ALF 9, Conference 2017 in Mumbai, India

The Asia Liberty Forum (ALF) is an annual 2-days conference jointly sponsored by the Atlas Network (US), Center for Civil Society (CCS, India) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF, Germany). Five ALF events so far from 2013-2017 and I have attended the last 3 -- 2015 in Kathmandu, Nepal; 2016 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; and 2017 in Mumbai, India.

Some photos of the ALF 2017 last week, February 10-11 held at The Leela Mumbai Hotel. Below, Baishali Bomjan, a superwoman at the CCS, formally opening the conference on Day 1.

 

Speed networking, a traditional Atlas conference activity where participants introduce to each other one on one for 2 minutes, then move to the next person in front. Notice the background, "Freedom" translated in various Asian languages.

About 250 people registered, some they come and go. About 200 max at any one time.

Among the tweets on Day 1 under the hashtag #AsiaLF17:

"Trade and exchange is not a zero sum game ... both sides can be better off"…

"When you have free markets & property rights, you open up lot of opportunities" - Linda Whetstone

"After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we were intoxicated, thinking that our ideas had won...

I am a free market fundamentalist, I am also a democratic fundamentalist....

Populist trends did not happen on their own, they have been rising over the last ten years.... 

There is a huge political convergence that has taken placeThe traditional left and right agree on one point- use the state." -- Barun Mitra

Why #property rights matter for #India's poor: Give them rights and they turn rocks into a garden. -- #liberal activist Ambrish Mehta

One more #liberal bonmot: "Government is like air, it is all around you in #India." -- Rajesh Jain @freeabillion 

"Technology equalises power of communication and lowers role of money ... there would be no Tea Party without Facebook... "Every human being is fundamentaly a #liberal at heart. #Freedom is built into our DNA." -- Matt Kibbe @mkibbe

"why do we still turn our backs to private schools despite data that these schools are preferred choice for many?" -- Brajesh Mehra

Our panel on Deregulation, 4pm of Day 1.

From left: Vivek, Syed Mizanur, Seetha, Alex, me.

"Incentives for politicians have to be changed; data doesn't support reelection for good eco stewardship" --  Vivek Dehejia

"Standardised containers did more to reduce trade costs than lowering trade tariffs…  Exits are important for Liberty because it disciplines firms." Alex Tabarrok

My 19-slides presentation, Electricity deregulation and re-regulations in Asia, Philippines in particular.

My article in BusinessWorld last February 15 about the ALF17, The public sector is the private sector of those in public offices. It is reposted at the EFN Asia website.

A good keynote speech during the farewell dinner, Day 2 of ALF given by Amit Varma, The landscape of freedom in India.

Thanks to Simon Lee for this photo, with Parth Shah, President of CCS. I met Parth for the 1st time in April 2004 during the Mackinac Leadership Conference in Michigan conducted by Lawrence Reed, Joe Lehman, other great Mackinac guys. Andrew Work, Ellen Sandig Cain, Manali Shah were also our batchmates in that great conference. Andrew is represented in this photo by Simon who was 1 of 3 co-founders of the The Lion Rock Institute in HK.

Below: standing are me and Barun Mitra. Seated are Mohit Satyanand and Julian Morris. In June 2005, the International Policy Network (IPN, UK) organized the Global Development Forum in London, a conference in support of more free trade, less aid. It was held 2 weeks before the G8 summit in Scotland where the main agenda was more foreign aid (or simply more govt to govt aid) to "make poverty history". IPN Exec Dir then was Julian, I and Mohit Satyanand were 2 of about 6 speakers.

Flashback 2014, EFN Asia Conference in HK. Parth, Andrew and me, batchmates in Mackinac Conference 2004. Barun joined us.

I am very thankful to EFN Asia for providing me the travel grant to attend ALF 2016 (KL) and ALF 2017. Thank you Pett, Siggi. My attendance of ALF 2015 (Kathmandu) was courtesy of Media 9/Business 360, thank you Charu; and partly by Samriddhi, thank you Robin.
-----------

See also:

ALF 6, Panel discussion on property rights, February 23, 2016 

ALF 7, Panel on TPP, RCEP and other RTAs, March 18, 2016

ALF 8, Toast to Douglas North, March 19, 2016

EFN Asia 63, Day 1 of Conference 2016

The Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference 2016 at Dusit Thani Hotel in Makati ended last Wednesday. Thanks again FNF and EFN for another wonderful conference.

