LXII - The Next Supermodel

           This post is a summary of three articles published at  http://www.economist.com/, on the same date, February, 2nd 2013. The first one with the title above, The second with the title of, " Northern lights." And the third, with the title of, " The secret of their success."

           Small countries are often in the vanguard when it comes to reforming government. In the 1980s Britain was out in the lead, thanks to privatisation. Now the Nordic countries are likely to assume a similar role. That is partly because the four main Nordics- Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland - are doing rather well. The Nordics are at the top of everything from economic competitiveness to social health to happiness. To politicians around the world, they offer a blueprint of how to reform the public sector, making the state far more efficient and responsive. In the 1970s and 1980s the Sweden`s public spending reached 67% of GDP in 1993. But it did not work: Sweden fell from being the fourth richest country in the world in 1970 to the 14th in 1993. Since then the Nordics have changed course. Government`s share of GDP in Sweden, which has dropped by around 18%. Sweden has reformed its pension system. Its budget deficit is 0.3% of GDP. On public services have been similarly pragmatic. So long as public services work, they do not mind who provides them. Denmark and Norway allow private firms to run public hospitals. All western politicians claim to promote transparency. The Nordics can do so with more justification than most. The performance of all schools and hospitals is measured. Government are forced to operate in the light of day. The home of Skype is also a leader in e-government. The new Nordic model is not perfect. Public spending as a proportion of GDP in these countries is still higher. Their level of taxation still encourage entrepreneurs to move abroad. The pressures that have forced their government to cut spending, such as growing global competition, will force more change. When Angela Merkel worries that the European Union has 7% of the world`s population but half of its social spending, the Nordics are part of the answer. They also show that EU countries can be genuine economic successes. The main lesson to learn is not ideological but practical. The state is popular not because is big but because it works. But you need to be willing to root out corruption and vested interests. And you must be ready to forage for good ideas across the political spectrum.

            Sweden has reduced public spending as a proportion of GDP from 67% in 1993 to 49% today. Its public debt fell from 70% of GDP in 1993 to 37% in 2010, and its budget moved from an 11% deficit to a surplus of 0.3% over the same period. Sweden has introduced a universal system of schools vouchers and invited private schools to compete with public ones. Private companies also vie with each other to provide state-funded health services and care for the elderly. The two decades from 1990 were a period of recovery: GDP growth between 1993 and 2010 averaged 2.7% a year and productivity 2.1%. The other Nordics have been moving in the same direction, Denmark has one of the most liberal labour markets in Europe. It also allows parents to send children to private schools at public expense and make up the difference in cost with their own money. The new Nordic model begin with the individual rather than the state. It begins with fiscal responsibility: all four Nordic countries have AAA ratings and debt loads significantly below the euro-zone average. There are compelling reasons for paying attention to these countries on the edge of Europe. The first is that they have reached the future first. They are grappling with problems that other countries too will have to deal, such as what to do when you reach the limits of big government. And the Nordics are coming up with innovative solutions that reject the tired orthodoxies of left and right. The second reason is that the new model is proving strikingly successful. The Nordics dominate indices of competitiveness as well as of well-being. It mark a big change since 1980s when welfare took precedence over competitiveness.

         Why has this remote region, with its freezing winters and expanses of wilderness, proved so successful? In the period from 1870 to 1970 the Nordics countries were among the world`s fastest growing countries, thanks to a series of pro-business reforms. But in the 1970s and 1980s the undisciplined growth of government caused the reforms to run into the sands. The Nordics countries had got into the habit of spending more on welfare than they could afford and relying more on a handful of giant companies than was wise. They pride themselves on the honesty and transparency. Nordics governments are subject to rigorous scrutiny: for example, in Sweden everyone has access to all official records. They also have added two other important qualities to transparency: pragmatism and tough-mindedness. On discovering that the old social democratic consensus was no longer working, they let it go with remarkably little fuss and introduced new ideas from across the political spectrum. Pragmatism also explain why they are continuing to upgrade their model. And they are doing all this without sacrificing what makes the Nordic model so valuable: the ability to invest in human capital and protect people from the disruptions that are part of the capitalist system. Most of the rich world now faces the same problems that the Nordics faced in the early 1990s, out of control public spending. Yet it is hard to see the Nordic model of government spreading quickly, mainly because the Nordic talent for government is sui generis. Nordic government arose from a combination of difficult geography and benign history. Sweden guaranteed freedom of the press in 1766, and from the 1840s onwards it abolished preference for aristocrats in handing out top government jobs and created a meritocratic and corruption free civil service. A survey of social trust ( as opposed to trust in immediate family ) showed the Nordics in leading positions. Economists say that high levels of trust result in lower transaction costs. But its virtue go beyond that. Citizens pay their taxes and play by the rules. The world values survey, which has been monitoring values in over 100 countries since 1981, says that the Nordics are the world`s biggest believers in individual autonomy. They regard as the main job of state as promoting individual autonomy and social mobility. Universal free education allows students of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. Universal day care for children makes it possible for both parents to work full-time. Economists frequently express puzzlement about the Nordic recent economic success, given that their government are still so big. But it need to be adjusted to allow for the benefits of honesty and efficiency. Sweden´s economy today is flying better than it has done for decades.

