As I finally managed to get rid of all my (let me be frank about it: less than rewarding in every conceivable sense - quite the contrary!) commitments with other outlets in the blogosphere, I gained now some time to get back to basics as far as my normal, simple, life is concerned: e.g. get to revisit my long neglected 'African files' and some of the pictures in them…
I took these pictures on some lazy afternoon somewhere in Swaziland, in 2001, during a break from my work on the establishment of the regional legal and institutional framework for the implementation of the SADC Trade Protocol.
To me, they say it all about these gentle giants: right there and then I fell in love with them!
That they've come to get such a damning reputation in recent times, thanks to the hasty followers of some economist – who, in fact might be blissfully unaware of all the nonsense being generated by some of his ideas - is something that totally escapes me and, I have no doubt, these innocent pachyderms as well…
Apparently, they are ‘accused’ of being ‘complacent’, ‘lazy’ and of ‘always blaming all the evils plaguing their present lives on bad old colonialism’… On which they are pitched against the 'cheetahs' (I actually took some pictures of these in Botswana, which I still need to find, – they were caged, though…) which apparently behave as their ‘antipodes’! To such extent that some of the most ‘red-blooded’ among those hasty followers of said economist got to self-proclaiming themselves ‘cheetahs’ and the only hope for the future of Africa, while singing all the way to the bank or to the bright new dawns they promise to bring to the continent from far afield, whichever comes first, #we are the world, we are the children#… Oh, how they get me moved, amused, and bemused!
Seriously, though, while I am not sure if this is true of the said economist (just as I am not sure if Mandela is fully aware that many understand his legacy as meaning to give full rein to the most despicable forms of white racism in the name of forgiveness…), what I have no doubt about is that some of his followers seem to have a poor, if any, grip on the path-dependent nature of Economic Development on History, as Nobel Prize of Economics Douglass North has so clearly shown …
The madness got to such a point that these worriers and young turks, in their belief that they are indeed 'cheetahs' (when to me all they manage to look like is hyenas – no offence intended to these…), got to leaping over history, science and rationality altogether and to confusing (...just as they confuse 'diplomacy' with 'subservience'...) any argument based on Economic History with “blaming colonialism for all the evils plaguing Africa in the present”, for which they have no qualms in trying “by all means necessary” to silence whoever dares to speak about African economic development in historical perspective… How appropriate and convenient this is for the contemporary versions of the “white man’s burden” and his “loyal servants”, isn’t it?!
However, as such “dedicated followers of fashion” as they are, some seem to start seeing some “profit” in reading historical narratives about even such until recently “damned and godforsaken territory” as Zimbabwe… How interesting, isn’t it?! Could it be that this sudden “revolution” has something to do with the recently signed framework agreement between the two contending parties in that country, about which they’ve been so conspicuously silent?!
Anyway, whatever happens next (... they might even get to such unthinkable things as start supporting Obama, who knows?...), I’ll keep my faith in my hippos! You see, just like me, in spite of their huge eyes, they are often blind to all the evil surrounding them and, while being as unforgetful as elephants, they are so forgiving...
I took these pictures on some lazy afternoon somewhere in Swaziland, in 2001, during a break from my work on the establishment of the regional legal and institutional framework for the implementation of the SADC Trade Protocol.To me, they say it all about these gentle giants: right there and then I fell in love with them!
That they've come to get such a damning reputation in recent times, thanks to the hasty followers of some economist – who, in fact might be blissfully unaware of all the nonsense being generated by some of his ideas - is something that totally escapes me and, I have no doubt, these innocent pachyderms as well…
Apparently, they are ‘accused’ of being ‘complacent’, ‘lazy’ and of ‘always blaming all the evils plaguing their present lives on bad old colonialism’… On which they are pitched against the 'cheetahs' (I actually took some pictures of these in Botswana, which I still need to find, – they were caged, though…) which apparently behave as their ‘antipodes’! To such extent that some of the most ‘red-blooded’ among those hasty followers of said economist got to self-proclaiming themselves ‘cheetahs’ and the only hope for the future of Africa, while singing all the way to the bank or to the bright new dawns they promise to bring to the continent from far afield, whichever comes first, #we are the world, we are the children#… Oh, how they get me moved, amused, and bemused! Seriously, though, while I am not sure if this is true of the said economist (just as I am not sure if Mandela is fully aware that many understand his legacy as meaning to give full rein to the most despicable forms of white racism in the name of forgiveness…), what I have no doubt about is that some of his followers seem to have a poor, if any, grip on the path-dependent nature of Economic Development on History, as Nobel Prize of Economics Douglass North has so clearly shown …
The madness got to such a point that these worriers and young turks, in their belief that they are indeed 'cheetahs' (when to me all they manage to look like is hyenas – no offence intended to these…), got to leaping over history, science and rationality altogether and to confusing (...just as they confuse 'diplomacy' with 'subservience'...) any argument based on Economic History with “blaming colonialism for all the evils plaguing Africa in the present”, for which they have no qualms in trying “by all means necessary” to silence whoever dares to speak about African economic development in historical perspective… How appropriate and convenient this is for the contemporary versions of the “white man’s burden” and his “loyal servants”, isn’t it?!
However, as such “dedicated followers of fashion” as they are, some seem to start seeing some “profit” in reading historical narratives about even such until recently “damned and godforsaken territory” as Zimbabwe… How interesting, isn’t it?! Could it be that this sudden “revolution” has something to do with the recently signed framework agreement between the two contending parties in that country, about which they’ve been so conspicuously silent?!
Anyway, whatever happens next (... they might even get to such unthinkable things as start supporting Obama, who knows?...), I’ll keep my faith in my hippos! You see, just like me, in spite of their huge eyes, they are often blind to all the evil surrounding them and, while being as unforgetful as elephants, they are so forgiving...
