Disinformation becomes a habit.
Zafar Sobhan, editor of the truth-economizing 'Daily Star' wrote a totally misleading article in the Yale Global Online (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-crisis-bangladesh-bucks-trend#comment-33444).
"Throughout the downturn, the government has continued to subsidize the agricultural sector, thus ensuring both food security and a living wage for 60 percent of the population still involved in agriculture, as well as other targeted subsidies aimed at minimizing the worst of the fallout." This is what he maintains.
Yet the World Food Program has called the current situation a "nutritional emergency". Two million children aged under five in Bangladesh are suffering from acute malnutrition. The WFP has a funding shortfall of $4 billion worldwide; in Bangladesh, it planned to help 6.9 million "completely destitute" people this year: it reckons that around 4 million fell through (http://tinyurl.com/ykbpya4) .
Here's another old chestnut. "GDP growth in 2009 is estimated to be roughly 5 percent for the second year in a row, down only modestly from the 6 percent plus growth rate that the country had been enjoying since the mid-nineties." (A 1% decline in growth rate is modest? What would be an immodest decline, then?)
I have heard this ad nauseam. According to the AFP, "Despite economic growth of six percent a year in the past five years the benefits have not trickled down to the poorest." Indeed, in an earlier blog entry, I observed how income inequality in the 90s, according to the World Bank, increased, hurting the poor. "In Bangladesh per capita GDP grew at about 2 percent a year during the 1990s, and poverty declined quite slowly. Between 1983 and 1996 the share of people in extreme poverty fell
from 40.9 percent to 35.6 percent—and the share in moderate poverty from 58.5 percent to 53.1 percent. Rural poverty in particular remains very high.Why the slow decline? Part of the answer lies in rising inequality, in both urban and rural sectors, especially between 1992 and 1996, when the Gini coefficient rose from
0.26 to 0.31. Depending on the poverty measure used, a fifth to a third of the potential poverty reduction from growth may have been lost because of higher inequality. If inequality had not increased, the poverty rate would have been about
7–10 percentage points lower in 1995–96 than it actually was (http://go.worldbank.org/7KWQQ1WVT0).
So much for Zafar Sobhan's obsession with growth rates.
In 2008, food prices doubled, and 7.5 million people fell below the poverty line - and they have not recovered.
45% of the people live below the poverty line - a statistic that never figures in Sobhan's article. Apparently, he's not very concerned about the "ultra-poor", "the ones micro-credit institutions wouldn't dream of looking at," according to John Aylief, country head of WFP.
It appears that Sobhan is pursuing a brief for globalisation, and not its discontents: exactly what you'd expect from a Yale Global Fellow for 2009.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
mass murderer awards prize to local flunky
Remember the guy above? That's right: he killed nearly 2 million Iraqi children in cold blood, and let his lieutenant defend the mass slaughter ("the price is worth it").
Recognise the flunky below? That's right: that's Fazle Abed, founder of BRAC, receiving an award from a mass murderer, and we are all proud of flunky and master.
"Fazle Abed receives first Clinton Global Citizen Award 29 September 2007, Former US President Bill Clinton presented the Inaugural Clinton Global Citizen Awards to BRAC Founder and Chairperson Fazle Hasan Abed..."
http://www.brac.net/index.php?nid=245"
"After the United States-led coalition devastated Iraq in 1991 to punish 'Saddam-Hitler', the United States and Britain forced murderous sanctions on that hapless country in an attempt to depose him. As in the Nazi holocaust, a million children have likely perished. Questioned on national television about the grisly death toll in Iraq, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied that 'the price is worth it'." - Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (Verso: 2001), pp 147 - 148
"Health Ministry Statistics say that the incidence of abnormal births has increased 400-fold since 1991. The Iraqis also say that, all told, 1.7m children have died because of the various effects of UN sanctions."
