President George W. Bush On His Presidency and Life ...

"My mother still tells me what to do..." Bush

He may be unpopular at times, but he is simple: he has his beliefs and stand by them.

[Continue reading...]

International Relation International Politics នយោបាយអន្តរជាតិ

កាលខ្ញុំនៅសកលវិទ្យាល័យកូបិ ខ្ញុំមាមសំណាងរៀនជាមួយគ្រូម្នាក់គាត់មកពីUN ម៉ោងនយោបាយអន្តរជាតិ. គាត់លើកឧ.ពីការមិនអេីពេីពីសហគមន៍អន្តរជាតិ ពេលមានការប្រល័យពូជសាសន៍ ជាដើម នៅប្រទេសនានា។ គាត់ដាក់សំនួរថា "តើកត្តាអ្វីសំខាន់ជាងគេ ក្នុងការសម្រេចចិត្ត? " 
ខ្ញុំនិងសិស្សផ្សេងៗ ឆ្លើយផ្សេងៗតែខុសដូចគ្នា។ ខ្លះថា "មនុស្សធម៍ " ខ្លះថា " ការគោរពច្បាប់អន្តរជាតិ"...
គាត់ថា មិនខុសទេ គ្រាន់តែកត្តាសំខាន់ជាងគេគឺផ្សេង។ គាត់សរសេរពាក្យ 国益 ប្រែថា "ប្រយោជន៍"។ 
ខ្ញុំភ្ញាក់ខ្លួនព្រឺត ព្រោះដឹងថាខ្លួនឯងល្ងង់សុទ្ធ ។ កាលនៅខ្មែរ អ្នកខ្លះប្រាប់ខ្ញុំឲ្យសង្ឃឹមថា អាមេរិក នឹងជួយខ្មែរ។ អ្នកខ្លះចាំជប៉ុន ចិន យួន។ មានតែសៀមនិងយួនទេ បានអន្តរាគមន៍ជួយខ្មែរ ពេលខ្លះដោយចិត្តឯង ពេលខ្លះ ដោយការស្នើសុំពីភាគីខ្មែរ។ 

បើខ្មែរយើង មិនប្រឹងបង្រៀនខ្មែរគ្នាឯងទេ មិនប្រឹងស្វែងរកចំណេះដោយខ្លួនឯងទេ គ្មាន​បរទេសណាបង្រៀនយើងកើត គ្មានអ្នកចេះដឹងណាណែនាំយើងកើត ហើយក៏គ្មានអ្នកណាគេ​មកកសាងប្រទេសឲ្យខ្មែរដែរ។ 

We have not eternal allies and we have not perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual and those interests it is our duty to follow. ~~~Henry John Temple. 

[Continue reading...]

My Summary of Fukuyama's Political Order and Political Decay

The first book I read that contains so long list of reference is Basic Economics of Thomas Sowell. When I read this book, I was surprised that it ended at 70% of its Kindle version. Another 30% is the long list of reference.

Clearly, the author is a well-read political scientist. He combines very relevant sources of knowledge to his topic. After reading this book, as not a student of political science, I feel my knowledge is doubled, perhaps due my scant knowledge in the subject. When I read Henry Kissinger's On China, the word Order was used widely. I could not even decipher its meaning!!! However, Francis put in plainly, and the use of its opposite political decay helps me to understand deeper.

This book targets those who are interested in developing a country. To build a country, one good leader is far from sufficient. A learned reader would not deny that one needs a good system or institution to run a company, an NGO, an institution or any organization that involves human society. Specifically, how to develop a sustainable institution or institutions i.e. political order and what kinds of elements may those institutions collapse i.e. political decay? There are three core elements for a political order: State, the Rule of Law and Accountability. The consistent balance between the three pillars make a sustainable political order.

State

There are many possible reasons as to why and how a State was formed. For instance, the need for a strong army, with an efficient ability to collect tax, to defend one's own country from foreign invasion is one of the main reasons, and it happened to countries such as Prussia, early Qing  Dynasty etc. The State holds monopoly power and is able to enforce laws or customs in their controlled territories on all residents.

Rule of Law

All early dynasties, at their most clean form, ruled by law. All people are under the law except the monarch. This is efficient in controlling the subordinate but fail to create a political order because people, in their genes, think people are equal, at least at the back of their head.

