de Soto asserts that the rule of law is what allows rich countries to prosper, and that the lack of it keeps poverty entrenched in the developing world. For de Soto, the rule of law begins with a fundamental distinction: property rights. Give people a deed for land and you have documentation of their right to it. If you have documentation, you can keep records, and with records, an accounting can be made, and with accounting comes accountability, the exercise – and protection – of one’s rights.

Implicit in accountability is a value for truth-telling, since a written record of transactions (and contracts) allows verification of an agreement. Further, it allows verification of value, the central construction for a functioning economy which must, necessarily, be rule-based.  That’s the only way to ensure that the value of something is real and can be compared to other similar products/services (else-wise known as transparency), the very basis of a market economy.

Feudal landlords kept records; they collected rents and taxes. When the time came to overturn that system (in the case of post WWII Japan) or start from scratch (as was done in the U.S.), it was relatively easy to turn around and issue deeds for land (to former serfs and peasants). Land is a basic form of capital, deeds ensure rights to it, and so capital formation can grow and be leveraged by the individual landowner.

It’s a very compelling argument, which de Soto makes with great passion and charisma. His point: it’s futile to address economic development without establishing property rights first. Without it, there is no way to curtail corruption and the shadow economies that flourish alongside it.

de Soto has long held the U.S. as a model of how property rights done right, and their benefits. Americans like to think that their prosperity springs from a Protestant work ethic, status as a chosen people, an innovative and entrepreneurial spirit, and the good fortune of abundant land and resources. “Fooey!” says de Soto (my expression, not his). Many countries share land and resource wealth, and the ingenuity of their people; what they lack, relative to the U.S., are property rights.

Yet, the recession of 2007-present that hit the U.S., he attributes to the same fancy financial instruments that created such huge cash flow — derivatives and the like — which became ‘toxic’ precisely because record-keeping failed. The paper trail that typically tracks mortgages > second mortgages > rating schenanigans (i.e. you call those assets?!) > derivatives, etc. failed, and no one knows the real value of what they hold. This exposes us to unimaginable vulnerability because if you can’t account for what is/isn’t there, you can’t fix it. Worse, says de Soto, the derivatives effectively made confetti of the paper and now it’s scattered all over the world. The result: you don’t know whose hand is in whose pocket, nor do you know that when they remove their hand, what they actually hold. A crisis is just a pocket-full of confetti away (Exhibit A: Greece).

The good news, says de Soto, is that it’s fixable. Return to what you/we already know: accounting. Put everything on the table again, determine what’s toxic, what’s not, and take the bad stuff out of circulation. The TARP program was supposed to have done this, but it instead made us all shareholders in the banks that hold the debt which means that we now own shares of their debt. The problem: if the bank collapses, it hurts a whole lot of people. Rather than face it head on, the answer has been to print more money under the naive and dangerous rationale that if people have more money, they’ll spend more money, confidence goes up, allowing consumption to kick-start the economy again. Not only is this like putting a bandage over a pothole (structural failure), it’s what’s called inflation.

Doing the right thing, as always, requires courage. This could be handled within the efforts on financial reform but, unfortunately, accountability is what everyone (legislators and regulators, politicians, Wall Street execs, and voters) is trying to avoid.

de Soto is a great story-teller, and he makes his case with terrific clarity.  He’s a must-see/read/listen to thinker. Start with the video above and, if you want to hear the presentation he gave this week, you’ll find it in its entirety here: http://www.cce.umn.edu/media/greatconversations/atwood_desoto/player.html

Doug Miller, chairman of international polling firm GlobeScan

Views of the US around the world have improved sharply over the past year, according to a worldwide poll conducted by the BBC world service. For the first time since the poll was conducted in 2005, America’s influence and position in the world is regarded as positive rather than negative. Surveying thirty thousand people in twenty eight countries, the BBC world service claimed that forty percent of respondents saw the US in a positive light, a figure that is up from 38% in 2005 and 28% in 2007. In particular, positive views of the US increased by 21% in Germany, 18% in Russia and 14% in Portugal from 2009. Additionally, negative opinions of the US declined by 23% in Spain, 14% in France and 10% in the UK. Out of the 28 nations surveyed, only two countries, those of Turkey and Pakistan, have populations in which more than 50% of respondents have a negative view of the United States.

