“Blessed is the nation that doesn’t need heroes" Goethe. “Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.” Herbert Spencer. "My 80% friend isn't my 20% enemy" Ronald Reagan.
Search This Blog
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Wednesday 22 December 2021
Wednesday 24 November 2021
MSP won’t bankrupt India. It’s complex, but so is disinvestment
Debunking six myths about the MSP for BJP and allies, free-market wallahs and ecological warriors. Yogendra Yadav in The Print
A spectre is haunting India’s ruling class – the spectre of MSP. Over the last few days, various sections of this ruling class – political allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party, economic ideologues of free-market and some ecological warriors – have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this spectre and stymie the possibility of India’s farmers getting a fair price for their produce.
Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dramatic, though over-delayed, capitulation on the farm laws, the fear of the ascent of the rural has left the Indian bourgeoisie petrified. Minimum Support Price (MSP) is now the new battleground. End of “reform” – arguably the most abused word – is the latest war cry. Ever since the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) has reminded the PM of its pending demand of a legal guarantee of MSP, we have witnessed a flurry of articles, editorials and debates out to block the possibility that the PM may concede this one as well. MSP is the “bane of agriculture” and the demand for its legal status “totally unreasonable” says the 50-word editorial of The Print, which I often agree with.
As in much ideological propaganda, this tirade against MSP is full of ignorance, prejudice, and fabrications. I cannot imagine such ill-informed canard getting space on national media if it concerned share market, Provident Fund, debt restructuring or anything that touched upon the interest of the “middle class”.
As this historic farmers’ struggle enters end-game, it is vital to debunk some of the misinformation and disinformation that surrounds the current debate on MSP.
Farmers shifting goalpost?
The first lie is an accusation: Farmers are shifting the goalpost by inventing the demand for legal guarantee of MSP once the demand for repeal of three agricultural laws was conceded. This is nonsense, contrary to the well-known and widely publicised position of the SKM. Demand for MSP realisation has been prominent on the charter of demands, next only to the repeal of three laws, at every stage of this struggle, from the very first memorandum to the 11 rounds of negotiations and the Kisan Sansad. The government’s power-point response to the SKM’s demands acknowledged this issue. This has been one of the main demands in the public domain, reiterated in almost every public speech. There is nothing new or surprising about it. Assured remunerative price has been a flagship demand of the farmers’ movement for decades.
‘MSP already exists’
The second lie is plain and simple: MSP is already available. So, why bother about legal status? Sadly, the PM’s rhetoric of “MSP tha, hai aur rehegi” has given fresh lease of life to this myth. The truth is that MSP has existed mostly on paper. The government’s own data shows that only 6 per cent farmers actually benefit from it. (I think a realistic number is around 15 per cent). That is why, over the years, farmers, movements have made three demands.
We can call these three components of the demand for MSP. One, the promise of Minimum Support Price should have a sound statutory status, instead of remaining just an executive order. (A working group of Chief Ministers headed by Narendra Modi recommended this component to PM Manmohan Singh in 2011. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices also reiterated this demand in its 2017-18 report.) Two, the government should make good this promise by creating a well-funded and effective administrative mechanism that ensures that every farmer actually received at least this minimum price for her entire produce. (Successive governments, including this one, have repeatedly promised this without putting such a mechanism in place). Three, there should be a fair and comprehensive method of computation of MSP that takes full cost into account and is extended to all agricultural produce. (This was recommended by the Swaminathan Commission). All these three asks remain unfulfilled to this day.
Environmentally unsustainable?
The third lie is presented under an ecological garb: Legalisation of MSP would lead to over-production of water-guzzling paddy and delay the much-needed diversification of crops. This reasoning is fallacious: The over-dependence on paddy (and sugarcane for that matter) is not because of generous MSP, but because of skewed procurement. While the government declares MSP for 23 crops, it makes good this promise only for wheat and paddy, and that too in select states. No wonder all farmers in these states are hooked to these crops that are not environmentally sustainable. The solution does not lie in withdrawing MSP, but in making sure that the farmers realise MSP in other crops like chana, makka, bajra and various dals. The government should offer attractive MSP for pulses (as recommended by the Arvind Subramanian committee) and oilseeds and ensure their purchase.
Will it distort the market?
The fourth lie is dressed up as elementary economics: Any tinkering with prices by way of MSP would distort the market. Yes, it would, just as TRAI regulations distort telecommunication market, just as ban on surge prices distort road and air transport market. Ever heard these free-market wallas complain against these distortions? Do we not fix minimum wages lest they distort labour market? Should we allow aspirin to be sold for Rs 1,000 per tablet? As for the fear of food prices going up, the way to control it is to offer subsidised food to the poor, not to deny fair price to the producer. The fact is that “free market” is and must be regulated all over the world to meet overall societal objectives. Farmers are offered subsidies and price support all over the world. If price assurance is a bad idea, why declare MSP in the first place?
Impossible for govt?
The fifth lie takes bureaucratic form: MSP may be a good idea, but it is practically impossible. How can the government purchase all the produce of all the 23 crops? Where would it be stored? What would the government do with it? Or so goes the argument. The simple response is: No government needs to do something as silly as that in order to ensure that all farmers receive MSP. My colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that there are multiple methods for ensuring MSP to all farmers. The government can procure more than it does today, especially in pulses, coarse grains, and oilseeds. For the rest, the governments need not purchase. The farmer can be given deficit payment for the gap between the MSP and market price, as was done by the Haryana government this year for bajra. Government can do selective intervention in the market, or use protectionist policies in international market, to prevent prices from falling. And, in the last instance, it can use punitive measure to disallow trading below MSP. All this is complex, yes. But developing a mechanism for MSP delivery is no more complex than designing disinvestment or drawing up mining contracts.
Will India go bankrupt?
