Wednesday, May 24, 2017

When it comes to productivity, only two things are undebatable: that the official rate of US productivity growth has stalled since 2007, having started to slow before then, and that there is no consensus about why or what to do about it. There is, additionally, some broad consensus that without stronger productivity growth going forward, standards of living will not improve appreciably, which is likely to fuel the current wave of populist discontent.

One explanation, however, is increasingly popular even as it faces considerable scepticism among economists and policymakers: that the problem is less about productivity than about our inability to measure the effect of the digital and now data revolution that has redefined the American economy. In short, there is a growing chasm between what our economic system is and what our numbers are capable of measuring.

Take Google. Its searches are used billions of times a day. Every single one is free. The same could be said of Google Maps or Waze, which are free for the user. While some of what they offer adds little to collective economic output (a group chat between a gaggle of teens has no immediate economic value), a considerable percentage does. That navigation app reduces time spent on the road or stuck in traffic, potentially reduces the amount of gas used, and then frees up that time and savings for other, possible more productive uses.

Several years ago, Erik Brynjolfsson, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, tried to measure what these “free goods of the Internet” might be adding to gross domestic product (GDP). The methods were innovative, trying to gauge what value people assign to their time and then multiplying that by time spent using Google and similar services. He estimated that as of 2012, such “free goods” might add $300 billion to gross domestic product, increasing at the rate of $40 billion a year, which would mean close to $500 billion in 2017. These were only halting initial steps in what is surely a complicated and as yet unresolved process to factor the innovations of the past decade and more into calculations of economic output and activity. In early May, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis released a paper concluding that its own measures of inflation and GDP had been unable to keep up with the changes in the economy, and hence had been off by as much as half a per cent a year.

These issues are not new, but they remain unresolved. The lessons of the Federal Reserve in the 1990s are instructive. The US economy was booming, new technologies were proliferating, and yet productivity numbers were anaemic. Then governor Alan Greenspan tasked the team of economists at the Fed to investigate. Building on the 1989 observation of Robert Solow that “computers were everywhere but in the productivity statistics”, the Fed began to assess how productivity was calculated and understood. That led to more emphasis on different formulas such as multi-factor productivity, which went beyond looking just at labour and capital investment; they also took a longer view that new innovations can take years to show up in official statistics.

Measured productivity did begin to accelerate in the mid-1990s, along with greater attention by policymakers to different formulas such as multifactor productivity to measure it. That said, the debates today haven’t altered much, with a few voices suggesting that we fail to account for the “consumer surplus” or adequately account for the gains from the digital revolution, while many others, such as Robert Gordon, contend that the productivity slowdown is a result of a mature economy that is not keeping pace with societal needs. For them, the statistics, even if slightly outmoded, reflect an unarguable reality whose economic and social consequences are evident. Even those who acknowledge underestimation of productivity tend to argue that if you added back some amount for the hard-to-quantify effects of the digital revolution, you still wouldn’t get back to the levels of the 20th century.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the mismeasurement debated is only a portion of just how significant these mismeasurements are. Even more, perhaps the entire framework is now flawed. The hard numbers today are failing to account for certain observable contradictions—such as how there can be high levels of employment combined with very little wage growth and extremely low inflation. If various free or inexpensive digital solutions are generating adequate output without adding much in the way of labour costs or capital spending, then that would explain why labour costs and capital investment are low. And if those solutions are also leading to less expensive goods and services, that would in part explain why measured productivity is weak.

All this suggests that much more attention needs to be paid to the real possibility that productivity isn’t slowing the way we think, or that slower measured productivity isn’t having the same consequences as when the economy was primarily based on making physical goods. Perhaps if we emphasized quantity and quality rather than market price, the optics would be different. Governments seem unwilling to allocate resources to developing a system for better accounting for free services and how the deflationary effects of technology can both improve standards of living and lower GDP. But if we are going to understand the causes of inequality and formulate solutions, we need to start with data we can count on.

