managed to take firm roots here, while they never found sufficiently fertile ground where they have been produced –that is in the Old Continent.

Most fundamentally, the George Washingtons of the time understood that the fortunes of democratic government did not and do not rest on the extraordinary leadership capabilities of some philosopher-president; but in the mature civic spirit of the majority of the people whose thoughtful involvement in public affairs is the life blood of a republic. Indeed, a successful democracy is premised on responsible and thoughtful citizenry; citizens who first and foremost want to and can manage their own lives; citizens who are responsible members of their families and of their communities. The Founding Fathers understood that restraint and common sense were precious commodities, not to be taken for granted but absolutely necessary. Hence the healthy skepticism expressed by Publius in the celebrated Federalist Paper Number 51.

We instead seem to misunderstand a great deal about our history as a successful democracy. We attribute our glorious past to all-knowing demigods and our not so brilliant present to their absence from the scene. We have totally unrealistic ideas about what national leaders can do and thus we feel entitled to be constantly disappointed. We have silly love affairs with candidates and presidents only to discard them like yesterday’s newspaper because somehow they failed to make us dream as long as we wanted them to.

So, the political debate is disproportionately devoted to the symbolism of government rather than the substance and the consequences of governmental action. Electoral campaigns are circuses dominated by pollsters and image consultants with a silly chorus of a sensationalist media.

Ronald Reagan said that “It is morning in America” and America believed him; not because, upon careful consideration, we concluded that what he said was true; but because he said it well and with the right intonation and with the occasional tear in his eye which added credibility to his delivery.

All those who knew better were silenced by the chorus of silly adoration. Thus it was in bad taste to make an issue about the fact that president Reagan understood little about issues and that his misguided economic prejudices were contributing to the destabilization of our national finances. The people liked their Great Communicator and nobody seriously tried to tell them the truth.

George Bush Senior instead spoke with convoluted syntax, appeared uncertain about “the economy” and we fired him because we were told by the pundits that he lacked “vision”. Never mind that he won the Gulf War. The problem is that the economic recovery that was supposed to follow our victory did not materialize in time for the November 1992 elections. Never mind that every reasonable person knows that a president can do very little to control economic cycles. America felt very uncomfortable about its economy (later findings proved that the situation was not so horrible after all) and felt unhappy with a president who, when asked as to his plans, could only look embarrassed and mutter vague hopes that things somehow would adjust themselves. Since things did not get any better soon enough, (we are an impatient people, you know), we decided that we should try a different cure.

So, a crucial percentage of the American people, this bastion of rugged free enterprise, historically suspicious of government cures for economic ills, was sold in a matter of minutes to the idea that we, as a nation, were failing because we were the only major country lacking an “economic strategy”. Remember “the Economy- Stupid”? This was Bill Clinton’s main ammunition during the presidential campaign and the real winning point. All successful nations –explained super policy expert Bill Clinton– succeed because they have a “strategy”. Under the mindless and intellectually obtuse Republicans –added Professor Clinton– we failed to develop one, hence the lingering recession. Elect Clinton, implement the Bold New Strategy and everything will be fine.

Ipso facto.

Out went Bush, in came Clinton “The Leader with the Strategy”. At that time, nobody bothered to examine closely the premise laid out by Clinton: i.e. that centrally planned economic “strategies” are successful. Well, the record shows that most nations that tried to implement economic strategies (from the heavy duty Soviet style ones to the more modest “dirigiste” models like the French) failed miserably. West European Social Democracy, the well intentioned economic and social model of the 1960s and the 1970s, is now regarded as a monumental strategic failure which sapped the energies of European societies. But we never bother to look these facts up. As a nation, we become so absorbed with the latest slogan –as long as it is propounded with sincere conviction by the latest would-be Moses– that we do not bother to check the facts and the real experience of the others.

And so we live in ignorance of what government can do and what to expect from presidents. What is worse, many among the experts, the analysts, the pundits are unconscious victims of the same ignorance. Of course, at least some of them know better. But why be spoilers? No. The game has to continue. We cannot say that the Emperor has no Clothes. And, in this case, the Emperor is not the president. The Unclothed Emperor is a fickle people whose pulse we are constantly taking, with the help of the most sophisticated pollsters in the world. And yet we know very well that on most issues the opinions expressed in various polls are just epidermic moods of moody people; responses of the moment to the fad of the moment.

We are constantly asking Americans how they judge the performance of a president and then we sometimes see how the results of these polls become self-fulfilling prophecies. Yet, whenever we test the substantive knowledge of the same people about the actual actions of the administration –that is to say the facts on which they base their ratings on the president’s performance—quite often we discover significant ignorance. So, The People actually know little; yet somehow they have the gift that makes them able to discern a good president from a bad one. And the TV anchors who announce the results of these polls assume a grave intonation, as if they were reporting on the careful deliberations of the village elders, as opposed to the epidermic emotions of not so deeply informed people.

But the issue here is not who is to blame. The issue is that these attitudes about democratic government and our elected representatives show how dysfunctional our society is becoming. I say our “society” and not our “political system”, for the political system is the expression of the society and its level of maturity.

That having been said, what is to be done? There is no simple solution. The long term cure is education, education, education. And education goes beyond “information”. Civic Education involves, as a minimum, a basic grasp of where the healthy boundary between the personal and the public sphere in a democratic society should be. If most Americans understood this, and acted accordingly, we would see many of our “problems” in a far better perspective. We would then be self-guided as individuals. From government we would expect no miracles; only fairness aimed at giving everybody a good chance to participate and good administration.

Of course, this is a portrait of an ideal society in an ideal world. Still, this is the direction that we should aim for. Continuing to lull ourselves in our misguided fantasies about Saviors and Rescuers –Barak Obama being only the latest manifestation of this syndrome– will not improve our condition a bit.

Economic Development Requires a State of Mind

WASHINGTON – Let’s start with a basic notion: economic development is a new phenomenon in human history. This makes it difficult to understand it; let alone produce it at will. Furthermore, intellectual biases based on the fundamental rationality of the human being that would make him naturally predisposed to maximize economic advantage, contributed to intellectual confusion as to what really causes and or makes development possible.

Let us not forget that for tens of thousands of years humans lived on earth pretty much like the other creatures. They came into the world. They were engaged in looking for and finding food. They devised ways to fend off predators, sometimes successfully sometimes not. They reproduced when possible, often fell prey of disease, and usually they died young because of hunger, disease or violence visited upon them by predators or other humans. For tens of thousands of years there was no such thing as development as we understand it today.

 Growth is New

Both the notion and the reality of “economic growth” –especially the fast paced economic growth that has been more the norm, rather than the exception, in the western world in the last fifty years– are new. Although for many Westerners “growth” seems to have become self-evident as a reality and thus achievable as a goal, it should be emphasized that this phenomenon represents a “revolutionary” shift vis-à-vis anything that mankind had known until relatively recent times. The only known “reality” that both shaped and conditioned the worldview of millions for tens of thousands of years was that the only possible result of human activity is (at best) to reproduce what already exists.

The idea that it is indeed both desirable and possible to improve material conditions through human planning, the invention of new tools and methods whose outcome should be to increase the quantity, the variety and the quality of what is available, is new. The idea that one can devise and then apply new techniques and tools to activities such as handicrafts or manufacturing that would augment both total output and its quality; or that it is possible to improve upon the techniques related to the old ones (agriculture and animal husbandry) is new.

Indeed, the very notion that through human ingenuity and applied creativity it is possible to systematically produce and create something “more” than what already exists, if looked at against the backdrop of the long history of mankind, is truly “revolutionary”. But how did all this happen, and why? And, by the same token, given the reality of development somewhere, how can we bring it elsewhere, where it has not occurred yet?

As such a crucial transformation did not occur as a clear, discreet experience, we have the consequent difficulty to spell out the ingredients, the dynamics and the environment that gave life in past instances –and that can give life today– to economic development or progress.

For the longest time, most theories were shaped by an assumption of a dominant rational trait within the human psyche that would lead humans to actions aimed at maximizing utility. But empirical evidence shows that this is not true; at least not all the time. In fact, not even most of the time. What is true instead is that notions that are conducive to development can be learnt. However, the fact that they can be learnt does not mean that they will be easily embraced, as soon as people are exposed to them. For such an assimilation to take place, a significant transformation of the human psyche was and is a necessary precondition. First and foremost a transformation that allows the psyche to begin to conceive, in the abstract, something that does not yet exist in the material, tangible reality, for development is about building an idea, not yet in the here and now.

However, because the role of the psychological, “intangible” psychological factors necessary to trigger an approach consistent with development were overlooked and thus not properly considered, the students of economics concentrated a disproportionate amount of attention on the tangible and material factors, the building blocks of development, attributing thus economic development to a change in material circumstances. This is a bit like saying that in order to be a great painter, an individual does indeed need canvass, various paints and brushes. Of course, he does. But the availability of these tools do not guarantee success as a painter. 

This narrow approach has created distortions that have had a significant impact in shaping policies aimed at fostering growth in developed but especially in underdeveloped countries. By overemphasizing the need to improve material circumstances, (this is of course a necessary condition), we have somehow lost the point that the main agent of change is the human psyche. For it is the psyche that provides the sense of need, the orientation and the direction of sustained intellectual energies that can be mobilized materially toward this or that pursuit.

Economic Development: A Recent Revolution

Just to emphasize how new all this is, let us remember that, although they may be common place now (at least in the western or westernized world), until three hundred years ago, concepts, ideas, theories about “economic development” just did not exist. Until the inception of the industrial revolution in Great Britain during the XVIII Century, with the exception of the ruling elites that had secured for themselves positions of power and privilege in different societies, for most people, life had been following patterns focused on survival that had existed for millennia.

Furthermore, economic development did not start with a “bang”. Its inception in the early XVIII century, while setting in motion a process with incredible long-term consequences, was barely noticed by most. Indeed, another two hundred years had to go by for an industrial revolution based on new technologies and capitalistic enterprises to expand from its initial base in Great Britain and to reach a significant momentum in Western Europe and North America. It took that long for this transformation to produce at least some truly benign economic effects for significantly large numbers of people living in those parts of the world, in terms of improved quality of living. Throughout this time, the phenomenon was studied and analyzed. Regardless as to the wildly diverging theories, at least all this new attention created and spread awareness about the existence of “growth” and about a range of new ideas and concepts based on the premise that humans, through economic activities, can change for the better individual as well as societal circumstances.

Still, even at the dawn of the XX century, when industrialization was in full swing in Europe and North America, relatively few benefited from it. Only a small number of people were involved in and mastered the complexities of entrepreneurial activities that, as experience has proven, are a necessary foundation for widespread, sustained economic growth. One century after the successful harnessing of steam, and after the use of electricity had become common and after the development of the internal combustion engine –all of which allowed the beginning of modern, large-scale industry and manufacturing –the majority of the people in the industrial countries were not significantly affected by these epochal changes.

Likewise, after the telegraph, the telephone and the radio had already found large industrial and commercial applications and had thus become part of the broadly used technology, this progress barely touched or altogether eluded the majorities in the most technologically advanced and economically better off countries.

In truth, at the beginning of the age of the assembly line and mass production not much had changed in the daily lives of most ordinary people living in the western world. After almost a century of furious technological innovation that had revolutionized quantity and quality of industrial output as well as the structure of many economic activities and business relations, at the dawn of the twentieth century the majority of the people in Western Europe and North America continued to live in the old way.

Most of them were still farmers residing in rural communities, following a rhythm of life that was not too distant from what had been known and practiced for centuries. With the notable exception of the few new capitalists and of the emerging urban middle classes, most people still lived in simple –totally inadequate by today’s standards– dwellings with no electricity, no running water, no adequate heating and no sewage systems. For many, the quality of life was poor and often appalling. Infant mortality was high, while many died prematurely because of influenza, tuberculosis, pneumonia, typhoid and other diseases –in the same way as it had been for centuries. People had some awareness that technology was changing the world around them. But most of them, aside from benefiting marginally, if at all, from these changes, were absolutely ignorant as to the dynamics of the process, let alone have a way to participate in it as protagonists.

If this was the picture in the so-called modern and advanced world until not too long ago, it is no wonder that “development” and “economic growth” both as concepts and as realities, (notwithstanding further and broader economic progress), took many more decades to reach beyond the traditional western world.

No wander that, even today, while westerners are engaged in debates about a “Third Industrial Revolution” caused by “the information revolution ” that has created a “knowledge-based economy”, both the ideas and the processes needed to engineer “growth” –any kind of growth– have yet to reach and touch the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people on this planet, from rural India to rural Africa. And this is indeed the issue that we are confronted with: how to best try and make development the norm where it is not. Untold failures attest to the difficulty of this endeavor.

When the West was undergoing its industrial revolution, only very few in the rest of the world could have a pale idea of this unfolding process, its dynamics and especially its long term implications. Today, the situation is, of course, vastly different. Significant outposts of development have been created, exist and thrive well beyond the west an d westernized countries. Information about the technological and  the tested policy tools that seem to foster progress is more readily available. And, nowadays, thanks to the internet, news can travel fast, even to the most backward corners of the earth. Likewise, both the amount and the speed of information transmission increase literally on a daily basis. By the same token, today, ideas about development and strategies to promote growth are the objects of intense debate across the board, including of course in Third World countries –sometime serious discussion, sometime mere lip service.