The rule of law is also indispensable for economic development. Without clearly defined and enforced property rights, no one has incentives to make the best use of their property as well as to develop it further, as a result the economy stagnates.

The State itself has to be under the law as well. No one is above the law. In addition, the law has to be impersonal,i.e. not created in favor of this or that group even to the poor.

Is the decision making has to be rule-based or discretionary? This is an old question. The author posits that Denmark has the most efficient in terms of the rule of law and discretionary decision makings. The U.S government has many principals (to use economic concept of principal-agent problem) and contradictory rules. 

Accountability

I believe the author is a free marketeer. However, he is not a libertarian thinker. I believe he is one of the few political scientists who understands economics very well and reject some of its theories very well as well. For instance, the concept of fairness. Redistribution of wealth, he acknowledges, creates disincentives and distorts economic activities. However, people have different view regarding fairness. When people see a bunch of their neighbors are extremely rich beyond their imagination, they may feel it unfair and ask for or vote for redistribution. If the demand for redistribution is high, like in Europe, the political order is less stable when people choose politicians who redistribute instead of smart and responsible ones. People need a government because they have reasons to expect from government and/or politicians, where sometimes they cannot differentiate. Thus, clientelism and patronage, if not tamed, will play irritating parts in politics.  

I hope this summary induces you to read the book, not to stop here!!!

Title: Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy

Hardcover: 672 pages
Publisher: Farrar, Straus and Giroux (September 30, 2014)
Language: English

My rating: 5/5

See also his The End of History and the Last Man

Political Order and Political Decay

[Continue reading...]

A Review on The Commanding Height

As its title suggests, in this book the authors attempt to contemplate on who should control your life, who should run the economy, or how laws should be based on. This is the never-ending debate on big government versus small government, Keynesianism versus Classical Economics, liberal democracy versus communism, dictatorship, monarchy you name it. For those who are curious how popular economics can change life, this book is best.

The time frame this book deals with is mainly during the Cold War, the confrontation between communism of Soviet Union and China and Western democracy. Key players include Margaret Thatcher of UK, Ronald Reagan of the United States, Gorbachev of the Soviet Union, Deng Xiao Ping of China and some leaders of developing countries trying to lift their country out of poverty. Nonetheless, what is more interesting is ideas behind those leaders. Those ideas are from mainly economists including Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, the latter’s name is quite uncommon to even economists. 

Keynes lost the battle to Friedman and Hayek during the 1980s till 1990s at least in the United States and the UK. It was manifested that government cannot control the economy. The Fed could not and should not use its monetary tool to offset recession or create a free boom for the economy. Regulations hurt the economy. 

The battle is not over. Reagan’s tax cut, for instance, is seen, for instance by a Nobel laureate in economics Joseph E. Stiglitz (Globalization and Its Discontent, and the Price of Inequality), as widening wealth gap between the rich and poor and hurt the economy. Recently, since Bush administration up until now, Keynesianism is prevalent in the Fed. 

This book is so famous and influential that the U.S public media PBS made it into TV Show. I hope after reading and watching it, you will recommend it as a must-read book and/or must-watch show. 

[Continue reading...]

A Note on From Dictatorship to Democracy

In Why Nations Fail or related topics especially those of economic development or political science, we cannot see how to develop a country suppose you were a victim in a failed country. At least you are not the leader of a country [you would not read this piece of writing if you were!]. This book attempts to give guidelines, at least hope, for the victims, the suppressed, of dictatorship to topple dictatorship to set up a lasting democracy. Those who aspire to install democracy in their own country are the targeted audience of this book. Those who want to be a citizen of a country instead of a slave for other men are encouraged to read this book. 

Personally, this book gives me hopes, a hope that democracy can be set up in any country and there is a way you can switch from dictatorship to democracy. 

I read the 4th US edition, kindle version. Below are its sections:

1. Facing Dictatorships Realistically

In Cambodia, for instance, people around me always hope for the interventions of US, UN or EU to lift their country out of poverty and dictatorship. People need to know that they need democracy. Thus, it has to come from within. This is not to say that US interventions, for instance, are useless but it has to begin with that end it mine: teach them to democratize. 

