Yale University professors Zach Cooper and Fiona Scott Morton have published a new article reporting their research on “surprise” medical bills. These occur when a patient goes to an in-network hospital but is treated (without his knowledge) by an out-of-network doctor and receives an unexpected bill from the doctor (or doctors).

Examining 2.2 million claims from a database of privately insured patients, Cooper and Morton found that over 99 percent of visits to emergency rooms were at in-network hospitals, but over one-fifth of those visits generated a claim from an out-of-network doctor. At the extreme, one patient faced a bill of almost $20,000.

Professor Cooper (with whom I am slightly acquainted from conferences) thinks a solution lies in state laws making hospitals price all services, including physicians’, in a bundled contract with insurers. How much doctors charge would then be subject to private negotiation between doctors and hospitals.

Within the current system, it is a reasonable solution. However, it invites the question: Why are hospitals, physicians, and insurers not already operating like this? The answer must lie in the overly complex regulatory morass governing how these actors interact with each other.

No other service business would try to get away with this. Remember when President Obama was trying to convince us that the Obamacare health-insurance exchanges would operate like Expedia or Travelocity? It is laughable in hindsight. Nevertheless, while most people agree that actual airline travel (which is regulated by the federal government) is miserable, buying a ticket to fly is a convenient and transparent process. A passenger does not get a bill from the co-pilot a month after his flight, stating the co-pilot was not in the airline’s network, and the passenger must pay extra!

Bundled pricing is a characteristic of a normally functioning market. In health care, that invites less, not more regulation.

Reference: Zack Cooper & Fiona Scott Morton, “Out-of-Network Emergency-Physician Bills—An Unwelcome Surprise,” New England Journal of Medicine 2016; 375:1915-1918 (November 17, 2016) DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1608571

This article was published at The Beacon

Populists blame Asia’s high growth rates for economic woes rather than policies that reinforce inequality at home.

By Branko Milanovic*

The rise and electoral success of populist politicians in the West have reopened questions on the effects of globalization – in simplest terms, whether uneven distributional effects of globalization are to blame for widespread dissatisfaction in wealthy countries or does the fault lie with domestic policies or other factors. The responses will shape globalization of this century and could offer remedies for popular discontent.

First, the facts. There is no doubt that the growth rates of the bottom halves of income distributions for rich countries have been low over the past 25 years. This stands in contrast to the high growth rates of Asian middle classes – people poorer than the Western middle class but with whom Western workers may be competing for jobs – and the so-called top 1-percenters. Consider real per-capita growth for the middle 10 percent (middle decile) of rich countries. From 1988 to 2011, average annual growth for this group was 0.5 percent in the United States and Germany, 1.7 percent in France and 1.9 percent in the United Kingdom. Over the same period, the middle deciles in urban and rural China have grown by 6 and 8 percent per annum, respectively, 4 percent in Thailand and 8 percent in Vietnam.

Broadly, the average income growth of a median household in Asia was about four times as high as one in the West.

Perhaps such a difference in outcomes would not have mattered so much to the Western middle classes if slow growth rates were shared in each nation. But that was not the case: The top decile has seen incomes rise by more than 3 percent per annum in the US and by more than 4 percent in the UK. Moreover, the disproportion increases with level of income: Those with yet higher incomes in the West, the famous top 1 percent, enjoyed even higher growth rates during the past 25 years.

The middle class of the rich world thus found itself squeezed between the poorer, but fast-growing Asian middle and the much richer and also fast-growing domestic top 1 percent – and many blamed globalization.

How to apportion the blame? While the facts are incontrovertible, the causes are not. There are three possible explanations for the uneven growth: technological change driving productivity up among highly-skilled workers compared to the low-skilled, globalization making Western workers uncompetitive in comparison to Asians, or policies that favored the rich through tax cuts.

A policy response to popular anger over globalization depends on the principal cause. If technological change is the cause, there is little governments can do other than compensate the losers: They cannot order technological change to be of one kind and not another. If it is globalization, then governments can take steps to reverse globalization in some segments by limiting openness to trade or free movement of capital. If the problem is economic policy, then governments are the lead culprit.