Yet, all this notwithstanding, the reality is that for hundreds of millions, to date, these are still scarcely, if at all, understood notions with little or no bearing or impact on their daily lives.

Economic Development: A New Reality without clear Causes

One of the reasons for this difficulty in making inroads in the minds of untold millions, is that even we, in the western, modern, technologically booming world, are still uncertain as to the “laws” (if any) that rule the growth process. We (usually) know development when we see it, but we are not exactly sure as to what it takes to have it. Indeed, right here, in the industrialized, developed world, where, at this stage, compounded, massive and very tangible changes have reached almost all strata of the advanced societies, we are still far from any intellectual consensus of what “development” is and –more importantly– what it takes to make it happen. We have problems with both the definitions of the concepts and their implementation. Economic development is a reality but its dynamics are still to a large extent an elusive mystery. Indeed, even within highly developed societies, some parts, regions or areas within cities do not participate; while others suffer from decline, development in reverse. Thus, many attempts at mastering it notwithstanding, it is clear that the development phenomenon is more art than science and it cannot be easily conceptualized within a body of clearly transmissible knowledge.

Yet, paradoxically, even without a full understanding of the process, the reality of progress has given life to a set of beliefs that –at least for some– amount to some kind of creed. By and large, in the west, most people today are born or have grown into adulthood with the axiomatic belief that they live in societies characterized by the reality of an ongoing “economic progress”, where “economic progress” is described as an achievable personal and societal goal.

Further, (regardless of the theoretical uncertainties mentioned above), for many westerners (if not most), overtime other assumptions and postulates managed to take strong roots. As a result, there is now a widespread belief that “there are” known, practical and viable economic policies and activities that would or should lead to the improvement of one’s material conditions, as well as policies that should favor broader economic dynamism and thus growth for the whole society.

Again, any cursory observation of ongoing economic debates shows that there are many unresolved and heated disputes as to how best to achieve these goals. The most disparate policies are heralded as absolutely essential by some, while the same are condemned by others as harmful to growth, if not utterly insane. However, despite conflicting views and confusion, at a deeper level, there is a faith that somehow, the broader goal of continuous progress is both attainable and necessary.

In fact, at this stage, the conventional wisdom in the West is that continuous economic improvement is deemed to be not only possible but indispensable. A century or so after sheer survival ceased to be the dominant preoccupation in the West, the constant improvement of our standards of living via wealth generating economic activities has come to be viewed as a necessity. In the West, the reality of growth has allowed the establishment of a belief, now entrenched, that tomorrow has to be better than today. If this does not happen all the time, then there must be serious ailments affecting the society in question. In fact, in the world that we have created, we have now the almost undisputed axiom that it is not possible to live a decent life without the constant improvement of material conditions –the benign outcome of economic progress. Majorities would agree that increased human satisfaction is related to increased wealth and improved living conditions. For these reasons, the promise of more, or more rapid, economic progress is a pledge routinely made on the part of the political elites of any given country seeking popular support.

For example, in the nineteenth century, the Brazilian ruling elites, strongly affected by positivism, inscribed the word “Progress” (after the word “Order”) on the country’s national flag. Governments the world over, almost by definition, are supposed to promote economic growth; while they are evaluated mostly in terms of their ability to improve the economic picture. Although we do debate as to the best mix of activities on the part of both the private sector and public powers that will improve economic conditions, we do generally share the belief that government has a major responsibility in fostering economic growth. In the United States, for instance, the most common, although largely flawed, parameter to judge a president’s performance is “how the economy is doing” under his stewardship –even though it is well known that any president has very limited powers to influence economic performance.

Based on all this, we can say that, in Western societies, most individuals from an early age are taught that a) it is both desirable and possible for people to “advance economically” in the material world; b) that there are time proven ways, (such as hard work, starting a business, saving, improving one’s skills through education, and so forth) to achieve this goal. Furthermore, these ideas are so deeply ingrained that we are now consciously or unconsciously “conditioned” to think in terms of degrees of growth. While many individuals may stay throughout their lives on an even course, or actually see the deterioration of their material conditions, if society at large does not “grow” economically, then people start worrying and begin to look for causes of “stagnation”. If and when there is a net, albeit small, deterioration of economic conditions, then we must be in serious trouble. When we have severe economic stagnation or crisis, with accompanying unemployment and falling standards of living, concern may turn into real fear. In extreme cases this may cause social unrest or even revolution.

Development: For Most Still a Distant Concept 

But there again, the West and the large portions of Asia and other continents that have adopted western approaches are not yet the universal standard. A large, if not the largest, portion of the world’s population is still moving according to the old parameters focused perhaps no longer on sheer survival but still on subsistence. Most of the common people on this planet can scarcely begin to comprehend the concept of “man made growth”, let alone become actively involved in activities that would engineer such growth. For hundreds of millions of people on earth today, life is still about securing enough to get by today, in a world where they perceive opportunities to be determined by a “visible” pool of finite resources. This narrow worldview cannot conceive the notion of getting “more” out of what exists.

By the same token, those who live in realities dominated by the entrenched perception that resources are finite, by default, if nothing else, operate following a “zero sum game” mentality. According to this view, in any given situation, one can have more only by taking away something from others. Following this basic approach, the clever people become involved in activities (political, military or otherwise) that place them in the position to either directly control the existing pool of wealth or to acquire material gain by supervising its distribution. The name of the game is not “wealth creation” but instead “wealth control”.

Anywhere we have the predominance of thinking and practices aimed at wealth control, it is very hard –if not outright impossible– to have the germination, let alone the rooting of the idea that people can advance both economically and socially, not by taking away from someone else, in a zero sum game, but by creating something more and something new. In these circumstances, the mental path to even begin to think about increased “wealth production” is yet to be discovered.

No Theoretical Consensus in Developed Countries

But, as mentioned above, even in the modern, industrialized world, where economists have been theorizing for centuries as to the purported parameters that will cause or foster wealth creation, we have not yet mastered, agreed upon, or defined a proven method. We have produced large libraries of books on economic theory, models and analysis. But the most striking observation in reviewing economic literature is a lack of conceptual unity based on real facts. To date, economics is not a real “science”. At best it is a diverse, sometimes confusing, ensemble of widely differing theories. As yet, we have not been able to clearly identify basic principles which determine certain dynamics nor the ingredients that will trigger growth both in societies that have it and in those which do not have it or not enough of it.

It is important to stress that, thus far, we have not yet singled out the rules (assuming that they exist) nor devised a system that can generate and guarantee continuous steady growth. All this may appear quite paradoxical. The West embraced the concept of the possibility and desirability of growth long ago. One way or the other, growth, albeit uneven and often staggering, has become a tangible reality. Yet people after a century long debate have yet to agree as to what the recipe should be.

To cite just the most obvious example of a radically different approach to the goal of growth, Socialism (in its different varieties), was conceived and then applied –no doubt in good faith at least in some instances– as a supposedly better, indeed more “scientific”, way to secure the same goals of progress and growth –only to agree later on, friends and foes alike, faced with the evidence of monumental failure, that its shortcomings were far greater than its benefits.

But even in the Western mainstream we vehemently disagree about the right mix of ingredients for growth. We do not have clear recipes. Carefully crafted economic plans fail miserably or, at least, fall short of desired results. Conversely, periods of high growth occur without any clear correlation to existing economic policies. In some instances we have had economic reversals, painful and long (the Great Depression), in other instances some societies, try as they may, seem to be impotent prisoners of listless, anemic trends that fail to deliver on the general expectation that they should be moving forward. By the same token, even in societies that seem to be doing very well, such as the United States in the last decade, we are confronted with the phenomenon of significant portions of the population that neither participate in nor benefit from this unprecedented stretch of great economic dynamism.

Development: What are the Ingredients?

Whatever the outcome of their efforts, economists of all stripes for centuries have been trying to identify the key components of a growth-oriented environment. Of course, in the early days it was said that land was the key. Not exactly in this sequential order, they then discussed capital formation, the prerequisite for investments and thus future growth. Then they added inventions and technological innovations that could be industrially applied and commercially exploited. Then they considered raw materials; then population and thus market size, then access to markets and trade. Then they added the role of the State in aiding or impeding growth. Thus, a new focus on the need for appropriate macro-economic and monetary policies, a balanced system of taxation and the need to have good infrastructures that would facilitate economic activities. Then they discovered the value of skills and thus the importance of improved education standards, both in technology and management. Then they became conscious of the need for affordable sources of energy. Clearly all these are components of the economic process. They all matter as factors capable of influencing growth. But they matter in unequal and sometimes mystifying ways.

Countries with enormous reserves of raw materials and or energy are poor. Countries that have not been graced with anything at all by nature have become rich. Countries with benign weather are poor. Countries where people battle daily with the elements are rich. Some regions within countries do well, whereas others, although theoretically sharing the same macroeconomic and institutional environment, are doing very poorly. Even more interestingly, countries that used to enjoy economic leadership positions in the past no longer do today, while some new comers have managed to reach unimaginable heights in relatively short periods of time.

 New Focus on Culture and Beliefs

Be that as it may, while the debate is still going on, there is now a growing consensus that the material components of the economic process (land, raw materials, energy sources) are comparatively less critical than we used to think. Whereas, more importance is attached to the characteristics of the society within which economic activities take place.

Thus more emphasis is placed on the existence or creation or strengthening of some basic institutional features. Among them: a government that can provide useful services at a moderate cost in terms of tax burden; a dependable legal system, (that would among other things guarantee private property rights and the enforcement of contracts); a good education system that will produce a competitively skilled work force, and so forth.

This new thinking has been reinforced by reflections on the failure of the socialist and other statist systems. Socialism did not fail because of lack of materials means. The former Soviet Union had practically all the basic ingredients for sustained growth: abundant agricultural land, raw materials, energy sources, a relatively good education system that produced capable scientists and engineers. And yet, the system eventually collapsed, literally on itself. Notwithstanding early successes based on the ability to coerce people to produce according to state plans, eventually the political, judicial and societal make up proved to be inimical not just to economic growth but to productive activities in general.

After the end of communism many, in a rather naïve fashion, thought that, with the elimination of this system so deeply hostile to growth, a functioning free market, capitalist system would more or less spontaneously blossom. According to this optimistic view, this would happen because the people would have the opportunity to follow the tried western blueprint but also because they would be driven by some kind of innate inner force that, barring no artificial obstacles, leads societies to free market capitalism and democratic institutions.

The conventional wisdom was that there is a “natural” human propensity toward free market capitalism, itself the fundamental engine of growth. Communism represented an aberration, a distortion forcefully imposed. Eliminate the distortion and the natural order of things would progressively assert itself. But the chaotic situation characterizing most post communist societies shows that this is clearly not so. Thus, the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse reinforces the theory that the “correct” institutional-legal framework does not form itself naturally nor can it be just quickly superimposed on any given country through the work of well meaning advisors. For such a framework to gain firm roots, it has to be both understood and believed. It has to become part of the shared worldview, of the psychological make up of the people. (More on this later).

This assertion is further reinforced by observing a number of societies, especially in the Third World, that were not affected by the distortions of socialism. Decades after their leadership had claimed to have accepted and to be following the basic Western philosophy and practices which, according to the conventional wisdom, should induce growth, they are still not capable of making it happen. Now, why is it so? In order to at least try and answer these questions, we should revisit some of the ideas that have become something akin to axioms and dogmas regarding development.

Questioning the Conventional Wisdom

Although the debates as to which are the key ingredients of growth and the agents of growth have not been settled, at least at some level there is an almost unchallenged orthodoxy which has come to dominate “official” thinking, at least in the West, on these complex subjects. And this is the “classical” economic theory, which, notwithstanding the many instances in which it has been proven wrong by empirical facts, continues to have a surprising resiliency.

The Western classical economic thought that, to this date, continues to provide the elements and the framework for a large part of economic discourse, is rooted in the European rationalism of the XVII and XVIII Century. According to this thinking, Man is fundamentally a rational creature. Therefore, it is postulated that he will have a natural propensity to look rationally at economic activities. This will spontaneously lead him to constantly maximizing the use of resources in the most rational way to obtain the best return for the effort. According to this long established school of thought, there is a natural propensity to have an ever more rational and thus more efficient and productive allocation of resources itself based on a rational, intelligent use of available information, while intellectual efforts aimed at improving existing processes will lead to new inventions. It is important to stress that this classical economic thought postulated the existence of an innate human predisposition to look for better ways, to experiment with new technologies and to constantly refine processes in order to obtain the best return on any investment of resources.

In more recent times, new psychological theories made it apparent that capabilities and skills, including those “rational qualities” attributed by the classical theory to humankind in general are acquired through a process of learning, as opposed to being natural tendencies. The study of capitalistic economies has led many to observe that a higher degree of growth is a function of applied innovation in both products and processes which in turn leads to higher efficiencies, a higher level of productivity (higher output per unit of work) and thus higher wages and standards of living. The ability to innovate and to quickly find optimal commercial applications for innovation is understood to be a function of acquired and progressively refined skills for the individuals actually involved in the different stages of any productive process. The level of those skills is the key variable that can be modified, depending on the length and quality of the instruction provided to the individuals as well as their ability to creatively build upon it to engineer more and more innovation.

We thus define the individual’s capability to perform in any economic activity as the outcome of a learning process that includes material knowledge and an approach that postulates that progress can be constant and that it is within the mental abilities of all people to actively contribute to it. In other words, people learn “things” but more importantly they learn a new approach about the possibility to apply ingenuity in order to constantly improve on what exists.