Finally, the fiscal lie: India would go bankrupt! My colleague Kiran Vissa and I had debunked this fear-mongering by presenting a rough estimate, with complete breakdown, of how much would it cost the government to make up for the gap between the existing MSP and the prevailing market price. Our calculation for 2017-18 showed the overall cost to be Rs 47,764 crore (just 1.6 per cent of the Union Budget that year and less than 0.3 per cent of the GDP). If the MSP were to be raised to the level recommended by Swaminathan Commission, it would still cost Rs 2.28 lakh crore (about 7.8 per cent of Budget and 1.2 per cent of GDP). Can India afford it for the welfare of nearly two-thirds of its population? That is the real question that the country must face.
Thanks to this historic farmers’ movement, the country has woken up to a political reality: Farmers do not belong to the dustbin of history, they are very much a part of India’s present and future. A legally binding system of fair calculation and effective delivery of MSP to each farmer is a logical corollary of this realisation. As A.R. Vasavi says, it’s time to move towards “Maximum Support Policy”. It is all about political will now.
A spectre is haunting India’s ruling class – the spectre of MSP. Over the last few days, various sections of this ruling class – political allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party, economic ideologues of free-market and some ecological warriors – have entered into an unholy alliance to exorcise this spectre and stymie the possibility of India’s farmers getting a fair price for their produce.
Ever since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dramatic, though over-delayed, capitulation on the farm laws, the fear of the ascent of the rural has left the Indian bourgeoisie petrified. Minimum Support Price (MSP) is now the new battleground. End of “reform” – arguably the most abused word – is the latest war cry. Ever since the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) has reminded the PM of its pending demand of a legal guarantee of MSP, we have witnessed a flurry of articles, editorials and debates out to block the possibility that the PM may concede this one as well. MSP is the “bane of agriculture” and the demand for its legal status “totally unreasonable” says the 50-word editorial of The Print, which I often agree with.
As in much ideological propaganda, this tirade against MSP is full of ignorance, prejudice, and fabrications. I cannot imagine such ill-informed canard getting space on national media if it concerned share market, Provident Fund, debt restructuring or anything that touched upon the interest of the “middle class”.
As this historic farmers’ struggle enters end-game, it is vital to debunk some of the misinformation and disinformation that surrounds the current debate on MSP.
Farmers shifting goalpost?
The first lie is an accusation: Farmers are shifting the goalpost by inventing the demand for legal guarantee of MSP once the demand for repeal of three agricultural laws was conceded. This is nonsense, contrary to the well-known and widely publicised position of the SKM. Demand for MSP realisation has been prominent on the charter of demands, next only to the repeal of three laws, at every stage of this struggle, from the very first memorandum to the 11 rounds of negotiations and the Kisan Sansad. The government’s power-point response to the SKM’s demands acknowledged this issue. This has been one of the main demands in the public domain, reiterated in almost every public speech. There is nothing new or surprising about it. Assured remunerative price has been a flagship demand of the farmers’ movement for decades.
‘MSP already exists’
The second lie is plain and simple: MSP is already available. So, why bother about legal status? Sadly, the PM’s rhetoric of “MSP tha, hai aur rehegi” has given fresh lease of life to this myth. The truth is that MSP has existed mostly on paper. The government’s own data shows that only 6 per cent farmers actually benefit from it. (I think a realistic number is around 15 per cent). That is why, over the years, farmers, movements have made three demands.
We can call these three components of the demand for MSP. One, the promise of Minimum Support Price should have a sound statutory status, instead of remaining just an executive order. (A working group of Chief Ministers headed by Narendra Modi recommended this component to PM Manmohan Singh in 2011. The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices also reiterated this demand in its 2017-18 report.) Two, the government should make good this promise by creating a well-funded and effective administrative mechanism that ensures that every farmer actually received at least this minimum price for her entire produce. (Successive governments, including this one, have repeatedly promised this without putting such a mechanism in place). Three, there should be a fair and comprehensive method of computation of MSP that takes full cost into account and is extended to all agricultural produce. (This was recommended by the Swaminathan Commission). All these three asks remain unfulfilled to this day.
Environmentally unsustainable?
The third lie is presented under an ecological garb: Legalisation of MSP would lead to over-production of water-guzzling paddy and delay the much-needed diversification of crops. This reasoning is fallacious: The over-dependence on paddy (and sugarcane for that matter) is not because of generous MSP, but because of skewed procurement. While the government declares MSP for 23 crops, it makes good this promise only for wheat and paddy, and that too in select states. No wonder all farmers in these states are hooked to these crops that are not environmentally sustainable. The solution does not lie in withdrawing MSP, but in making sure that the farmers realise MSP in other crops like chana, makka, bajra and various dals. The government should offer attractive MSP for pulses (as recommended by the Arvind Subramanian committee) and oilseeds and ensure their purchase.
Will it distort the market?
The fourth lie is dressed up as elementary economics: Any tinkering with prices by way of MSP would distort the market. Yes, it would, just as TRAI regulations distort telecommunication market, just as ban on surge prices distort road and air transport market. Ever heard these free-market wallas complain against these distortions? Do we not fix minimum wages lest they distort labour market? Should we allow aspirin to be sold for Rs 1,000 per tablet? As for the fear of food prices going up, the way to control it is to offer subsidised food to the poor, not to deny fair price to the producer. The fact is that “free market” is and must be regulated all over the world to meet overall societal objectives. Farmers are offered subsidies and price support all over the world. If price assurance is a bad idea, why declare MSP in the first place?
Impossible for govt?
The fifth lie takes bureaucratic form: MSP may be a good idea, but it is practically impossible. How can the government purchase all the produce of all the 23 crops? Where would it be stored? What would the government do with it? Or so goes the argument. The simple response is: No government needs to do something as silly as that in order to ensure that all farmers receive MSP. My colleagues and I have repeatedly argued that there are multiple methods for ensuring MSP to all farmers. The government can procure more than it does today, especially in pulses, coarse grains, and oilseeds. For the rest, the governments need not purchase. The farmer can be given deficit payment for the gap between the MSP and market price, as was done by the Haryana government this year for bajra. Government can do selective intervention in the market, or use protectionist policies in international market, to prevent prices from falling. And, in the last instance, it can use punitive measure to disallow trading below MSP. All this is complex, yes. But developing a mechanism for MSP delivery is no more complex than designing disinvestment or drawing up mining contracts.