Violence does not end dictatorship. It removes one for another to come. 

2. The Dangers of Negotiations

Negotiations can be used under certain situations. That is possible when there is a strong democratic opposition. In addition, political defiance is necessary. 

3. Whence Comes the Power?

Where does political power, or any kind of power, come from? Why people do what other people tell them to do? The answer to these questions also tell what weaknesses dictatorships have. 

4. Dictatorships Have Weaknesses

5. Exercising Power

Where should one start? Where is democratic opposition strongest? Military struggle? Of course not. That is where dictatorship is strongest. Tautology one may say. Political defiance is the answer. 

6. The Need for Strategic Planning

One may see the spontaneity of popular uprisings against dictatorship in many countries such as in Arab Spring. Dictatorship does not last as it can't have another good dictator to continue its unpopular regime. Democracy would not last as well if democrats do not plan for its full installation. The latter sections deal with the need to plan, how to plan, how to apply the political appliance to disintegrate the dictatorship and lastly how to make democracy last. 

7. Planning Strategy

8. Applying Political Defiance

9. Disintegrating the Dictatorship

10. Groundwork for Durable Democracy

Full title: From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation

Publisher: Albert Einstein Institution, May 2010

Author: Gene Sharp

My rating: 5/5

[Continue reading...]

Hun Sen's Cambodia: review

The author discusses issues in this book in his journalistic professionalism, not in political or economic models. In most parts, he interviewed relevant persons, told stories and most importantly stuck to main points. Through his extensive readings on Cambodia, living and working in Cambodia, he made the book the best one on contemporary Cambodia and its elites. If you must read one book on Cambodia, I suggest this one.

There are two main points I like the most about this book. First, its authority. To summarize core ideas effectively, one needs to read most, if not all, of the relevant previous works and if possible has personal touch on the stories. As a journalist for the Phnom Penh Post, he has just both. Histories of Cambodia before, during and after the Khmer Empire who built Angkor temple, Cambodia's golden age in the 1960s, the Khmer Rouge and the contemporary Cambodia are well documented. His descriptions of contemporary Cambodia's culture, society, population and politics are comprehensive.

Second, its neutrality. Rather that charging leaders who seemingly made mistakes, sometimes horrible ones, he looks at them from all possible angles. Pol Pot was not born evil. Prime Minister Hun Sen was also reported with neutrality, so were his political opponents such as Sam Rainsy.

Players in Cambodia 

1.       Hun Sen

Many Western journalists as well as some U.S Congressmen would just say he is a communist and that’s all. Sebastian gives fair analysis on him: his sacrifice to volunteer to join maquis of Prince Sihanouk against American occupation, his smartness in battle and politics, his leadership among his colleagues and in the end his insufficient ability to lead Cambodia afterward.

PM Hun Sen is said to have hold no strict political belief. He does not believe in communism nor does he believe in democracy. He sees politics as a zero-sum game, thus tries to out-maneuver his political opponents and reduce the number to zero if possible.  Similarly, he sees the international community not as a body to promote democracy, as it did not when it supported to Pol Pot clangs, but a political player promoting their own interests. 

2.       International Community

After Angkor Era, international community has been the main actors to decide Cambodia’s fate. Which king could rule the country was highly decided by its neighbors Vietnam and Thailand until the French came. And then, France, the U.S and China played major roles in shaping Cambodia’s future from the Independence in the 1953, Khmer Republic, and Khmer Rouge until and after the Paris Peace Agreement. Aid, political recognition and wages have been critical to Cambodia after the 1990s. However, recently, international community been comparatively weak, if not useless. Sebastian cites luxuries enjoyed by a significant number of NGOs, thus their reluctance to change the status quo.

“If change comes to Cambodia it will come not from above—from a shape- shifting ‘international community’—but from below, from the Cambodian people themselves.” P. 266 

3.       Sam Rainsy

The author raises his crusades for democracy and anti-corruption in Cambodia as well as the contradiction arisen with his racial discrimination against Vietnamese, which Sam Rainsy denies.  