Thus, little by little, we are coming to accept the notion that at least certain critical components of the economic equation have to do with conditions internal to the individuals. These conditions largely determine what actions various individuals perform to create and alter external circumstances and the degree of effectiveness with which such actions are carried out.

Further, we have come to recognize that the actions of individuals are a function of their knowledge and skills combined with a new approach about creative thinking and that such skills are imparted through some kind of learning and or education process, formal or informal as it may be.

This is already a major shift. Little by little we are coming to believe that the individual and his/her range and level of skills is probably the single most critical variable in the economic process. Depending on what he is taught, or what he learns through experience, the individual is likely to do or not do certain things that are going to have significantly different economic consequences.

This is important. Modern thinking has moved away from the notion of a “natural, inborn propensity” to maximize value shared by all humans. But, although this shift is relevant, we have not yet grasped the full dimension of the issue. The current debate about skills is generally focused on applied knowledge. That is: how much economically applicable knowledge about science, technology, management and business practices has the individual received? From this vantage point, the individual is regarded almost as an empty vessel. Pour in the right mix of information, knowledge and training and he/she will perform in a way that will produce improved economic results.

It is undeniably true that certain specific and increasingly sophisticated skills are required to improve performance, as many economic activities are more and more tied to the ability to understand, manage and manipulate complex information. Yet, this approach, although largely true, fails to capture the broader picture.

The fact is that all these theorization about economic skills somehow assumes that economically relevant behavior is an independent variable, not tied to the rest of the person, his attitudes, beliefs, needs, aspirations and problems.

In a word, we seem to forget that the economic behavior of individuals can only be but a component of their global psychological formation and ensuing disposition towards all areas of their lives, including economically relevant activities. Whereas, it is the basic psychological make up that is the dominant variable. This make up tends to affect all aspects of the individual’s life — including his economic behavior.

Max Weber: The Unintended Economic Consequences of Religion based Ethics

A rather famous example may serve to illustrate this point of view. Long ago, the argument was made by the German sociologist and economist Max Weber that the successful emergence of capitalism was due or at least aided by a state of mind which was itself the byproduct of religious beliefs. In his seminal work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”, Weber argued that the early successful capitalists, especially in Germany and North America, were not originally driven by the desire to improve their material conditions per se. Rather, they were motivated by religious beliefs that influenced their economic activities and, as an unintended byproduct, made them successful wealth creators.

According to Weber, there is a correlation between the Calvinist theological belief of predestination and the development of a certain type of ethical and behavioral code that just happened to be conducive to the development of successful capitalist systems. Very briefly, belief in “predestination” meant that some individual souls were going to be saved and others damned according to decisions made by God. The individual was completely powerless in changing his predetermined fate. This could have plunged people into a sense of complete fatalism. Instead, the Calvinists, secure in this belief and also that, somehow, as witnesses of the True Faith they had to enjoy some special place, overtime developed a theory whereby there should be “signs” of predestination that would indicate to the “chosen ones” that they would enjoy eternal life. According to this view, success in the material world should be considered as a positive “sign”. By permitting to an individual to improve his circumstances through his actions, the Lord would provide a sign of predestination. Whereas, the lazy, the drunk, the good for nothing, the failed were clearly sinner who could not possibly be among the saved.

In the austere Calvinist environment, the goal was not to amass wealth in order to live the dissolute life of the rich as in other societies. This wealth was a testimony of God’s blessing. The producer was supposed to be the “steward”, the guardian of wealth and not the consumer. The good Christian would live a sober, simple, laborious and honest life. Capital was to be created but not spent; thus it would be reinvested. Furthermore, the Calvinist, constantly under the watchful eye of the Almighty, had to behave according to the Biblical moral code. Honesty and integrity had to be part of his life just as hard work and frugality.

So, here we have the basic ingredients of capitalism: enterprise, a mind constantly focused on devising ways to rationalize processes and improve things, hence a bent toward seeking technological innovation, capital accumulation and reinvestment. Finally, we had a behavior that had to be respectful of the basic Christian rules –which happen to coincide, at least to a degree, with the rules of a free market economy. These rules would oblige individuals to keep their word, (i.e. contracts), to have respect for someone else’s property and rights; while they would create at least some deterrent to those tempted to engage in theft or dishonesty.

In all this, the salient element is that a certain economic behavior that happened to be conducive to the strengthening of a capitalist market economy, at least at its inception, found its roots and its legitimacy in transcendental concerns that had nothing to do with economic development goals. According to Weber, a set of beliefs spurred people to act in a fashion that just happened to have significant economic consequences.

Now, we could debate to what extent Weber was correct in establishing a specific correlation and perhaps a causal link between a religious belief and the emergence of a particular economic system. Indeed, many have argued against Weber’s theory.

A Step Ahead: Economic Behavior is a Component of the Person’s Formation

But today, after the explosion of psychological studies encompassing practically every aspect of human life, few would seriously doubt that the ethical make up of an individual (which includes any values drawn from religion or ideology) and his general psychological conditions and disposition has no impact on his attitude towards all behavior, including economic activities. Most would agree that the inner core of a person’s psyche, coupled with the type of education received and the culture absorbed, determine, among other things, an individual’s level of dependability, conscientiousness, diligence, honesty, openness to change, willingness to take risks, etc. All these happen to be qualities that have a direct impact on that person’s economic behavior as an employee, as an employer, as an entrepreneur as a civil servant or as a judge.

The relevance of this approach is recognized at least by some. Indeed, a very fashionable field of study in the Western world concentrates on “motivation”: i.e. how to make someone focused and goal oriented in such a way as to improve their performance and effectiveness especially in economic activities. What is it that makes a worker eager to do better or that renders his performance lackluster?

Motivation gurus would disagree as to the best recipes; but generally they would concur that the key to change behavior and thus outcomes is a positive modification of the individual’s state of mind. And so, a constructive modification of the state of mind of those who are still outside the development sphere should be a logical component of any development strategy. And education about new ways of thinking and approaching reality is a lot more than skills training.

Not Serious About Energy Independence

WASHINGTON – “The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil”. Thus The Economist (“The End of the Oil Age”, October 23, 2003) quoted Sheikh Zaki Yamani, the Saudi Arabian who served as his country’s oil minister three decades ago. The idea was that new cost effective forms of energy would come about sooner rather than later that would make oil obsolete. Indeed. And he said this in 2003, that is well before the staggering ascent of the price of crude.

While valid in principle, this consideration/forecast about the phasing out of oil due to probable technological innovation is still a distant dream. Notwithstanding the immense added economic burden for all consumers due to the fantastic price increases of the last few years, and notwithstanding the new political uncertainties and increased risks in a new era characterized by increased demand not met by new supply, we (America and the West) have yet to show seriousness about rendering oil obsolete.

We do reasonably well with clever propaganda. BP, British Petroleum, in the last few years tried to become a hip brand with the catchy “Beyond Petroleum” advertising campaign, and its new, decidedly green, logo (a mixture of a flower and a sun); trying to give the impression that an oil multinational is in fact deeply involved in getting us as reasonably fast as possible (“It’s a start”) to a new, sustainable, environmentally conscious era of renewable sources of energy that will indeed take us all “beyond petroleum”.

Well, as we know, “Beyond Petroleum” slogans and clever ads (“What is your carbon footprint”?) notwithstanding, BP got enmeshed in run of the mill, old fashioned oil company problems, from fires in refineries in Texas to pipeline corrosion issues in Alaska that raised doubts about supervision, competence and questionable cost cutting practices. Nothing hip nor particularly green about any of this.

While there may very well be a genuine desire (that is, beyond cheap public relations) to get to another, non carbon based future, the reality is that BP is still fundamentally an oil and gas company –just like Shell, Eni, Chevron, Total, Repsol, Exxon and all the others. The reality is that oil, gas (and coal for power generation), for the time being, are the primary sources of energy.

It will require an enormous effort –of which we have no sign, as yet– to go “beyond petroleum” and it will be much harder to get there without a determined, serious and sustained public policy framework –the USA clearly in the lead– that will provide the necessary guidance to all market players that the time has indeed come to unleash a new “post petroleum” era, a strategic shift that goes way beyond BP’s slogan. Time is not on our side. Incremental progress, even if genuine and sustained, is just not enough, as it will require too much time.

Of course, right now the principal argument for change in energy policies is global warming with all the well publicized attendant disaster scenarios. But despite the solemn declarations, truly decisive action, even on the part of the climate change converts, is not apparent.

Be that as it may, even absent any environmental doom about which the US as a society is less convinced than others, America should drastically change course, because reliance on an ever more expensive, –and ever more scarce– resource for which there is increasing international competition creates strategic vulnerabilities and opportunities for conflict that are simply too great to be wished away, hoping that nothing will happen.

As far as the United States are concerned, the largest economy and the most important military power has to regain the autonomy and flexibility that energy self-reliance can provide. (Of course, what is true for the US is also true, in varying degrees, for the rest of the western world).

But, whatever the others may be doing, it is imperative for the United States to declare and seriously embrace —now— a post petroleum strategy that will make oil as unimportant as the stones left behind at the end of the stone age. Needless to say, should this really happen, the realization that America –the recognized innovation leader and at the same time the largest consumer of hydrocarbon products– has turned a page on energy would send a signal to the rest of the world.

Hints that the signal was coming came via the “America addicted to oil” segment within the January 31, 2006 State of the Union speech to Congress by President George Bush. But the “Advanced Energy Initiative” announced with gravitas by the President in that occasion turned out to be a rather modest increase in federal money for energy research. Hardly revolutionary, and hardly the policy shift that would signal to the country that a momentous strategic transformation is about to take place. Basically, this was business as usual –with a small twist.

Much more recently, another opportunity came and went with the Energy Bill that the Congress (after laborious gestation) just passed and the president signed into law on December 19, 2007. Sure, there is something there: a kick to the auto industry so that it will improve the fuel efficiency of the cars that it makes. And then mandates that will require an increase of renewable fuels for transportation and power generation.

But, while significant, these new policy directives do not signal the unmistakable determination to radically transform the energy equation in the shortest possible time. We can comment piously that “a step in the right direction” has been taken. Yet this is not what it takes to achieve the objectives included in the bombastic title –“Energy Independence and Security Act”– of this new legislation. Given the predicament we are in, this is little; so little to be insufficient.

Indirectly, this bill reflects a basic political fear: who dares telling the public that we really are in a dangerous and unsustainable situation which exposes the country to a fantastic strategic vulnerability, as we import more than 65 per cent of what we consume, while the cost of importing this energy (309 billion in 2006) represents an ever growing, huge item in our trade deficit?

The protectionist populists tell us every day that the deficit with China (232 Billion in 2006) is at the root of our horrific trade imbalances and is to be viewed as a strategic threat. Yet, strangely enough, the huge and growing cost of importing most of the energy we use –arguably a much more significant strategic threat– is almost never mentioned.

Sure, everybody knows (and complains about) the price of gas at the pump. But few understand that the money they pay does not end up in the pockets of Exxon and the other greedy multinational oil companies. It goes mostly overseas, to the producing countries which own the oil fields. And this financial hemorraging is not going to recede, given the steady price increases.

If we were serious about calculating the aggregate cost of oil imports, we would add the indirect cost to our economy of this substantial capital outflow. This is money that could otherwise be invested in productive, employment creating activities. (Sure, some of this oil money is ploughed back into the US via purchases of US products and services by the oil producing countries. But this is only a percentage of the total. Hardly an even trade). Thus, even on  purely economic terms, there should be a solid argument for an aggressive pursuit of alternatives to oil. 

But, beyond the economic cost, we have a huge strategic vulnerability. Simply stated: we have no way to make up for loss of supplies, should they be interrupted or significantly curtailed for more than just a few months (this is the extent of our strategic petroleum reserve) due to political upheavals beyond our control.

It is high time to end the dissonance between often proclaimed fantastic objectives of “energy independence” and very little by way of new resources and new policies aimed at getting us there. If we indeed agree that it is imperative to usher America into a post petroleum era, (otherwise what is the meaning of “Energy Independence” stated as a goal in the new law?), then we need to act convincingly. Of course, this is a gigantic undertaking that would require immense investments over a long period of time and the retooling and reengineering of vast portions of our economy.

If energy were just another economic sector, then it would be wise to let the market devise new cost effective solutions. But energy, unfortunately, due to well known geopolitical factors, is in a category of it own. Waiting for market solutions (even with the added prodding of recent legislation) entails exposure to immense risks for decades to come.

But these risks, while generically acknowledged, are never discussed in detail. It is high time for the political leadership of the United States and for all aspiring presidents in this unfolding campaign for the White House to level with the public and tell America that we should aim at eliminating our strategic vulnerability as soon as possible, being fully prepared to bear the cost and inconvenience that getting from here to there will entail.

But unfortunately it seems that the political leaders’ courage is confined to defining lofty objectives in the headings of legislation (“Energy Independence and Security Act”). It does not extend to the deeds necessary to secure them.