Will India go bankrupt?
Finally, the fiscal lie: India would go bankrupt! My colleague Kiran Vissa and I had debunked this fear-mongering by presenting a rough estimate, with complete breakdown, of how much would it cost the government to make up for the gap between the existing MSP and the prevailing market price. Our calculation for 2017-18 showed the overall cost to be Rs 47,764 crore (just 1.6 per cent of the Union Budget that year and less than 0.3 per cent of the GDP). If the MSP were to be raised to the level recommended by Swaminathan Commission, it would still cost Rs 2.28 lakh crore (about 7.8 per cent of Budget and 1.2 per cent of GDP). Can India afford it for the welfare of nearly two-thirds of its population? That is the real question that the country must face.
Thanks to this historic farmers’ movement, the country has woken up to a political reality: Farmers do not belong to the dustbin of history, they are very much a part of India’s present and future. A legally binding system of fair calculation and effective delivery of MSP to each farmer is a logical corollary of this realisation. As A.R. Vasavi says, it’s time to move towards “Maximum Support Policy”. It is all about political will now.
Monday 22 November 2021
Sunday 29 August 2021
Friday 27 August 2021
Monday 16 August 2021
Sunday 8 August 2021
Tuesday 20 July 2021
Sunday 18 July 2021
Saturday 10 July 2021
Saturday 3 July 2021
Wednesday 30 June 2021
Monday 7 June 2021
Benford’s Law detects data fudging. So we ran it through Indian states’ Covid numbers
DINESH SINGH and AJAY KUMAR in the Print look at the Covid data from the US, UK and several Indian states. Some very interesting insights emerge:
A healthcare worker collects sample for Covid testing. Assam has a caseload of 3.15 lakh and a total of 1,984 people have died of Covid in the state. (Representational image) | PTI
During this global pandemic, several nations across different geographical regions, have had the accuracy of their Covid-19 data records looked at with a healthy dose of questioning. For instance, even with the best of intentions, some western nations have had difficulties in classifying their Covid-19 data. This does not necessarily imply deliberate misrepresentation of the data on part of the agencies responsible. It is just that a pandemic that has left the world shaken in so many ways will also, doubtless, affect data keeping. At the same time, when it comes to data records, it is of utmost importance to endeavour towards maintaining accuracy to the extent possible.
In such a situation, it is useful to try and gauge the accuracy or reliability of the data through various methods. One such fairly reliable means of measuring the accuracy of numeric data sets is a simple mathematical law that was discovered many decades ago and is generally known as the Benford’s Law. This easy to state and just as easy to understand law deals with gauging the reliability or accuracy of large data sets consisting of numeric data that has occurred in natural or non-artificial ways. In other words, the data set must consist of plenty of numbers and these numbers should have arisen without deliberate interference or manipulation. It is generally accepted that the law is meaningfully applicable in instances where the number of data points is at least 500. Also, the meaning of ‘naturally occurring data’ is best understood through illustrations such as of the type related to stock markets or tax records or population data.
Benford’s Law and its application
The law was discovered, actually rediscovered, by Charles Benford in 1938. To grasp this simple law, we need to understand the meaning of the term ‘leading digit’. Given any number, say 813, its leading or first digit is 8. Obviously, we can have only 9 leading digits in any combination viz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The law says that given a naturally arising collection of very, many numbers, the number of times each leading digit occurs as a percentage of the entire lot of leading digits is fixed. In other words, in the entire collection of leading digits arising from a naturally occurring collection of numbers associated with a phenomenon, the number 1 must occur about 30 per cent of the time; the digit 2 about 17 per cent of the time and so on in a certain decreasing order for the other 7 digits where 9 occurs 4.6 per cent of the time. Hence, if the data is true then in about 1000 numbers, 1 occurs as a leading digit about 300 times and so on. This is best illustrated through the following precisely stated table and also pictorially by the succeeding graphs.
What happens when in a given data set of leading digits, arising from numbers denoting a natural phenomenon, is not in conformity with the law? The answer is simple; there is a very high chance that the data is not reliable either because of inaccurate records or because of manipulation.
One of the best ways to contrast the actual data against that prescribed by Benford’s Law is visually, through a graph. That is precisely what we shall be doing for all figures in the article. We shall superimpose the curve given by the actual data (always in red) over the standard curve prescribed by Benford’s Law (always in black). The Benford curve shall look like a slide descending from the right to the left. The deviations of the curve representing the actual data vis a vis the Benford’s curve shall reveal unreliability of the data set.
The prowess of the law is best gauged by a look at the financial data of the now defunct former energy giant Enron Corporation. It is now well known that Enron had been fudging its financial data. This can be seen in the figure below where the data curve for Enron’s revenues is a very bad fit over the Benford curve. It is actually a no brainer to infer that Enron had heavily manipulated its financial data as can be seen by the number of significant deviations of the Enron data curve from the standard Benford curve.
Testing Covid data
We have in this article attempted to look at the data arising from Covid-19 cases across countries and across several states of India. Some very interesting insights emerge.
For instance, the global data for Covid-19 daily infections is fairly reliable as it fits Benford’s curve quite nicely.
Each of the two graphs (immediately above, clockwise second and fourth) represent the combined data for deaths and infections. The second graph represents UK data and the fourth one gives us US data. Both these graphs are in reasonable conformity with Benford’s curve. The US data seems to be a notch more reliable. Interestingly, the data for the for the UK has some issues since the digit 4 occurs as leading digit far more often than prescribed by the Benford curve. But in general, it is a good fit.
Henceforth we are examining statewide data for India and have merged — for each graph — the data for daily infections, daily deaths and daily recoveries. Thus, if the graph shows deviations from Benford’s Law, the implication will be that at least one of the three recordings of data categories has errors in it. But if this combined data curve fits Benford’s curve, then the inference is that all three sets of data are reliable. Merging the data points for the three categories helps bring greater clarity to the verification.
