Why does Thomas Friedman want us to look at Singapore?

[1932]

I just started reading Amartya Sen's 1999 book Development as Freedom.

Sen's book argues that, rather than measuring development in terms of GNP or income, it should be measured in terms of freedoms. He gives examples of where GNP/Income disguise other problems. For example, black men in Harlem have much shorter life expectancies than men in many African nations even though black men in Harlem are much wealthier than in those nations where they are outlived. How can you be better off because you're wealthier but enjoy half as many years on earth that other people enjoy?

Sen talks about democratic freedoms and how they contribute to overall freedom and well-being, regardless of whether they produce a nation with a high GNP and high incomes. (He says that a country must have both democratic processes and and outcomes for "democracy" to produce good results for citizens).

Sen discusses Singapore in this context. Apparently some economists use Singapore as an example of how a nation doesn't need freedoms so long as it provides high incomes for its citizens. Sen says that, in fact, there isn't any evidence that authoritarian politics help economic growth (and that empirical evidence strongly suggests that economic growth is more a matter of a friendler economic climate than of a harsher political system).

Friedman's article in the New York Times recently is generally an argument that an authoritarian government is capable of taking good care of citizens during crises like the one in New Orleadns. However, I think it's important to keep in mind that nothing about authoritarian governments, according to Sen, inherently provides better lives for its citizens. In fact, according to the book The Health of Nations, which is the book which, because it cites Sen, inspired me to read Development and Freedom, there's a strong implication that it's the fact that everybody is in the same boat and that there aren't huge disparities in wealth, that encourages a society to look after everyone and not leave the poor to fend for themselves (and might be a better explanation for at least why China and Cuba are able to evacuate 100s of thousands of citizens in situations like the one in N.O.).

Incidently, Sen points out that no country with a democracy, as of 1999 (when the book was published), ever suffered from a famine. The nations today at the top of the famine league are North Korea and Sudan -- two countries with dictatorships. In fact, countries that suffered famines during colonial years then did not have famines as soon as they switched to democracies. One explanation, according to Sen, is because democracies have to respond to the people. Also, dictators don't know how the people live. They never suffer the poverty of the rest of the nation when times are lean.

Here's Friedman's article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

[ClintonTyree]

1. This sounds like bushamerika........

"dictators don't know how the people live. They never suffer the poverty of the rest of the nation when times are lean". Yep, describes the bush family to a tee!

[NewJeffCT]

2. China has huge disparaties in wealth

If you go to a city on the eastern seaboard, and saw the lives of many people there, you'd could probably change just the people and it wouldn't be much different than a major city in the US or Europe in terms of lifestyle of the people... it's just that a US city is probably much more diverse - Shanghai bills itself as an international city, but even when I was in their "international district", it was still 99.9% Chinese faces (as opposed to 99.99% outside that area). People there have big screen TVs with home theater systems in their homes/apartments; everybody has cell phones and computers; etc.

However, just outside the big cities are run down tenement structures that house thousands and thousands in dreadful poverty. And, moving West, you have 10s of millions living in terrible poverty as well.

So, while the authoritarian government can evacuate a million people fairly well, it is not providing for all their citizens equally - though, they have moved the equivalent of the US population out of poverty the past 25 years.

[1932]

4. Do you know what the official income inequality measures are for

China relative to western countires?

There are two, right? Gini and another?

[NewJeffCT]

11. to be honest

i have no clue of anything official, other than pulling out stats from either Newsweek or Time a few months back... but, the 300 million people in the eastern part of China make about $3,000 per year, if I recall... while the 800 million or so in western China make like less than $800 per year. I think the north China section was a little wealthier than western, but not much.

[1932]

16. Sen makes an interesting comparison between China and India

He says that China developing much faster and much farther than India in the last couple years since both have embraced market, unplanned economies because China had better infrastructure. China had educated and provided health care for many more citizens. When India began the switch to a market economy, only half the population was literated, and since then, they haven't made much improvement.