Here are some tweets from #efnasia2016 and my own thoughts about the event.

Protection of human rights is part and parcel of EU policy – Walter van Hattum, EU Delegation to the Philippines.

It's a responsibilty of businesses to respect human rights... It is state duty to protect and defend human rights in its territory.

Nobody can seriously suggest that businesses can opt in and out of respecting human rights as they wish... There is legal obligation for businesses to respect HR.

Businesses should be as transparent as possible so they will be less likely to be attacked by false news. Business leaders are often uncomfortable explaining to the public how they work. It's understandable but unwise. -- Markus Leöning, former Himan Rights Commissioner in Germany.

Increasingly populist goverments a threat to human rights and economic freedom. The pendulum has swung as globalization has failed in its promises to those who have lost out in its benefits. Food for thought. -- Frank Largo

For me, among the important human rights of the people is freedom to choose in the market place, freedom to sell or not sell, freedom to buy or not buy. Political human rights like the right or freedom from theft (especially organized criminals), murders, prosecution and harassment, that is where the state should come in.

A minimal government focused on enforcing the rule of law, enforcing contracts between and among people, is consistent with economic freedom and human rights protection. That minimal govt should have no business creating and expanding lots of endless welfarist programs. Prosperity is not an entitlement or privilege. Lazy and irresponsible have no right to a prosperous life, they deserve poverty. Politically incorrect statement, as usual.

Rule of law means the law applies equally to unequal people. So the law should apply to both rich and poor people, to big/giant and small firms. A law or contract can be written, verbal, done by govt or private entities. Basic human rights then means that people have access to such equality before the law.

Below, Rainer Heufers moderating, with Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Peter Kompalla, Rishi Sher Singh, Dr. Manzoor Ahmad in the new panel.

People's definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can also be another's sole income source... Definitions of human rights vary. What may be HR violations to some can be another's sole income source. -- Wan Saiful Wan Jan

Good point. Some westerners may consider temporary child labor as HR violation already but for some households, it is ok and necessary. If a sole family breadwinner is gone for instance, the young need to work to help sustain the family. Harsh but necessary.

Stakeholder values, not just shareholder values. -- Rishi Sher Singh

Barun Mitra tweets:

Business of business is indeed business! Inclusive of profitability for investors, benefit to consumers, add values to society.

Better protection of human rights, improved environmental quality, higher sense of justice, necessary social value additions.

Value added products, economic and social, become affordable with prosperity, and necessity in a free competitive market.

Implentating Rule of law carries cost, level of effective enforcement has to be affordable, economically socially politically. #EFNAsia2016

I think corporate branding will help global firms stay the course in HR and econ freedom protection, respecting #ruleOfLaw. Firms would dislike to be associated with bad products, bad services, bad corporate image. So they will try to be as transparent as possible, to be accountable to their products and practices. Transparency is good protection vs negative image/attacks.

Session 2 Panel speakers: H.E. Franz Jessen of EU, Dr. Lee Taekyu of KERI, and Atty. Arpee Santiago of Ateneo Human rights Center.

Govt and countries don't trade, individuals and businesses do. Govt negotiating trade treaties leading to anti-trade backlash.

Free trade is voluntary, so win win. Govt negotiations may liberalise trade, but legitimises govt in trade n economy, corruption.

Environment, labour or human rights standards in national trade treaties, focus on outcomes, give advantage to large, richer cos!

Society / govt benefit most if they adopt unilateral free trade. All politics is local, a local decision will minimise backlash. 

Govt negotiating trade, inevitably adopt export is good, import is bad outlook. Free trade is beneficial when govt has no role.

Access to internet can't be a "Right". Political rights are negative rights. Any +ive right paid for by others can't be a RIGHT.

TPP may be good agreement, but has lost legitimacy because govts. no longer carry credibility among large sections of people. -- Barun Mitra

As usual, I agree with Barun's ideas and observations: unilateral trade liberalization; countries and governments do not trade with each other, people do; so governments, national and multilateral, should step back from trade negotiations as much as possible. Let companies and people organizations negotiate with their suppliers and consumers abroad and keep prices low via low or zero tariff, minimal non-tariff barriers.