The India data
When it comes to India, the data for the entire nation has some issues but in general there is a passable fit. We must clarify that this indicates inaccuracy of data but does not necessarily indicate fraudulent recording. However, in general, when it comes to accuracy of data in India — for any kind of data — invariably issues and concerns arise. The sooner India learns the art and science of accurate data keeping the better it shall be for the nation.
Kerala’s data is quite reliable as it fits Benford’s curve quite nicely. Punjab also has fairly accurate data indicated by a very good fit between the Benford curve and the curve for its data. The biggest offenders seem to be Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The curves for these two states are quite off the mark as can be seen by their graphs. Rajasthan and West Bengal are also not very encouraging. However, the one redeeming feature for so many of these states is the fact that several of their data points do seem to be in conformity with the Benford’s curve. This ultimately helps keep India’s curve in reasonable conformity with Benford’s curve. We leave the question of whether any of this data is fudged to the reader but certainly much of the statewide data is unreliable.
A healthcare worker collects sample for Covid testing. Assam has a caseload of 3.15 lakh and a total of 1,984 people have died of Covid in the state. (Representational image) | PTI
During this global pandemic, several nations across different geographical regions, have had the accuracy of their Covid-19 data records looked at with a healthy dose of questioning. For instance, even with the best of intentions, some western nations have had difficulties in classifying their Covid-19 data. This does not necessarily imply deliberate misrepresentation of the data on part of the agencies responsible. It is just that a pandemic that has left the world shaken in so many ways will also, doubtless, affect data keeping. At the same time, when it comes to data records, it is of utmost importance to endeavour towards maintaining accuracy to the extent possible.
In such a situation, it is useful to try and gauge the accuracy or reliability of the data through various methods. One such fairly reliable means of measuring the accuracy of numeric data sets is a simple mathematical law that was discovered many decades ago and is generally known as the Benford’s Law. This easy to state and just as easy to understand law deals with gauging the reliability or accuracy of large data sets consisting of numeric data that has occurred in natural or non-artificial ways. In other words, the data set must consist of plenty of numbers and these numbers should have arisen without deliberate interference or manipulation. It is generally accepted that the law is meaningfully applicable in instances where the number of data points is at least 500. Also, the meaning of ‘naturally occurring data’ is best understood through illustrations such as of the type related to stock markets or tax records or population data.
Benford’s Law and its application
The law was discovered, actually rediscovered, by Charles Benford in 1938. To grasp this simple law, we need to understand the meaning of the term ‘leading digit’. Given any number, say 813, its leading or first digit is 8. Obviously, we can have only 9 leading digits in any combination viz. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The law says that given a naturally arising collection of very, many numbers, the number of times each leading digit occurs as a percentage of the entire lot of leading digits is fixed. In other words, in the entire collection of leading digits arising from a naturally occurring collection of numbers associated with a phenomenon, the number 1 must occur about 30 per cent of the time; the digit 2 about 17 per cent of the time and so on in a certain decreasing order for the other 7 digits where 9 occurs 4.6 per cent of the time. Hence, if the data is true then in about 1000 numbers, 1 occurs as a leading digit about 300 times and so on. This is best illustrated through the following precisely stated table and also pictorially by the succeeding graphs.
What happens when in a given data set of leading digits, arising from numbers denoting a natural phenomenon, is not in conformity with the law? The answer is simple; there is a very high chance that the data is not reliable either because of inaccurate records or because of manipulation.
One of the best ways to contrast the actual data against that prescribed by Benford’s Law is visually, through a graph. That is precisely what we shall be doing for all figures in the article. We shall superimpose the curve given by the actual data (always in red) over the standard curve prescribed by Benford’s Law (always in black). The Benford curve shall look like a slide descending from the right to the left. The deviations of the curve representing the actual data vis a vis the Benford’s curve shall reveal unreliability of the data set.
The prowess of the law is best gauged by a look at the financial data of the now defunct former energy giant Enron Corporation. It is now well known that Enron had been fudging its financial data. This can be seen in the figure below where the data curve for Enron’s revenues is a very bad fit over the Benford curve. It is actually a no brainer to infer that Enron had heavily manipulated its financial data as can be seen by the number of significant deviations of the Enron data curve from the standard Benford curve.
Testing Covid data
We have in this article attempted to look at the data arising from Covid-19 cases across countries and across several states of India. Some very interesting insights emerge.
For instance, the global data for Covid-19 daily infections is fairly reliable as it fits Benford’s curve quite nicely.
Each of the two graphs (immediately above, clockwise second and fourth) represent the combined data for deaths and infections. The second graph represents UK data and the fourth one gives us US data. Both these graphs are in reasonable conformity with Benford’s curve. The US data seems to be a notch more reliable. Interestingly, the data for the for the UK has some issues since the digit 4 occurs as leading digit far more often than prescribed by the Benford curve. But in general, it is a good fit.
Henceforth we are examining statewide data for India and have merged — for each graph — the data for daily infections, daily deaths and daily recoveries. Thus, if the graph shows deviations from Benford’s Law, the implication will be that at least one of the three recordings of data categories has errors in it. But if this combined data curve fits Benford’s curve, then the inference is that all three sets of data are reliable. Merging the data points for the three categories helps bring greater clarity to the verification.
The India data
When it comes to India, the data for the entire nation has some issues but in general there is a passable fit. We must clarify that this indicates inaccuracy of data but does not necessarily indicate fraudulent recording. However, in general, when it comes to accuracy of data in India — for any kind of data — invariably issues and concerns arise. The sooner India learns the art and science of accurate data keeping the better it shall be for the nation.
Kerala’s data is quite reliable as it fits Benford’s curve quite nicely. Punjab also has fairly accurate data indicated by a very good fit between the Benford curve and the curve for its data. The biggest offenders seem to be Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The curves for these two states are quite off the mark as can be seen by their graphs. Rajasthan and West Bengal are also not very encouraging. However, the one redeeming feature for so many of these states is the fact that several of their data points do seem to be in conformity with the Benford’s curve. This ultimately helps keep India’s curve in reasonable conformity with Benford’s curve. We leave the question of whether any of this data is fudged to the reader but certainly much of the statewide data is unreliable.