Source: Mintepaper, 24-05-2017

Gandhi, The Economist

His idea of trusteeship needs to be revisited in times of growing inequality

The “Gandhi Conclave” in Patna on April 10 and 11 commemorated the centenary of Gandhi’s visit to Bihar in 1917 in connection with the Champaran Satyagraha, which, for the first time, lent a mass character to the Congress-led freedom movement in the country. At a time when the country is enveloped by clouds of helplessness, the conclave underlined how Gandhian strategy has a non-violent solution for almost every problem confronting the world.

Two conclusions can be drawn if one approaches Gandhism in a simple manner. One, Gandhi appears compulsively antediluvian; two, he was not bound by standard frameworks. The period when he wrote Hind Swaraj was probably Gandhi’s most negative phase, though the text should be treated as a critique of India’s de-industrialisation by colonialism. From 1919, after the successful Champaran Satyagraha, Gandhi scripted the Swadeshi Movement which gave a foundation to domestic industrialisation. He was possibly the first Indian to underline that the development and emancipation of the country required concurrent dialogues with the colonial state, civil society, the market and corporate sector.

Apart from the Patna conclave, two books I read inspired me to revisit Gandhi’s philosophy, specially its economic dimension — How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reason For World’s Hunger by Susan George and Rich People’s Movements: Grassroots Campaigns To Untax The One Percent by Isaac William Martin. George makes three seminal points: One, the Third World War will be over water; two, the consumption of cereals by pets in the First World is higher than by human beings in the Third World; three, four Earths would be required if the Third World emulates the First World’s consumption pattern.

Martin’s book is about the counter movement of the rich for tax holidays and their demand of removing all financial fetters. He writes on the “tax day, April 15, 2010 hundreds of thousands of Americans turned out to rallies around the United States to protest against taxes and big Government… offered forthright defense of capitalists and the rich using grassroots tactics of the poor”.

I revisited two basic Gandhian economic principles after reading the two books. One, the limitation of wants: No maximisation technique is enough to satisfy unlimited wants, and social interest outweighs self-interest. Production should be mindful of the earth’s capacity. The unbridled use of natural resources will lead the world towards disaster, as prophesised by George. Two, the concept of “trusteeship”: With the idea of market-centric development under mammoth multinationals assuming hegemonic proportions, there is a need to appreciate this concept.

Even though Gandhi promoted Indian capitalism as a spin-off of the Swadeshi Movement, he was aware of the monstrous consequences of capitalism. Just before his assassination, Gandhi finalised the “practical trusteeship formula”, which would have transformed the “present capitalist order of society into an egalitarian one (in which) an individual will not be free to hold or use wealth for selfish satisfaction”.

Liaquat Ali Khan, the finance minister of the interim government in 1946 under the premiership of Jawaharlal Nehru, held similar views. He not only introduced 91 per cent income tax in the maiden budget of the interim government, but also instituted a commission to investigate ill-gotten accumulation during WW II. G.D. Birla, who was in the visitor’s gallery of Parliament when the budget was presented, not only walked out but organised fortnightly strikes of the stock exchange in protest. India’s top industrialist and closest comrades of Gandhi rallied to demand Khan’s ouster from the cabinet.

Partition and Gandhi’s assassination meant that the principle of trusteeship and equity-centric taxation never got full play. Today, we pride ourselves on having the third highest numbers of billionaires when we also have the highest number of poor in the world. The “Gandhi Conclave”, I hope, will bring back Gandhi’s ideals on the centrestage, nationally and globally. Unless the counter movement of the rich is stalled, the world won’t have authentic economic democratisation.

The writer is member secretary, Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), Patna

Source: Indian Express, 23-5-2017

Smoke and Mirrors : India’s Human Rights report at the UN

The final conclusions of UPR on India, like all such reviews, need to be read not in cold print, but between the lines

The career Indian diplomat is a grandmaster in the art of obfuscation. However, the mendacity of the submissions by the Indian delegation during the examination of India’s record during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of its human rights record convinced only the naïve back home – and some duplicitous governments in the United Nations.

