One of Chairman Mao’s favorite words was “contradictions,” and today’s China is riddled with them: rule by a party that is nominally Communist, but embraces consumerism and welcomes entrepreneurs into its ranks; widespread unease about the environmental, social and even moral consequences of growth; deep insecurity in the ranks of a party that outwardly brims with confidence. The dark side of the Chinese dream — the negative fantasy that haunts China’s psyche — explains why Mr. Xi, the strongest Chinese leader since Deng, is so skittish, so ready to jump at shadows.
In Limbo, a City in China Faces Life After Graft →
When graft is what people are used to, "fixing" the system isn't as easy as one would like...
“In this part of China, officials are held in the palms of the coal barons,” said one shopkeeper, who asked that his name not be used so he could speak freely about a politically sensitive subject. “But these business leaders were capable — they made us prosper.”
For much of China’s growth era, party officials and businesses have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship, with policy concessions and market access granted in exchange for corporate support — sometimes direct payoffs, but also more subtle backing of state projects and priorities. Combined with China’s insatiable appetite for coal, that formula helped power Lüliang to its first glimpses of prosperity in generations. But there is a sense now that the rules are changing, with the consequences for the economy uncertain.
“In the past, with corruption, you could pay an official and get something done,” said Mao Yushi, a prominent economist in Beijing. “But now the officials won’t accept money, but don’t approve things either.”
Robert Rubin and Nicholas Turner: The Steep Cost of America’s High Incarceration Rate →
Crime itself has a terrible human cost……and a serious economic cost. But appropriate punishment… shouldn’t obscure the vast deficiencies in the criminal-justice system…. The U.S. rate of incarceration, with nearly one of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is five to 10 times higher than the rates in Western Europe and other democracies…. Long sentences have had at best a marginal impact on crime reduction. This is not only a serious humanitarian and social issue, but one with profound economic and fiscal consequences…. For the more than 600,000 people who leave prison and re-enter society every year, finding employment can be a severe challenge…. Up to 60% of formerly incarcerated people are unemployed one year after release…. It’s no surprise that 43% of people released from prison end up back behind bars within three years, according to a recent Pew study on recidivism. The costs of incarceration extend across generations. Nearly three million American children have a parent in prison or jail…. There is widespread bipartisan agreement that we are using prison for too many crimes and for too long…. The time has come to make sensible reform in these four areas—sentencing, parole, rehabilitation and re-entry—a national priority…
Why 2014 could be a turning point for America’s racist criminal justice system →
A September Public Religion Research Institute survey found that, between 2013 and 2014, there was a notable drop in the number of Americans who believe the US criminal justice system treats people of all races equally.
While young adults saw the most dramatic shift, there was also a significant change among everyone else — seniors and Republicans included. About 51 percent of white Americans appeared to agree that there are some racial disparities in the criminal justice system, up from 42 percent a year before.
The Year of the Dictator →
Fukuyama’s argument received a huge amount of attention because it played into the heady sense of victory after the end of the Cold War. But democracy had been spreading since the early 19th century. And while it has endured some ups and downs, the trend is unmistakable. As the accompanying graph shows, since 1972, the fraction of “free countries” has increased from 29 percent to 45 percent. (The source of the data is the think tank Freedom House; for clarity I have omitted countries that Freedom House defines as “partly free.”)
But the graph also shows that stagnation set in about 10 to 15 years ago. No one knows why. It might be a random fluctuation in an irreversible trend, as Fukuyama’s argument suggests, but it also may indicate that the engine of democracy has run out of steam.
In Photos: 48 Hours Under Siege by Islamic State Militants In Kobane →
On December 19, VICE News entered the besieged Syrian Kurdish city of Kobane with the help of smugglers and the Syrian Kurdish militia, known as the People's Protection Units (YPG). The city was preparing to enter its 100th day of fighting a fierce siege by the Islamic State (IS). Fighters with IS had been pushed back by a combination of US airstrikes and heavy artillery from a small contingency of Iraqi Kurdish Peshmerga fighters. Surrounded by IS on three sides, and a Turkish military hostile to Kurdish forces on the fourth, Kobane has become a symbol of resistance for those fighting IS. YPG fighters now estimate they control approximately 75 percent of the city, and US military sources say over 1,000 IS militants have been killed.
'Underinvesting in the Public Good' →
Failure to achieve these kinds of social gains through public investment might seem like a very basic element of injustice within our society. But it also looks like strong evidence of system failure: the political and economic system fail to bring about as much public good as is possible in the circumstances. The polity is stuck somewhere on the low shoulders of the climb towards maximum public benefit for minimum overall investment. It is analogous to the situation in private economic space where there are substantial obstacles to the flow of investment, leaving substantial possible sources of gain untapped. It is s situation of massive collective inefficiency, quite the contrary of Adam Smith's view of the happy outcomes of the hidden hand and the market mechanism.
Albeit Smith's analysis included a critique of the political apparatus as being captured by powerful interests to the detriment of society.
Two Guys on Bikes Talk International Development →
...Bob applauded the Obama administration’s first stimulus package but complained that it mostly just dumped money into the economy, a lot of which ended up “going to China.” That remark about China segued into a short but thoughtful complaint about the federal government’s focus on free trade.
I said I didn’t have a problem with freer trade and was actually glad to see living standards improve so much in some of the poorest parts of the world in the last couple of decades. I know there are some losers, I said, but I’m okay with the American middle class getting a little worse off if it means billions of really poor people in other countries are now much better off. After all, they’re all people, right?
I would call Bob a strong liberal, so his response came as a surprise. “I am not okay with that,” he told me...
I won’t try to resolve that debate here, and you already know what I think from the anecdote. Instead, I wanted to share the story because it reminded me of something important in the politics of global development. Equality sounds good in the abstract, but we do not sit comfortably with it in practice. Most of us care more about some people than others, and those feelings shape our politics. We can—and, I think, should—aspire to global fairness, but we can also expect to keep tripping over our own feelings when we walk in that direction.