4.    Cambodian People

Cambodia at this stage, political scientists would say, lies at where the rising of middle class changes the equation of elite politics. Politics in Cambodia had been solely played by elites until Cambodians were given the chance to vote in a secret ballot. This is added by the rise of technology especially Facebook. In addition, the young population, the first-time votes, gives supports to Sam Rainsy as he expected:

“In a typical family, you have the grandfather, who votes for Funcinpec; you have the father, who votes for the CPP; and you have the children, who when they reach voting age will vote for the SRP . . . It will take less time than one might imagine now, because of the progress of technology, information, communication, and education.” P. 123

The Conundrums

Sebastian opines that if change comes, it would have to come from Cambodians themselves. In recent 2013 ballot, Cambodians did express their strong wills to change the status quo, but they do not know how. They do not even know how to drive on the streets. They may kill someone out of anger, so will a teacher punish their students according his will. Will Cambodian people be able to make politicians do the right things if they themselves do not know what the right things are?

Are opposition party main actors especially Sam Rainsy for democratic rule of law, free market or are they simply randomly choosing policies out of contempt, compassion or superficial studies of examples in other countries like France and the U.S? Do they dislike communism out of principles or out of examples?

Is CPP against democracy? It is too early to judge. If the international community firmly believe in democracy, they should have been promoting democracy instead of realpolitik. If the teacher does not even know the answer, how could he set the exam and judge the student?

China may be seen as pro-Communism. But if a democracy brings it benefits, it would not be in a position to block democracy in Cambodia. The U.S may be seen as pro-democracy but it is not. The same as above.  Cambodia would be better off if China and the West deal with it rules instead of random policy. For example, promoting ballot and the rule of law instead of supporting this or that party. Cambodian politicians now seem to see that they should work together despite their previous fatal fights and/or fierce verbal attacks. I am optimistic that Cambodia is starting to move on a sustainable development path now.

Full title: HUN SEN’S CAMBODIA

Author: SEBASTIAN STRANGIO

Publisher: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS  (November 25, 2014)
My rating: 5/5

[Continue reading...]

The Constitution of Liberty

The book as well as the author are well-known but not as one would expect, although the ideas have changed the world in a great extent. Most students of economics do not even know his name. Some professors do hear his name but never actually read his books. That is my experience while I studied in Japan as well as of today when I asked people around me about that... Of course, if you read only textbooks, you would probably never hear his name. I got to know his two most famous books The Constitution of Liberty and The Road to Serfdom when I read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and Capitalism and Freedom. I borrowed The Constitution from my library, read a few pages of it, and decided to own it ( I mean buy it, not steal from the library!)

Academically, Hayek was lonely in his time until he won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974. The world faced the threat of communism, and in the free world governments were very big as well. From price floor, price ceiling, regulations to extensive government programs, one can find various examples of insatiable government intervention in the economy. Liberty and free market economy were considered obsolete.

Its Influences

As a member of a poor family and a student from a poor country, a country where communism took controls for approximately 25 years, I had no idea what the rule of law is, nor did I know what it mean by free market economy, liberty, democracy and communism. This book did shed light, very bright one, on me. Maybe leaders across the globe were as ignorant s as I was as well. After all, it was Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan that applied theories in his book and revolutionized their  economic policies against the mainstream.  

Main Points

The Institute of Economic Affairs reserves the rights and published this book for sale and for free in the internet. In that version, there are summary, forewords and comments from other professors that already well summarize the main points. Thus, I will talk only about the main points of the book that influenced me and in my own words.

This book is about the interconnection between all factors in the society, not limited to economy. It deals with law, politics, human and economics altogether. By that, it seems the foundations of law, politics and economics, among others, are just one. For instance, freedom in politics is freedom in economics if there is freedom.

This book mainly is a compilation of Hayek's article in various journals. One article that won my deep admiration is Why the Worst Get on Top. People tend to think that a country, for instance, would prosper if it is run by a good king. Or an economic policy would be successful if the policy maker is a good and well qualified person. What its relation is there with that the bad people getting on top then?I challenge you to read this chapter, to begin with.

Conundrums

Even among Hayekians, there are debates on the necessity of social safety net and subsidy on education.