Although the United States still polls below countries like Germany, the UK and Canada, the poll results indicate that the international reputation of the US is slowly improving. According to Steven Kull, director of PIPA, this shift is caused by the, ‘Obama effect:

“Its influence on people’s views worldwide, though, is to soften the negative aspects of the United States’ image, while positive aspects are not yet coming into strong focus.”

Adding to that, Kull claimed, “While China’s image is stuck in neutral, America has motored past it in the global soft-power competition.”

Evidence for the Obama effect is plentiful outside the realm of statistics. In 2009, Egyptian merchants named their top quality dates after President Obama in appreciation of the Presidents appeal to the global Muslim community. Obama’s election to the White House in 2008 was celebrated as an international victory, with slogans of hope and change appealing and applying to a vast range of peoples and places.

]]> http://pushthefuture.org/2010/04/the-good-kind-of-global-warming/feed/ 0 http://pushthefuture.org/2010/03/making-art-not-war-jihad-therapy/ http://pushthefuture.org/2010/03/making-art-not-war-jihad-therapy/#comments Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:10:37 +0000 Neha Mashooqullah http://pushthefuture.org/?p=3096 How much would you pay for a painting made by a terrorist?

Imagine this: you find yourself in the dusty dry heat of Saudi Arabia, surrounded by some of the most radical and threatening criminals the world has ever seen. Sure, their resumes might be dotted with bomb making expertise and foiled suicide missions, but they tell you that they have out grown that part of their lives. Instead, they complain about the way oil paint gets lodged underneath their fingers when they paint their feelings onto white canvases, and indulge you with a joke that begins something like, ‘So an Arab Sheikh an oil broker and an American walk into a shisha bar…’ and oddly enough, you find yourself laughing along with some of the most feared people in the world against your better judgment.

Sounds crazy?

Not so much. Allow me to introduce ‘jihad rehab’, a fresh take on combating the ever pressing problems of global terrorism and ideologically driven conflict. A pilot program initiated by Saudi Arabia, jihad rehab provides an alternative mode of prisoner reform that attempts to cater to the ‘hearts and minds’ of Saudi citizens who have been found guilty of committing (or attempting to commit) acts of terror. Instead of prisoners, participants are called ‘beneficiaries’ who are enrolled in programs in plush and comfortable ‘centers’ in the Saudi city of Riyadh. Instead of barbed wire, you will see ping pong tables and play station consoles. Instead of cramped and confined spaces, you will find pristine football fields and lush gardens.

The main components of such programs include:

1) Religious reeducation: Participants are enrolled in classes taught by local community leaders and activists, in the religious sect of their choosing. Such programs attempt to redirect religious activism away from violence and towards more democratic and effective methods of expressing ones beliefs.

2) Reintegration: In addition to reconnecting participants with their families and friends, such programs offer ways for participants to begin a socially integrated life from scratch. Some examples of social reintegration techniques include finding participants a wife, an apartment, a job, and in one case funding fertility treatments in order for participants to start their own family.

3) Therapy: Participants are pushed to find healthy ways to express themselves and their feelings. In addition to group and individual therapy sessions, participants are enrolled in art classes and play team sports.

So, is it possible that paint brushes are society’s best modes of crime prevention? Saudi Arabia claims that their method has had a ninety five percent success rate, though that statement comes with a long list of caveats:

1) Change comes from within: students must prove that they are ready to better their lives and sincerely change their ways and viewpoints.