Thursday 4 March 2021
Friday 15 May 2020
Under cover of coronavirus, the world's bad guys are wreaking havoc
The pandemic has allowed strongmen and tyrants to get away with murder and mayhem while we look the other way writes Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian
‘Viktor Orbán has long sought to rule Hungary as an autocrat, but the pandemic gave him his chance, allowing him to brand anyone standing in his way as unwilling to help the leader fight a mortal threat.’ Photograph: Tamás Kovács/AFP via Getty Images
Under the cover of coronavirus, all kinds of wickedness are happening. Where you and I see a global health crisis, the world’s leading authoritarians, fearmongers and populist strongmen have spotted an opportunity – and they are seizing it.
Of course, neither left nor right has a monopoly on the truism that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. Plenty of progressives share that conviction, firm that the pandemic offers a rare chance to reset the way we organise our unequal societies, our clogged cities, our warped relationship to the natural world. But there are others – and they tend to be in power – who see this opening very differently. For them, the virus suddenly makes possible action that in normal times would exact a heavy cost. Now they can strike while the world looks the other way.
For some, Covid-19 itself is the weapon of choice. Witness the emerging evidence that Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and Xi Jinping in Beijing are allowing the disease to wreak havoc among those groups whom the rulers have deemed to be unpersons, their lives unworthy of basic protection. Assad is deliberately leaving Syrians in opposition-held areas more vulnerable to the pandemic, according to Will Todman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As he puts it: “Covid-19 has provided Assad a new opportunity to instrumentalize suffering.”
Meanwhile, China continues to hold 1 million Uighur Muslims in internment camps, where they contend now not only with inhuman conditions but also a coronavirus outbreak. Those camps are cramped, lack adequate sanitation and have poor medical facilities: the virus couldn’t ask for a better breeding ground. What’s more, Uighur Muslims are reportedly being forced to work as labourers, filling in for non-Muslims who are allowed to stay home and protect themselves. That, according to one observer, “is reflective of how the Republic of China views [Uighur Muslims] as nothing but disposable commodities”.
Elsewhere, the pandemic has allowed would-be dictators an excuse to seize yet more power. Enter Viktor Orbán of Hungary, whose response to coronavirus was immediate: he persuaded his pliant parliament to grant him the right to rule by decree. Orbán said he needed emergency powers to fight the dreaded disease, but there is no time limit on them; they will remain his even once the threat has passed. They include the power to jail those who “spread false information”. Naturally, that’s already led to a crackdown on individuals guilty of nothing more than posting criticism of the government on Facebook. Orbán has long sought to rule Hungary as an autocrat, but the pandemic gave him his chance, allowing him to brand anyone standing in his way as unwilling to help the leader fight a mortal threat.
Xi has not missed that same trick, using coronavirus to intensify his imposition of China’s Orwellian “social credit” system, whereby citizens are tracked, monitored and rated for their compliance. Now that system can include health and, thanks to the virus, much of the public ambivalence that previously existed towards it is likely to melt away. After all, runs the logic, good citizens are surely obliged to give up even more of their autonomy if it helps save lives.
For many of the world’s strongmen, though, coronavirus doesn’t even need to be an excuse. Its chief value is the global distraction it has created, allowing unprincipled rulers to make mischief when natural critics at home and abroad are preoccupied with the urgent business of life and death.
Donald Trump gets plenty of criticism for his botched handling of the virus, but while everyone is staring at the mayhem he’s creating with one hand, the other is free to commit acts of vandalism that go all but undetected. This week the Guardian reported how the pandemic has not slowed the Trump administration’s steady and deliberate erosion of environmental protections. During the lockdown, Trump has eased fuel-efficiency standards for new cars, frozen rules for soot air pollution, continued to lease public property to oil and gas companies, and advanced a proposal on mercury pollution from power plants that could make that easier too. Oh, and he’s also relaxed reporting rules for polluters.
Trump’s Brazilian mini-me, Jair Bolsonaro, has outstripped his mentor. Not content with mere changes to the rulebook, he’s pushed aside the expert environmental agencies and sent in the military to “protect” the Amazon rainforest. I say “protect” because, as NBC News reported this week, satellite imagery shows “deforestation of the Amazon has soared under cover of the coronavirus”. Destruction in April was up by 64% from the same month a year ago. The images reveal an area of land equivalent to 448 football fields, stripped bare of trees – this in the place that serves as the lungs of the earth. If the world were not consumed with fighting coronavirus, there would have been an outcry. Instead, and in our distraction, those trees have fallen without making a sound.
Another Trump admirer, India’s Narendra Modi, has seen the same opportunity identified by his fellow ultra-nationalists. Indian police have been using the lockdown to crack down on Muslim citizens and their leaders “indiscriminately”, according to activists. Those arrested or detained struggle to get access to a lawyer, given the restrictions on movement. Modi calculates that majority opinion will back him, as rightist Hindu politicians brand the virus a “Muslim disease” and pro-Modi TV stations declare the nation to be facing a “corona jihad”.
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu – who can claim to have been Trumpist before Trump – has been handed a political lifeline by the virus, luring part of the main opposition party into a government of national unity that will keep him in power and, he hopes, out of the dock on corruption charges. His new coalition is committed to a programme that would see Israel annex major parts of the West Bank, permanently absorbing into itself territory that should belong to a future Palestinian state, with the process starting in early July. Now, the smart money suggests we should be cautious: that it suits Netanyahu to promise/threaten annexation more than it does for him to actually do it. Even so, in normal times the mere prospect of such an indefensible move would represent an epochal shift, high on the global diplomatic agenda. In these abnormal times, it barely makes the news.
Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, argues that many of the global bad guys are, in fact, “demonstrating their weakness rather than strength” – that they are all too aware that if they fail to keep their citizens alive, their authority will be shot. He notes Vladimir Putin’s forced postponement of the referendum that would have kept him in power in Russia at least until 2036. When that vote eventually comes, says Niblett, Putin will go into it diminished by his failure to smother the virus.