3 comments:
What’s really disturbing to me is that these self-proclaimed ‘cheetahs’ seem to be replicating exactly the same patterns of behaviour they allegedly criticise in African leaders... Looks like another lost generation for Africa, unfortunately...
And, oh yes, the hippos are lovely!
Oh yes, Nick, the hippos are lovely!
...They'll make up for a lost generation of "cheating cheetahs"...
;-)
For your convenience, some particularly interesting extracts from North’s Nobel Prize Lecture:
(…)
These are stringent requirements that are realized only very exceptionally. Individuals typically act on incomplete information and with subjectively derived models that are frequently erroneous; the information feedback is typically insufficient to correct these subjective models. Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules. In a world of zero transaction costs, bargaining strength does not affect the efficiency of outcomes; but in a world of positive transaction costs it does.
(…)
Measuring and enforcing agreements in political markets is far more difficult. What is being exchanged (between constituents and legislators in a democracy) is promises for votes. The voter has little incentive to become informed because the likelihood that one's vote matters is infinitesimal; further the complexity of the issues produces genuine uncertainty. Enforcement of political agreements is beset by difficulties. Competition is far less effective than in economic markets. For a variety of simple, easy-to-measure and important-to-constituent-well-being policies, constituents may be well informed, but beyond such straightforward policy issues ideological stereotyping takes over and (as I shall argue below in section IV) shapes the consequent performance of economies. It is the polity that defines and enforces property rights and in consequence it is not surprising that efficient economic markets are so exceptional.
(…)
It is necessary to dismantle the rationality assumption underlying economic theory in order to approach constructively the nature of human learning. History demonstrates that ideas, ideologies, myths, dogmas, and prejudices matter; and an understanding of the way they evolve is necessary for further progress in developing a framework to understand societal change. The rational choice framework assumes that individuals know what is in their self interest and act accordingly. That may be correct for individuals making choices in the highly developed markets of modern economies but it is patently false in making choices under conditions of uncertainty - the conditions that have characterized the political and economic choices that shaped (and continue to shape) historical change.
(…)
A common cultural heritage provides a means of reducing the divergence in the mental models that people in a society have, and constitutes the means for the intergenerational transfer of unifying perceptions. In pre-modern societies cultural learning provided a means of internal communication; it also provided shared explanations for phenomena outside the immediate experiences of the members of society in the form of religions, myths and dogmas. Such belief structures are not, however, confined to primitive societies but are an essential part of modern societies as well.
(…)
The key to the foregoing story is the kind of learning that the individuals in a society acquired through time. Time in this context entails not only current experiences and learning but also the cumulative experience of past generations that is embodied in culture. Collective learning - a term used by Hayek - consists of those experiences that have passed the slow test of time and are embodied in our language, institutions, technology, and ways of doing things. It is "the transmission in time of our accumulated stock of knowledge" (Hayek 1960: 27). It is culture that provides the key to path dependence - a term used to describe the powerful influence of the past on the present and future. The current learning of any generation takes place within the context of the perceptions derived from collective learning. Learning then is an incremental process filtered by the culture of a society which determines the perceived pay-offs, but there is no guarantee that the cumulative past experience of a society will necessarily fit them to solve new problems. Societies that get "stuck" embody belief systems and institutions that fail to confront and solve new problems of societal complexity.
(…)
Incentives embodied in belief systems as expressed in institutions determine economic performance through time, and however we wish to define economic performance the historical record is clear. Throughout most of history and for most societies in the past and present, economic performance has been anything but satisfactory. Human beings have, by trial and error, learned how to make economies perform better; but not only has this learning taken ten millenia (since the first economic revolution) - it has still escaped the grasp of almost half of the world's population. Moreover the radical improvement in economic performance, even when narrowly defined as material well-being, is a modern phenomenon of the last few centuries and confined until the last few decades to a small part of the world. Explaining the pace and direction of economic change throughout history presents a major puzzle.
(…)
We are just beginning to explore the nature of this historical process. The remarkable development of Western Europe from relative backwardness in the tenth century to world economic hegemony by the eighteenth century is a story of a gradually evolving belief system in the context of competition among fragmented political/economic units producing economic institutions and political structure that produced modern economic growth. And even within Western Europe there were successes (The Netherlands and England) and failures (Spain and Portugal) reflecting diverse external environmental experiences.
(…)
Second, institutional/cognitive analysis should explain path dependence, one of the remarkable regularities of history. Why do economies once on a path of growth or stagnation tend to persist? Pioneering work on this subject is beginning to give us insights into the sources of path dependence (Arthur, 1989 and David, 1985). But there is much that we still do not know. The rationality assumption of neo-classical theory would suggest that political entrepreneurs of stagnating economies could simply alter the rules and change the direction of failed economies. It is not that rulers have been unaware of poor performance. Rather the difficulty of turning economies around is a function of the nature of political markets and, underlying that, the belief systems of the actors. The long decline of Spain, for example, from the glories of the Habsburg Empire of the sixteenth century to its sorry state under Franco in the twentieth century was characterized by endless self appraisals and frequently bizarre proposed solutions.
(…)
It is the admixture of formal rules, informal norms, and enforcement characteristics that shapes economic performance. While the rules may be changed overnight, the informal norms usually change only gradually. Since it is the norms that provide "legitimacy" to a set of rules, revolutionary change is never as revolutionary as its supporters desire and performance will be different than anticipated. And economies that adopt the formal rules of another economy will have very different performance characteristics than the first economy because of different informal norms and enforcement. The implication is that transferring the formal political and economic rules of successful western market economies to Third World and eastern European economies is not a sufficient condition for good economic performance. Privatization is not a panacea for solving poor economic performance.
Post a Comment