-------------

See also: EFN Asia 60, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 5, April 03, 2016
EFN Asia 61, Panel on TPP at Jeju Forum 2016, June 14, 2016
EFN Asia 62, Program for Conference 2016, Manila, November 20, 2016

EFN Asia 58, Conference 2014 in Hong Kong, part 3

Continuation of notes made by Karthik Chandra during Conference 2014. The full 25-pages notes are posted in http://efnasia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/EFN-Asia-2014-Conference-Report.pdf

----------

Day 1, November 6, 2014

(Photo, from left: Ken Scholand, moderator; Andrew Work, Barun Mitra, Thitinan Pongsudhirak)

Case Study of Hong Kong in IPRI

Michael Wong & Andrew Work

Lion Rock Institute (LRI)

• Hong Kong enjoys a special status and unique advantages. HK has legacy property rights regime rooted in the British colonial system and adds to it the economic dynamism from the Chinese.

• HK was a member of the British Commonwealth till 1997 and many HK laws are rooted in British laws. HK copyright law is one of the first in the world. After becoming the SAR under China, HK has a new IPR regime.

• HK has a mini-Constitution, which mandates that HK has to separately protect property rights in HK. This regime means that property rights recognized in HK are not automatically protected in mainland China.

• HK is also a signatory to various (international?) regimes/understandings. A comparison of HK with other countries in the IPRI rankings (and its individual subcomponents’ ranking) shows that HK is favourably ranked against several other countries like Singapore.

• One of the few countries HK is not exporting IP to is mainland China. This is because of the unfavourable IPR regime. Current developments related to new laws, etc. to PR laws – “secondary creations” issue? Issue of property rights protection versus right to freedom of speech. If done well, these IPR regime reforms can help bring in more foreign investments into HK, in the field of intellectual property.

• We also have to take note of the current developments, the “Occupy HK” Movement. This is taking place in the backdrop of certain inherent advantages and opportunities in HK. There are also definite and large threats and risks for HK – if China is not happy with the HK Movement’s demands they might deny easy access to Chinese markets.

China & Property Rights

Prof. Michael Feng, Institute for Public Affairs, China

• The Chinese Property Rights issue:

* There are certain misconceptions about the ‘Chinese Miracle’ especially that it is based on no human rights or poor human rights (for workers/labourers). But this is simply not true: the Chinese growth story includes in itself a major improvement in working conditions for the workers/labourers themselves.

* At the same time we have to take note of the other side of this story. For instance, the former World Bank Vice-President who happens to be from China had said that there is no need for property rights in China. The justification being that ownership is separate from management and good or successful companies now have different owners and managers. But this is a false argument as it does not realize that even in the example given (i.e. about well-run successful companies), the ownership is completely clear and well defined. Hence the benefits to owners too are well defined.

• The current Prime Minister Le Keqiang is an economist and has taken a six-fronted approach to economics:

* No stimulus (later modified to micro stimulus)

* No bail out, Structural reforms

* Opening up, Development economics

* (…sixth approach??)

IPR and Innovation 33, More on the panel on property rights, ALF 2016

Reposting this report by Yogi Nair, a summary of the panel discussion on property rights.
-----------

Event report –Protecting Yourself Against Daylight Robbery – Current Challenges to PropertyRights

(Session sponsored by the Property Rights Alliance)

Saturday, 20 February 2016, Asia Liberty Forum 2016

Chair: Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia (holding the microphone in this photo)

Speakers (left to right, photo)

– Lorenzo Montanari, Property Rights Alliance, USA

– Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India

– Kriengsak Chareonwongsak, Institute of Future Studies for Development, Thailand

– Julian Morris, Reason Foundation, USA

Mr Lorenzo Montanari from Property Rights Alliance (PRA) began the session by proclaiming that “property rights are human rights.” PRA helps develop the International Property Rights Index (IPRI), which ranks countries according to the level of protection which is afforded to physical and intellectual property. Based on the IPRI, Mr Montanari demonstrated the significant correlation between stronger property rights protection with greater economic growth rates and average income levels.

Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, spoke about the connection between the lack of property rights protection with the prevalence of poverty. Mr Barun said that poverty in India is so widespread, because there are insufficient laws to protect the rights of the poor. As a result, the poor are often unable to capitalise on their assets. India’s original constitution recognised property as a fundamental constitutional right. Unfortunately, in 1978, this provision was removed.