2) Expense: the state must be willing to bear the costs of such programs, which might be easy for Saudi Arabia, but has been difficult for other nations to maintain. As programs that are very resource-heavy, this factor has been pivotal in determining the success or failure of such programs in other countries.

3) Cultural specificity: There can be no reintegration without cultural context; change has to come from within a state in order to be viable and considered as legitimate by participants.

As a program, terrorist rehab is still in its primary stages of conception and execution, but it points to some interesting changes in the way the world is addressing the wider issue of terrorism. Competing with the sense of brotherhood and belonging that terrorist networks provide to their followers, jihad rehab tries to instill alternative sources of value and self esteem for participants in their program. By attempting to reintegrate once marginalized parts of their populations, nations are presenting viable alternatives to the mental and emotional aspects of what makes being a jihadi an emotionally fulfilling experience. If the Saudi model continues to be successful, other nations, if funded appropriately, could implement similar programs that would cater to their specific needs and capabilities. The next step would then be to make funds and infrastructure available to nations that are less rehab ready than Saudi Arabia.

Commenting on the happenings at the World Economic Forum, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman noted there was a significant shift in tone, particularly regarding the United States as a role model in how we think, design and build. With the United States at the center of the global economic crisis and eight years and counting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American way of getting things done seem less seductive than it once was.

In recent years, nations such as China, India and Brazil have proved themselves as able competitors in the free market system, which has resulted in a more diverse trading environment. In addition to that, the world has become more pluralistic in its consumption of the arts; movies like Slumdog Millionaire and musicians like Juanez and Jay Sean have made the world pay attention to nations that until recently were only known for their booming birth rates and low standards of living. For the first time, the world is looking beyond Western Europe and North America for new ideas and innovations, and perhaps most strikingly, for solutions.

This remarkable shift in the way the world works has stimulated a debate regarding strategies for third world development. For the last 20 years, development policy has been dominated by the Washington Consensus; a post cold war doctrine that stresses the principles of macroeconomic discipline, a market economy, and free trade. However, there has been growing concern about the efficacy and prescriptive nature of this model. Such criticism has resulted in the development of an alternative model by China: the Beijing Consensus.

When compared, some striking contrasts become apparent:

• Accused of being too specific, the Washington consensus is more prescriptive and comprehensive in its policy recommendations. In comparison, the Beijing consensus is deliberately brief and vague; its proponents claim that it leaves more room for innovation and creativity.
• The Beijing consensus claims to tailor make development policies to the needs of a country, so that all the resources of a state are maximized with considerations for potential hurdles taken into account. In contrast, the Washington consensus does not offer the same room for tweaking policies to fit the particularities of a specific nation and shifting conditions.
• One of the guiding principles of the Beijing consensus is that of self determinism, in which a state is empowered to solve its own problems in order to ensure long-term sustainability of policies and programs. Such a policy challenges the notion of super power hegemony with an aim to make development an expression of self determination.

The cracks in the Washington consensus reflect a worldview that is dated. The nature of this document doesn’t support a world that is far more fluid and volatile than such policies allow for. In contrast, the Beijing consensus seems to capture some of the mercurial conditions and demands of economic development, and offers a customized set of policy recommendations in response.

Given the simmering challenges presented by climate change, political instability, resource shortages and conflict it is clear that every path taken needs to be facile and tailored to the needs of a people, culture and region. For now, the international community will have to wait to test out the first batch of Beijing inspired development in order to really get a taste of what is in store for development policy in 2010!

As in a medical examination or a structural audit on a construction site, the function of the stupid question is to thump around in the context of a product or issue to uncover, understand and test underlying assumptions.  Designer Paula Scher talks to Mau about the value of approaching a problem from the perspective of an outsider,

“When I’m totally unqualified for a job, that’s when I do my best work … If you have too much expertise—if you think you know the answers already—you won’t be as open to offbeat possibilities. But if you’re a neophyte, you’ll ask what would seem to be obvious … From ignorance, you can come up with something that is so out of left field that it has been ignored or was never considered a possibility.”