“The Decline of America” Revisited

WASHINGTON – Remember Yale historian Paul Kennedy and his 1987 tome on “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”? At that time there was a lot of interest in this fairly comprehensive narrative focusing on how all major western powers, primarily because of the huge cost of maintaining their Empires, suffered progressive economic decline and eventual decay. Thus Spain –in Kennedy’s argument– thus Great Britain and thus – inevitably– the US. The book sparked a spirited debate about the future of the US as the leading power of the century. The combination of a sputtering economy, strong Japanese competition and raising security expenditures necessary to maintain the American Empire would lead to bankruptcy and thus to the inevitable –if sad—retreat from global ambitions. Kennedy’s work contributed to a new self-reflective atmosphere that gave rise, among other things, to efforts aimed at investigating the soundness of the main pillars that sustain the edifice of America’s might. Think tanks, the Congress, and the Federal Government launched studies, initiatives and task forces on “US Competitiveness” –or lack thereof. The newly formed bipartisan Concord Coalition started warning Americans as to the structural damage caused by runaway deficits due in large part to the unstoppable growth of spending on entitlement programs.

So, according to the conventional wisdom of the late 1980s, we were overstretched militarily because of the Cold War security commitments highlighted by the 300,000 troops permanently stationed in Europe, as our most visible contribution to NATO and by the questionable idea of spending billions of dollars on the Star Wars program, that is space based ballistic missile defenses. We had lost our edge in economic innovation. We were assaulted by the Japanese bulldozer from the East. This was the time, we should remember, in which the trade deficit was about Japan; while Japanese concerns had started a buying spree in America that, according to many, even serious, observers, had all the markings of a progressive take over of our economy. Meanwhile the “Europe 1992” agenda, the solemn commitment on the part of the then European Community to pull down residual internal barriers and create a brand new, vibrant market, seemed to foretell a new era of economic primacy for the Old Continent, engineered behind the walls of a “Fortress Europe” that –it was feared– would exclude Americans. Here at home, because of misguided fiscal policies and unhealthy personal spending habits, we –the Government and the individual citizens– were slowly but surely drowning in debt. That was the picture then. It was the widely shared notion that the economy was on the verge of collapse, especially after the mild recession of 1991 that propelled technocratic Bill Clinton and his panoply of new, original economic ideas (never really implemented, by the way) to the White House.

But, in the meantime, the unexpected happened –on many fronts. 1989 did not give us just the promise of German reunification. It was the first shock wave that signaled the collapse of the Soviet Empire and thus the end of the major threat to US security. The final demise of the biggest existential threat was the justification to significantly cut defense spending and international commitments in the 1990s. This dramatic change, combined with a resurgent faith in small government, especially after the republican revolution of 1994 masterminded by Newt Ginrich, meant that runaway federal spending could be contained.

At the same time, without the support of any particular blueprint devised in Washington, the information revolution was unfolding. Rather than creating a new economy, the massive adoption of IT by all businesses meant a massive leap forward in the competitiveness of the US economy. We had spectacular growth year after year, record low unemployment and high tax receipts that gave us for the first time in decades a federal budget surplus. At the same time, without the US lifting a finger, Japan, because of its internal social, rather than economic, contradictions, fizzled, while the predictions of the rise of a robust, innovative and economically powerful Europe proved to be quite wrong. And so, we had the roaring ‘90s: a prolonged period of American unchallenged economic primacy. The US was first in everything: innovation in high tech, creation of new employment, record productivity increases.

But it all seemed to have ended somewhat ignominiously with the beginning of the new millennium. We have had the bust, accompanied by the Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia and other well known corporate scandals which ushered the Wall Street contraction and the ensuing long bear market. The 9/11 attacks, occurring during this downward spiral certainly did not help.

And now, where are we now? There are disturbing signs that would indicate that Paul Kennedy and other were after all right in predicting decline. Only they were incorrect as to how close it was and what would cause it. The root cause is not “Imperial Overstretch”, but the erosion of US competitiveness due to lack of investments in both human capital and needed infrastructure, accompanied by the unstoppable growth of entitlement programs. Sure enough, at this time we also have a war. The prolonged Iraqi campaign has become stupendously expensive. But, regardless as to one’s own political opinion about the war, this commitment, in an as of itself, is economically affordable.

While a war and an increased Pentagon budget are a drain on public finances at the expense of productive investments, the real problems are in the same factors that were identified 20 years ago, at the time of the “competitiveness debate”, by most sensible analysts: a more and more expensive welfare state that cannot sustain itself financially, and the progressive erosion of the education advantage that made America the principal player in the knowledge economy. If we continue to follow the notion that large segments of the American society, mostly the elderly and the retirees, have an inherent right to subsidized benefits that represent an excessive drainage of national resources, the federal government, even assuming the ability to finance these obligations, will have nothing left for productive investments. The secondary public education system, in turn, provides mediocre graduates, while minorities, on balance, do a lot worse than the already low average. It is impossible to sustain this increasingly complex economy without a dramatic improvement in the quality of the labor force.

The fantastic explosion of the trade deficit is the manifestation of eroded competitiveness. The 40 billion dollar deficits that scared us about Japan in the 1980s are pocket change compared to the 220 plus billion that we have nowadays with China alone, (not to mention the increased cost of our energy habits: at 300 billion in 2006, higher than the cost of imports from China). 

Unfortunately, the argument on how to best rebalance our trade accounts has been successfully framed by a strange medley of simplistic romantics and demagogues who point the finger at the combined perils of free trade and outsourcing. By opening ourselves to foreign producers –so the refrain goes– we allow cheaper goods to come in. This means that US companies that have much higher costs go out of business or move overseas. Good American jobs go abroad because greedy corporations want to save money by having cheaper foreigners perform jobs previously held by higher paid Americans. The solutions advocated? Essentially close our borders, so that the jobs stay in and the foreign goods out. In this new era of global and irreversible interdependencies, the notion that this way we shall be able to regain, maintain and for ever keep our supposedly God given infinite prosperity is bizarre; but, nonetheless, it has strong emotional appeal.

However, if it is clearly futile to try and close our borders to keep cheap goods out or to prevent businesses from outsourcing, we still have a huge problem which is indeed caused by globalization. But not the globalization demonized by the protectionists. It is caused by the global spreading of the knowledge economy model developed first in America whose successful exploitation gave the US the edge for a number of years.

We have to come to terms with the fact that the genie of IT innovation has been out of the Silicon Valley bottle for a long, long time. We cannot restrict inventiveness and entrepreneurship –the key components of the American success story– to the American soil. The main ingredients of a knowledge based economy are transferable and so (despite copy cat failures and other clumsy attempts) they are transferred elsewhere today and more so in the intervening years.

True, the 1990s triumph of America’s reacquired competitiveness was due to a complex mix of factors that cannot all be easily reproduced. The lively, free wheeling, chaotic mixture of entrepreneurs, academics, venture capitalists and their interactions with established corporate entities that buy, absorb, invest in new ventures, as yet, has no equivalent elsewhere around the world, in terms of depth and scope.But some of its elements can be replicated. No doubt, by trial and error in time others will manage to produce adequately funded innovative clusters that will be able to quickly direct new discoveries to a hungry global marketplace.

The celebrated Bangalore example in India is illustrative. Leaving aside all other considerations, the Indians have managed to create and aggregate in productive clusters world class human capital (scientists, engineers, software programmers) and to harness it effectively in competitive IT enterprises. To keep things in perspective, we should remind ourselves that Bangalore is still mostly about outsourcing and not about innovation. Moreover, the whole Indian high tech phenomenon is only a small speck within a still primitive Indian economy which is constrained by inefficient administration and crumbling infrastructures. India has an enormous population that is still largely poor or very poor. So, the days of Indian supremacy are still in the distant future.

But Bangalore and other such examples around the world will multiply, as more and more people gain access to higher education, IT literacy and mundane computer and business skills that cannot be kept within the West and America. The very information revolution unleashed by the American genius becomes the vessel that greatly expedites the transfer of knowledge that will create new centers of excellence where none existed before. Furthermore, the Indian example proves that we do not need an economy that is overall highly developed to create islands of modernity that can compete on practically any level with counterparts in advanced economies. Indeed, centers of competitive high tech can be established even without the fertile ground of an already developed economy that has already successfully dealt with  macroeconomic issues.

These new enterprises, especially those established in business friendly developing countries where the cost of professional for many years to come will continue to be much lower than America’s, are bound to gain world market share, inevitably at our expense. If even a small fraction (as a percentage of the total population) of Indians and Chinese become good scientists, their absolute numbers will be sufficient to tip the balance. Our only hope to stay competitive is in continuing to invest in new technologies and new ideas so that superior innovative products and services will continue to be created in America.

But here we have a serious problem. Americans are so used to primacy that they do not believe that the ingredients that make this primacy possible need to be nurtured, refined and upgraded, especially now that we are confronted with new, capable competitors that have the added edge of a lower cost structure. (For instance, it has taken 20 years to the slow moving, no pun intended, automobile industry to have just recently what appears to be a collective awakening, with the active participation of the unions representing its thousands of workers. But it seems that only the specter of demise convinced the main players that dramatic cost cutting–be it salaries or health care benefits– is imperative in order to have a chance to compete. But, even if successfully implemented, these strategies are clearly not enough to get Detroit out of the woods. In the next few years we shall see whether the bitter cost cutting medicine will be accompanied by a new wave of creativity that is the real hope for recreating a competitive edge for this ailing sector). 

While discussions about the international economy abound, for the time being, we have not framed the debate in a way that will foster real progress. Unfortunately, to the extent that the general public has been brought into the conversation, it is fed gross distortions and oversimplifications pointing at the consequences of lost competitiveness, such as job losses. The conversation is mostly on allegedly bad trade policies and greedy corporations. If we could only change Washington’s direction on trade, all will be well. Indeed, the debate is mostly about identifying culprits and quick fixes. So, according to these critics, beyond the international trade policy incompetence (close to treasonous behavior), the enemies are the Asians, (yesterday Japan, today China) who do not play by the rules and the illegal immigrants who steal domestic jobs while depressing wages. This sort of populism may work with many constituencies in uncertain economic times; but it explains nothing about the causes of our ailments and its remedies would cure nothing.

The reality is that we have structural, systemic problems that need to be addressed now, so that we can begin to change course and hopefully improve our conditions for the long term. While the misbehavior of others is real (think of Chinese disregard for intellectual property rights and the ensuing flood of pirated software and counterfeit goods; think of the Mexican government actively encouraging the emigration to America of the country’s surplus labor), there are inherently domestic structural deficiences that slow down America and that have eroded its ability to compete. To name a few critical ones: a deteriorating education system, the unsustainable cost of the welfare state and the lack of a serious energy strategy.

Clearly the soft underbelly of America is a mediocre to bad education system right at the time when new, world class centers of higher learning are sprouting around the world. America for a long time nurtured domestic talent while, by design or by default, (think about the intellectual migration to America from Nazi occupied Europe), it was able to attract first class minds from around the world. After all, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller were not Americans. But they were welcomed in America and the American intellectual and scientific environment was able to absorb this talent and greatly benefit from it. In more recent years there has been a significant influx of gifted Asians. But now the pull of America is not as compelling as it used to be in the light of the fact that good opportunities exist elsewhere.

At the same time, it is now apparent that the American public education system, the incubator that should nurture the future scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs is at best mediocre, deeply flawed in its worst components and certainly inadequate to create the world class work force that will have to compete on quality, as costs already work against us. The existence of several world class universities is not sufficient to guarantee that the broader US workforce will be able to compete with increasingly more sophisticated foreigners. A sub par worke force will make it difficult to compete, let alone strengthen, our positions in high value added strategic areas.

While it is hard to admit it, a huge chunk of the old manufacturing base of America is either gone or going. We lost a lot of steel, machine tools; we lost footwear, apparel; we have disturbing signs that we cannot keep up in automobiles. We have a battle unfolding in aerospace. Still, American success stories in valuable, technologically complex industries (think of GE, 3M, United Technologies, Boeing among many others) show that, despite higher labor cost, superior quality, when it can be reinforced by constant refinement, still counts.

By the same token, we still have an edge in services. But this is entirely dependent on the continuous waves of IT innovation. If we are no longer on the forefront of IT, because we can no longer compete with increasingly more competent but much cheaper Indians and Chinese, we have lost the competitiveness contest.

Much has been said about the increased welfare costs due to the demographic changes that America is experiencing, along with most other developed countries. The question is whether it is smart, in the long run, to have a central government whose main function is to distribute benefits at the cost of everything else. Even now, while immediate solvency is not an issue, the federal government devotes relatively smaller portions of its resources to productive investments, given the weight of the entitlement obligations. As we all know, in the future this is only going to get worse. It is understood that taking something away from people who believe that they have earned a partially subsidized old age is extremely hard. But there is an opportunity cost in spending most of our revenues on welfare and little on competitiveness enhancing investments. Unfortunately few people enumerate the thousand of research projects or new infrastructure that could be financed by the federal government, assuming a reduction in entitlement programs.

The energy picture is dismal. We have excessive consumption, little and declining production and increased dependence on imports that is financially burdensome, while it creates a serious strategic vulnerability. What we need is not just the tinkering provided by this or that pork laden energy bill; but a bold new energy strategy that would set realistic goals regarding alternatives to hydrocarbons, while actively discouraging consumption through revenue neutral gasoline taxes. In doing so, America would free itself from this straightjacket, while possibly becoming the world leader in all new technologies related to alternative energy.

But in all these areas: education, welfare reform and energy, while there is a debate and many have offered sensible solutions, we are far from having reached the deep understanding that is the prelude to decisive action. While many are worried, most believe that things are more or less fine and that we have enough slack to muddle through.

