European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index

by Colman
Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:17:50 AM EDT

Ireland has been rated the fifth most desirable country to live in, according to an annual UN table published today.
The UN Human Development Index again puts sub-Saharan African states at the bottom.
Rich, free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland making up the first five. Ireland was rated fourth last year, eighth the previous year and 17th in 2000.
The United States slipped to 12th place from eighth last year.
Irish GDP is $38,505, fourth in the world. Life expectancy in Ireland is 78.4, which is 26th on the list. Japanese have the longest life expectancy - 82.3 years - and Zambians the lowest, at 40.5. (Irish Times)

See, free-markets win even on alternative measures to GDP like HDI.

But something just doesn't seem right here: "Rich, free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland making up the first five."

What's wrong with that picture?

Maybe this will help:

Retail staff at the Argos chain are set to stage a one day strike over pay on Saturday.
The strike could close the company's 31 Irish branches, unless tomorrow's talks at the National Implementation Body break the deadlock between management and the Mandate trade union.
Until recently, Argos had paid staff increases above existing national wage agreements.
However, the company recently decided to revert to paying only the terms of the national wage agreement, Towards 2016. (RTÉ News)

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index | 54 comments (54 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

Free market implies good. Therefore good implies free market.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:26:40 AM EDT

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

I'm actually a bit puzzled that HDI doesn't use GNI instead - for some countries (including Ireland), GNI is noticeably lower than GDP, and it's GNI that eventually determines the level of material comfort.

by Sargon on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:47:24 AM EDT

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

GNI is also insufficient: it's still only a measure of the rate of change of wealth, not the wealth. Most of northern Europe is still wealthier than Ireland in many ways, because they've had high income for a long time and invested it into infrastructure.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:58:18 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

Here I have to disagree - the wealth doesn't matter too much. Ultimately, it's the broadly defined consumption over the life span of all currently living inhabitants of the country (leaving aside unborn, as is usually done in standard measures anyway).

For the country as a whole, of course, the stock of wealth ultimately determines the flow of consumption that could be derived. However, there are so many uncertainties regarding it (if we believe predictions of a decade left until the climate tipping point, for example, what's the value of wealth accumulated in coal generation? what's housing stock of a country worth? what are the political constraints inherent in a particular wealth distribution?) and the way it could be translated into the current consumption (a "derivative"), that I'd rather look at medium-size rolling window moving average of HDI with GNI replacing GDP to get some idea of underlying trends.

by Sargon on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 05:49:50 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

Ultimately, it's the broadly defined consumption over the life span of all currently living inhabitants

hmmm.

my government does not provide security, I buy guns and burglar alarms and bars for my windows. more consumption. good!

my government does nothing to regulate the release of toxins into my food, water, and air. despite buying my own water filter system (more consumption: good!) to protect my family from contaminated water, I am diagnosed with cancer or emphysema or a neurological disorder and have to buy expensive treatments and pharmaceuticals to stay alive. more consumption. good!

my house is broken into and my TV and stereo and computer are stolen so I have to buy new ones. more consumption. good!

my public school system is falling into bankruptcy and disrepair so I enroll my child in an expensive private school. more consumption. good!

my point is obvious: simple measures of "consumption" are simply insane, even in the absence of true energy and environmental costs. not all consumption is the same.

some consumption increases my quality of life in some immediate way, even if shallow or temporary: I buy a rack of [pastured organic!] lamb and make a really memorable dinner for friends and family; I have the local shop tune up my bicycle for a much more pleasant and fun ride; I buy a book that keeps me fascinated for hours; I buy a nice comfortable chair to read in. other consumption is done merely to maintain an accustomed level of convenience: my hard drive dies so I replace it, my cell phone dies so I replace it. and yet other consumption is done to recover from or try to fend off disaster or misfortune: I have to get my bike mended because some jerk in an SUV sideswiped me; I have to buy medications and treatments for injury or illness; I have to replace stolen stuff; I have to spend money on defences or armaments against predation.

if categories B and C here far outweigh category A, then rising levels of consumption are bad news. they mean that products are shoddy and misfortune is commonplace. which is... actually... kinda where a lot of the industrial workforce is wrt expenditures at present.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 05:15:10 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Oh yes, it's so easy to make these arguments.

my public school system is falling into bankruptcy and disrepair so I enroll my child in an expensive private school. more consumption. good!