Mau points out that, “The fear for so many people is that, in asking these kinds of questions, they will seem naïve. But naïve is a valuable commodity in this context. Naïve is what allows you to try to do what the experts say can’t be done.”

Outside of the realm of design (which I believe is a debatable distinction, since most problem solving activities can legitimately stake claim in the category of “design”), this approach can facilitate reconsideration of the foundations of a situation, provide a different perspective on the world, and help us “regain focus and retackle old, entrenched problems.”

Cut to the White House Situation Room – In what has been described as a “head-snapping” moment, high ranking members of President Obama’s Afghanistan review team realized that his approach to emerging military issues in the region was not simply a matter of “updating” his previous strategy, but essentially “starting over from scratch.”

Over a three month period, President Obama engaged U.S. military experts in an “intense, methodical, rigorous, earnest and at times deeply frustrating process for nearly all involved.”  The decision-making exercise became a “virtual seminar” driven by the President’s “insatiable demand for information.” Not only did he invite new perspectives and challenge competing view points to debate, he also listened and asked probing questions a la “college professor/cross-examiner.”

Taking a page from Gordon M. Goldstein’s book on the Vietnam War, “Lessons in Disaster,” President Obama concluded that “both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson failed to question the underlying assumption about monolithic Communism and the domino theory – clearly driving the Obama advisors to rethink the nature of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Over the course of the analysis, Obama challenged the veracity of long-held assumptions about nearly every aspect of the Middle East scenario. By adopting the open, imaginative mind-set of the naive outsider/learner, President Obama engaged the U.S. military advisors in a rigorous design thinking exercise.

National security advisor, General James L. Jones spoke to the exhaustive inquiry, “From the very first meeting, everyone started with set opinions. And no opinion was the same by the end of the process.”

Take this example:

Earlier this month, Britain unveiled their new take on the national ID card to much public dissatisfaction. Their decision to respect the identity rights of Irish Nationalists living in Northern Ireland (as decreed by the Belfast Agreement) was done in a way that inflamed the rest of the UK population: there will be no union flag featured on the card design. Instead, a shamrock, daffodil, thistle, and rose will represent the four countries of the UK.

Although I don’t doubt that the intention of the British government was well-aimed in allaying the concerns of the Irish Nationalists (specifically those who remain armed), but they have forgotten that the Unionists of Northern Ireland are also armed and expect adequate representation from their government. As reported by the UK’s Daily Mail, DUP Northern Ireland Assembly member Iain Paisley Junior remarked, “I can’t imagine anyone would want a so-called national identity card if it expunges the symbol of our national unity, which is the union flag.”

Further complicating matters, those living in Northern Ireland who identify themselves as Irish will only be able to use the UK national ID card as a “personal ID.” If they wish to travel outside of the country, the must be issued an ID from the Irish Government. In essence, British, Irish, and those claiming dual citizenship are able to reside in Northern Ireland; you may carry both forms of identification, but you can only use certain ones in specific circumstances. If it sounds like an identity crisis, that’s because it is.

Most of us have dealt with this dilemma in some small form, like when you’ve finally lived in a new place long enough to start telling people you’re from “Colorado” instead of wherever your parent’s house is – confusing at first, but not inexplicable. However, for those who live in disputed places, it may be that the land they identify with is altered or no longer even exists. When I studied in Northern Ireland, for example, whether my hometown was called “Derry” or “Londonderry” was an ongoing battle. To get by, I soon learned to spit it out quickly enough so that no one could determine which one it was that I said.

A way of getting around this is to identify yourself in hyphenations. This is a choice that is most common to the United States and is frequently interpreted as a “cultural-national” identity, i.e.) “Mexican-American.” “Jewish-American.” “Hispanic-American.” If you travel elsewhere, you will find a whole new set of examples to describe identity such as “negro, mulatto, mestizo, indigenous” – primarily associated with race.  The case of Northern Ireland is an anomaly in that where a person’s identity is generally viewed as compilation of both cultural, national, and racial elements, Northern Ireland’s dispute does not fit this stereotype. Everyone is Anglo-Saxon, their cultural histories run relatively parallel, but the dilemma of what they should call themselves still remains.