- The Economist, September 14th 2002, p 39
Join the group "The Little Funerals" at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=275658750493
Friday, October 9, 2009
Five loaves and two fishes for a multitude
http://projects.dfid.gov.uk/ProjectDetails.asp?projcode=107403-101&RecordsPerPage=10&keywordSelect=BRAC&Submit1=Search&PageNo=1&jsEnabled=true
According to this, the DFID has paid BRAC (which has spent) the sum of circa 24 million pounds to raise 4 million rural people from extreme poverty to sustainable livelihood. That comes to 6 pounds per person: so 6 pounds is all it requires to raise a person out of poverty permanently in just 7 years? Per year, that comes to less than 1 pound per person. I suddenly remember reading that Christ multiplied five loaves and two fishes for a multitude while delivering a sermon on a mountain. This guy Abed and the DFID must know some powerful prayers.
According to this, the DFID has paid BRAC (which has spent) the sum of circa 24 million pounds to raise 4 million rural people from extreme poverty to sustainable livelihood. That comes to 6 pounds per person: so 6 pounds is all it requires to raise a person out of poverty permanently in just 7 years? Per year, that comes to less than 1 pound per person. I suddenly remember reading that Christ multiplied five loaves and two fishes for a multitude while delivering a sermon on a mountain. This guy Abed and the DFID must know some powerful prayers.
Why create these myths about Bangladesh's economy?
. . . while in Bangladesh rising inequality tempered the
poverty reduction from growth
In Bangladesh per capita GDP grew at about 2 percent a year
during the 1990s, and poverty declined quite slowly. Between
1983 and 1996 the share of people in extreme poverty fell
from 40.9 percent to 35.6 percent—and the share in moderate
poverty from 58.5 percent to 53.1 percent. Rural
poverty in particular remains very high.
Why the slow decline? Part of the answer lies in rising
inequality, in both urban and rural sectors, especially between
1992 and 1996, when the Gini coefficient rose from
0.26 to 0.31. Depending on the poverty measure used, a fifth
to a third of the potential poverty reduction from growth may
have been lost because of higher inequality. If inequality
had not increased, the poverty rate would have been about
7–10 percentage points lower in 1995–96 than it actually was.
WDR 2000/2001 p 53
http://go.worldbank.org/7KWQQ1WVT0
Bangladesh represents a success story among developing countries. Poverty incidence,
which was as high as 57 percent at the beginning of the 1990s, had declined to 49 percent in
2000. This trend accelerated subsequently, reducing the poverty headcount rate to 40 percent in
2005. The primary contributing factor was robust and stable economic growth along with no
worsening of inequality. Respectable GDP growth that started at the beginning of the 1990s
continued into the new millennium and averaged above 5 percent annually between 2000 and
2005. Inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient of consumption, remained stable between
2000 and 2005.
Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh:
Creating Opportunities and Bridging the East-West Divide
Bangladesh Development Series
Paper No. 26
Poverty
www.worldbank.org.bd/bds
Why did the country paper (below) contradict the global report (above)? Why paint such a rosy scenario for Bangladesh? Why insist that income inequality did not increase at all over the entire period 1990 - 2005?
Was it for political reasons? To buttress our nonfunctioning democracy? To justify donor policies?
When you lie, at least try to be consistent.
poverty reduction from growth
In Bangladesh per capita GDP grew at about 2 percent a year
during the 1990s, and poverty declined quite slowly. Between
1983 and 1996 the share of people in extreme poverty fell
from 40.9 percent to 35.6 percent—and the share in moderate
poverty from 58.5 percent to 53.1 percent. Rural
poverty in particular remains very high.
Why the slow decline? Part of the answer lies in rising
inequality, in both urban and rural sectors, especially between
1992 and 1996, when the Gini coefficient rose from
0.26 to 0.31. Depending on the poverty measure used, a fifth
to a third of the potential poverty reduction from growth may
have been lost because of higher inequality. If inequality
had not increased, the poverty rate would have been about
7–10 percentage points lower in 1995–96 than it actually was.
WDR 2000/2001 p 53
http://go.worldbank.org/7KWQQ1WVT0
Bangladesh represents a success story among developing countries. Poverty incidence,
which was as high as 57 percent at the beginning of the 1990s, had declined to 49 percent in
2000. This trend accelerated subsequently, reducing the poverty headcount rate to 40 percent in
2005. The primary contributing factor was robust and stable economic growth along with no
worsening of inequality. Respectable GDP growth that started at the beginning of the 1990s
continued into the new millennium and averaged above 5 percent annually between 2000 and
2005. Inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient of consumption, remained stable between
2000 and 2005.
Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh:
Creating Opportunities and Bridging the East-West Divide
Bangladesh Development Series
Paper No. 26
Poverty
www.worldbank.org.bd/bds
Why did the country paper (below) contradict the global report (above)? Why paint such a rosy scenario for Bangladesh? Why insist that income inequality did not increase at all over the entire period 1990 - 2005?
Was it for political reasons? To buttress our nonfunctioning democracy? To justify donor policies?
When you lie, at least try to be consistent.
The ghost salary of a BRAC worker
A lady came visiting the other day, and spoke to my wife on various subjects. Then the topic turned to work and pay.
"I worked for BRAC," she began. My wife was certain she was going to praise that hallowed institution. "When my salary was 30,000, I used to be paid 9,000. And when my salary was 45,000, I used to be paid 12,000."
My wife's jaws dropped and so did mine when she told me about this. We knew that NGOs mulct both the donors and the staff, pocketing the difference, but we – very naively – hadn't expected it of BRAC. So, where did the money go?
To Abed, the founder, and his family, alleged the lady.
"We can't imagine the kind of lifestyle they have."
Oh yes, we can – now.
"I worked for BRAC," she began. My wife was certain she was going to praise that hallowed institution. "When my salary was 30,000, I used to be paid 9,000. And when my salary was 45,000, I used to be paid 12,000."
My wife's jaws dropped and so did mine when she told me about this. We knew that NGOs mulct both the donors and the staff, pocketing the difference, but we – very naively – hadn't expected it of BRAC. So, where did the money go?
To Abed, the founder, and his family, alleged the lady.
"We can't imagine the kind of lifestyle they have."
Oh yes, we can – now.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Machiavelli's lessons lost
For “men ought to be either well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot.” Moreover, “irresolute princes who follow a neutral path are generally ruined.”
These are representative precepts of Machiavelli. Our army failed to abide by them: hence they came to a sorry end in the confines of the BDR headquarters in February 2009.
Where did they go wrong?
First, they tried to keep the two begums out of Bangladesh, with the help of foreign powers: they failed.
Second, they kept the two psychopaths in jail for a year – and then had to let them go.
They should have been either well treated, or crushed.
Thirdly, the army engineered an election to give the Awami League a two-thirds majority. This was lunacy. To set the two parties against each other would have been wiser, and more credible as an election outcome.
Since the politicians had not been crushed but humiliated and allowed to win, they it was who applied Machiavelli's terrible insight: they cold-bloodedly had over fifty officers murdered and some of their wives raped, and interred, or burned. This was a brilliant Machiavellian manoeuvre: the army was mortally hurt, humiliated and disunited, the lower officers furious with the seniors for selling out the officers and women at the BDR HQ.
Can the army ever take revenge? If we go by Machiavelli's formula, not in years. But then, you never know….
These are representative precepts of Machiavelli. Our army failed to abide by them: hence they came to a sorry end in the confines of the BDR headquarters in February 2009.
Where did they go wrong?
First, they tried to keep the two begums out of Bangladesh, with the help of foreign powers: they failed.
Second, they kept the two psychopaths in jail for a year – and then had to let them go.
They should have been either well treated, or crushed.
Thirdly, the army engineered an election to give the Awami League a two-thirds majority. This was lunacy. To set the two parties against each other would have been wiser, and more credible as an election outcome.
Since the politicians had not been crushed but humiliated and allowed to win, they it was who applied Machiavelli's terrible insight: they cold-bloodedly had over fifty officers murdered and some of their wives raped, and interred, or burned. This was a brilliant Machiavellian manoeuvre: the army was mortally hurt, humiliated and disunited, the lower officers furious with the seniors for selling out the officers and women at the BDR HQ.
Can the army ever take revenge? If we go by Machiavelli's formula, not in years. But then, you never know….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