In hindsight, similar historic circumstances characterized by a passive attitude that in effects allows the sliding into decay (and here we go back to Paul Kennedy) are recognized as due to a state of mind of myopic denial and complacency of people who have lost their way. But usually this is the verdict of historians. And when they pronounce it, it is too late to change anything.

Modern Cost Effective Public Policy for America

By Paolo von Schirach

September 28, 2007

WASHINGTON – I was really hoping that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich would have entered the race for the Republican nomination and that he may have had a shot at the presidency. Apparently he decided otherwise. This was not an ideologically motivated, partisan wish for conservative leadership. This was and is about the hope that a credible public figure (Gingrich or someone with a similar approach) who has articulated and would push an agenda for the modernization of the state, for the introduction of viable technologies and cost effectiveness in public policy may bring fresh air in stale debates long on abstract ideological posturing and short on the need to drastically upgrade the effectiveness of the government’s tools. The tools (in terms of both institutions and technologies) are low quality and often obsolete. Without good tools we cannot implement anything meaningful.

Good government is about sound principles, of course. But, in the end, it is about the timely, cost effective, delivery of needed services. Whereas, amazingly, America is sorely deficient when it comes to modern tools necessary to plan and deliver basic public services. Whatever the reasons, two years after Katrina we still have not built adequate levees in New Orleans. We have collapsed bridges in Minnesota for lack of a system that would guarantee appropriate levels of care and repair of basic infrastructure. The Washington DC public school system not only fails to educate the children, but it does not even have the basic logistics to deliver badly needed pencils and books from a central warehouse to the classrooms.

In the country renowned for its innovative genius and technological advances –innovations that have led to a productivity revolution in all fields– the tools of public policy are horrendously outdated. Thus the ability to deliver high quality services is hampered. At the same time, because of consolidated, systemic inefficiencies, expectations of effectiveness on the part of the public have become surprisingly low. As people are used to public inefficiency, they have come to accept it as normal.

Here is a glaring example of inefficiency that could be easily remedied, assuming focus, will and better organization. Consider air traffic congestion and the reality of constant disruptions, more and more delays and mounting frustrations for the public that has emerged as a major national issue in recent months. President Bush, at a recent White House meeting aimed at addressing possible solutions, said, among other things, that, due to this mess, passengers are not treated fairly. This might suggest a focus on issues of improved customer relations for the airlines; such as providing timely information to customers about delays or compensating them adequately in case of severe travel disruptions.

While all this may help, this has little to do with the cause of the problem. The real issue is a stupendously obsolete air traffic control system incapable of coping with more and more flights. Why is it that we had to reach this unprecedented level of air gridlock to put forward a plan aimed at phasing in a new, more efficient space based system for air traffic control? And how long is it going to take to fully implement it? If the federal bureaucracy is expected to lead the phasing in of these new systems, it will be decades. Air traffic control management is a complex and delicate matter, but well within the technological know how of the United States of America.

And, equally important, why is it that we are unable to look at how to meet the needs of the traveling public in a broader context? The current problem is posited as: “More and more people are flying. How can we create a system that can accommodate these ever increasing volumes”? This is a good question. But it is incomplete, as we leave out of the equation other cost effective modalities of transportation that may be good in their own right, while they would help relieve at least some of the air congestion. In other words, flying is not the only good option.

Whatever the reasons, it is inconceivable that one of the most technologically advanced countries of the world has not managed to introduce high speed trains as a real cost effective alternative to air travel between relatively close large urban centers. For example, in this context of growing congestion in the air, especially in the North East, we have two airlines (Delta and US Air) that offer regular shuttle service between New York and Washington and between New York and Boston. The shuttle theoretically should be a convenient one hour flight. But we know that this is not so when we add the time to get to and from airports, security screenings and, most importantly these days, additional time wasted due to traffic congestion that delays departing and landing flights.

The existing, relatively fast, Acela trains between Washington and New York already cut down travel time to a level that is comparable to flight time plus airport transfers. Of course, significant investments would be necessary to build new tracks that would allow true high speed in the New York Washington corridor and increased passenger loads. But, even now, the case could be made that, as a matter of public policy, flights such as those between Washington and New York should be strongly discouraged, when good alternatives based on reasonably fast trains are available. It may not be much, but transferring the shuttle travelers to trains would help reduce congestion in the overcrowded air space of the New York area; while it would foster a more cost effective, more environmentally friendly, not to mention more pleasant, way to travel.

Further down the line, let us imagine a future in which most of the travel between the large urban centers of the North East, or along the coast of California, would take place via a network of high speed trains. This would significantly curtail congestion in the air, allowing airplanes to fulfill their true mission, that is, to take people to faraway places or to places that cannot be reached reasonably fast, in a cost effective way, through other means.

Of course, all this is complicated and quite expensive. Building new tracks in densely populated states would require significant up front capital investments; not to mention the legal complexities involved in the need to acquire the necessary tracts of land. But, however complicated, this is not an impossible idea and certainly not beyond the means of the world’s largest economy.

Yet, before even starting to think about efficient new modalities that could be made available to the traveling public, the current crop of policy-makers, faced with the task of confronting the probable resistance to change from organized lobbies, interest groups and bureaucratic inertia, have already given up, because leading on such  complex issues is just too hard.

This is why in this political season we would have needed someone like former Speaker Gingrich (no idea as to what his thinking may be on the specific issue of high speed trains) who seems to be willing to challenge the way we organize and deliver public services and rally the public behind the notion that, if we try, it is entirely possible to shake an outmoded, clumsy and inefficient way to conceive and conduct public policy.

Government “for the people”, beyond slogans and idealistic pronouncements aimed at stirring voters’ emotions at election time, in the end is quite simply about the delivery of high quality services and/or about creating a regulatory environment that induces the private sector to step in and do what is cost effective for the delivery of services useful for the society. The people of one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth are entitled to demand and get more value for their tax dollars.

Iraq is not about fighting terrorism

by Paolo von Schirach

August 2, 2007

WASHINGTON – Not knowing exactly what kind of problem one is dealing with does not help in devising the best way to resolve it. The worst aspect of the present American predicament characterized by the interminable bleeding in Iraq and the ongoing fight against terrorist groups inspired by Islamic radicalism is in the inability or unwillingness on the part of the administration to correctly and properly describe to America and to the world that we are involved in two qualitatively different fights. Iraq and the fight against terror are separate problems that require different methods and different solutions. They are not one and the same thing, as it has been claimed all along.

However late it may be, America should come to terms with reality and say that the mess in Iraq, strong al Qaeda’s presence there notwithstanding, is not the main theater in the conflict against Islamic fundamentalism. Frankly it never was. By the same token, even assuming complete pacification in Iraq, including the destruction of al Qaeda in Iraq, we shall still have to deal with all the other Islamic terrorists spread around the world. So, the White House should stop saying that Iraq is the main theater in the war against Islamic fundamentalism. The imported radicals, the real instigators of al Qaeda in Iraq, constitute a major added complication in this conflict.

However, they are not the main drivers of what has emerged as a sectarian conflict. Granted, al Qaeda thrives in this conflict. It has done its best to deepen it. But, looking at Iraq in context, we see what has always been an artificial state now torn by powerful centrifugal forces. These forces have been unleashed by the trauma and ensuing chaos brought about by a poorly planned US invasion.

The idea of a strong connection between Saddam and terrorism, (documented by some instances of support for terrorists groups by the dictatorship), was trumpeted before the invasion as a handy (in the jumpy post 9/11 psychological climate) justification to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But now that we know that none of this was true, we should stop misrepresenting the attempt to pacify Iraq as part as a crucial chapter in the “war on terror”.

We know what was said (and maybe believed) at the time. The invasion of Iraq of 2003 was aimed at preventing, (so it was said at the time), the potential collusion between a dictator who supposedly had (we thought then) weapons of mass destruction, WMDs, and terrorists who might have used those weapons against us. A potential, although sketchy, doomsday scenario from possibility graduated to a certainty. It was labelled an imminent danger that required immediate, drastic action via “regime change.”

The affirmation that Saddam, the friend of the terrorists, had to be removed to prevent WMDs from falling into the wrong hands might have been tenable at the very beginning, when there was almost unanimous certainty that the fall of the regime would have yielded stockpiles of WMDs and plenty of documentary evidence of strong ties between Saddam and terrorist groups. But when, very early in the game, when it became obvious to all that this was not the case, it was incumbent on the administration to quickly admit its mistake. It should have changed focus and tone and proclaim to the world that –even without the Saddam-terrorists connection– the liberation of Iraq from its dictator was still a worthwhile endeavor and that the international community could take a large role in aiding the Iraqis to find a better, hopefully more just, future.

But this did not happen. Instead, the arrival of al Qaeda in Iraq, along with assorted foreign fighters, made possible by the post invasion chaos, gave the administration the wonderful opportunity to square the circle. The White House could say that the strong presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, along with documents showing the strategic relevance of the fight in Iraq in al Qaeda’s new masterplan, proved conclusively what had been said all along by the administration: “The invasion of Iraq was absolutely necessary in the ongoing fight against terrorism”. This is either cinically disingenous manipulation, or the result of being blindsided by one’s own rigid preconceptions.

By insisting that Iraq is mostly about the al Qaeda brand of terrorism, (terrorist methods are used also in the ongoing brutal sectarian violence), the administration has created its own reality that is not supported by the facts. This inability or unwillingness to admit error has created deep divisions at home and abroad. The consequences of the confusion created by the mislabeling of the conflict in Iraq are visible in the acrimonious debates began by those who would like us to leave, precisely because they see the conflict as primarily internal sectarian strife, not truly tied to the larger issue of our global fight against fundamentalism.

It is a serious matter when policy positions result from totally different definitions of the facts on the ground. It would appear that proponents and opponents of withdrawal are looking at different countries. The confused political debate in Washington is in large part the outcome of confused analysis. And the administration, being in charge of all policies, should have the primary responsibility to provide an accurate assessment of the dynamics on the ground.

Indeed, while al Qaeda is indeed there and needs to be dealt with, the primary mission in Iraq is to pacify a country torn by sectarian violence. Even assuming total victory against al Qaeda in Iraq, Iraq’s problems would not be settled. Whereas, in the administration’s rhetoric, there are constant pronouncements about Iraq as the key theater in the “war on terror” (i.e. the ongoing struggle to degrade transnational cells of radical ideologues who claim to follow a strict interpretation of Islam).

This clearly misrepresents the broader scenario of a diffuse threat coming from a transnational movement of violent radicals residing in various countries, willing and maybe capable to plot more attack against the US. Whatever happens in Iraq, this threat will continue and we shall have to deal with it.

Whereas, in trying to shore up support for the continuing commitment in Iraq, the administration repeats ad nauseam that “we fight them there so that we do not have to fight them here”. Now, in light of the above, this idea is highly questionable, if not entirely silly. This notion implies that all or most our terrorist enemies are currently in Iraq. Thus, as long as they are engaged in combat against our troops, they cannot mount a threat against the US mainland. But, although it is true that since 9/11 we have not been attcaked, it cannot be proven that this is because we are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.

Indeed, the fact that we have not suffered another attack since 9/11 in no way demonstrates that the Iraq engagement has prevented anything new to happen. Unfortunately, we do know that it takes only a handful of determined individuals willing to engage in suicide missions to bring about a great deal of damage in the US mainland. This is after all what we learnt from 9/11 and similar plots and attacks in other countries. So, the notion that, “as long as we keep them all pinned down in Iraq, we are safe here at home”, is preposterous. No doubt, we are engaging some dangerous radicals in Iraq; but there are plenty more around the world, as many attacks against targets in Europe and elsewhere have proven.

This notion of “bringing the fight to them so that they do not bring it to us” would be dubious even in the case that the fight in Iraq were indeed all about al Qaeda and affiliates. But it is even more implausible, as this is not the case. As we know, official rhetoric notwithstanding, US forces in Iraq have multiple missions. The key one right now, (whatever the chances of eventual success), is about reducing sectarian violence. This is what they are trying to accomplish. Iraq is now mostly a civil war, with al Qaeda –granted– playing a significant, disruptive role. But this conflict is by no means primarily about al Qaeda. As this is obvious to almost everybody, it would do the country and the world a lot of good for the administration to stop affirming what is patently wrong. 

Thus, it would help both national and international public opinion to state clearly that at this time we are dealing with two separate problems in the global arena: a) how to create a modicum of self-sustaining security in Iraq; b) how to prevent (through good intelligence, secret services and special forces) more terror attacks around the world, while defusing the appeal of Islamic radicalism that seems to be the incubator of almost all terrorist groups. Of course, in Iraq, there is some degree of overlap, at least in some areas. But, again, let us rememeber that we did not go into Iraq to fight al Qaeda. al Qaeda could get established in Iraq mostly thanks to the total collapse of order. It is not the expression of a strong, deeply rooted indigenous political culture grounded on Islamic fundamentalism.

(This does not mean, as most opponents of the invasion claim, that the war in Iraq is a really a horribly expensive distraction that has prevented us from focusing on the main threat. For this reason we should excuse ourselves and leave as soon as possible. Unfortunately, whatever the errors that have led us into Iraq, now that we have turned it upside down, before leaving we have to be very clear as to what is that we want to leave behind. Mistake or no mistake, until domestic Iraqi forces can reliably ensure a modicum of security and some kind of institutional viability, “we own” Iraq and we have a crucial responsibility for not making a bad situation worse both internally and externally).