What’s in a name? Apparently everything. It is fascinating to dig into the connotations behind identity because they invite questions that we should all be asking about ourselves. It is important to address the different meanings and associations your identity holds for you as well as the varying perspectives it might to convey to others. It will help you to stamp-out short-sightedness in any venture  that you choose to pursue. Here are a few appetizers to get your started:

What is your identity?

National, ethnic, cultural?

How important is it to you?

Is it fixed or fluid?

Is it government ordained or a personal choice?

How does your identity influence your decision-making?

How does your identity shape your relationship with others?

If you’re still stumped, don’t worry – it’s a complex issue. Take it from Dr. Seuss:

“Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You!”

Richard Branson explains in a video blog why he has chosen to take up Mia Farrow’s fast for Darfur:

“We fast in solidarity with the people of Darfur because they do not have a choice. We fast as a personal expression of outrage at a world that has allowed the suffering of millions of innocent people. We fast because as we simply watched, Darfur’s defenceless people were forced into wretched camps where today they are facing starvation and disease. We fast because those in positions of authority who know what is right and just, could and should do more to alleviate their suffering and bring peace, protection, and justice to the people of Sudan.

We fast for Darfur’s courageous people —because we yearn for a world where human rights are respected and a life of dignity is the legacy for every man, woman and child.

Please join us and get involved in supporting the people of Darfur by going to www.fastdarfur.org and taking action.”

Branson told Entertainment Weekly that his decision to take up a three day fast for Darfur in the aftermath of the Sudanese government’s decision to expel 16 international aid organizations is “the first time I’ve deprived my stomach to get political change.” I commend his efforts and view his support of Darfur as a powerful move. I recently wrote an article on the sway of the hunger strike in response to Evo Morales’ six-day hunger strike for election reform. People often brush aside the efforts of famous people in working for social action – like its some kind of sideshow to their otherwise luxurious lifestyle, but I will not condemn anyone who cares in any capacity that they can. Branson’s three-day hunger strike is a commitment that encourages so many others because his influence is so widespread.

[Sidenote: Shame on you, journalists, for introducing Mia Farrow as "the former wife of Frank Sinatra and the ex-girlfriend of Woody Allen" in nearly every article written on Farrow's handing over of the hunger strike to Richard Branson. Aside from her former career as an actress, singer, and model, she should be recognized first and foremost by her status as a goodwill ambassador for UNICEF and her tireless work in the conflict-stricken regions of Sudan and Chad. If I find it annoying that she's still being introduced by her former love life, I can't imagine how she feels. Give the woman some due credit!]

* Iceland officially chooses Johanna Sigurdardottir as the world’s first openly lesbian woman prime minister – you go girl!

* The wife of Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga has announced her official participation in a “sex boycott” ordered to end the political feud that is currently paralyzing the Kenyan government. I imagine it was something along the lines of : “Sorry hubby, if you won’t put out for Kenya, I won’t put out for you.”

* Last but not least, the resignation of Justice David Souter from the Supreme Court has sent rumors flying that a female replacement is in the works. Finally, order in the court!

In Iceland, Johanna Sigurdardottir’s left-wing coalition is taking power from the conservative, independent party.  The 18-year leadership of the latter, male-dominated party is widely regarded as being responsible for the country’s current economic collapse. Under Sigurdardottir, women are returning in high numbers to parliamentary positions. The Icelandic media has even identified their new government as the fourth strongest female power house in the world.