The final conclusions of UPR on India, like all such reviews, need to be read not in cold print, but between the lines. At the outset, it must be remembered that when it comes to the implementation of universal rights and norms on human rights, the “United Nations” must in fact be read in reverse – it is “Nations United”, countries against their peoples. Most would rather ignore their populations’ clamour for accountability and rights. This, in spite of the valiant efforts of the present UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the under-resourced but intrepid UN Human Rights machinery. Most governments do the human rights tango only when it suits their expedient geo-political realities.

India’s report starts with a big fat lie. “When drafting its national report, India followed a broad-based consultative approach involving various stakeholders.” The consultations were in fact perfunctory. No draft report prepared by the Government of India was made available to the few human rights NGO representatives invited to the consultations. Some of the invitees can be charitably described as Government-organised NGOs (GONGOs). One such “consultation” even included a self-confessed NGO collaborator of the Intelligence Bureau!

India’s attempt at dissimulation regarding its abysmal record on torture was superb. Per its report, “India reiterated its commitment to ratify the Convention against Torture. In this context, the Government requested the Law Commission of India to give a comprehensive report covering all aspects of criminal law so that necessary amendments could be made in India’s Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedures and Evidence Act, prior to carrying out the ratification process.”

Not to be outdone, the National Human Rights Commission of India in its submission to UPR sought to convey that the delay in ratification was only five years. India signed the convention in 1997. It is now 2017. Forget any substantive knowledge of human rights; in the NHRC, even elementary arithmetic is a casualty.

An assortment of countries – from Botswana, Norway, Guatemala and Italy to Lebanon, South Africa, Sweden, the United States of America and Kazakhstan, made bland calls for the ratification of the Convention Against Torture. Australia and Germany were more nuanced and precise, calling on India to “ensure that domestic legislation defines torture in line with international standards, and extend an invitation to the Special Rapporteur on torture for an official visit to the country.”

In 2010, a badly drafted and weak Prevention of Torture Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha sent it to a select committee where it was much improved. However, there were no takers for the improved bill in the Union Home Ministry or the Law Ministry, and the bill was allowed to lapse. So much for compliance with international law.

The Government of India’s UPR submission added that the Law Commission of India is now seized of the matter. A laughing matter, one might add – we are only too aware of the fate of reports prepared by the Law Commission.

Similar attempts at obfuscation characterised India’s reporting on the death penalty, the Aadhaar card, malnutrition, minority rights, women’s rights, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), and the excessive use of force, among other issues.

The UPR is a peer review process. The questions and recommendations from the European Union countries, with a few honourable exceptions, were pathetic. The process underscored the lack of any meaningful EU-wide policy or consultation on human rights. Clearly, the agenda item on human rights in the EU-India bilateral dialogue exists only in the febrile imaginations of many European chanceries.

This should come as no surprise, as not just one but all the EU member states have, as Adam Smith and Napoleon succinctly put it, become “a nation of shop keepers”. As the recession-plagued, two-legged predatory carpetbaggers from Europe eye the vast Indian market, human rights are conveniently overlooked.

This was exemplified by the final communiqué of the 13th India-EU Summit on March 30, 2016 in Brussels. Most of the discussion on Human Rights centred on the case of two Italian marines and the 14 Estonian and six UK Guards sentenced to prison by an Indian court.

The fact that last year’s summit was held after a gap of four years indicates the “warmth” that the EU now enjoys in South Block, and explains its profound silence on human rights. It remains to be seen if the grandiose formulation on human rights in the EU-India Agenda for Action-2020 is worth the paper it is written on.

The Islamic member countries grouped under the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) were at their vacuous best. The Pakistan formulation on the use of pellet guns in Kashmir was spot on. However, Pakistan being the sole country to raise the issue ensured that the question was dead on arrival.

The African group of countries was no better. With the notable exception of honest Rwanda and brave Toussaint’s Haiti from the Caribbean, African countries’ threat in April 2017 to raise the issue of pervasive racism against people of African origin in India at the UN Human Rights Council evaporated in Geneva.