Still, for now, the pandemic has been a boon to the world’s authoritarians, tyrants and bigots. It has given them what they crave most: fear and the cover of darkness.
Under the cover of coronavirus, all kinds of wickedness are happening. Where you and I see a global health crisis, the world’s leading authoritarians, fearmongers and populist strongmen have spotted an opportunity – and they are seizing it.
Of course, neither left nor right has a monopoly on the truism that one should never let a good crisis go to waste. Plenty of progressives share that conviction, firm that the pandemic offers a rare chance to reset the way we organise our unequal societies, our clogged cities, our warped relationship to the natural world. But there are others – and they tend to be in power – who see this opening very differently. For them, the virus suddenly makes possible action that in normal times would exact a heavy cost. Now they can strike while the world looks the other way.
For some, Covid-19 itself is the weapon of choice. Witness the emerging evidence that Bashar al-Assad in Damascus and Xi Jinping in Beijing are allowing the disease to wreak havoc among those groups whom the rulers have deemed to be unpersons, their lives unworthy of basic protection. Assad is deliberately leaving Syrians in opposition-held areas more vulnerable to the pandemic, according to Will Todman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. As he puts it: “Covid-19 has provided Assad a new opportunity to instrumentalize suffering.”
Meanwhile, China continues to hold 1 million Uighur Muslims in internment camps, where they contend now not only with inhuman conditions but also a coronavirus outbreak. Those camps are cramped, lack adequate sanitation and have poor medical facilities: the virus couldn’t ask for a better breeding ground. What’s more, Uighur Muslims are reportedly being forced to work as labourers, filling in for non-Muslims who are allowed to stay home and protect themselves. That, according to one observer, “is reflective of how the Republic of China views [Uighur Muslims] as nothing but disposable commodities”.
Elsewhere, the pandemic has allowed would-be dictators an excuse to seize yet more power. Enter Viktor Orbán of Hungary, whose response to coronavirus was immediate: he persuaded his pliant parliament to grant him the right to rule by decree. Orbán said he needed emergency powers to fight the dreaded disease, but there is no time limit on them; they will remain his even once the threat has passed. They include the power to jail those who “spread false information”. Naturally, that’s already led to a crackdown on individuals guilty of nothing more than posting criticism of the government on Facebook. Orbán has long sought to rule Hungary as an autocrat, but the pandemic gave him his chance, allowing him to brand anyone standing in his way as unwilling to help the leader fight a mortal threat.
Xi has not missed that same trick, using coronavirus to intensify his imposition of China’s Orwellian “social credit” system, whereby citizens are tracked, monitored and rated for their compliance. Now that system can include health and, thanks to the virus, much of the public ambivalence that previously existed towards it is likely to melt away. After all, runs the logic, good citizens are surely obliged to give up even more of their autonomy if it helps save lives.
For many of the world’s strongmen, though, coronavirus doesn’t even need to be an excuse. Its chief value is the global distraction it has created, allowing unprincipled rulers to make mischief when natural critics at home and abroad are preoccupied with the urgent business of life and death.
Donald Trump gets plenty of criticism for his botched handling of the virus, but while everyone is staring at the mayhem he’s creating with one hand, the other is free to commit acts of vandalism that go all but undetected. This week the Guardian reported how the pandemic has not slowed the Trump administration’s steady and deliberate erosion of environmental protections. During the lockdown, Trump has eased fuel-efficiency standards for new cars, frozen rules for soot air pollution, continued to lease public property to oil and gas companies, and advanced a proposal on mercury pollution from power plants that could make that easier too. Oh, and he’s also relaxed reporting rules for polluters.
Trump’s Brazilian mini-me, Jair Bolsonaro, has outstripped his mentor. Not content with mere changes to the rulebook, he’s pushed aside the expert environmental agencies and sent in the military to “protect” the Amazon rainforest. I say “protect” because, as NBC News reported this week, satellite imagery shows “deforestation of the Amazon has soared under cover of the coronavirus”. Destruction in April was up by 64% from the same month a year ago. The images reveal an area of land equivalent to 448 football fields, stripped bare of trees – this in the place that serves as the lungs of the earth. If the world were not consumed with fighting coronavirus, there would have been an outcry. Instead, and in our distraction, those trees have fallen without making a sound.
Another Trump admirer, India’s Narendra Modi, has seen the same opportunity identified by his fellow ultra-nationalists. Indian police have been using the lockdown to crack down on Muslim citizens and their leaders “indiscriminately”, according to activists. Those arrested or detained struggle to get access to a lawyer, given the restrictions on movement. Modi calculates that majority opinion will back him, as rightist Hindu politicians brand the virus a “Muslim disease” and pro-Modi TV stations declare the nation to be facing a “corona jihad”.
In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu – who can claim to have been Trumpist before Trump – has been handed a political lifeline by the virus, luring part of the main opposition party into a government of national unity that will keep him in power and, he hopes, out of the dock on corruption charges. His new coalition is committed to a programme that would see Israel annex major parts of the West Bank, permanently absorbing into itself territory that should belong to a future Palestinian state, with the process starting in early July. Now, the smart money suggests we should be cautious: that it suits Netanyahu to promise/threaten annexation more than it does for him to actually do it. Even so, in normal times the mere prospect of such an indefensible move would represent an epochal shift, high on the global diplomatic agenda. In these abnormal times, it barely makes the news.
Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, argues that many of the global bad guys are, in fact, “demonstrating their weakness rather than strength” – that they are all too aware that if they fail to keep their citizens alive, their authority will be shot. He notes Vladimir Putin’s forced postponement of the referendum that would have kept him in power in Russia at least until 2036. When that vote eventually comes, says Niblett, Putin will go into it diminished by his failure to smother the virus.
Still, for now, the pandemic has been a boon to the world’s authoritarians, tyrants and bigots. It has given them what they crave most: fear and the cover of darkness.
Goodhart’s law comes back to haunt the UK’s Covid strategy
Chris Giles in The Financial Times
Every so often, public policy provides a reason to discover or remember the value of Goodhart’s law. The UK’s response to coronavirus is a powerful and tragic example.