While Iceland is showing females that there’s  strength in numbers, Ida Odinga, wife of the Kenyan PM proved today that there’s also strength in…um, well, you know…down there. Kenya’s Federation of Women Lawyers has been urging the wives of top ranking politicians involved in both sides of the stand-off to abstain from having sex with their husbands until a resolution is reached. “Women wanted to drive the issue home…they did it with a light touch,” Odinga spoke out on her decision to join the protest. Her response is fitting as she is well-known for being a woman of few words, but full of calculated action. In September of last year, she turned down the traditional $70,000 paycheck given to all wives of state for their “social responsibilities”, an act of grace that the Kenyan media praised very highly.

In the United States, all eyes are on the next Supreme Court candidate. The Daily Beast has laid out its list of top picks, not even bothering to insist on gender neutrality. Convinced that a democratic female has the highest bid, they have profiled Diane P. Wood, Sonia Sotomayor, Kim Mclane Wardlaw, Leah Ward Sears, and a few more to give you a peek at who may be in store. One look at their extensive qualifications and us women of the world can breathe a huge sigh of relief. Miss California, Rest In Peace.

This Monday, I had the opportunity to attend a test dinner of the Push Institute’s much-anticipated Global Dinner Party (now in its pilot phase) at the home of Sam and Sylvia Kaplan. The guest list included four lawyers (from corporate to entertainment to constitutional/security-torture-rendition, our mayor, a singer, a serial entrepreneur, a college student in need of a free meal/younger blogger (me), and others. The three-course dinner featured matzoh ball soup and salad, a Middle Eastern main dish, and chocolate meringue for dessert, but the conversation undoubtedly proved to be the main affair – so much that, I confess, I rather slacked off on taking notes. Like a good meal after a long day (when you don’t stop to wipe your face until you’ve cleaned your plate), I became so engrossed in the conversation that I did not pause to take notes for fear of missing the debate.

In our review of the evening, Cecily explained that “The aim of A Global Dinner Party is to bring people together over food and ideas, to share and challenge thinking about where we’re headed. We’re creating a 3-course menu of questions on topics such as energy, immigration, life expectancy, worldviews, exploration of space and ocean, morality, and other such juicy stuff.  If the conversation broadens and inspires people’s thinking, all while having fun, then the dinner is a success.  Ultimately, these are the kinds of experiences that ultimately impact how decisions are made — which is how change is made — and that’s what we’re after!  Share a dinner, create community, and change the world — what could be better?”

Discussion for the evening focused on (which) factors that create a stable and robust society. I’m not sure that we arrived at any answers, though there was agreement that a malleable framework (ability to identify and adapt to change) was indeed a key aspect. Some thought that framework depends on the soft stuff of trust and community, while others leaned toward the hard stuff of social institutions, i.e. government, constitution, laws, banks, schools, health care, philanthropy, etc.  It’s a chicken-egg/nature-nurture dialogue, but consensus wasn’t the goal, rather this group preferred to describe how a stable and robust society feels, looks, behaves. Terms used included safety, diversity, education, resilience, identity, production of goods and services, access to opportunity, common good, and leadership. Tom Wiese, my partner in the one-on-one discussion even argued that lazy people were an important aspect of society because the ambitious are motivated by others lack of action. – Interesting take!

The conversation then moved to encompass the benefits of our increasingly open-source government. With the introduction of interactive internet tools, more people are able to weigh in and hold sway. Nate Garvis of Target Corporations argued, “We have been suffering from a failure of creativity. We tend to throw the government and military at every problem. We use old tools for the new age when what we really need is more social innovation. The internet tools we now have allowed us to expand greatly in the world of social innovation.”

I could continue, but it doesn’t merit much for me to give you a play-by-play. It is our hope that every global dinner party will have its own unique face, but all will offer the opportunity to engage.

“The dinners are by design,” Cecily says. “It’s a way of humanizing ourselves.”

“I think we are surrounded by messages that drive us apart,” Nate adds. “We need to focus more on what we have in common and what better place to bring us all together than over the dinner table?”