In advocating for stronger property rights, Mr Barun encourages local communities to develop a spirit of entrepreneurship on their own. These include the cultivation of their own land and construction of new community buildings. Such initiatives do much to ameliorate the ill effects of weak property rights for the poor in India. “Let’s make intellectual property rights the issue of the century.”

With a particular focus on intellectual property, Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak spoke next about the reasons why developing countries often lag behind developed ones. These include high levels of corruption, poor enforcement of laws, and incompetence of public servants in government institutions when dealing with intellectual property rights issues. As a result of such deficiencies, vibrant innovation is often missing from developing nations, as many would-be innovators see no prospect of maintaining ownership over their work.

One solution that Dr Kriengsak proposes is that governments include private research as public goods. He opines that this will persuade governments to appreciate innovation, because they are paying for it. This would also prevent ‘stealing’ from other countries and competitors through legal processes. More importantly, such a strategy will also give the poor equal access to those intellectual resources.

In the final segment of this panel discussion, Julian Morris of Reason Foundation examined the importance of trademarks. He said that trademarks matter, as it facilitates identification and helps protect consumers against fraud. Furthermore, trademarks enable more effective product differentiation, thus helping producers build stronger reputations – which in turn drives innovation that improves quality and efficiency.

Mr Morris also pointed out that trademarks are immensely valuable; the top ten trademarks in the world alone are worth over half a trillion dollars. In recent times however, trademarks have come under threat. Inappropriate classifications may result in the registration of identical trademarks by different producers for identical goods. Weak enforcement has also lead to mass theft of trademarks by local producers in developing countries, such as in the case of Lacoste’s famous crocodile. Results from poor enforcement can sometimes be deadly, particularly in the case of counterfeit medicines.

Mr Morris said that such threats can be resolved through a more refined classification system worldwide, the legislation of harsher punishments for violations of trademarks, and the removal of regulations that undermine trademarks, such as plain packaging.

(Prepared by Yohannan "Yogi" Nair)

-------------

See also:

IPR and Innovation 29, Civil society enforcement of patents, copyrights, January 18, 2016

IPR and Innovation 30, Patents and pharma issues in Asia in 2007, February 07, 2016 
IPR and Innovation 31, Plain packaging and trademark-busting, February 19, 2016
IPR and Innovation 32, On TPP, medicines patent and tobacco trademark, February 29, 2016

BWorld 45, Asia Liberty Forum and property rights, February 20, 2016

ALF 6, Panel discussion on property rights, February 23, 2016

The 1st PRPX, May 2007 in Hawaii, Photos

I just discovered these photos in my old emails, during the 1st Pacific Rim Policy Exchange (PRPX) held in Sheraton Waikiki, Hawaii,  May 2007. It was mainly sponsored by the Americans for Tax Reforms (ATR), and co-sponsored by the Property Rights Alliance (PRA, USA), Grassroot Institute Hawaii (GIH), International Policy Network (IPN, UK), Lion Rock Institute (LRI, HK) and  another Tokyo-based Institute. The original photos and folders I lost when my USB was damaged.

I was one of the panel speakers there, I  talked about privatization. See my presentation there. Below with Martin Krause of Argentina (left) and Julian Morris of IPN, London, Julian is now the VP of Reason Foundation,  USA.

With Julian, Alec van Gelder also of IPN, and Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute, Delhi, India.

With Tracie Sharp Sloat of State Policy Network (SPN, US) and her kid and  hubby.

With John Rutledge of Rudledge Capital, based in  Hawaii. John was among the keynote speakers of the conference. See his two articles here, on Protectionism and Class war (April 02, 2008) and On Entrepreneurship (March 19, 2009).

Facing the camera was Jose Tapia of Institut Liberdade in Lima, Peru.

 With Ms. Malia Zimmerman, a Hawaii-based broadcast journalist who was one of the speakers in the conference.

With Jose Peniera (center), another keynote speaker in the  conference. with his wife and Barun. Mr. Peniera was a former Minister for Pension in Chile, very articulate and  passionate speaker. I think he can  speak for an hour without boring his audience.