India will provide further responses to the review when the Human Rights Council meets again in September 2017. Will Member States be more rigorous in their questions? Will India’s responses go beyond empty rhetoric and promises? It will, only if Indian citizens monitor their representatives’ performance at the international high table and call out their government on the yawning gap between its words and actions. We must keep the pressure on.

Ravi Nair is with the South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre and is available at ravinairsahrdc@gmail.com

Source: Indian Express, 24-05-2017

There Are Many Ways To Deal With Depression

Reena Singh

You might know someone who often feels sad and lonely, or for no apparent reason, hits the blues. In other words, someone who is `depressed'.Many look upon depression as a form of karmic suffering, a black hole with no escape. But linking karma and depression may be too simplistic an approach to the problem. Quite often, a person suffering from depression doesn't know the reason for his own sadness.According to the World Health Organization, global figures for depression stand at around 5%. The number of depressed worldwide grew 18.4%, between 2005-15. Depression can afflict anyone poor or rich, successful or unsuccessful, young or old. Hollywood comedian Robin Williams succumbed to depression whereas Bollywood actor Deepika Padukone succeeded in pulling herself out of it, thanks to help from family and professional counselling. I knew a retired senior police officer, who was the life and soul of every party . One day, he took his life. He had been depressed because of a painful back ailment.
Would empathy and compassion for the depressed person help? Yes, say spiritual leaders like the Dalai Lama we must first recognise the gravity of a person's misery , empathise and put ourselves in his shoes.
Close family members may make a depressed person feel worse by making statements like, “Come on, cheer up; the world is not coming to an end.“
How can friends and relatives help? It could be as simple as reintroducing the person to that t forgotten, simple lifestyle of yesteryears where outdoor spe activity and friendly banter with tr neighbours, relatives and friends were a part of life. The human touch is important for everyone.
WHO is observing 2017 as the Year of Depression. Henk Bekedam, WHO repre sentative in India, blames modernisation for the increasing incidence of depres sion. “Modernisation brings its own challenges,“ he says. He reflects on his own youth in the Netherlands after school, every day , he would play football.
But today's children are instead busy on their smartphones and PCs.
Physiologically speaking, outdoor play is necessary . It releases endorphins those hormonal gifts that the body releases to cope with stress and depression. But with the Indian education system's obsession with superlative marks as the he criteria for admission to a aking good university , children are skipping play periods and ee opting for tuition instead. Older people are so caught up in the rat race of work and commuting that they , too, skip the outdoors. Play and social interaction teach life skills a sense of sharing, team spirit and how to take winning and losing in our stride.
We also need more celebrity role models like Deepika to come out and tell the world that it is okay to seek help and talk to professional therapists if you are unable to deal with depression on your own.
Still others may describe the emotions a depressed person has of unexplained anger, frustration, rage, sadness and despair as a demonic spirit that takes control of rational thought processes. This may not be the right approach. On the other hand, spiritual masters do recommend mantra chanting, meditation and seva (service) to enable one to overcome self-obsession and become more giving and compassionate.
Buddhist master Thich Nhat Hanh says, “The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention.“ But the one who is depressed also needs to acknowledge the problem and be open to receiving help.

Monday, May 22, 2017

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Vol. 52, Issue No. 20, 20 May, 2017

Followers

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Contributions To Indian Sociology

Table of Contents

: Current Issue

Volume 51, Issue 1, February 2017

Book Reviews

The real problem with productivity

More attention needs to be paid to the real possibility that productivity isn’t slowing the way we think

Gandhi, The Economist

His idea of trusteeship needs to be revisited in times of growing inequality

Smoke and Mirrors : India’s Human Rights report at the UN

The final conclusions of UPR on India, like all such reviews, need to be read not in cold print, but between the lines

Monday, May 22, 2017

Economic and Political Weekly: Table of Contents

Appointments/Programmes/Announcement

Subscribe To

Contact Form