However, India (being a democracy) has never had a famine since ending colonial rule, whereas China had one of the worst famines in history in the 50s and 60s.

Sen talks about this as evidence of the proposition that building infrastructure can precede growth and contribute to development.

This reminds me of somethign from the New York Times about the Norwegian elections. The NYT spun those elections as Norway rejecting growth and ratcheting down in exchange for a welfare state. According to Sen, investing in infrastructure and social services is a way to guarantee that development can continue.

[MADem]

3. Because Thomas Friedman has his head up his ass, maybe??

If everything is so friken luverly in Singapore, why do they have a bitch of a terra problem??? The difference between them and us is that their 911 hasn't happened--yet....

http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020219ag.htm
Singapore has detained 13 alleged members of the Indonesian-based militant group Jemaah Islamiah, linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, who are accused of planning the Singapore raids.

Officials said they had evidence that the group was planning to bomb US warships at Changi naval base and attack a bus carrying US military personnel. They said the group had also checked out diplomatic targets, including the Australian and British high commissions and the Israeli embassy.

And they have PIRATES, too (ahoy, matey):
A Hercules C-130, with a combined Malaysian and Singaporean crew took off from this air base on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur. The two other states, Indonesia and Thailand are also involved in joint operations to spot pirates and potential terrorists, to prevent them from disrupting the most important maritime waterway in Asia. The narrow, 500 m (805 km) strait carries nearly all oil imports for Japan and China. http://newsblaze.com/story/20050916092021nnnn.nb/newsblaze/OPINIONS/Opinions.html

Ole Tommy has gone temporarily native...he might not be so thrilled if he finds himself breaking a minor law and getting caned across the ass as his punishment!!!

[Gloria]

5. Singapore--the place where they'll throw you in jail if you chew

gum in public? Whatever....they are extremely tight on little stuff like this....it's a very controlled place...

[Maple]

6. Well if you'd read the article

you'd know that he was talking about accountable government, and using their heads and science and community.

[1932]

8. I read the article.

And I also read about Singapore in Sen's book.

And I think Friedman's article opens the door to the point that Sen makes.

[Maple]

9. Two different subjects

[1932]

12. Friedman is talking about the ability of authoritarian governments

to provide for their citizens' safety. Sen is talking about the ability of authoritarian governments to provide for their citizens' well-being.

Perhaps Friedman isn't doing advocacy with this piece, but one extension of this argument is that, perhaps if Americans gave up some freedoms, they'd have a government that's better able to protect them. Or maybe another extension of the argument is that the problem with the government's failure to protect citizens in N.O. is that we have too many freedoms.

Of course, who knows whether Friedman has an agenda. Maybe this is a straightforward crticism of our system. I don't know. But nobody is ever hurt by having more information, and it looks like Sen's book is going to be very interesting.

[Maple]

14. Friedman is discussing globalization

as he always does. He has no interest in stifling freedom...the opposite in fact.

If you want to know Friedman's agenda try 'The World Is Flat', his latest book.

[1932]

15. It's in my pile of books to read. To argue that he's not talking about

freedom is to look at Friedman with blinders.

Friedman argues generally that market liberalization promotes freedom because it increases income and GDP (and he sort of suggesting that an authoritarian government in Singapore is a model of success).

Sen argues that that kind of orthodoxy about market liberalization misses a big point about how the sort of development Friedman likes is actually not working to make life better for a lot of people all over the globe.

[Touchdown]

7. He likes a good caning,. He does!

[Eric J in MN]

10. He writes that America is "self-indulgent and slothful."

Thomas Friedman on Wednesday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html

"There is something troublingly self-indulgent and slothful about America today - something that Katrina highlighted and that people who live in countries where the laws of gravity still apply really noticed."

[1932]

13. I guess we need a more authoritarian government to whip us into shape?

I tend to think that Americans are good, and it's conservative policies that deprive us of the mechanisms and opportunity to express our willingness to work hard.