Other photos during dinner with keynote speakers. Above photo, from left: Mr. You of Japanese for Tax Reforms (JTR), me, Julian, Jose Peniera, Barun, and... oh, I  forget the lady's name. Lower photo, Ken Schooland of Hawaii Pacific University on the left. 

See also:
Tax Cut 5: Tax Imperialism, Privatization (PRPX 2007 Hawaii), June 12, 2007 
3rd PRPX, October 2009, Singapore, October 17, 2009 
4th Pacific Rim Policy Exchange, Sydney, Sept 28-30, August 10, 2010 
4th PRPX, Sydney, September 29, 2010 
Privatization 11: Presentation in Hawaii in 2007, June 08, 2013

2004, MG and LRI Were Born

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI) held its 10th year anniversary Dinner Gala last November 06, 2014, at Harbour Grand Hong Kong, the same venue for the EFN Asia Conference 2014. Among the most memorable photos for me that night is this. From left: Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS) in India, Andrew Work, co-founder of LRI, HK, me, and Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute, India.

Parth, Andrew and me were batchmates at the "Mackinac Leadership Conference 2004", held in April 2004 at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midlands, Michigan, USA. More than ten years have passed and we are still around  fighting for free market, free trade, limited government, rule of law, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Minimal Government (MG) was only one month old and LRI was possibly two-three months old then. I and Ellen Cain of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Andrew and a few others, were granted an International Fellowships by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. So  it was my first exposure to the international free market movement. Thanks to Atlas and Priscilla Tacujan who recommended us to Atlas.

Our batch photo, 10 years and seven months ago at Mackinac Center. 

Mackinac President at that time was Larry Reed, VP was Joe Lehman. Around 2007, Larry became President of a bigger free market think tank in NY, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and Joe became Mackinac President. At one of our evening events at Mackinac. The "Asians table" plus our batchmate from Italy (to my left) and Larry Reed, beside Parth.

After Mackinac, we went to Chicago to attend the Atlas Liberty Forum, April 2004. I shared a room in the hotel and my roommate then was Barun Mitra! Barun is perhaps the most veteran (and most prominent) among all Asian free marketers, having been in the movement for about three decades now. When I was still a socialist and a great fan of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in the 80s, Barun was already spreading the ideas of Hayek, Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman, among others.

These are portions of the Atlas Year in Review, Fall 2004. Page 14.

And on page 15.

After the event in Chicago, we went to Virginia, stayed at the Atlas staff house in Fairfax and we started meeting various market-oriented think tanks and research institutes in Washington DC, Arlington, etc. I came back after a month, May 2004.

In October 2004, the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference was held in Hong Kong. LRI was part of the team who helped organized it of course. Out of the eight Asian participants who went to  Mackinac, six of us went to HK as well. From left: Cuoung, Joe Lehman, Ellen, Jargal, Parth and me. Andrew was there of course but we could not  find him as he was moving around when we assembled for this photo.

The group photo of the EFN 2004 conference. Taken from the Atlas 2004 report.

Thanks to Atlas, thanks to EFN and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), for their support to advocates and fighters for limited government and free market in Asia. 

------------

See also:

Liberty Notes from Larry Reed (1), February 01, 2012

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

Lion Rock 16: 10th Anniversary of LRI, November 07, 2014

Hong Kong Democracy Vs. China Dictatorship, Part 3

An Indian friend, Barun Mitra, posted this interesting article from Live Mint, October 8, 2014. 

"Wang Zang is a Chinese poet who was taken into custody in Beijing on 1 October because he posted a photograph of himself holding an umbrella on the Internet. The umbrella has emerged as the unlikely icon of demonstrations in Hong Kong...

… each year on 4 June, when thousands of Hong Kong residents unfailingly congregate at Victoria Park and hold a candle-light vigil, remembering Tiananmen. China doesn’t like it but doesn’t do anything about it. This is partly due to that Basic Law, which is meant to protect Hong Kong’s character for 50 years....

Perhaps the unanticipated outcome of these demonstrations is gradual transformation in the way China’s leadership wields power. China reviled and insulted Hong Kong’s last British governor, Chris Patten, who said that the only way to deal with China is by treating it like any other country. If it glares angrily, stare back. China respects strength in its rivals, not acquiescent kowtowing. Patten had limited time in China, but he succeeded in broadening the political space. By staying firm on their demands, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are doing the same.

