There is next to no difference between the main parties’ tax and spend plans.
From the BBC
Probably the best economics blog (founded) in South Sudan
My heap-of-junk car finally packed in for good a couple of weeks ago. The cost of repairing the engine is now more than the car is worth. So yesterday I bought myself a new red shiny Senke motorbike.
1 hour lesson from a boda-boda driver.
$10 for the boda driver.
4 large patches of sunburnt skin for me.
Approximately 14 stalls.
0 crashes.
Wish me luck.
PS. Yes mum, I have a helmet.
PPS. Do let me know if you’re in need of a Hilux Surf for scrap
Still no response to my question about international development policy from my local Labour Party candidate.
So Hilary Myers (Lib Dem) gets my vote (assuming my proxy voter doesn’t cheat me) , for saying
We remain committed to increased coherence between UK development, trade, investment, migration and agriculture policies.
Sam Lampert just told me about fivethirtyeight.com which is frankly awesome – model-based seat estimates (generally more reliable than polls) with cool graphics. Trust the americans to cover our election better than we can.
If it is this tight the regional parties (Scottish and Welsh nationalists) are really going to come into play.
Results are also in from the Give Your Vote project – UK voters have pledged their votes to people from Afganistan, Bangladesh and Ghana.
I bet Nick Clegg wishes his electorate was Bangladeshi.
I’ll watching at Sam’s place (we love you Sam!), and playing election bingo courtesy of the BBC.
I’ll leave you with John Stuart Mill (1866)
"The Conservative Party is, by the law of its constitution, necessarily the stupidest party. I do not retract that assertion... stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."
The next 4 years are going to suck. But with any luck, the massive cuts will make everyone hate tories again, and there will be a wonderful Lib/Lab coalition in 2014 with proportional representation and House of Lords reform and rules against going into stupid wars and a truly social liberal progressive domestic agenda that is fiscally responsible and “coherence between UK development, trade, investment, migration and agriculture policies.”
I can’t wait.
Another counter-intuitive freakonomics-finding-fail?
Everyone knows that civil wars are driven by grievances right? Israel-Palestine and all that. Until along came the quants who found no relationship between measures of ethnic diversity or grievances with civil war. The claim was that diversity and grievances are too ubiquitous to be able to predict isolated incidences of conflict.
Until now. A new, more detailed GIS dataset from researchers at Zurich is finding some effects.
Our most recent dataset GeoEPR, which was published earlier this spring, offers a “bird’s eye view of ethnic settlements” around the world … the new dataset offers geo-coded information about ethnic groups’ settlement areas around the world from 1945 through 2005.
Based on this information, we show that excluded and downgraded groups are much more likely to experience civil-war violence. Furthermore, our most recent research, conducted by Lars-Erik Cederman, Kristian Gleditsch at University of Essex, and Nils Weidmann at Princeton University, uses GeoEPR data suggesting that ethnic groups that are either considerably less or more wealthy than the country average are also exposed to higher conflict risks. Such “horizontal inequality” has previously been associated with conflict, but our research is the first to do so globally with the help of geographic information systems (GIS).
From Lars-Erik Cederman at the University of Zurich Political Science blog.
You can download the data here.
Like an ostensibly realistic human character in a state-of-the-art CGI cartoon, he's almost convincing – assuming you can ignore the shrieking, cavernous lack of anything approaching a soul. Which you can't.
I see the sheen, the electronic calm, those tiny, expressionless eyes . . . I glimpse the outlines of the cloaking device and I instinctively recoil, like a baby tasting mould. Don't get me wrong. I don't see a power-crazed despot either. I almost wish I did. Instead, I see an avatar. A simulated man with a simulated face. A humanoid. A replicant. An Auton. A construct. A Carlton PR man who's arrived to run the country, and currently stands before us, blinking patiently, blank yet alert, quietly awaiting commencement of phase two. At which point, presumably, his real face may finally become visible.
We live in an age of aid pessimism. There is a strong, if rarely completely articulated, presumption that aid can at best help people survive, but it cannot promote development. The U.S. government’s new initiative, the Millenium Challenge Account (MCA), is based on the idea that the whole idea of aid giving needs to be rethought. In particular, it wants to tie aid to country performance: only countries that pursue economic policies that the U.S. government approves of will be eligible for aid from this account. The premise is that aid has not been working because the policy environment is not right. While it is clear that this is a problem – there are countries where the risk of the money ending up in a government official’s pocket is substantial – the thrust of our argument is that the way money is planned to be spent is also a very big problem, but a problem whose source lies in the way the donor organizations function. Combined with the fact that many of the world’s neediest live in the countries that will not make it onto the MCA list and that we expect the incentive effects of the MCA to be minimal, this suggests to us that the MCA approach amounts to abandoning a large part of the world’s poorest for no fault of their own. A more effective and less unfair challenge may be to try to see if it is possible to design projects that work in the countries with the biggest problems. If we could make that work, we would not only help those who need it the most, but what is perhaps even more valuable, we will raise expectations and build hope where there is none.
I am intrigued by the last sentence. How do we measure the value of raising expectations and building hope?
Read the whole thing here.
Apparently rates have fallen from 38% in 2008 to less than 1% in 2010. Too good to be true?
IRIN via African Politics Portal
To follow me on Twitter go here: http://twitter.com/rovingbandit
Owen Barder has written a great post on the difference between aid and development policy – between providing temporary alleviation from the worst effects of poverty, and supporting structural transformation.
Aid is best-suited to poverty alleviation, and other “beyond aid” policies such as trade, security and migration are more suited to transformational development.
Hilary Myers mentioned one of these “beyond-aid” issues on this blog: cracking down on tax havens, improving transparency and tackling corruption – particularly by making it harder for western banks and financial institutions to facilitate that corruption.
How important are these illicit financial flows out of developing countries? Derrill Watson draws my attention to these figures from the Global Financial Integrity Programme of the Center for International Policy.
Quite important.
Hilary Myers (Liberal Democrat) is the latest candidate in my constituency to offer her views on international development policy (see also here and here). I am blown away, I really didn’t expect any answers this good. I particularly like these two paragraphs on going beyond aid.
Liberal Democrats do recognise that financial aid is not necessarily the most important or effective way of delivering support in developing countries. Trade also has a vital role to play. We remain committed to increased coherence between UK development, trade, investment, migration and agriculture policies.
Coupled with this, Liberal Democrats recognise the importance of improving taxation and transparency and tackling corruption in the developing world. In our recent paper, Development in a Downturn, we set out plans to reform international financing systems by cracking down on tax havens, improving transparency and tackling corruption – particularly by making it harder for western banks and financial institutions to facilitate that corruption.
Read the whole thing here. Steph Booth for Labour (the incumbent party) is the only candidate who hasn’t yet responded. But she is going to have to say something special to beat this.
Rigged in the north, more or less fair in the south - The Economist on Sudan elections
Give Your Vote http://www.giveyourvote.org/
Russia says Sudan elections fair by 'African standards' - er....
Eritrea and Ethiopia's first ever “trending topic” on Twitter: #whereislemlem? http://tinyurl.com/yc65hvf
Sudan People's Liberation Movement is on twitter: @splmvoices
Dani Rodrik's father-in-law arrested on coup charges in Turkey
83% of UK election candidates are using Facebook in their campaign
Now is the time to cut $200bn a year in US & European farm subsidies