Democratic Innovations for Engaging and Empowering Citizens

       This post is a summary of a article published at http://www.ucc.ie/en/, in 2010. The title is above.

       Research shows that people have become more and more disenchanted with the traditional institutions of representative government, detached from political parties, and disillusioned with old forms of civic engagement and participation. In response, in recent years there has been growing interest not only in increasing participation, but also in the quality and form of the engagement between citizens through the use of direct, deliberative and participatory democratic mechanisms. It is argued that if the decision-making process is inclusive and dialogue between citizens is unconstrained, it will lead to greater understanding of different perspectives, more informed debate and decisions that are widely accepted by participants.

     WHAT IS A JURY OF CITIZENS?

       A citizens` jury can be described as a tool that brings together a small group of citizens who deliberate on a particular issue and produce recommendations in the form of a written report. The ultimate aim of this jury is not to usurp the decision-making power of elected officials but rather to ensure that they have a comprehensive understanding of public opinion when they exercise that power.

WHAT IS PARTICIPATORY BUDGETING?

      It involves an annual cycle of three levels of citizens participation: popular assemblies; district budget forums; and a municipal budget council. In the spring of each year, popular assemblies are held in each of the city`s districts. At this meeting participants vote on the priority issues for investment in the city as a whole and elect delegates to district budget forums. The delegates work together with the city administration to translate neighbourhood priority lists into an overall list of investment priorities.

          WHAT IS A ASSEMBLY OF CITIZENS?        

       A citizens`s assembly is a deliberative innovation that brings together a ramdomly selected group of citizens to deliberate on a policy issue and develop recommendations on it. A wide variety of issues such as electoral systems, education, health, transport and telecommunications may be discussed. Assemblies can take place at a national or local level. For example: The British Columbia Assembly was set up in 2004 to investigate electoral reform and recommend an electoral system for the province. It contained 160 randomly selected citizens and divided its work into three phases. In the first phase, the assembly spent a number of weekends learning about electoral systems. The second phase involved gathering evidence from citizens at public meetings held throughout the province and from written submissions. The third phase saw the citizens deliberating with one another on the advantages and disadvantages of differents systems, before taking a final vote on the option.         

         WHAT IS AN INITIATIVE?     

         An initiative allows citizens to propose a legislative measure or a constitutional amendment, if they are able to submit a petition with the required number of citizens signatures. It is a form of direct democracy. The initiative embodies the simple idea that ordinary citizens should have the right to propose and pass laws without the consent of their elected representatives. This democratic device has been seen by many to strengthen democracy. It involves the citizens more in policies that are important to them and makes the political system more accountable, transparent and efficient. The indirect initiative can strengthen the link between the people, their parliament and the executive.  Under the direct initiative, a measure is put directly to a vote after being submitted by a petition. Under indirect initiatives, a proposal is initially referred to the legislature; where can be improved, adapted or rejected, it can then be put to a popular vote. However, this can only happen once further signatures have been collected.

       

LXI - The Eternal Value of Privacy

           This post is a summary of two articles written by the same author, Bruce Schneier. The first one, with the title above, published at http://www.wired.com/, on May 18,2006. The other, with the title of, "Web snooping is a dangerous move." published at http://www.cnn.com/, on September 29, 2010.

          The most common retort against privacy advocates, by those in favor of cameras, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures, is this line: "If you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"  Possible answer: " Because you might do something wrong with my information." They accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It is not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect. Two proverbs say it best: "Who watches the watchers?" and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies. Whoever they happen to be at the time. Privacy protect us from abuses by those in power, even if we are doing nothing wrong. Privacy is a basic human need. A future in which privacy would face constant assault was so alien to the framers of the constitution that it never occurred to them to call privacy as an explicit right. Privacy was inherent to the nobility of their being and their cause. Of course, being watched in your own home was so unreasonable. You could watched convicted criminals, not free citizens. You ruled your own home. It is intrinsic to the concept of liberty. If we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of own uniqueness. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable. How many of us have paused during conversation, maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context. This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is the life in former East Germany. And it is our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives. Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign attack or under domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that is why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.