Named after Charles Goodhart, a financial guru, former chief economist of the Bank of England and a sheep farmer, the maxim is about the dangers of setting targets. When a useful measure becomes a target, the law states, it often ceases to be a good measure.
Mr Goodhart developed the law after observing how Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s targeted the supply of money to control inflation but then found the monetary aggregates lost their previously strong relationship with inflation. Inflation ran out of control even when the government held a tight grip on the money supply.
What was true in 1980s UK economic policy is regularly experienced in the private sector. Far too often companies hit their top-down targets without improving underlying performance.
In the current crisis, target-setting is altogether more important. Early in March, Italy’s government strove to protect the nation’s health by locking down the Lombardy region. Initially, this led to a mini exodus that probably increased the spread of the disease to other parts of the country.
But it is in the UK where Goodhart’s law was most obviously overlooked. Throughout the crisis, “protect the NHS” has been the government’s core target. Along with “stay at home” it was the slogan repeated daily to “save lives”.
At first sight, nothing seemed amiss. Ensuring hospitals would not be overwhelmed seems so obviously necessary. Who would have wanted to see them starved of funds in a public health crisis? And their staff needed to be given all necessary equipment to battle the pandemic. With many weeks of experience, however, the slogan and associated numerical targets for making hospital beds available have been nothing short of a disaster. The evidence is overwhelming that instead of saving lives, they have cost them.
While the government focused on hospitals, care homes were given much less priority. Over the past five years between mid-March and the end of April, an average of 17,700 people have died in England and Wales’s care homes. This year, the total is just above 37,600. There is a debate over whether coronavirus was recklessly seeded into care homes when patients were moved there from hospitals. But there can be no doubt that relegating care homes to second division status contributed to the 19,900 excess deaths in the care sector.
Far more people than normal have also been dying at home and most of the excess deaths have not been classified as related to Covid-19 on death certificates. We do not yet know precisely why, but at the height of the crisis local doctors were asking their elderly patients to think hard about whether they really wanted to go to hospital or use the emergency services. A fit and sharp relative of mine received two of these calls.
The exact causal links will take time to establish. But 29,874 people have died at home since mid-March in England and Wales, 10,800 more than normal.
No one should think the government’s ambitions deliberately cost lives. But it was a deadly example of Goodhart’s law. The moment “protect the NHS” became the mantra, people dying elsewhere or without being tested didn’t count.
By comparison, the much criticised target of performing 100,000 coronavirus tests a day by the end of April was better conceived. Although the health department fiddled definitions to hit the goal for one day, earning a rebuke from the statistical regulator, the effort has left the UK better positioned for its ultimate objective of testing, tracking and isolating those with the virus.
Goodhart’s law always pops up in unexpected places. The failure in this crisis to think through the incentives created by the “protect the NHS” slogan will haunt Britain for many years.
Every so often, public policy provides a reason to discover or remember the value of Goodhart’s law. The UK’s response to coronavirus is a powerful and tragic example.
Named after Charles Goodhart, a financial guru, former chief economist of the Bank of England and a sheep farmer, the maxim is about the dangers of setting targets. When a useful measure becomes a target, the law states, it often ceases to be a good measure.
Mr Goodhart developed the law after observing how Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980s targeted the supply of money to control inflation but then found the monetary aggregates lost their previously strong relationship with inflation. Inflation ran out of control even when the government held a tight grip on the money supply.
What was true in 1980s UK economic policy is regularly experienced in the private sector. Far too often companies hit their top-down targets without improving underlying performance.
In the current crisis, target-setting is altogether more important. Early in March, Italy’s government strove to protect the nation’s health by locking down the Lombardy region. Initially, this led to a mini exodus that probably increased the spread of the disease to other parts of the country.
But it is in the UK where Goodhart’s law was most obviously overlooked. Throughout the crisis, “protect the NHS” has been the government’s core target. Along with “stay at home” it was the slogan repeated daily to “save lives”.
At first sight, nothing seemed amiss. Ensuring hospitals would not be overwhelmed seems so obviously necessary. Who would have wanted to see them starved of funds in a public health crisis? And their staff needed to be given all necessary equipment to battle the pandemic. With many weeks of experience, however, the slogan and associated numerical targets for making hospital beds available have been nothing short of a disaster. The evidence is overwhelming that instead of saving lives, they have cost them.
While the government focused on hospitals, care homes were given much less priority. Over the past five years between mid-March and the end of April, an average of 17,700 people have died in England and Wales’s care homes. This year, the total is just above 37,600. There is a debate over whether coronavirus was recklessly seeded into care homes when patients were moved there from hospitals. But there can be no doubt that relegating care homes to second division status contributed to the 19,900 excess deaths in the care sector.
Far more people than normal have also been dying at home and most of the excess deaths have not been classified as related to Covid-19 on death certificates. We do not yet know precisely why, but at the height of the crisis local doctors were asking their elderly patients to think hard about whether they really wanted to go to hospital or use the emergency services. A fit and sharp relative of mine received two of these calls.
The exact causal links will take time to establish. But 29,874 people have died at home since mid-March in England and Wales, 10,800 more than normal.
No one should think the government’s ambitions deliberately cost lives. But it was a deadly example of Goodhart’s law. The moment “protect the NHS” became the mantra, people dying elsewhere or without being tested didn’t count.
By comparison, the much criticised target of performing 100,000 coronavirus tests a day by the end of April was better conceived. Although the health department fiddled definitions to hit the goal for one day, earning a rebuke from the statistical regulator, the effort has left the UK better positioned for its ultimate objective of testing, tracking and isolating those with the virus.
Goodhart’s law always pops up in unexpected places. The failure in this crisis to think through the incentives created by the “protect the NHS” slogan will haunt Britain for many years.
Monday 11 May 2020
Change the LBW laws
Ian Chappell in Cricinfo
There will be some noticeable changes to the game when cricket resumes from its Covid-19 hiatus with one of the major differences being the way the ball is polished.