So, let us establish some distinctions between the broad strategic issue of Islamic fanaticism and how to recreate security in Iraq after the mess we created by removing a dictator who, whatever his horrible methods, certainly had found a way to enforce a brutal order.

This may not help much in the short term; but no doubt a correct definition of the problem we are facing is a precondition for the elaboration of relevant solutions. So, however late it may be, let’s at least establish correctly what we are dealing with and have a debate based on facts rather than slogans.

Development is not “Poverty Alleviation”, it is About Creating Wealth

by Paolo von Schirach

June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON – How an issue is defined goes a long way in shaping the nature of the efforts aimed at dealing with it. For example, the Bush administration’s framing of America’s serious challenge from religious fanaticism as “The War on Terror” has caused people to focus on “terror”, that is the modality with which certain hostile policies (acts of terrorism) are perpetrated, as opposed to concentrating the bulk of our energies on the ideas and beliefs that motivate radicals up to the point of encouraging them to engage in terrorist attacks. Our real problem stems not from people who do certain things; but from people who think in a certain way. Their actions (terrorism) are the modalities with which they express their psychological and intellectual make-up. If we focus mainly on the acts of terrorism, (how to counter them, how to minimize there incidence, impact, etc.), the war on terror becomes the equivalent of a war on mosquitoes. By definition, it focuses on identifying and eliminating each and every mosquito (terrorist), one by one. Whereas the root causes are in distorted thinking that needs to be somehow corrected. This may not be at all easy, as we do not really understand the thought processes of the radicalized individuals; but that’s where the issue lies. To try and eliminate terrorists one by one is an almost hopeless proposition, as their ranks are replenished rather quickly.

In a totally different context, the broad objective of the international development community vis-avis the third world has been defined as “poverty reduction”, or “the fight against poverty”. The World Bank, the most important multilateral lending institution focusing on development, is “Working for a World Free of Poverty”. Its Mission statement is “to fight poverty with passion…” So, poverty as a condition, rather than what causes poverty, is the focus of our attention here.

To some extent, this emphasis on “fighting poverty, or poverty alleviation” is public relations, the attempt to deflect the critiques of the anti-global movement that, years ago, elaborating its conspiratorial theory that would capture the root causes of the planet’s ailments, bunched together the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and multinational corporations as demonic instruments working together to further mankind’s misery in general, and the exploitation of the third world in particular. Hence the desire on the part of the “development industry” to improve its image by presenting to the critics objectives that would humanize their institutions. “Hey, Mr. No Global, we are with you. We are fighting poverty. We just want to help the poor”.

Undoubtedly there are other factors that can help explain this “fight against poverty” focus. At least to some extent, this Good Samaritan attitude stems from religiously derived ethics that have shaped the dominant Christian cultures. Hence, over the centuries, the proliferation of a vast universe of charitable initiatives within Christendom aimed at the poor. The moral obligation to give to the poor is the other side of a parallel moral bias against excessive wealth present in Christianity. The remedy to this inequality is for the rich to give away some of the excess. But giving to the poor in general was not aimed at having a truly transformative impact. It was meant as a good deed that would alleviate the painful conditions deriving from a state of poverty that was, however, considered to be a given for some segments of society.

It is difficult to evaluate the deep motives of modern day wealthy philanthropists who contribute to relief initiatives, whether defined as poverty reduction or not. But it would appear that the likes of Bill Gates fall pretty much in the same category of those who attempted to redress and alleviate. The primary focus on child immunization pursued, no doubt very competently, by the Gates Foundation, noble as it is, taken by itself, is not transformative. (To the extent that Gates and other wealthy donors are now shifting to initiatives aimed at fostering the creation of opportunity in poor countries, for instance through upgrades in education structures, they seem to have appreciated that a new mind set and new skills can and should be the foundations for wealth creation activities. We shall see how profound a shift this may be).

The issue of poverty is unsettling for western Christian culture, to the extent that it has been explained away as a product of bad luck that can and should be somehow remedied through charity. Indeed, in polite company in the western world the poor are often described as “the less fortunate among us”. Let’s think about it. We (the well off) “have” because we have been fortunate, the others, alas, less so. Again, words have meaning. According to this definition, our economic station in life is about having been more or less fortunate, that is random distribution of luck. The poor happen to be poor because, look at that, they have been less fortunate than we have. At some level this is true, especially in the case of children. Some are born in rich circumstances and some are born poor. Clearly those who were born in privilege have and enviable head start. But this is only a slice of reality. Most millionaires in the US are self-made people, as opposed to lucky beneficiaries of inherited wealth. This means that an open system that will not create artificial obstacles allows people to forge a better life for themselves. This has preciously little to do with “being fortunate”. The use of these misleading definitions distracts us from confronting the real issues. Poverty is mostly about the bad combination of lack of opportunity (broadly defined) and lack of entrepreneurial drive –the necessary precondition to create wealth creating activities. If we do not tackle these two issues by creating opportunity and by instilling the will and the ability to create enterprise, we shall continue to provide relief to the poor, without offering a realistic new path. To borrow from the old story about the qualitative difference between giving somebody a fish and teaching them how to fish, the fish hand outs continue, while the fishing schools are scarce.

Even the most superficial analysis shows that wealthy societies did not become wealthy because of random circumstances, because they won a major lottery. Leaving aside all the defects of capitalism, at a macro level the capitalistic economies have been successful because the institutions created by societies allowed or better yet fostered a reasonably good functioning of the engines of wealth creation mobilized by private initiatives. As a result of the activities created through these engines, poverty, at least extreme poverty, has been eliminated. Prosperity is the outcome of a mind set focused on wealth creation on the part of many inventors and risk taking capitalists. The outcome, consisting in a vastly improved standard of living, has nothing to do with “being fortunate”.

Be that as it may, the development practitioners have identified poverty elimination or reduction as the mission of development. In so doing, wittingly or unwittingly, they focus (and make us focus) on the effect of lack of economic development (poverty) and what we can do about it, rather than on a credible way out of it that can only be centered on an economic development agenda. This predominant focus on the manifestations of underdevelopment, rather than on planting the seeds that may foster growth, encourages the misallocation and outright waste of limited resources, all in the name of the “fight against poverty”. From this standpoint, for instance, it is considered good to create activities that generate some new income for the poor. However, analysis of the reasonable chances for such activities to be self-sustaining is quite often left out, as the focus is in “doing something” to diminish poverty. As a consequence of this approach that focuses on creating improvements based on wrong or incomplete analysis, very substantial resources have been squandered, although in a well meaning way, in the effort to reduce poverty.

Needless to say there can be a legitimate chicken and egg debate about “poverty as lack of economic development”, versus “the condition of poverty that, as such, prevents building the foundation for economic development”. It is obvious that the sick and the hungry cannot possibly engage in any economic development. Still, if we focus most of our resources in improving what is a very bad, even horrible, environment, without recognizing the absolute necessity to help create and turn the economic wheels as soon as possible, at best we have accomplished relief. And this can have a real impact that will reduce poverty. But we will have not caused any meaningful qualitative transformation; as this can be defined only in furthering societies on a safe path towards self-sustaining economic growth.

Unfortunately, by defining one’s work in the reduction of the extent of a bad condition, we are limiting our thinking and our actions. “Development”, after all, as the etymology indicates, should be about “unwrapping” something, and thus it would suggest an upward movement towards a better situation. Thus, both in terms of proclaimed objectives as well as policy, the focus should be on the tools, the frameworks and the engines of wealth creation, as opposed to reducing something negative. Since the only way up and away from poverty known in history is economic growth, why don’t we say openly that economic growth is the means through which we can achieve sustainable development?

Contemporary examples simply reinforce this truism. Structural change implemented by governments in some key poor countries improved the “enabling environment” for wealth creating activities, with the consequence of allowing hundreds of millions to be more productive and lift themselves out of poverty. The different stories of China and India in the past twenty to thirty years have been told many times. The important element is that the activities of donors and aid programs have had very little impact in these gigantic, systemic changes. The key factors that unleashed these positive energies have been economic liberalization policies that encouraged people to be productive, to invest in new enterprises and make money without penalties or fears of being dispossessed. Poverty reduction has been the byproduct of almost unprecedented rates of economic growth; not of policies that identified it as the scourge to be eliminated.

But, somehow, the notion of economic growth as the primary focus of development does not appear to be a noble enough purpose. At least for some, it conveys the images of rapacious businessmen, corrupt practices, wheeling and dealing, profiteering, domestic and foreign exploitation perpetrated by the unchecked powerful and –worst of all– growing economic disparities within societies. All this, unfortunately, is part of the picture, at least to some degree. Economic development, while crucially important, rarely occurs in a linear, harmonious fashion, with gradual, fairly distributed benefits for all. It is a messy affair, especially in developing countries that lack the framework of laws and institutions that should at least limit excesses and protect people from injustices. Efforts to build reliable and fair frameworks, difficult as they may be, have to be part of any economic growth strategy. However, the existence of significant flaws in how economic development occurs does not disqualify the basic proposition of wealth creation as a precondition for any lasting improvement in the human condition. There is no other. Whereas there are many who, contemplating the negative aspects of uneven economic growth, affirm that, unless this process can be properly regulated to ensure fairness, then it is better not to have it all. So there you have it: poor but equally poor.

The inability to put economic growth front and center in the framing of development agendas in part can be explained by the cultural make-up of the practitioners. The development environment is populated mostly by public “donors”: states and multilateral institutions; along with large, religious or lay private charities. Programs are quite often administered by an ever growing number of not-for-profit entities. Most of the actors in this system are civil servants and functionaries. Being part of large, public bureaucratic institutions depending on public funds, as a rule they do not like, know or understand business and what it takes to make it happen and flourish. For many of them, fighting poverty is a noble endeavor for the good of mankind. Pushing people to make a profit in a competitive environment — the indispensable lever for economic growth– is about promoting self-centered and egotistical drives, therefore not at all laudable if not morally questionable.

However, lacking a clear focus on growth as the paramount strategic objective, the goal of achieveing development through poverty reduction is likely to be an endless task. True, with all these efforts, the poor may become less poor, but they will not know much about getting richer through competitive enterprise.

Asia has reduced poverty largely through the eliminations of barriers to economic activities. On the other side of the divide, we have the sad story of Africa as the paradigm of what has gone consistently wrong, despite decades of well meaning efforts aimed at reducing poverty and improving overall conditions. Whatever has been tried, it failed to create (with few exceptions, of course), an environment in which enterprises could flourish, with the attendant outcomes of wealth creation and consequent diminution of poverty. This massive failure, by itself, should provide enough material for reflection on the validity of the current approach. Still, as yet, this reappraisal has not taken place.

America Addicted to Oil?

by Paolo von Schirach

June 7, 2007

WASHINGTON – President George Bush admonished America to shake its “addiction to oil”. Still, judging by the remedies that he proposes, it would appear that this amounts to a rather minor issue, something like being addicted to chocolate. “You know, too many calories, cut down a little”. Judging by what George Bush proposes, this is an issue, something to worry a bit about; but hardly a matter that requires drastic changes now –and certainly not an emergency.

In truth, we do not have an oil emergency, in the strict sense of the word. For the time being, we have high prices, largely due to increased global demand. However, in some measure, current high prices are also the result of decreased output not due to oil depletion but to political problems, that is non economic reasons. Economic sanctions against Iran and consequent under-investments in the oil sector and the continuing mess in Iraq are examples of how political turmoil causes cuts in production, thus contributing to higher prices.

And here we begin to see the nature of our problem. What are we going to do in case supply is not just diminished because of political turmoil here and there (this is our current predicament); but drastically cut due to a major crisis? Nobody really knows. Our addiction is serious. We produce only 30 to 35 per cent of the oil we consume. We have created a situation in which uncontrollable contingencies (political events or natural disasters) can instantly transform our dependence/addiction to oil into a real emergency.

(I am purposely sidestepping here any discussion about global warming concerns that should drive us to dramatically lower our carbon consumption, because of the dire environmental consequences of greenhouse gases. Global warming is a valid concern; but it is a much more complex issue, requiring multiple interventions and concerted international action at many levels over a number of years in order to produce results in terms reduced emissions. The focus here is exclusively on coming to recognize that our strategic vulnerability requires drastic measures to cut consumption now).

Even the superficially informed know that we import a lot of oil from unstable regions of the world. Yet, if anybody is seriously worried about this dependence, current gasoline consumption patterns do not show it. If the American public somehow believes that, in case of a serious emergency causing supply disruption, we should not be too concerned because the government has a plan for such contingencies, well, then they should be told the truth. We do not have a remedy. True, we have a strategic petroleum reserve and more crude oil is being added to it. But it is limited. In case of a major, prolonged disruption, we would be in serious trouble, as nothing at present and for quite some time can replace oil and oil products, gasoline first and foremost. But nobody seriously discusses the consequences of possible disruptions.

Widespread complacency may be due to the fact that, while people see that gasoline has gotten to be very expensive, it is not scarce. There is no rationing; while many may hope that, in a while, prices will go back to “normal”. Given these misperceptions, until there will be real disincentives regarding the use of gasoline, (the major component of our “oil problem”), people will treat our acknowledged “addiction” to oil just as we treat our food overindulgence. We cannot really price food out of the market in order to make millions of overweight Americans get serious about diet and food over consumption. But for our oil addiction, as painful and unpleasant as it may be, significantly higher price is the only way to both cut consumption and speed up the process leading us to new types of fuel. A substantial, revenue neutral, gasoline tax should be the main driver of any serious energy policy.