First, your reason is not the only one people send their kids to private schools: for example, some could be - oh horror - religiously minded. Whatever you or I think about religion, it's their choice.

Second, if the public school system is falling into disrepair, it probably means not enough money is collected to run it. And some of that money goes into the private school system instead. What's the basic difference - unless you are willing to argue that the public schools are inherently more efficient, and this reallocation is a net loss to the society. The difference is at most of second order even in this case.

my point is obvious: simple measures of "consumption" are simply insane, even in the absence of true energy and environmental costs. not all consumption is the same.

Yes, true. There are "goods" and "bads", with tobacco being a best example. Even if we take care of second-hand smoking externality by taxing tobacco, and make smokers pay more into the health insurance system because their treatment costs more, is this consumption "good" for them? Regretfully, that's what these people decide to do, and decide to spend their income on. There's no way you could avoid classifying this as consumption. What is necessary, of course, is that proper taxes make the private cost of this consumption reflect the true social cost. But this is a public policy issue, not in competence of the statistical bodies.

There are many other examples of things that according to some value judgement are pure waste - watching Hollywood movies, eating fast food, donating your time or money to charity, or driving a sports car are examples for people I know. Still, other people do value them. Some people buy guns for pure fun and because gun possession satisfies them - probably, in a way you or I would enjoy a good book or a nice picture on the wall.

if categories B and C here far outweigh category A, then rising levels of consumption are bad news. they mean that products are shoddy and misfortune is commonplace. which is... actually... kinda where a lot of the industrial workforce is wrt expenditures at present.

If this is indeed the case, we will probably see this in the aggregate levels of consumption: if you have to buy a gun to protect from predation, running a small business is probably risky as well, and whole country's income will go down. Just read De Soto. So, again, I don't quite see how your argument is inconsistent with what I was saying.

Actually, consumption could be a better measure than GNI, because inequality in consumptions tends to be significantly less than in income, thus aggregation is less of an issue.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 05:02:36 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 2)

some could be - oh horror - religiously minded

May indeed be horror -- to the child...

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 06:56:49 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 4)

actually my point was not (for once) about making moral assessments of the ways people spend money, just drawing an (imho essential and overlooked) distinction between spending money in a discretionary way, for pleasure or benefit, and "having to" spend money to compensate for injuries, misfortunes, crimes, degradation of the quality of life, etc. all yr examples above fall into Cat A for the purposes of my argument here; though we could wrangle about their true-cost to the society at large and hence their desirability as consumption behaviours, they are gratifying to the individual making the expenditure, and hence not Cat B or Cat C (red-queen expenses and damage-control expenses).

the sports car is a Cat A expenditure -- fun, pleasing, gratifying; the hospital bill after the car crash is a Cat C. in many cases (certainly seems to generalise to society as a whole), an excess of Cat A leads to a rising tide of Cat B and Cat C. actually this seems axiomatic if we're on a finite planet, which we are.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 01:00:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

"...more consumption. good!..."

I love your examples. On the supply side:

Low pay, less leisure, more production. Good!

We must not count comfortable leisure time as a valued product -- it would make growth worshipers' heads explode. Messy. (But on second thought: ....more cleanup work. Good!...)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 11:16:55 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Ultimately, it's the broadly defined consumption over the life span of all currently living inhabitants of the country

Why, in the context of something like the HDI, does this matter more than wealth? By that measure a half-starved guy sitting on the earthen floor spending €10000 a year on illicit drugs would be better off than someone in a comfortable house spending €1000 a year. Why is consumption necessarily king?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 05:10:21 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

You could use wealth to bomb other people, or buy drugs, or educate kids. I simply can't see why wealth is preferable to consumption on ethical grounds.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 05:44:40 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Huh? Ethical grounds?

Created by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Human Development Index is a summary composite index that measures a country's average achievements in three basic aspects of human development: longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard of living."

My point is that wealth is probably more important to a decent standard of income than instantaneous consumption, if that's what you're trying to measure. Of course, measuring wealth is hard, so we don't.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 05:59:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 4)

I remember reading a lecture delivered by the FT or WSJ or some such on "poverty in the third world" which insisted that the problem with people in the third world was that -- gasp -- they actually owned their family homes. If they would just mortgage those homes to the hilt, the writer opined, so much "wealth" would be created that it would lift them right out of poverty...