The outcome isn’t assured. Hong Kong might become another Chinese city. Many think it already is. Or China might become a bit more like Hong Kong. We do live in interesting times."

Beautiful analysis. Another Indian friend commented,

Why should Asians accept the Western religion of democracy? One place that has reduced wretchedness is not democratic India, but dictatorial China. And HK and Singapore are among the freest places in the world despite not being democratic.

I understand some ramblings against democracy, that majority rule can ultimately lead to majority dictatorship, the 50% + 1 of the population can wield dictatorship over the 49%+. I support some of those sentiments actually. I find this thesis on democracy by Barun as brilliant. He wrote,

Democracy is not about majority rule, but about recognition of and respect for minority opinions. So that the minority view of today, may enjoy the freedom to peacefully persuade others, and could become a majority opinion of tomorrow....  For democracy to survive in large communities and countries, where only representative democracy is possible and practical, democracy has to be minimal, so that it does not offend or alienate too many people. Secondly, as societies become complex, there is a need to recognise the challenges of centralised government, and devolve greater political authority and autonomy to lower tiers of government and local communities. Because only at such community level, with shared values, can there be a realistic prospect for widest consensus on such complex issues.

Right. As economies become more prosperous, people become  more impatient with dictatorship  and authoritarianism. Democracy is not be-all and end-all for them, but the freedom of expression available under democracy is a lot more preferable than the unfreedom and self-censorship of undemocratic but rich economies like HK and Singapore. The Singapore government is more flexible and more sophisticated in its political dictatorship than that in HK or China. But there are several signs of discontent looking for more sophisticated outlets there.

I emphasized"self-censorship" above and not "HK (government) censorship". For instance, can ordinary HK people rally in the streets and shout or have huge placards saying "Down with China Communist Party", the same way that Filipino activists can rally in the streets and shout "Down with President Aquino (and all previous administrations) and the Liberal Party"?

If the answer is No, then there is self-censorship.

The HK demonstrators, including friends at the Lion Rock Institute (LRI) reject the status quo, that all major political issues must get approval  from Beijing. There has been a slow but steady reduction of free market culture in HK under the status quo. Friends at LRI and Momentum 107 have protested the huge tax hike of real properties in HK that has been implemented several years ago. They did not support the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Fair Trade Commission, which I think has been created already. They did not support the enactment of minimum wage law in  HK.

HK under the status quo is following Beijing footsteps. The protesters want a break from Beijing, to get out of China Communist Party delegated dictatorship as much as possible. The status quo  is leading towards bigger government in HK. The Democracy movement, though not a monolithic ideological movement, has elements unsupportive of more, bigger HK government.

Good posting by LRI . Exec. Dir. Peter Wong last Sunday with a link to an article by The Economist, What’s gone wrong withdemocracy,

The rise of  China which threatens democracy is nonsense. However, "one reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise must be guaranteed. The most successful new democracies have all worked in large part because they avoided the temptation of majoritarianism—the notion that winning an election entitles the majority to do whatever it pleases."

Hong Kong (and many other countries or economies) needs more democracy than ever. Democracy is good, not bad or unhealthy, for Asia. Freedom of expression without the use and advocacy for violence and aggression is more needed now. When governments use more force and coercion, explicit or implicit, by police or court harassment to limit freedom of expression, that means governments are getting bigger and becoming more allergic to protecting individual rights and liberty.

------------

See  also:
Part 1, September 25, 2014
Hong Kong Democracy vs. China Dictatorship, Part 2, September 29, 2014
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
Lion Rock 13: LRI Position on the Hong Kong Protests, October 08, 2014

Agri Econ 11: Protecting Land Properties by the Poor in India

Another good article from my friend Barun Mitra (2nd from right in photo) of Liberty Institute in India, co-authored with his wife Madhumita Mitra, posted before the on-going India general elections started early this month.

I particularly like their point on 

"Abolish land ceiling laws, particularly in agriculture to facilitate consolidation such fragmented land into viable farm units."

That is similar to the campaign to end the no-time table agrarian reform (AR) program and forced redistribution of agri land here in the Philippines. AR was started in 1972 by the Marcos government, then a new law on AR in 1988 during Pres. Cory Aquino’s time with 10-years time table. The 1998 deadline came, and AR was extended to 2008. And further extended to June 2014. Now there are moves to further extend it for many years more.