The three factors cannot be analytically separated. Empirical attempts to disentangle the effects of globalization from technological change have been inconclusive, and the exercise is futile.

Technological change and globalization go hand in hand. Researchers cannot measure inequality as if there had been no globalization while technological progress went on as before. Technological progress responds to incentives and what globalization offers.  Innovations are embodied in new products and services, in new laptops or smart phones, and how these are produced depend on globalization. If labor costs were higher – for example, if US producers could not rely on low-cost foreign supply chains – then some high-tech machines, whether assembly robots in manufacturing, precision GPS chemical applicators for the agriculture industry or automated longwall shearers in the mining industry, may not exist at all.  Producers and consumers would have simpler machines and goods.

Moreover, the products themselves push new waves of technological progress in specific directions: If the iPhone was not relatively affordable for about 3 billion customers, there would be little commercial interest in creating new applications – and there would be no Uber or growing gig economy that relies on it. Widespread technology was made possible not just by technological progress in Silicon Valley but also to the ability to outsource production to low-wage locations. And that in turn has fed into new technological advances. For Uber is little more than the old-fashioned gypsy cab, glorified with new technology and magnified to the global scale.

Likewise, economic policy, cannot be meaningfully separated. The principal reason why tax rates were reduced lies in mobility of capital and highly-paid individuals. That mobility is made possible by globalization, with funds easily moved around the world, and by technological progress that allows individuals to work remotely, sometimes thousands of miles from what would have been their workplace in the old-fashioned world.

For these reasons, distributional outcomes must be regarded as the products of interrelated forces of all three phenomena – technology, globalization and economic policy. Taking any two as given and changing the third may be an interesting mental exercise, but has no meaning in the real world.

Solutions are not easy. A basic contradiction of the age of globalization is that economic outcomes for increasing numbers of people are determined at the global level, while political action takes place within nation-states. National governments are put in the position of doing mop-up operations for whatever category of workers is affected by lower wages or layoffs that in turn may be due to new ways of making goods or rendering services invented in China, India, United States or elsewhere.

But it could be argued that this has always been the case. British competition destroyed Indian textiles in the late 19th century. What is new, however, is the scale of such globally driven changes that can emanate from any part of the globe and spread much more rapidly than in the past.

Middle classes went along with globalization as long as they anticipated tangible benefits or so long as the numbers of the disaffected were insufficient to be a credible political force. But that has changed, as demonstrated by Britain’s vote to withdraw from the European Union and the US election of Donald Trump.

What are the governments in the wealthiest nations then to do, short of trying to reverse parts of today’s globalization and in the process shrinking their own growth rates as well as those of emerging-market economies. There are better solutions.

Remedies for reduced inequality of the 20th century won’t work in the 21st century. The old remedies included mass education, large unionized labor and tax-and-spend policies. All of these have reached their limits.

A more promising avenue for dealing with inequality in rich countries for the 21st century is to reduce inequality in human and financial capital endowments. This implies, first, reversing the currently extraordinary high concentration of capital assets by giving the middle classes fiscal and other incentives to invest and own assets and, second, equalizing access to high-quality education which is increasingly monopolized by the rich.

If inequality at the pre-distribution stage is less, then the government’s redistributive role can be smaller. Such nations can be more agile in global competition because they won’t have to permanently fret whether the political consensus behind such policies may collapse at any point. The policy can be summarized under the title of globalization with equalization of domestic opportunities.

*Branko Milanovic is an economist with the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and Luxembourg Income Study. He is the author of Global inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization.

The backlash against globalization still has the power to surprise. Confounding most polls and expert opinions, the United States voted in the presidential candidate promising to build walls, kick out immigrants and otherwise close U.S. borders.

As anti-globalization momentum grows, the DHL Global Connectedness Index (GCI) gathers 1.8 million data points to paint a clear picture of international flows that is based on facts. In the accompanying report, subtitled “The State of Globalization in an Age of Ambiguity,” Pankaj Ghemawat and Steven A. Altman of IESE and NYU Stern School of Business argue that “flows that cross borders are much too large to ignore but still far smaller than many people think.”

The 250-page report includes key takeaways and tools for leaders thinking about globalization strategies for the uncertain future.