... and ownership of all that real estate would pass into the hands of industrial-northern financiers. Just coincidentally, of course.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 01:14:11 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

The fact that in the "west", most people have to procure housing for themselves, rather than getting it from their family, is certainly a very strong motivation for wage slavery.

If people didn't have mortgages and rents to pay, they'd be much less willing to stay in the rat race...

The concept that socialisation has to be linked to business relationships is a great victory for business relationships, not for socialisation...

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 08:32:17 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

Wealth doesn't matter for a standard of living - it's just correlated with it. Even a housing stock - part of wealth - influences standard of living because it provides housing services. These services could become much less valuable - like functionalist architecture of 70es which once was so popular but now seems so ugly - which would means that the corresponding wealth is much less.

I used "ethical grounds" because most of the counter-arguments against using consumption seem to be grounded in ethics.

And I was talking about a medium-run average of consumption, not instantaneous one. It's possible to maintain high consumption standards for some time by recklessly letting your capital stock (wealth) depreciate, or by exploiting natural resources. That's why a longer view is needed.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 07:17:52 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

A longer view which isn't given by GNI or GDP, surely?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 07:22:59 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

I could invest 45% of my income - or none. In several years, the consequences will be very different, but I still have the same GNI or GDP today.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 07:41:20 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Sorry, are you praising GNI/GDP as a measure or damning it? Or are you reading me as supporting GNI in the face of GDP? Or are the anti-biotics just confuddling me completely?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 07:59:45 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

a) I'm saying that GNI is better than GDP, in my view, and don't understand why HDI isn't using it instead.

b) as ultimately material well-being is related to consumption, this is the measure that should be used - the integral of it over time, anyway.

c) it's very easy to damn GDP but hard to come up with viable alternatives that could be used in all countries, that's why it's used despite the shortcomings. Just like the democracy, you see.

by Sargon on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 08:13:11 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 1)

a. Sounds reasonable.

b. I could go for the integral of GNI as telling us something more useful.

c. I'm not convinced that hiding the subtleties of reality behind a single index is going to tell us a damn thing. To that extent, HDI is just as intrinsically flawed as GDP - neither mean anything much out of context.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 29th, 2007 at 08:27:15 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

I think for the purposes of this discussion, wealth is irrelevant unless it is being turned into consumption, or it causes savings (for instance, owning a house saves you rent). Wealth could allow one to estimate the capacity to meet future needs through consumption.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:11:30 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Why is it irrelevant?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:47:10 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Take the house example. The wealth represented by the house has an effect on consumption and well-being insofar as it saves you the cost of renting an equivalent property. So the amount of wealth (market value of assets?) is not so important as the income or savings from opportunity costs that can be made from it.

IANAE, and all that.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:51:46 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

Well, a decent level of living requires suitable shelter? Then the house contributes directly to that, as do its contents. If you have sufficient wealth you can have a decent standard of living without all that much consumption.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:56:42 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

But if your wealth consists of a big fat piece of jewellery, it doesn't have the same rent-equivalent value to you.

So, yes, I understand your argument about infrastructure. But take the UK, where the infrastructure hasn't been kept up to the point where, even if it's still a "wealthier" country than Ireland, it costs a lot of money just to move around and this is reflected in the GDP (PPP) albeit in a different way from how lack of infrastructure affects Ireland.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 12:04:13 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

From your list (4.00 / 2)

it would seem that being far, far north is the main source of desirability.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:51:23 AM EDT

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Or far, far south ... but anyway, its clearly based on being further from the equator than most of your neighbours.

Heck, I'd not be surprised if Seth Efrica topped the list amongst African countries.

So, here I am in Ravenna. Where exactly was the Rubicon, again?

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 05:43:20 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (none / 1)

No, it's having a free-market economy like Norway.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 04:59:05 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Norway has a free market economy. It also has redistributive policies to prevent the rise of feudalism.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 05:57:28 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Their attitude to social justice/ inequality/ redistribution is part of it.

But there's also the Norwegian attitude to land ownership and use, which is one of the principal issues they have with the EU's approach to property ownership and the free market.

Norwegians fundamentally do not allow "absentee" landlordism - although it has gradually been insinuated as the "Anglo Disease" has crept in.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 06:56:02 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Seems odd to me. The EU does very little in the area of private law such as land ownership. It's a mistake to think that a country could not have its own policies in that area. Such as setting limits to the amount of land that can be owned, or ownership of land without presence on the land. The only thing the EU would demand is that the legislation does not discriminate between Norwegians and EU citizens.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 11:51:24 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 4)

The Norwegian 'Odelsrett' does discriminate against EU citizens, and against ordinary Norwegian citizens for that matter.