-----------

Recognising Right to Property: An agenda for reforming land related laws and policies

India’s land management regime has for decades been mired in obsolete laws and misguided policies that distort markets, enable corruption, and deny fundamental property rights. Current land policies are a mix of outdated laws and even more obsolete ways of thinking, many of which are rooted in colonial India.

The paradox is best illustrated by the fact that many landowners, including farmers, would like to move out of agriculture, but cannot find remunerative price for their land assets, while industrialists and investors who would like to buy land cannot find access to land at a reasonable price. Tens of billions of dollars of investment, in public and private projects have been stalled due to land related conflicts. This land alienation is also contributing to a section of society sympathising with leftwing insurgency in some parts of India.

Land is the only asset that most Indians, even the poorest, possess to at least some degree, but technicalities often prevent them from claiming legal ownership over what they possess. A functioning land market founded on strong property rights would expand the opportunities for economic advancement for those who possess land, empowering them as citizens in a democratic India. Such a market would also allow those with wealth to access and invest in property and engage with land owners in mutually-beneficial transactions, rather than trying to use their waning political influence to access land.

The 16th General Elections to the Indian Parliament, the House of the People, (Lok Sabha), is being held thro’ April-May 2014. A new government will take office by the end of May. Reforming land management will be a key factor shaping the political and economic trajectory of the country. In that context, we suggest the following agenda items, which may be considered by the incoming government, and the country at large, in the coming months and years.

§  Clearly articulate the need to create a functioning land market which will significantly reduce the need to invoke eminent domain.

§  Partner with private, community and public-sector stakeholders to build a modern land recordkeeping infrastructure based on GIS and other imaging technologies.

§  Abolish land ceiling laws, particularly in agriculture to facilitate consolidation such fragmented land into viable farm units.

§  Eliminate capital gains tax. In a poor country, taxing capital is self-defeating.

§  Drastically reduce or eliminate fees and taxes that impede land transactions and increase the potential for corruption, replacing them with a nominal fee to cover only the administrative costs of keeping up-to-date land records.

§  Transfer authority over land-related regulation such as zoning, land use and environmental concerns, to local governments and councils.

§  The scope of eminent domain needs to be severely restricted to truly public purposes, and with the consent of those affected, not to facilitate private investment and business projects.

§  Recognise the land owners rights over forest and other environmental resources, including minerals, whether above or below the ground.

§  A new mines and mineral law, which recognises the rights of land owners and communities, and allow them to directly negotiate access and royalty with investors, is much awaited.

§  A land titling law to grant conclusive title guarantee to land owners is imperative. Property transfers must legally validate transfer of titles rather than merely enabling registration of the deed.

§  Restoration of Right to Property as a fundamental right in the Constitution.

----------

See also:

Agri Econ 7: Bt Eggplants vs Environmentalism, December 20, 2010 

Agri Econ 8: On Rice Price Stabilization, January 16, 2013 
Agri Econ 9: On Agrarian Reform and Agri Credit, April 29, 2013 
Agri Econ 10: On Rice Price Spikes, September 29, 2013

Election 9: India's Political Dynasties vs. Democracy

India is the world's biggest democracy. People directly vote their representatives and local executives. And they are doing it now, in India's general elections 2014, happening in various phases from April 07 to May 12, 2014.

I like this article by a good friend, Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute (LI) in Delhi. Originally posted in LI website last April 09, and reposted in EFN Asia website last April 11. For brevity purposes, I removed certain details from the original article so that readers here can focus on Barun's general argument,

dynasties may exist in politics but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to (this). Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

Check the two links above to read the article in full. The photos I got from the web and not part of Barun's original article. Enjoy reading.

Diminishing electoral dividend for the political dynasties

Barun Mitra

Any discussion on dynastic politics in drawing rooms or in the media, usually degenerates in to a slanging match. One side tries to wrap itself in a democratic halo, and who see political dynasties as anathema in democratic polity. The other side aggressively argues that after all the dynasts do have to get democratically elected too and therefore legitimate.

Hardly any political party is immune from their own dynasties, small or big. The list of candidates related to political families in the 2014 election is a long one indeed.