Keynesians believe, at least in the short-run, that lowering interest rate can cut short recessions or boost the economy in the short-run and hitherto it may end up in inflation in the long run. Hayek disagreed and became the main opponent of Keynes in this matter. (See also Free to Choose) Mal-investment is another huge problem. High risk high return. The high interest rate, in the same sense, reflects the high associated risks. If the government makes the interest rate artificially low, investors are misled by the cheap credit and invest in the wrong way, resulted in for example housing bubble and dot com bubble.

Keynes believed that macroeconomy can hardly be at equilibrium. Thus, the government must take a very active role in matching the demand and supply of macroeconomic factors, especially control the money supply. Hayek disagreed. He thought private sectors can supply the money to match with their own demand the way they do in other supply. Private sectors respond to the fluctuation of demand and supply faster and more efficiently. Thus, Hayek proposed the denationalization of money.

My Intervention

Denationalization of money? Is it the first time to hear this? When I read this book, it was my first time to hear it, and all I thought of was the considerable cost of money exchanges between currencies issued in one country. Can you imagine the U.S having 60 currencies for instance?

As time goes by, I read more books on economic history. It has been the state that requires by law all people in their territory to use single currency issued by the state. I think one can infer from this fact. Politics plays higher role than economics in this debate.

Author: F.A. Hayek (1899-1992)
Publisher: The University of Chicago Press (October 15, 1978) and Institute of Economic Research
My rating: 5/5.
This book is complimented by another book of his The Road to Serfdom

See also: Econlib review of Hayek

[Continue reading...]

Free to Choose

Prof. Mankiw of Harvard has written two worldly popular textbooks in economics: Principles of Economics and Macroeconomics. There are many universities and professors who use his textbooks in classrooms. In my university, Kobe University, his textbooks are popular for undergraduate and graduate levels. I enormously like his books, and that is where I got to know the book Free to Choose. 

 

In his note on his further reading at the end of the Principles, Mankiw put it as something like How market economy improves society. This description of him did not catch my attention that much. However, the title Free to Choose did catch my attention. What does it mean by free, and choose what?

Smart people who make themselves easily understandable are admirable. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate in economics science, is also a brilliant writer. This book is fun to read, coherent and stick to the point. His main idea is simple: as long as you are free to choose, the society is prosperous and the economy keeps growing. This principle is loud and clear. All examples throughout this book follow this principle except one (see Conundrum below). 

His ideas in the book largely were built upon those of Adam Smith and Bastiat. To put it in two simple sentences: voluntary cooperation between individuals in the society is the main engine of prosperity and justice. Government role in the society is to facilitate those voluntary cooperation. Did I just say Justice? Friedman is in the school of thought that postulate that voluntary cooperation is a just action. (For more on justice, see Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do, by Michael Sandel, not yet reviewed here).

The most important parts of this book, to me, are the prefaces and the first chapter The Power of Market. The power of market is exemplified by that fact that people from East Germany risked their lives crossing the Berlin Wall to find opportunities, to where they can freely choose and make the decisions they think are right and not the decisions imposed on them by people in the government in the name of love. 

The most eye-opening examples the authors used that make readers (including Nobel Laureate Gary Becker) see how relevant economics in the society is choice in education: What’s Wrong with Our Schools? Have you ever asked who should run a school? Is it not ubiquitous that schools are run by the government? People also take for granted that good schools are run by government, and to be a prestigious schools, they have to be run by a government. Cambodians would look at examples of prestigious universities in Singapore, for instance the National University of Singapore. People in Japan are also in a similar situation where they see national universities such as The University of Tokyo, Osaka University etc. as the prime examples of superiority of state-run universities over private-run ones such Waseda University and Keio University. If you think so, I challenge you to read this book. If you are an educational reformer who have no specific idea in mind yet, this book is best for you as well. Friedman popularized the concept of school choice, or voucher school.  

Because the authors explained how economy works and people cooperate in societies in plain language, various Third World leaders were thankful to the book, for instance, Estonian Prime Minister Mart Laar.

The Conundrum

There are two main opponents of Keynes: Milton Friedman and F.A Hayek. As a student, however, Friedman was a Keynesian. Every one tended to be one in his time. As a matter of fact, he later won the Nobel Prize in Economic Science by disproving Keynesian fiscal policy. Keynes postulated that consumers consider their current income before making decision to spend. Friedman, in contrast, theoretically and empirically proved that people make decisions on how much to spend basing on their expected long-term income (Permanent Income Hypothesis). Thus, according to Friedman, a tax cut to increase spending is ineffective. 

Another debate is with regard to monetary policy. Instead of discretionary monetary policy, he favored rule-based policy. The reason is the market is stronger that government and so complicated that government can manipulate it with its monetary tool. Thus, supplying money basing on expected economic growth is the safest measure. For example, if the economy is expected to grow 2 % next year, the central should just supply money 2% more, not less to impede growth, not more to induce inflation.

One point that people tend to misunderstand Friedman is with the regard to the abolition of the Fed. Milton Friedman was for the abolition of the Fed. He agreed with Hayek that market can supply money more effectively and efficiently to meet their own needs of money than the government can. Because the possibility of the abolition of the Fed was too slim, he postulated the above-mentioned Monetarism. This is where Friedman did not focus on freedom to choose. Is freedom to choose who to supply your notes good for the society? 

My Intervention

There are many providers of phone service around you. Why do you think we need many providers? Why not ask government to keep only one? Competition is favorable to the economy, you may say. Decentralized management, i.e. two companies managing it instead of one big company, is more efficient, you continue. You name it. So why government allows only one money supplier, namely itself? 

Economists divide functions of money into three: unit of account- what you use to count how much a goods is, store of value- for what you save, and medium of exchange- you can use money instead of changing a book for a tire of a bike. These functions make money special that require central control. I agree with this description (cause I am the one who wrote it here!). However, it is not enough to restrict the supply to only government. No king wants an opposition party!!!

Full title: Free to Choose: A Personal Statement Paperback – November 26, 1990

Authors:  Milton Friedman (1912-2006) , Rose Friedman(1910-2009)

Publisher: Mariner Books; LATER PRINTING edition (November 26, 1990)
My rating: 5/5
This book is complimented by another book of Friedman: Capitalism and Freedom.

See also: 
PBS TV series: Free to Choose (1980) and Free to Choose TV (www.freetochoose.tv/)

[Continue reading...]

The End of History and the Last Man

What does it mean by The End of History? and the Last Man?

Both expressions are highly correlated. Although the author, Francis Fukuyama, does not quote Ibrahim Maslow, his arguments follow him closely while debating with old time philosophers such as Hegel, Karl Marx, Plato, Socrates etc.

While Maslow depicts human needs in order from basic to the need of recognition, political philosophers emphasize that those needs shape the form of government. Human history is about the history of those development, from tribal rule, monarchy, communism, Nazism, dictatorship so on and so forth. The need of recognition is the considered the highest form in human- the last man- and the political system that in principle recognizes this and sticks to it is the final form of government i.e. this will be no more history.

The desire to be recognized as a human being with dignity drove man at the beginning of history into a bloody battle to the death for prestige. The outcome of this battle was a division of human society into a class of masters, who were willing to risk their lives, and a class of slaves, those who gave in to their natural fear of death. But the relationship of lordship and bondage, which took a wide variety of forms in all of the unequal, aristocratic societies that have characterized the greater part of human history, failed ultimately to satisfy the desire for recognition of either the masters or the slaves.  He suggests that the evolution of the system of government will end in liberalism where human have equal rights, at least in principles and institutions.

He suggests that the evolution of the systems of governments will end in liberalism (liberal democracy) where human have equal rights, at least in principles and institutions. Thus, the Cold War is the test of the theory, and liberal democracy will last (that does not mean democratic countries have no issue to solve in a daily basis.)

While he argues that the system of liberal democracy is the only system that makes human human, he also raises the need of the debate between liberty and equality. Liberty promotes prosperity but the result may be disappointing for some. The sense of liberty also removes, at least to some extent, the sense of community and the sense of belonging to it. 

In his simple expression, Liberal Democracy = free market economics + freedom of democratic politics.

Convinced or not, I believe it is worth reading.

"A bold and brilliant work. Very, very impressive."~ Irving Kristol.

The End of History and the Last Man, 1992

Author: Francis Fukuyama.

Publisher: Free Press.
My rating: 4.5/5.

[Continue reading...]