President Bush, pursuing his soft approach to get us out of this predicament, counts primarily on technology to do the trick and move us away from an oil based economy. But the incentive to invest massive resources to develop new technologies is in attractive returns. If current high prices are sustained, (60 to 65 dollars per barrel, gasoline above 3 dollars a gallon), then the alternative energy proposition becomes more appealing, as many of the alternatives currently being worked on become economically viable around these prices. The fact is that new ventures in this risky field need the reassurance that there will be large markets many years down the road. High fuel prices guaranteed by a gasoline tax would constitute such an incentive. At the same time, consistently higher prices will at least begin to curb the growth of domestic demand which translates in larger imports and increased strategic vulnerability in case of supply disruptions.

Whereas the administration, after having warned against the danger of our addiction to oil, is pursuing what turns out to be a very soft campaign to diminish it, through woefully insufficient policy measures. Increased fuel efficiencies for automobiles may yield some gasoline savings in a few years, if we are lucky. This is tinkering, just as subsidizing this or that renewable fuel is tinkering. Corn derived ethanol, very questionable in terms of cost effectiveness, is good business for many as it makes farmers and refiners rich; but it cannot radically transform the automotive fuel equation. Federal investments in new forms of energy, though real, are modest. They indicate that energy is an important issue; but not a national priority.

The one measure with a real chance to get America focused on devoting substantial resources to quickly finding  economically viable alternatives to oil is a real (a dollar, as a minimum, phased in progressively) additional tax on oil products, first and foremost gasoline. Of course, gasoline is already taxed at many levels in the United States. But, for the time being at least, existing taxes and historically very high prices have yet to force all players to seriously engage in finding a commercially viable alternative based on renewable sources (or on new ways to extract fuel from old, domestically abundant, sources like coal, assuming a successful solution to the additional emission problems). 

Many have already put forward this idea of a substantial gasoline tax. Such a tax would be revenue neutral, via tax relief in other areas. People would have the same overall tax burden. But very high prices at the pump would send a clear message: “Dependence on foreign imports of oil creates an intolerable degree of vulnerability for the US economy and for our national security. The Government wants to engage the whole country in devising and adopting alternatives as soon as possible. In the meantime, we have to cut back on consumption, hence imports”.

The public will be unhappy. Higher prices will cause unpleasant disruptions at multiple levels. But the gain down the road, once meaningful alternatives will have been adopted, will be in regaining greater control over our destiny, an immensely desirable goal.

But no political leader, from either party, dares to articulate this message. The assumption is that it would be politically suicidal to provoke the anger of the public by hitting Americans in the use of the automobile. Indeed, if the White House engages in half measures, in the early stages of this already vivacious presidential campaign there is no serious talk about a real gasoline tax increase; or, for that matter, about any other really drastic approach to oil dependence coming from anybody, regardless of party. This can be for two possible reasons: either political leaders believe that our dependence on imports does not really amount to a serious strategic vulnerability; or they maintain that the public, if told about the seriousness of our predicament, would just not believe it and would react angrily by shooting the messenger that would propose to mess with the sacrosanct right to gas guzzlers.

A gasoline tax would achieve two objectives: cut consumption by forcing consumers to save and provide a powerful incentive to develop commercially viable new fuels and/or propulsion systems. At the very least, higher gas prices will force people to buy cars that consume less and hopefully find a way to drive less.

In an op-ed piece written last year, Paolo Scaroni, the CEO of ENI, The Italian energy conglomerate, (“To Extend the Age of Oil, We Must Save Fuel Now”, The Financial Times, October 16, 2006) noted that, should Americans drive the same average size cars as the Europeans, (more compact vehicles, far fewer SUVs and light trucks in the mix) this alone would cut US oil demand by four million barrels a day, equivalent to the entire oil production of Iran, the world’s third largest oil exporter.

And this would be only a start. Europe’s fleet of cars is more fuel efficient relative to the US (13 km per litre in Europe, 7 km per litre in the US). But today there are vehicles that achieve an average of 20 km per litre. A hefty gasoline tax, by forcing consumers to shift to low consumption models, could drastically reduce consumption and thus dependence. Such cars are available; but the demand for low mileage models is still too high; largely because the gasoline price, as high as it is today, clearly is not high enough to cause a real shift to more fuel efficient vehicles. The public is obviously not sufficiently focused on the addiction and its ramifications. 

Because of a gasoline tax, the push to develop other fuels and/or propulsion systems hopefully will produce results more quickly. As new technologies will take over, the demand and thus the dependence on oil will lessen and eventually disappear. Meanwhile, as we discourage the excessive use of the private automobile, alternative transportation options, such as mass transit, should be adopted. There are proven, reliable and affordable alternative ways to get around and do what we need to do with reasonable ease, speed and comfort, other than via the individually operated vehicle. In urban environments, fewer private cars on the road and a seamless network of dedicated bus lanes could provide the same advantages of underground mass transit systems at a fraction of the cost. (Broader adoption of these alternatives will also help diminish air pollution, not to mention wasteful congestion that has reached apocalyptic levels in most large metropolitan areas).

Whereas, so far, we see only timid policies focusing on subsidies. A raft of subsidies to the low hanging fruit options, such as corn derived ethanol, may be popular with certain constituencies, but they do not constitute a robust policy aimed at introducing as quickly as we can affordable and environmentally sound alternatives to oil. Subsidies are bad energy policy.

While it is true that our hope to get out of the oil dependence rests on devising new technologies, we should not support anything in particular, simply because we have absolutely no idea which technologies may prove to be truly viable in the long run. The purpose of a gasoline tax is to create a floor that tells markets at what cost an alternative source becomes viable, i.e. profitable. This is what new enterprises need to elaborate their strategies and get to work, hoping to make money with the alternatives that they are working on. We just do not know which solution or combination of solutions will make most sense. Picking winners now through subsidies or other targeted incentives may lead us to back the wrong technologies. This is wasteful and patently unfair. It rewards political skills more than ability. Clever lobbying on the part of those who get the subsidies does not necessarily translate in good energy policies.  

On this, let us consider a little history about the notion of picking winners. In the 1990s, in a different context that involved a fresh look at macroeconomic policy approaches, America looked at and discussed “industrial policy” models, whereby elites made of government, enterprises, interest groups and labor unions would come together and decide where it would be smart to allocate scarce capital; so that we would eliminate wasteful investments and maximize returns for all: corporations, workers and society in general. We looked at this model of “national economic strategies” supposedly practiced by the (then) best world performers  –Japan and Germany. But nothing was done to transform policies in order to adopt their model. 

True, in 1992, then presidential candidate Bill Clinton openly flirted with this notion. In a campaign taking place in the midst of a modest downturn the need for a “national economic strategy” became a key policy component in Clinton’s speeches. (Remember the “It’s the economy, stupid” refrain?) However, in practice, as president, Clinton did little to implement industrial policies. By default at least, as a nation we concluded that top down decision about economic choices would lead to the squandering of resources. What applied then and applies today to economic policies in general, applies to finding alternatives to our energy sources.

Clearly there is a formal contradiction in being against subsidies but for dramatically higher taxes in order to discourage the use of a product. It is easy to object that, if it is appropriate to do away with market distorting subsidies, then we should not engage in other types of market manipulation through heavy taxation. 

In principle this is a valid objection. If market economics work, higher prices due to scarcity eventually should lead to new solutions priced by the market. However, the problem for the US, at the same time the largest consumer and importer, (but for other consumers as well), is that, along the way towards a market solution, energy flows may be drastically reduced for reasons that have nothing to do with the dynamics of demand and supply.

The scenario, (outlined a million times, but curiously not acted upon) is that major political events or natural catastrophes can suddenly and drastically reduce the availability of oil. Not enough oil (whatever the price) to keep the world economies going is a terrifying, rather extreme, yet quite possible scenario. As we Americans are by far the largest consumers in absolute as well as per capita terms, serious disruptions are likely to have devastating consequences internally, while restricting our ability to conduct an active foreign policy. Which is to say that oil is different from T-shirts or auto parts. 

Let us restate what we all know but seem not to take into account when we talk about our oil imports. All the major energy crises that we have experienced were not caused by market forces; rather by political and (very recently, with Katrina and Rita in 2005) natural events. The 1973 oil embargo was a political decision. The 1979 Iran Revolution caused a disruption in oil production and thus oil flows. More recently, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico region caused significant (albeit only temporary, in this case) disruption in the ability to receive, transport and refine oil, oil products and natural gas. These disruptions had nothing to do with market forces. (Of course there are similarities with other non economic phenomena that have an impact on markets. A freeze in Florida that destroys oranges will cause the price of orange juice to go up. But in the case of oil there is clearly a lot more at stake than some financial losses and inconvenience for the consumers. Orange juice is optional; until we find something else, oil is vital).  

Of course, we know that after the oil shocks, oil consumption was reduced due to new efficiencies created by the deployment of new technologies and prices shifted lower again. Likewise, in the aftermath of devastating hurricanes the infrastructure was eventually repaired. Yes, of course. We did all this.

But, please, note: reasonable success in dealing with the effects of past disruptions is no indication of the ability to get out of the next one. We have no guarantee that future shocks will be of a manageable size, something that would still allow us the opportunity to retrench and reorganize, as we have done in the past, albeit at a high cost.

Relatively speaking, our predicament is worse today. Due to the rapid depletion of domestic oil resources, our dependence has grown significantly during the past twenty years. What if the next oil shock is of a magnitude that we cannot cope with, so that our economy would be not just badly hurt but choked and devastated? Again, let us not forget that all we have is the strategic petroleum reserve and agreements about crisis management with other consumer countries. This is fine for a short crisis lasting no more than 120 days. For a long one we have nothing.

There is a long list of oil producing regions affected by political turmoil. The Middle East (where most of the known reserves are located) is of course the text book case, because of the bad mix of endemic conflicts and the appeal of radical politics. (Clearly, if all the Middle Eastern oil reserves would have ended up in peaceful Canada, the vulnerability issue would be a lot less pressing). Within the region, insurrectionists and terrorists of all stripes in Iraq have targeted oil facilities, terminals and pipelines since the very beginning of the occupation, thus limiting oil production. There have been terrorist (so far failed) attacks against Saudi oil facilities. Elsewhere around the world, we have the inextricable mess in the Niger Delta that has already caused a significant production cut in Nigeria. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is an unpredictable populist determined to use oil for his political ends.

Existing political troubles (that is not due to market forces) have already caused significant production cuts. So far, these troubles are limited in scope. They have caused tighter supply and thus higher prices. Still, oil is flowing. However, bigger upheavals could make oil, irrespective of price, simply unavailable in the amounts necessary to run the economy.

In this context of tight supply, finding and bringing more oil to market as soon as possible is important, in as much as it recreates a minimum of slack in a very tight environment. But welcome as they are, new finds will buy us some time, nothing more. Unless we can envisage fantastically large new discoveries in peaceful parts of the world –something that would radically transform the oil supply geopolitical picture– marginal addition to supply is not a long term solution for the world in general and certainly not for the highly dependent US.

On a different level, it is important to observe that oblivion about the impact of oil dependence includes little discussion about the economic impact of the cost of all these imports. Perhaps it is easier to avoid dealing with vulnerability and the implications of major oil supply disruptions. After all this is a terrifying prospect, not a present crisis. But the issue of the colossal and growing cost of our national oil bill -and this is part of our day to day reality–  for mysterious reasons gets very little mention.

While Washington policy makers and commentators tell us daily that our trade deficit is the result of China’s wicked policies, we forget that the price of our imports of unchanged quantity of oil has quadrupled since 2002. Because of the price explosion of the last few years, in 2005 the cost of oil was almost as high as the trade deficit with China (175, and 200 billion respectively), while the price keeps going up, thus contributing more and more to a deteriorating trade imbalance. This is US money going abroad to pay for our gasoline bill. This is money that cannot be used for capital investments at home. (A gasoline tax would keep the oil bill high; but the proceeds would stay at home.)

Much has been said about the sustainability of a large and increasing trade deficit. But we hear almost nothing about the monetary cost of our “oil addiction”. Sure enough, our merchandise trade deficit is easily politicized, because of its more direct correlation to domestic job losses. Oil imports, whatever the price, do not displace US workers. But this does not mean that they have no economic impact. 

As abstract as the issue may appear, it is not impossible to explain to the general public that, by using scarce capital to pay for oil imports, this money is no longer available for productive investments, while the oil is burnt and we have to keep buying more from abroad just to keep things going. This forces us to give up other expenditures and investments.

So, there we have it: “addiction to oil” means a strategic vulnerability with potentially devastating effects which comes at a very high and increasing economic price. This should call for drastic action, starting with a substantial tax on gasoline. Whereas, for the time being, the few measures taken, such as subsidies for corn derived ethanol have amounted to an increase in the price of corn with ripple effects on a series of products and ultimately higher food stuff prices for the consumers, with negligible effects on our addiction to oil. This is the result of a largely ineffective band aid approach motivated by the fear of upsetting a nation unaware of the full implications of our addiction.  

Our oil dependence is a serious matter. Time has come to stop tinkering and half measures and get serious about it.