But how do political dynasties stand out in terms of political performance? Do successive generations measure up to their famous ancestors? Why do some families make their mark on the political landscape, while others fail? Is there legitimate space in a democracy for favoured families? Are political dynasties an aberration in a democracy where at least at the time of the ballot, every citizen is truly seen as equal? Or does the focus on political dynasties diverts our attention from the truly equalising impact of a democracy?

The Nehru-Gandhi family is of course seen as the standard bearer of political dynasties in the democratic world. Since Independence in 1947, three members of the family has been elected as India's prime ministers, another son became notorious for wielding enormous extra constitutional power, without actually holding any elected office. A daughter in law came quite close to the ultimate political position, but political necessity ensured that she renounce office. And a son who seemed reluctant to join the race, and can't figure out either to get off the track, or take the plunge whole-heartedly.

This is the beaten track, travelled many times in the past. However, what seems to have been almost completely missed by the critics and supporters of political dynasties is that like in all other fields of life, there is a consistent diminishing returns for the dynasties in politics.

Motilal Nehru was the patriarch, and twice president of the Indian National Congress, during the British colonial rule. But it was his son Jawaharlal Nehru, a protégé of the original Gandhi, the Mohandas K Gandhi, who became India's first prime minister.

Nehru won three successive general elections and was in office from 1947 to 1964. Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter was selected for the post by a powerful section of the party bosses to be India's Prime Minister, following the untimely death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, in 1966. Indira was in office through the tumultuous days of the emergency rule, till 1977,when she became the first of the many prime ministers since to lose a general election. Although she led her party to another victory in 1980, and had yet another turbulent term in office, she was assassinated in 1984 by her own bodyguards.  Mrs Gandhi held the high office for about 15 years.

Rajiv Gandhi took office within a few days of his mother's tragic death in 1984, swept the elections a couple of months later, and won an unprecedented 3/4ths majority in Parliament. He came in with great hope, but in the later half of his term his government got embroiled in corruption scandals and political crisis, and lost the general election in 1989. Since then the Congress party has never been able to win a majority of seats in any general election. And no one from the Nehru-Gandhi family has been the prime minister in the past 25 years.

No one can say with certainty whether another one from the fabled family will become India's elected prime minister in the foreseeable future. This dynasty has clearly seen better days. Democracy has been a great leveller.

Not surprisingly, the other political families in India have not done any better. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a political family whose star is on the ascendant.

Charan Singh, once a very powerful chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, went on to hold the prime minister's post for only a few months, and became the first PM who never faced the Lok Sabha….

In Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena had been led for decades by the fire brand Balasaheb Thackrey….

In the small but prosperous state of Punjab, one family, the Badals, has survived the past 3 decades. Following the decade long separatist violence in the state in the 1980s, the society started picking up the threads again in the early 1990s….

In the Himalayan state of Jammu & Kashmir, the family of Sheikh Abdullah has been the preeminent political family since the 1950s….

There are many lesser families, which have survived but experienced diminishing political status…There are countless other examples of offsprings trying to wear the mantle of their ancestors, and failing.

So far, the only exception to this diminishing political trajectory traversed by the dynasties, has perhaps been the Patnaik family in Orissa….

Political dynasties may get a head start, but ultimately they have to perform to meet voters' expectations, or perish.

While every political party has its own dynasties, preeminent or localised, equally every party has tried to leverage a split in the dynasties to undermine the family brand. The most famous schism is in the Nehru-Gandhi family, where the widow and son of Sanjay Gandhi, are today prominent members of the BJP…

There are many members of parliament who come from political families. But equally there are many others who try to enter politics on the back of their family connections, but fail to make a mark electorally. The numbers in the latter category would be far larger than the former category. Unfortunately, there is no register of documenting familial ties among those in politics.

But one thing is clear, dynasties may exist in politics, but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to the deep roots democracy has struck in the country.

Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

---------

Other articles by Barun Mitra in this blog: 
Energy Econ 3: Market Reforms in India's Electricity Sector, July 30, 2012 
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
EFN Asia 34: Rainer Adam and Economic Freedom in Asia, March 11, 2014

See also:

Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013 
Election 7: My Candidates for Senators, May 12, 2013 

Election 8: Growth, Debt and the 2013 Polls, May 30, 2013  

EFN Asia 22: Dealing with Economic Nationalism, Jeju Forum, June 03, 2013 

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013