It's critical administrators produce the right response to the health challenges as swing bowling, along with wristspin, is a crucial part of attacking cricket. Both skills place a high priority on wicket-taking and need to be encouraged at every opportunity.
An outswing bowler is seeking the edge to provide a catch behind the wicket. The inswinger is delivered in search of a bowled or an lbw decision. In both cases, the bowler, in seeking the perfect ambush, is also providing the batsman with a driving opportunity as the ball needs to be pitched full to achieve the desired outcome.
Either way two results are in play - a wicket or a boundary - which creates the ideal balance of tension and expectation. Fans crave a genuine contest between bat and ball and that's part of what attracts them to the game in the first place.
With ball-tampering always a hot topic, in the past I've suggested that administrators ask international captains to construct a list (i.e. the use of natural substances) detailing the things bowlers feel will help them to swing the ball. From this list, the administrators should deem one method to be legal with all others being punishable as illegal.
With cricket on hold, this is the ideal time to conduct the exercise. Using saliva and perspiration are now seen as a health hazard, so bowlers require something to replace the traditional methods of shining the ball.
And while they are in a magnanimous mood, the administrators should also make a change to the lbw law that would be welcomed by all bowlers.Changing the lbw law will mean batsmen can't get away with simply padding away balls Mitchell Gunn / © Getty Images
The new lbw law should simply say: "Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted."
Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out.
There will be screams of horror - particularly from pampered batsmen - but there are numerous positives this change would bring to the game. Most important is fairness. If a bowler is prepared to attack the stumps regularly, the batsman should only be able to protect his wicket with the bat. The pads are there to save the batsman from injury not dismissal.
There will be some noticeable changes to the game when cricket resumes from its Covid-19 hiatus with one of the major differences being the way the ball is polished.
It's critical administrators produce the right response to the health challenges as swing bowling, along with wristspin, is a crucial part of attacking cricket. Both skills place a high priority on wicket-taking and need to be encouraged at every opportunity.
An outswing bowler is seeking the edge to provide a catch behind the wicket. The inswinger is delivered in search of a bowled or an lbw decision. In both cases, the bowler, in seeking the perfect ambush, is also providing the batsman with a driving opportunity as the ball needs to be pitched full to achieve the desired outcome.
Either way two results are in play - a wicket or a boundary - which creates the ideal balance of tension and expectation. Fans crave a genuine contest between bat and ball and that's part of what attracts them to the game in the first place.
With ball-tampering always a hot topic, in the past I've suggested that administrators ask international captains to construct a list (i.e. the use of natural substances) detailing the things bowlers feel will help them to swing the ball. From this list, the administrators should deem one method to be legal with all others being punishable as illegal.
With cricket on hold, this is the ideal time to conduct the exercise. Using saliva and perspiration are now seen as a health hazard, so bowlers require something to replace the traditional methods of shining the ball.
And while they are in a magnanimous mood, the administrators should also make a change to the lbw law that would be welcomed by all bowlers.Changing the lbw law will mean batsmen can't get away with simply padding away balls Mitchell Gunn / © Getty Images
The new lbw law should simply say: "Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted."
Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out.
There will be screams of horror - particularly from pampered batsmen - but there are numerous positives this change would bring to the game. Most important is fairness. If a bowler is prepared to attack the stumps regularly, the batsman should only be able to protect his wicket with the bat. The pads are there to save the batsman from injury not dismissal.
---Also read
---
It would also force batsmen to seek an attacking method to combat a wristspinner pitching in the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump.
Contrast Sachin Tendulkar's aggressive and successful approach to Shane Warne coming round the wicket in Chennai in 1997-98 with a batsman who kicks away deliveries pitching in the rough and turning in toward the stumps. Which would you rather watch?
The current law encourages "pad play" to balls pitching outside leg while this change would force them to use their bat. The change would reward bowlers who attack the stumps and decrease the need for negative wide deliveries to a packed off-side field.
The law, as it pertains to pitching outside leg, was originally introduced to stop negative tactics to slow the scoring. Imagine trying to stifle players like VVS Laxman and Mark Waugh by bowling at their pads. The law should retain the current clause where negative bowling down the leg side is deemed illegal.
This change to the lbw law would also simplify umpiring and result in fewer frivolous DRS challenges. Consequently, it would speed up a game that has slowed drastically in recent times. It would also make four-day Tests an even more viable proposition as mind-numbing huge first-innings totals would be virtually non-existent.
The priority for cricket administrators should be to maintain an even balance between bat and ball. These law changes would help redress any imbalance and make the game, particularly Test cricket, a far more entertaining spectacle.
It would also force batsmen to seek an attacking method to combat a wristspinner pitching in the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump.
Contrast Sachin Tendulkar's aggressive and successful approach to Shane Warne coming round the wicket in Chennai in 1997-98 with a batsman who kicks away deliveries pitching in the rough and turning in toward the stumps. Which would you rather watch?
The current law encourages "pad play" to balls pitching outside leg while this change would force them to use their bat. The change would reward bowlers who attack the stumps and decrease the need for negative wide deliveries to a packed off-side field.
The law, as it pertains to pitching outside leg, was originally introduced to stop negative tactics to slow the scoring. Imagine trying to stifle players like VVS Laxman and Mark Waugh by bowling at their pads. The law should retain the current clause where negative bowling down the leg side is deemed illegal.
This change to the lbw law would also simplify umpiring and result in fewer frivolous DRS challenges. Consequently, it would speed up a game that has slowed drastically in recent times. It would also make four-day Tests an even more viable proposition as mind-numbing huge first-innings totals would be virtually non-existent.
The priority for cricket administrators should be to maintain an even balance between bat and ball. These law changes would help redress any imbalance and make the game, particularly Test cricket, a far more entertaining spectacle.
Wednesday 15 April 2020
Sunday 22 December 2019
Robert Skidelsky speaks: How and how not to do economics
What is economics about?
Unlimited wants limited resources
Economic growth
Is economics a science?
Models and laws
Psychology and economics
Sociology and economics
Economics and power
History of economic thought
Economic history
Ethics and economics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)