Odelsrett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Odelsrett is an ancient Scandinavian allodial title which has survived in Norway as odelsrett

This law has been an important building block on which a stable and thriving farming community has been instrumental in sustaining local communities all over the country.

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:21:12 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 4)

If you'd just reverse the way this is done - make the Odelsrett a standard clause in a contract, instead of a customary right, and presto! you have entered contractual freedom bliss - I don't see how the EU could do anything against it. There are many ways in the law to get to the same result.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:30:53 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 3)

Well, that's not a million miles away from my thesis that a "consensual" - partnership-based and "two -way" - legal protocol can assimilate any national jurisdiction and their "one way" imposed "Law" and "Equity", simply by reference in the agreement.

That is why I regard partnership-based "Open Corporate" (eg UK LLP) agreements as a form of "Legal XML" capable of linking disparate jurisdictions and legal persons in the same way that XML links disparate hardware and software.

The Semantic Web: Law is Code.

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:51:53 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Those are very interesting links!

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:32:45 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Thank you...

These old Viking laws are still FUNDAMENTAL to the Norwegian way of life, and no EU law should be allowed to 'dilute' them, IMO.

It may be a better EU if they adopted them...;-)

And by the way, they also apply in Orkney and Shetland as Udal title...

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 02:43:28 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

I also agree abut the climate's influence on how societies develop. In the boreal area, for all animals including humans, there is always an energy balance - if you expend more energy getting food than you get from the food itself, then in the winter, you're dead.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 03:07:17 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 4)

A fuller explanation and discussion of these laws is worth a diary.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 03:10:40 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 5)

I know...a diary has been 'brewing' in my head for a while...provoked, perhaps, by the rather 'Central European view of the world' which is often expressed on ET.

I would suggest that a better understanding of how societies have developed in the Nordic countries may give food for thought to the (still, IMO) Empire building attitudes of the larger EU countries.

Maybe I should sit down one day...

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 03:31:07 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (none / 1)

Perhaps it's posession of snow that does it

Fortunately the world appears to have passed peak snow so the US will not be at so much of a disadvantage.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 05:48:15 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 6)

ceebs:

Perhaps it's posession of snow that does it

I guess you meant that as a joke, but I believe there may be an element of truth there.

A harsh climate may have something to do with how Norwegian/Nordic societies have developed.

It is necessary to co-operate and share to survive in these conditions. Add to the climate 'problems', the fact that only 4% of Norway's landmass is agricultural land - and therefore hugely valuable to a community - and you will understand that we need laws to ensure that land is farmed. These laws have worked well, and have ensured that we still have a self-owning farming community - although the farms are very small compared to most in Europe.

The EU claims these land laws violate 'human rights', and probably a few other free market rules...(enough said...I better not start another anti-EU discussion...hides...)

by Solveig (link2ageataol.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 07:41:01 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 3)

Solveig: A harsh climate may have something to do with how Norwegian/Nordic societies have developed.

Sven something rather similar once ago:

Sven Triloqvist:

Neither should one forget the deep psychological historical effect of winter. If you didn't prepare for winter, you died. Food and energy had to be stored or preserved. The elements also had tp be respected.
Though this may seem trite, I believe that this 'looking, planning ahead' and respect for nature are essential ingredients in the Nordic psyche leading to the attributes described in this diary.

As I mention in response to Sven, there is conventional wisdom in Japan as well that very limited natural resources, geography, climate, and frequent earthquakes had enormous influence on the development of Japanese culture.

The EU claims these land laws violate 'human rights', and probably a few other free market rules...(enough said...I better not start another anti-EU discussion...hides...)

Now I am really looking forward to that diary! (as well as ThatBritGuy's, though on a different topic.)

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 06:54:15 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (none / 1)

I'm looking forward to ThatBritGuy's Diary too.

As for Solveig, she tells she may have a title.

But the Diary itself may take a little more time, cos she's a Virgo and she likes to have her sources TIDY.....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 07:07:56 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (none / 0)

Never trust a virgo... ;-)

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 07:10:54 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (none / 1)

Now, now. Remember the standing ban on references to astrology and other things occult.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 07:42:24 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: From your list (4.00 / 2)

Naaah...it's ok, Jerome's gone to bed....