The New Immigration or the End of the Melting Pot

by Paolo von Schirach

October 24, 2006

WASHINGTON – The current immigration debate, well meaning in some aspects, acrimonious in others, misses the qualitative changes and irreversible transformations to the US society brought about by the Latino immigration waves that have already changed America and are likely to change it even more in the years to come. 

The main irreversible transformation is that the old “melting pot” metaphor that, up to the 1960s, was a fair representation of the ability of the US to absorb and homogenize varied waves of immigrants, no longer applies. The US has ceased to be this Anglo-Saxon cultural blender that overtime digested, homogenized and integrated millions of other immigrants coming from different backgrounds, thereby “converting” them into true Americans.

The US is increasingly becoming Hispanic or Latino and Spanish speaking. In turn this qualitative change has led and will lead overtime to further transformations that will involve the core of what America is and what it thinks of itself.

The current immigration debate involving the Congress, the White House and now also state legislatures and local governments is mostly about recreating some control on what are in truth broken borders. It is also about providing some path to legalization of status to the many millions who de facto reside, live and work in the US. However, whatever the approach eventually chosen for the illegal aliens:  total or partial amnesty, fines, fast track to proper immigrant status or slow track, the reality is that massive deportation, theoretically possible under current law, is so unlikely that we can rule it out as a policy option. So, most likely, these millions are here to stay. 

Furthermore, even if, under the most optimistic scenario, the US manages to regain full control of its borders, thereby halting completely any future flow of illegal aliens into US territory, there will still be, in the decades to come a significant streaming of legal immigrants from South America. This flow, current and projected, coupled with the transformative impact of the many millions that are already here, legally or otherwise, has changed America for good. Because of the impact of these massive numbers, more changes away from the old Anglo-Saxon paradigm are inevitable in the years to come.

The qualitative difference between the Latino wave and previous large immigration waves is that most of the other immigrants ?in particular the Europeans– came to the US with an awareness, implicit or not, of having permanently severed their ties with their countries of origin. Sure, in many cases they would retain, at least the immigrant generation, a specific identity within the American ethnic mosaic. So, one could easily recognize Polish Americans as different from Italian Americans. But, by and large, those who came to the US and stayed here made a total commitment to become Americans and to place any residual tie or connection with their country of origin: linguistic, cultural or culinary, on a much lower tier.

In most cases the immigrants were unable or unwilling to preserve their linguistic identity and pass it on to the following generations. (Let us consider that many of them were semi literate or illiterate within their own cultures. Thus they did not have the tools to preserve cultural complexities that they did not fully master).

Therefore, the kaleidoscope of exotic names that dots the American landscape has value for the ethnographers and historians that can identify Norwegian, Irish, Greek or German origins. But the individuals themselves, with a few exceptions, usually can barely indicate that the great grand parents came from somewhere in Ireland or Germany. Mixed marriages among immigrants confused the picture even further. Italians intermarried with the Irish and their offspring later on with others. For a third or fourth generation American today who can easily be in part German, Swedish, Russian or Greek, it is almost impossible to determine a meaningful national origin and to have strong feelings about it.

The basic difference between these old waves of immigrants and the Latino waves rests in geography. The Europeans by and large came with one way third class tickets on overcrowded steamers. Once they had landed they were psychologically and materially committed to a fast track to integration in order to better their chances of improving their lot vis a vis the other Americans. In most cases, going back to the country of origin was out of the question. Emigration was final. Thus, embracing the new world, in all it aspects, including culture and values, was necessary to have a chance to succeed in it.

The Latinos as of many years come by bus, by car or by air. For the most part, even if we take out the many that cannot cross official borders for fear of apprehension, except for the very poor, they have the opportunity to travel back and forth at least occasionally, some rather frequently. To think of Polish peasants transplanted in Illinois at the turn of the last century taking an even occasional summer vacation to visit with relatives back in the village is preposterous except for the extremely successful few who had become really rich in America.

On top of that, nowadays, even for the relatively poor Latinos, phone contact with relatives back home is the norm rather than the exception, while the gigantic remittance flows from the US into Central and South America, indicate continues involvement with families and communities in the countries of origin.

And the retention of the Spanish language as the primary language is an indication as to the fact that these immigrants do not have the same urgency to integrate and in some fashion forget about their origins. They see no need for this.

The logic of large numbers in most cases may help in shaping attitudes. No need to learn English fast in communities where the Latino population is the majority. Indeed, at least in some communities in the US it is possible to have a perfectly normal life in terms of work and opportunity without any need to acquire real English fluency, something that certainly was not the case, even in the most ethnic states, even at the height of the European immigration waves. 

Certainly there have been many large ethnic islands within the United States and many immigrants could get by with little or no English. But the understanding of all was that English was the official language of the country and that all official transactions would be conducted in English. No equivalent at that time of the now ubiquitous “press 2 for Spanish”, in any telephone help line, let alone taking driver license tests in languages other than English or the notion of officially sanctioned bilingual education.

While we would like to think that becoming an American is not about ethnicity, as demonstrably there is no “American” ethnic group, but about the voluntary embracing a set of values, it is a fact that historically most immigrants have been economic immigrants, driven by need rather than ideals. However, and this is crucial, whether they liked it or not, the old immigrants were “forced” to buy into the prevailing Anglo-Saxon political culture and become soon homogenized Americans, thus quickly shedding their origins and embracing America.

When political leaders today affirm that the strength of America lies in the diverse backgrounds of its immigrant population, they should know that this diversity is in fact rather superficial. They know that they are referring to the descendants of those Italian, German, Russian and Greek immigrants who, while they may have retained traces of their distinctiveness, at this point are homogenized Americans. Kohl, Lantos, Giuliani, Voinovich, Kerry, Tenet, Dukakis and even thick accented Schwarzenegger, just to stay within the sphere of people involved in public policy, are all ethnic names. Yet, these “including the foreign born– are Americans with a capital A. But, ten years from now, will we say the same about the Mercado, Martinez, Lopez and Rodriguez who will be the mayors and eventually national leaders of America? The difference is that the Latinos did not have the same pressure to integrate and become homogenized.

The fundamental qualitative difference between old and new immigration is that the new economic immigrants of today, most of them from Latin America, appreciate the opportunity to have a better life in the USA. However, to the extent that they can easily maintain an active connection with their countries of origin, (something that those who came along with the previous immigration waves could not do), they do not seem to have the urgency to totally and quickly transform themselves into “Anglos”.

If, while preserving the old ties, they would voluntarily choose to embrace the values of their adopted country, this would be a genuine achievement of multiculturalism. But, realistically, most immigrants will not spend sleepless nights poring over the Federalist Papers and other tomes on the Constitution in order to critically understand its underlying values.

Without the perception that, in order to have a normal life, they need to let themselves be absorbed by the new society, most people will tend to their private affairs. They will be guided by the principles that they acquired in their formative years. And, in the case of these new waves of immigrants, we cannot rest assured as to the fact that those value systems and beliefs will be the same as those that are prevalent among other Americans, simply because their backgrounds are different and their socialization took place in a different context.

And herein lays the challenge. America has worked reasonably well so far because a recognizable political culture has been preserved over more than two hundred years through a process that caused total outsiders to become integrated into this mainstream in a relatively short time. The substantial recent inflow of millions of people from nearby Mexico, Central and South America who bring different values and who see neither the obligation nor the need to subscribe to this political culture will bring about substantial qualitative change. This change will provoke new debates about what is it that we mean by “being an American”.

True, the notion that all the descendants of the old European waves have an unflinching, clear understanding as to what are the American values that they theoretically subscribe to is ludicrous. Indeed, many do not. But, at least in general, they cannot look at alternatives that derive from other perspectives that coexist in their universe. However, the lukewarm feelings about the distinctiveness of America among many descendants of older immigrants, if anything, complicates the problem, as it does not present to the new immigrants a clear picture of the value system that they should absorb.

America is a rather unique country that cannot point to a strong ethnic, religious or cultural identity. The political culture and the assumption that all of those who joined in share it has been the glue that kept this complex machinery together. We have to face the fact that this glue may not be as strong a bonding agent as it used to be.

And we have to face this fact now, when, for the first time in our complex history, we have a large chunk of new immigrants who may very well live here but who are not pressed to truly join in. This does not automatically make them disloyal or dangerous. But it makes them different. Just like the previous waves, these are predominantly economic immigrants. But, unlike the immigrants of old, they did not and will not go through the cultural indoctrination, benign or forced, willfully accepted or suffered by millions of others before them.

They are different. Their large and growing numbers will affect the culture and the values of the broader society in which they live and eventually they will radically transform it, its value system and core beliefs. How this transformation will change us all is impossible to predict. But America will never be the same.

Green is Business

WASHINGTON – “Green” is increasingly business — good business — around the globe. True, favorable regulatory and fiscal arrangements are still necessary to guarantee the viability of many businesses that produce and market environmentally friendly technologies. But subsidies are less crucial these days. Take wind mills for electric power generation in which Europe is the leader. The European Wind Energy Association indicates that since the 1980s the cost of producing wind power has gone down by 80 per cent. For more significant penetration around the world, the International Energy Agency calculates that costs will have to be cut by at least an additional 30 percent. Yet, European wind power industry leaders are confident that continued investment in R & D and economies of scale due to increased sales will accomplish this. Demand is growing. The sector is expanding.

BP Solar, the solar power generation unit of British Petroleum became profitable in 2004 with increased sales of 30 percent worldwide. So, the non oil offshoot of a major oil company is viable.

President Bush, speaking recently at the Virginia BioDiesel Refinery in Virginia, stated that, while biodiesel made with soy beans generated only 500,000 gallons of fuel in 1999 in the US, last year it accounted for 30 million gallons. Oak Ridge National Laboratory estimates that ethanol and biodiesel combined could provide up to one fifth of transportation fuel in the US within 25 years. Clearly a long way to go. Still, who would have thought 20 years ago of a US president stating that transforming soybeans into a cleaner transportation fuel is a real business?

Well, if we had any doubt left that the environment is now mainstream business, it vanished after Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, in the course of a carefully choreographed recent event in Washington, announced that the number two U.S. corporation in terms of market capitalization intends to focus on water and energy technologies as key components of its business strategy.

Under the banner of “ecomagination” GE will aggressively increase R & D funding and devote additional corporate resources to promote at least 17 proven technologies — from energy production to efficient engines to water filtration — that will improve the earth’s environment and thus the quality of life for millions of people. The technologies’ net effects will be measurable and the data gathered will be made public, thus creating standards that may help guide public policy. Among them: cleaner coal burning power plants whose costs will be brought down through increased efficiencies; more efficient engines for locomotives, airplanes and cars with lower emissions; desalination plants to increase water supply and filtration systems to make it safe. Immelt is sure that, by providing environmentally friendly solutions that address real needs, GE will make plenty of money. So, “ecoimagination” is not window dressing. This is core strategy.

Immelt’s reasoning is straightforward. The carbon based world economy is under severe stress. Oil at $ 50 a barrel is a reminder that we in the U.S. but also in the rest of the world depend on a source of energy that is increasingly more expensive, more scarce and potentially subject to supply disruptions; not to mention the pollution byproducts. Likewise, environmental concerns are no longer just niceties. They are at the center of the quality of life that we as human beings are going to enjoy.

If this is true in general, the argument for the adoption of state of the art new technologies is even stronger for poor countries. For the many and growing billions who live in the developing world there is a desperate need for new solutions. Indoor air pollution is a killer in rural areas and air pollution a menace in huge urban areas, while rampant disease due to unsafe water and non existing sanitation is only going to grow without the massive introduction of new technologies.

Tens of millions of Chinese (7 out of the 10 dirtiest large cities in the world in terms of air quality are in China) live daily with the consequences of extremely high air pollution in terms of diseases and lost productivity. And a study by the investment bank CLSA* indicates that China, already relying on coal for 68 percent of its primary energy consumption, will see air pollution increase 4 times 1990 levels by 2030. (Victor Mallet of The Financial Times writes that air pollution blowing from the heavily industrial Guangdong province has caused a severe deterioration in the quality of life and thus economic damage to environmentally conscious Hong Kong).

China is the world’s fastest growing economy. Immelt’s GE has already estimated that China and other large growing developing economies (India, Indonesia, Turkey) will provide in the years ahead 60 percent of the company’s growth. In launching the “ecoimagination” strategy, Immelt now connects the dots. He is clearly planning to make China a big buyer of these technologies. And why not? China is committed to growth; but not at the cost of self-destruction due to environmental ruin. If GE can provide solutions that do not sacrifice growth, they’ll buy them.

Of course, other major international players such as Siemens, ABB or Suez are already doing this in China and around the globe.

But GE’s announced strategy has similarities to IBM’s decision to enter the PC market. That move indicated to all around the world that PCs were a real business with long term prospects. As GE joins the environmental technology pack, by virtue of this powerful endorsement, the pack is bound to get bigger and bolder. The promise is that this new focus will fill real needs. In the developed world it will help cut energy costs, while improving the environment. In the developing world GE and its competitors can become key enablers for true, sustainable development.

Finally, if the environment proves to be big business, then it may provide the competitive edge that the US and the West in general need in order to maintain leadership positions in the world economy. In the 1980s, when we started hemorrhaging manufacturing in America, very few thought that Information and Communication Technologies could create high value products and services and significant new employment. Maybe environmental technologies and the myriad of services that are bound to sprout and develop around them will help unleash the next wave of American innovation.

*Air Pollution in Asia: