NEVIS Review No 24
Section II ( Danny Arku’s Section)
Ref# 24.2
August 28, 2013
-----------------
[Danny Arku’s original post, March 28, 2012 ]
People emphatically assert they want to see development in their
country, and yet in the same breath, they vehemently oppose any kind of
changes- they don’t want to be “disturbed”, they don’t want to leave
their house in order that new roads are to be built passing through
their houses; they don’t want to move away from their birth place
(“etbite yetekeberebet”) in order that large scale plantations are to be
set up; they are not ready for the forests to be cleared. These people
fail to realize that development is a “disturbance”; development is-to
borrow a word from the famous economist, Schumpeter-a “creative
destruction”! There is always a price to pay in every effort-is there
any public policy which satisfies ALL the citizens?!
The best one
can argue is not “I don’t want to see a bulldozer around”, or “I want
the forest not to be touched forever” but rather, whether the specific
project is intended towards maximizing the “general welfare” and whether
the policy is overall conducive to social welfare, and whether the
relocated people are given the appropriate compensation, and whether it
is done in such a way that no human rights are violated..
----
[Debates/Discussions]
Mesfin Tekle :
Danny Arku, There has never been development without its related cost.
Whether it's removing people or property from one area to another or
everything else in between development is not cost free. The question
one must ask is about transparency. How transparent are the decisions
made and whose interests have priority in a system where the one asking
the questions and the one answering them is one and the same?
-----
Danny Arku:
Mesfin Tekle, thanks for understanding my point. I agree with you that transparency and persuasion are really necessary.
-------
Beza Hailemariam:
We've heard all that over and over development.... Are the people being
compensated for the land and house they are losing? Are they being
offered better living in a new place? I don't think so.... So if you are
promising development while destroying one’s life, you just end up
re-destroying the development you finished building
----------
Beyo :
I want to add some points:
1: We don't even agree on the meaning of a country?
2: We can't differentiate party policy and national interest?
3: I don't know about other countries practices but in our case we use everything to oppose the government?
Such intrinsic issues are the real reasons behind, rather than agendas of development.
Other critical factor which openness gaps is weak government workers
(Civil services),either due to lack of capacity or intentionally
hampering the process. Eg: In compensation process, valuation has to be
made by some civil servant, but had he may report it negligently to the
one who allows to pay (political decision maker), the end result will
obviously is catastrophic. This case happens in many situations such as
sugar price fixing, condominium housing development, and many more.
------
Daniel Seifu:
Danny Arku, I think as most of us may agree....the question is not
about "I don't wanna see bulldozer" and development but rather the
question is about the following process. Some of the points are said by
you and Beyo about "civil services" .But in addition to that, it needs
thorough investigation of what the relationship between all stakeholders
look like, before just saying by a guess (that is also equally
ignorance).One certain fact for me is that about one of the biggest
problems but frequently ignored is the one you said “etbite
yetekeberebet”. It has many things in it, it has several emotions of
belongingness... I don’t think that I have a good skill to express it
very well but I think there are good ways to handle it than just sending
cadres who harass and intimidate the "victims of development" by
telling them emotionally that this is "development".......What do you
think about sending "social counselors" with bulldozers? And who listen
and help in the process.......ግን ምን ዋጋ አለው s Civil service jobs and
positions ምናምን ሁሉ ፖለቲካዊ ሲሆኑ.....ከዚህ አይነቱ ህመም በላይ ምን ይጠበቃል?
----------
Beyo:
Daniel Seifu , To get to the bottom of the barrel, the issues won't be
solved had we send "social counselor", because it is not that people
demanding. It is all about political polarization which is hampering the
process of development. Had you send "a social counselor" they will
tell you another reason because "were yefetaw" .So the only way the
government and the one who cares should work to really hear what is at
stake and work as much as they can, without giving things any political
back and forth. May be you are right in indicating weak "political
cadres"(NOT ONLY EPRDF, BUT opposition PARTIES TOO) are part of the
problem. If there is a ZOMBI cadre which only tried to implement things
without trying to actualize and understand issues at hand, but he work
on it only for obedience of political leadership then the result will be
much much lower than expected. What did other opposition party
political leadership towards indicating the universally right solutions,
or in real political solutions. Dear Dani,it is all about lack of
engagement of the elites in the development of the country.
--------------
Berihu Assefa :
Danny Arku , you brought up a good issue to discuss
(1) Is this the case of Arrow’s impossibility theorem: “there is no
social welfare function that satisfies Non-dictatorship, Efficiency, and
Independence?”
(2) True that there are gainers and losers of
development policies. This is a distributive conflict. In such cases,
the famous principle “the social benefit must outweigh the social cost”
is not enough. You need a “political process”. What political process?
Since the losers have a legitimate claim (and vote) not to get displaced
or to get a full compensation on their loss, one needs a justifiable
resolution of the distributive conflict. The political process is most
likely “justifiable” when it is democratic. If not democratic, is there
any other mechanism to address the questions raised by Mesfin' above.
(3) But what is development? Its definition and scope has so much
expanded. The most comprehensive definition is, perhaps, Sen’s
definition (development as capability and development as freedom). Sen
wrote: “Development is the expansion of individual freedoms”. In
authoritarian states, Sen’s development definition will be something
like this: “Development is the expansion of public works (roads, dams,
etc).” But individual freedoms may conflict (some oppose and others
support). What happens when they conflict? What happens depends on
whether you are authoritarian or democratic. Though, both can lead to
sub-optimal outcomes, the latter has better aspects of reflecting
people’s will. To do democracy is to do the right thing; but it doesn’t
necessarily mean democracy is just or superior. A democracy can be
nastily unjust and economically inferior.
(4) How do
individuals decide? Man is rational. She compares her individual benefit
with her cost. Does she calculate the social benefit and social cost to
decide? When a road that affects my house is built; do I calculate the
social benefit and social cost to vote YES or NO? How is this decision
different from going to a college? When you want to go to college, do
you compare your costs with your expected benefits? Or social benefits
with social costs? Education has positive externality.
(5)
Schumpeter’s creative destruction: I am not sure if you can apply his
concept to public investments (when a government demolishes a house or a
village). Originally, he meant it to refer to the death of
uncompetitive businesses (or economic forces). The competitive world
goes through creative destruction where economic forces determine the
surviving and non-surviving.
--------------
Daniel Seifu :
Berihu, when you say "but what is development?" that is what makes me
most of the times to be reserved, especially Micheal Todaro's the three
core values of development comes in to my mind
1, Sustenance : The ability to meet basic needs
2, Self-esteem : "to be a person" (sense of worth and self
respect....here are included authenticity, identity honor, dignity,
respect,....)
3, Freedom from Servitude: to be able to choose
(he put this one to be understood as emancipation from alienating
material conditions of life and from social servitude to nature,
ignorance and several others...)
so if these are the core
value of development then, isn't that wrong to ignore peoples cry? I
mean isn't that better to address their cry as equal as the development?
Isn't that possible to build and develop with integrity and
respect? (Listening to others opinion no matter how it seems wrong
causes that is development by it self....isn’t it?)
------------
Beyo :
I may agree somehow with your points but don't you think you are
generalizing and concluding when you say " It is all about political
polarization", I mean don’t you think that conclusion would limit to
listen to genuine outcries?
-------
Tsedi Lemma:
Danny
Arku, In addition to the points made by Mesfin (who often for pleasant
reasons speaks my heart and my mind better than I think I do) and
Danieln Seifu - whom I like for his viciously straightforward comments, I
have one very simple question to ask, can development be brought upon
people without the stern attitude of "either or?". Can we find a
delicate equilibrium to strike in our ambition to grow? Danny Arku, I
know you have many questions by Berihu to answer first.
-------
Danny Arku:
Thanks all for your comments, this is the kind of discussion that
Ethiopia needs. Free civilized discussions- disagreements, and
agreements-but still continue to be friends. @ Be Yo, thanks for your
comment. I have repeatedly written notes on the fact that we have to
transcend the parochial party affiliation and focus on the objective
content of any issue at hand- I am against any kind of ethnic-political
polarization. I agree with you that lack of capable technocrats, or
civil service, to use your term, in Ethiopian government. That is where
the government is weak. Asset Valuation is so technical in nature that
it may be better left to technocrats. In case it is undervalued, there
should me grievance handling procedures.@ Daniel S, I like your
sensitivity to the displaced ones, when you cited the social counselors,
although I don’t know if that would be practical in our country. HOW
one tells you are to be relocated also matters, ie. Convincing them
regarding the advantages of the project may help in that regard.
Harassing should at any time be avoided. If you see at the end of my
note, human rights is one of the items which I pointed out as worth
discussing. So I didn’t disregard it. @ Beza, BTW, I didn’t claim the
compensation was enough-Indeed, I was implying that the adequacy of
compensation is one of the questions that a reasonable person should
ask. The people I was resisting vigorously, whom I was intentionally
labeling them “hypocrites” are those who try to argue that people should
never relocate for whatever the reason, however noble the intentions
are-those who categorically state that we don’t need that kind of
development if it displaces people, and dismiss any development endeavor
as futile ipso fact
--------------
Beyo :
@ Tsedi Lemma
your point is good and needs to be considered, we need to find a
delicate equilibrium to strike the balance, this should be done, but
Ethiopia's problem is multidimensional, in some cases we can't have the
luxury to accommodate all what we think is right, We are forced to do
it, to the extent that its quest is a matter of our existence too. I
hope you can accept anything had you believe we for sure banish hunger
for example? Even if there is a stern resistance on it, then why should I
listen to it, because waiting can harm my existence too? @Daniel Seifu ,
Okay, we agreed on some of the aspects then, when there is a genuine
claim how can we hear it? 1. Identifying the positive claim? For this,
the task should be started from the one who claims his own right, which
means he has to ask first what he want and what is his real demand. Like
when the government wants to build a dam and when his farm can be
affected by the development work, t hen he has to ask for A PROPER LAND
FOR FARMING, not "etebete etetete,zere manzere" ,or attached to it some
kind of silly political agendas, because a dam is not for a single
family rather for a country(the peoples in it).2. Civil servants and
experts for the Government, rather than working on the political side of
it, they have to engage themselves in realization of claims and problem
solving, which is to say, whether one has claimed with truth or with
external agitation, they have to practically engage on solving it. That
is, when one claims about environmental damages on Dam construction,
then they have to take it seriously and devise ways to minimize on the
damages on environment without halting the project successes. To
conclude, attaching political agenda with real developmental quest
doesn't take us anywhere and sizing to develop is unimaginable but apart
from it everything is possible with dialogue. @Mesfin tekle 1. "To do
democracy is to do the right thing; but it doesn’t necessarily mean
democracy is just or superior. A democracy can be nastily unjust and
economically inferior."...What is right? Being hungry is right? Or
putting a chunk of your country men in poverty is right? I prefer to
live like Somalia than India.2. Man is rational...towards his and his
own benefits. Man is also social; one’s existence depends on other. One
can claim a replacement for his residential area and residence for his
demolition house due to road project, because it is a matter of
existence but he can't claim about the places benefits had he sold it,
because he never add a single value on the place existence or his
ownership of a land is just out of sheer chance, so some man are
self-centered may approximate that.
---------------
Danny Arku :
I can understand your ecological concerns, but there is always a
trade-off in economic decisions. Take China for example, it is being
condemned for environmental degradation. I don’t mean it should
disregard such claims but it could turn out to be inevitable outcome-and
the West who cry about it are the ones who has been polluting the earth
for decades- why cry , why all fuss when it comes from China, or other
non-Westerns countries. Either a country has to lower its rate of
development (number of industries...) with less pollution, or grow at
higher rate with some relatively higher pollution. Furthermore, negative
externalities on third party may perhaps be handled by the government
through different mechanisms. It is good to balance both whenever that
is possible, as Tsedi remarked, but it should not be at a high price of
economic growth. I hope this would also answer the question that @ Tsedi
brought.@ Berihu, I agree with your points 1, 2, esp in the third, you
have made a good point, esp for some who argue that democracy is a
panacea for development, and those who think that democratic
deliberation cannot result in suboptimal decision. On 4) Do you mean
people displaced do not take into account social costs and benefits, the
positive and negative externality of their action on third parties? The
utility function of individuals would of course differ, but
individual’s desire may sometimes be sacrificed, or MADE COMPLY, for the
sake of long term prosperity even if the person concerned fails to
realize the social cost and benefits. On point 5) I used the concept of
Schumpeter’s “creative destruction” to make a parallel reasoning with
nature of development (that is constant “change”), ie, to imply the fact
that economic development like capitalist system, involves perpetual
changes and upsetting forces. The origin of the term is NOT,
respectfully, as you claimed, but it is rather, as we find it in his
book “Capitalism, socialism and democracy’ where he asserts that
capitalism as economic system is replete with constant change, where, to
directly quote him, “capitalist system incessantly revolutionizes the
economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one,
incessantly creating a new one. This process of creative destruction is
the essential fact about capitalism”
-------------
Berihu Assefa:
Danny Arku, On 5: The parallel reasoning: development as a constant
change Vs capitalism as a constant change is fine. What I said on
“creative destruction" is not that different from what you said. If I
were to put Schumpeter’s creative destruction bluntly, I don’t think it
would be any different from what I put it in my previous comment.
Creative destruction refers to the non-stationary nature of capitalism.
The forces of competition lead to innovation. Then, others follow the
innovative pioneers. Then, innovation again. This happens incessantly.
It is a cycle – replacing old ones with new ones. Why do old (old means
in this case uncompetitive – old product, old technology) ones die? The
forces behind this cycle are forces of competition
-------------
Danny Arku:
Berihu, you said "Originally, he meant it to refer to the death of
uncompetitive businesses (or economic forces). The competitive world
goes through creative destruction where economic forces determine the
surviving and non-surviving."It is matter of focus/precision. As you can
clearly see from your text, in your interpretation, you are emphasizing
on the 'survival of the fittest'-which is the more competitive will
survive and the less competitive will be wiped out. But my emphasis was,
as Schumpeter clearly stated it by saying "incessantly destroying the
old one, incessantly creating a new one “ is on innovation and
entrepreneurship. If you read the chapter on his book, he is referring
to innovations, ie, the changes in product features, new technologies,
new markets(eg foreign markets) which will continue to make capitalism
to constantly evolve through time
Beyo Te :
Tsedi Lemma, What
should you expect from a government official as it seems unless you grab
power or office you swear that there is no agreement that you make any
of the things around, at least you do not believe that you can
contribute things without assuming any office. I feel sorry, not only
for you but most on their resentment towards the country. I wish we can
work on things, on projects and on agendas towards a common goal, at
least we can contribute a positive advice. One should better say,” we
can do it this way, or that way? or it is better had we done it this
way.” rather than “AKURFO Kemekemet” .Rome never been built in a day!
People stick with liberty which they never see it in their own house,
but when it comes the public they expect to see it from where ...Alien?
Much respect with a lot of regrets.
-------
Tsedi Lemma :
BeYo, I think what we are doing here on FB is in a way contributing
immensely without holding a government office. For one thing I never
thought I am the right person to be a government official; we all have
our own places in this world and I believe mine is not there, yet. You
never know though. And I only have respect for our civilized "fights"
here on FB and no regrets at all and I don't understand why you should
regret it either. FYI, its people's civility in their engagement that
helped Rome not only to be built but to be built better. Some wars
might have been fought over that but at end what won the day were not
the spears but people's civilized respect to one another and their
tolerance of agreeing to disagree over many things. So I sometimes like,
sometimes accept and sometimes respect what we are doing here and I
like to keep the fire burning....even with so much petrol around.
---------
Mesfin Tekle :
Beyo Te, Democracy is not a panacea! The gridlock nature of democracy
can be frustrating but I believe it's better than the alternative.
You've more transparency in a democratic give and take than without it.
If you have a government dominated media barraging you with one truth
without giving you the other side of the story, it creates an unfair
balance. Of course, some of the opposition to development might be
political but that is part of the deal you have to accept as a
government, if you want the idea of transparency and factually based
analysis to flourish.
--------
Tesfakiros Arefe Sahle:
I
want to ask Danny Arku about the planning process of the development
projects. I hope he has the necessary information that can help him to
answer my questions. When and how did the residences know about their
eviction from their homes or the construction of the road that disturbs
their lives? When & how did they know that the forest is to be
cleared? Did the government involve the stakeholders in its planning
process? Did they reach at consensus about the objectives of the
projects (its social and economic benefits) and the method and amount of
compensation, the place to be relocated? Did the government's project
show the social, economic and political implication of the project? Did
it clearly show that the cost benefit analysis and the economic benefits
outweigh the social costs? Thank you
-------------
Beyo :
@Mesfin Tekle, I don't think it would add much value apart from
extending the period of accomplishment. As I have indicated it before,
the opposition won't come from the issues themselves rather from other
agendas, and as a third world country we don't have that luxury. As of
me, I don't want to see a stagnant economy because already in the big
picture of humanity, we are already in slavery.
---------------
Danny Arku:
@ Tesfakiros, thanks for your insight. I think you are too focused on
the means rather than on the end. You seem to imply that it is the means
that matters most, and that end has to be sacrificed for the sake of
the means, which is an absurd way of reasoning. I am not against a
consultation- but this populist perspective assumes that the masses know
what is best for them, and that if they can't agree, the course of
action is not right. Berihu, Mesfin and I have already discussed how
democracy may also result in suboptimal decision. I however, defend
democracy because of its intrinsic worth, as I have previously argued on
some note. @ Be Yo, I agree with you that consultation may turn out to
retard a development process, or it might result in 'decision
paralysis'. @ Mesfin, I think you have also to consider these facts,
since transparency alone would not make a process fair- what is more
important is 'who is the de facto decision maker?', whose interests are
represented? A process may not be transparent but may turn out to be in
favor of the masses, can’t it? Alternately, it may be transparent but
may not be in the interest of the masses. Both ways are possible. Thank
you all for your participation
------------------------//--------------------------------------
(Ed’s note- It is hoped by NEVIS ET that documentation of such
discussions would stimulate further thought and research on the issue
and will serve as a knowledge database. We want to thank Danny and his
friends for their reflection on such an important issue. As usual, the
NEVIS ET’s disclaimer: we would like to remind NEVISers that all the
opinions which Danny and his discussant express in the forthcoming
series of articles are their personal opinion and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of NEVIS, the society or the editorial team ET.
NEVISers who didn’t participate in the discussion are welcome to add
their reflection here in this issue in the comment section. Those who
already did participate are free to add/modify their opinion. We have
presented the conversations above exactly as they first appeared for the
sake of originality and authenticity, except for minor editing of
spelling and grammatical errors. NEVIS ET*)