         President Obama will seek sweeping laws enabling law enforcement to more easily eavesdrop on the internet. Technologies are changing and modern digital systems are not as easy to monitor as traditional telephones. The government wants to force companies to redesign their communications systems and information networks to facilitate surveillance. The proposal may seem extreme, but unfortunately, it is not unique. Just a few months ago, the governments of U.A.E ( United Arab Emirates ) and Saudi Arabia threatened to ban BlackBerry devices unless the company made eavesdropping easier. China has already built a massive surveillance system to better control its citizens. Formerly reserved for totalitarian countries, this wholesale surveillance of citizens has moved into the democratic world as well. Governments like Sweden, Canada and U.K. are debating laws giving their police new powers of internet surveillance. These laws are dangerous, both for citizens of China and citizens of Western democracies. Forcing companies to redesign their communications products and services to facilitate government eavesdropping reduces privacy and liberty, that is obvious. But the laws also make us less safe. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and the people you do not. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured. Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected internet data or eavesdrop our conversations? These risks are not theoretical. After September 11, the NSA ( National Security Agency ) built a surveillance infractructure to eavesdrop on telephone calls and e-mails within the U.S. Although rules stated that only non-Americans and international phone calls were to be listened to, actual practice did not always match those rules. NSA analysts collected more data than they were authorized to and used the system to spy on famous people. Surveillance free systems protect the lives of people in totalitarian countries around the world. They allow people to exchange ideas even when the government wants to limit free exchange. They power citizen journalism, political movements and social change. For example, anonymity of twitter saved the lives of Irarian dissidents. No matters what the eavesdroppers say, these systems cost too much and put us all at greater risk.

Pearson Launches " The Learning Curve "

     This post is a summary of a report published, http://thelearningcurve.pearson.com/, on November 2012.

     The report provides policy lessons and internationally comparable data on education alongside economic and social data from 40 countries in a accessible, open-source database. The databank will enable researchers and policymakers to connect education inputs and outcomes with wider social and economic outcomes more easily than before. Educators might hope that this or other similar bodies of research would yield the "holy grail": identification of the input, or set of inputs, that above all else leads to better educational results wherever it is applied. Alas, if this report makes nothing else clear, it is that no such magic bullets exist at an international level. Nonetheless, our research, which is also based on insights gathered from experts across the world, provides some definite signposts. Following are its highlights:

     1) Finland and South Korea emerge as the "education superpowers" in some ways. it is hard to imagine two more different system: the latter is characterised as test-driven and rigid, with students putting in extra work time; the Finish system is more relaxed and flexible. Though shows that both countries develop high-quality teachers, value accountability and have a moral mission that underlines education efforts.

      2) Income matters, but culture matter more, is the analysis suggest that, more important than money, is the level of support for education within the surrounding culture. While there is no doubt that money invested in education reaps rewards, cultural changes around education and ambition is equally, if not more important in promoting better educational outcomes.

       3) Good teachers are essential and need respect, there is no substitute for good teachers. The impact of good teachers extends beyond positive educational outcomes and can be linked to positive societal factors, such as lower levels of teenage pregnancy. Creating the best teachers is about more than paying a good salary. The best performing countries attract top talents, train teachers throughout their careers and allow them freedom too.

         John Fallon, Pearson`s chief executive, said: "education drivers success at an individual and national level. But when it comes to improving education Pearson is trying to illuminate, understanding on what really works, and why. We need to open up the black box of education data and what really drives learning outcomes, in order to help teachers and policy-makers base their work on evidence."  Michael Barber, Pearson`s chief education advisor, said: "we are urging all governments to commit to recording and sharing more data, so that globally we can really understand what works, equipping teachers and schools with the tools they need to produce students who shape the economies and societies of the futures and we are making this data open to contribute to the debate."

                                 2ºSouth Korea    17ºUSA      24ºItaly     33ºChile    39ºBrazil

HDI                                    0.91               0.94           0.87            0.82        0.73

PISA                                   541.2           496.4        485.9           439.3      400.9

Pub expend/pupil as % GDP   22.2%       22%          25.3%         15.3%     21.1%    

School life expectancy           17.2             16.7         16.2            15.2         14.2

Graduation rate 3º level          63%            38.7%      31.%         24.1%       15.1%

Pupil/teacher ratio(primary)    20.9             13.6         10.3           22            21.3