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 08:03:04 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

Human Development Report 07/08 - Fighting climate change (the whole thing, country rating is at the end)

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu

by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 08:02:51 AM EDT

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 4)

I'm not sure I understand the point being made by the main article. The existence of national wage agreements and the existence of industrial dispute resolution processes (such as the National implementation body) have been one of the main factors behind the Celtic Tiger and Ireland's gradual rise up the HDI food chain.

They have helped reduce strike rates, foster more responsible management practices, and been a major factor in attracting large scale foreign direct investment in Ireland - including many of the best and most hi-tech employers in the world.

Sure, there is also greater inequality in Ireland than in many of the more long standing wealthy European countries, and social development has certainly lagged behind. But Ireland does have one of the highest minimum wage rates in the world, one of the best (relatively) free education systems, and has invested huge sums in improving the public health system - without much actual improvement to date.

The fact that a multi-national retailer, long noted for paying slightly above the going rate, now wants to pay just the nationally negotiated minimum increases in pay - at a time of increasing unemployment and competitive pressures - is hardly remarkable or indicative of why Ireland is moving up the HDI.

I'm not sure to what degree the HDI takes income inequality into account, but there is no doubt that the very rapid rise in Ireland's GDP/capita - whilst by no means equally distributed - has certainly benefited almost all sectors of society - witness the reduction in unemployment rate from 18% in the late '80s to 4% now.

There will always be an argument between the proponents of theories of relative and absolute inequality/poverty but lets not forget that the wealth has to be produced before it can be redistributed, and Ireland's reduction of foreign debt as a % of GDP from c. 100% to c. 30% now alone means that less of a burden is being transfered from the older generation to the new.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 11:53:13 AM EDT

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 4)

Colman's point was that the article's author chose to characterise those on top as "rich, free-market countries". The important role of unions and negotiations in most of those five countries, including Ireland, somehow doesn't fit with the 'free market' spin. Why not "rich, welfare state countries" or "rich, social market economy countries"?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 12:01:17 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 2)

Oh, and another welcome to ET!

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 12:03:30 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

Many thanks DoDo and afew. I wasn't responding so much to the Irish Times' piece as to Colman's critique of it which challenged not the "free market" in the title, but the fact that a foreign multinational employer was applying the "socially" negotiated wage rate rise to their employees, and not a higher free market one as it had in the past.

My point was that labour market conditions have changed dramatically in the past few months, and a "free market" negotiated pay rise might now be actually lower than the socially negotiated one. Hence my reference to the relatively high Irish minimum wage (c. €9/hr.)

I would have thought what was interesting about the HDI list was that it was precisely those countries with a relatively strong "social market", state economic planning, and a consensual approach to social conflict resolution that have done particularly well - with the possible exception of Australia which has now also moved in that direction. The U.S. with much more of a free market bias under the Republicans has actually moved down the list.

It seems that - contrary to some ideologists - free market and human development are not quite the same thing!

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 12:21:37 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 3)

You need to read "See, free-markets win even on alternative measures to GDP like HDI." in a voice of exaggerated sarcasm, I'm afraid.

It seems that - contrary to some ideologists - free market and human development are not quite the same thing!

Quite right. But the media will report them as if they are regardless.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 12:36:38 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (4.00 / 2)

I'm not sure I understand the point being made by the main article. The existence of national wage agreements and the existence of industrial dispute resolution processes (such as the National implementation body) have been one of the main factors behind the Celtic Tiger and Ireland's gradual rise up the HDI food chain.

That was rather the point I was trying to make. Hardly "free-market" policies though, are they?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Nov 28th, 2007 at 12:09:35 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index (none / 0)

European Tribune - Comments - Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index

But something just doesn't seem right here: "Rich, free-market countries dominate the top places, with Iceland, Norway, Australia, Canada and Ireland making up the first five."
What's wrong with that picture?

Well, it's clearly wrong that the defining characteristic common to those five countries is that they are "free-market economies". Americans call Canada "our Socialist Neighbour to the North". Iceland, Norway and Canada are all sparsely-populated Nordic countries. Ireland and Australia are also sparsely populated (Ireland the least sparsely, but still...).

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Dec 4th, 2007 at 11:04:39 AM EDT

Free market economies dominate UN HDI Index | 54 comments (54 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]