Here are 10 key takeaways from the report:

1. “Europe remains the world’s most globally connected region, with eight of the 10 most connected countries — which reminds us what its disintegration might put at risk.”

Europe is followed by North America, with East Asia and the Pacific coming in third.

And here are the top 10 most globally connected countries in 2015 (with change from 2013 in parentheses):

Source: DHL Global Connectedness Index 2016

The top 10 are all among the world’s most prosperous countries. The United Arab Emirates is the only one not classified as an “advanced economy” by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

2. “Singapore tops the rankings in terms of depth and the United Kingdom in terms of breadth.”

Here, depth is defined as a country’s international flows relative to the size of its domestic economy. The leaders on the depth dimension of the index tend to be wealthy and relatively small. The top three results were unchanged from 2013 to 2015:

1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong SAR (China)
3. Luxembourg

Meanwhile, breadth tracks how closely a country’s distribution of international flows across its partner countries matches the global distribution of the same type of flows. The leaders in terms of breadth tend to be larger nations. These top three were also the same as in the last report:

1. United Kingdom
2. United States
3. Netherlands

3. “The world’s overall level of global connectedness finally surpassed its pre-crisis peak during 2014 and continued to increase, but more slowly, in 2015.”

Note that the DHL GCI covers 2005 to 2015, so it does not yet take into account the two big anti-globalization shocks of 2016: The British decision to leave the European Union (known as Brexit) and nationalist candidate Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election.

But looking at 2005 up through 2015, global connectedness has been growing, especially in its depth (or, intensity).

Source: DHL Global Connectedness Index 2016

4. “While international trade remained under pressure in 2015, increases were reported on the depth (intensity) of capital, people, and especially information flows.”

Global connectedness is measured along the lines of four pillars: trade (products and services), investment (capital), information (internet traffic, phone calls, print media) and people (migrants, tourists, students). These four pillars “encompass most of the aspects of international connectedness that have maximum relevance for business people, policymakers, and ordinary citizens concerned with the impact of globalization on their life opportunities,” the authors explain.

Over the past decade, information flows have grown most significantly. Below is a look at the global connectedness trends, measuring depth (intensity) along the four pillars:

Source: DHL Global Connectedness Index 2016

5. “Globalization and urbanization combine to prompt strong interest in global cities, but prior research on them is subject to numerous shortcomings.”

Globalization and urbanization are two of the key macro-trends shaping our recent past and our future. For the first time, the 2016 report introduces two new city-level indexes — Globalization Hotspots and Globalization Giants — tracking the same four pillars as the country-level indexes. The 113 cities in the ranking are spread across 64 countries and together account for a third of world GDP.

6. “Singapore tops both of our new city-level globalization indexes: Globalization Hotspots (cities with the most intense international flows) and Globalization Giants (cities with the largest absolute international flows).”

Based on measures of the magnitude of cities’ international interactions, the 2015 Globalization Giants are:

1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. London
4. New York
5. Paris

The ranking of Globalization Hotspots supplies a novel take on the phenomenon of global cities by measuring the intensity (relative to city size) rather than the absolute magnitude of cities’ international flows. The 2015 Globalization Hotspots are:

1. Singapore
2. Manama
3. Hong Kong
4. Dubai
5. Amsterdam

Singapore is a perennial on global city lists, but the second-ranked Manama, the modestly sized capital of Bahrain, is a more surprising member of the top 10. “Manama attracted six times as much announced (inward) greenfield FDI [foreign direct investment] relative to its GDP as London and five times as many tourist arrivals per capita (including business travelers) as New York,” the report notes. More than half of Manama’s population are foreign citizens.

7. “Actual levels of global connectedness are still only a fraction of what people estimate them to be, suggesting an opportunity to correct misperceptions and apprehensions.”

For example, the authors note that in both the United Kingdom and the United States people think that there are more than twice as many immigrants as there really are (the actual numbers are 13 and 14 percent of U.K. and U.S. populations, respectively). Simply telling people the actual share of immigrants reduces the proportion who think there are “too many” immigrants by between a third and a half, they report. It follows that anti-immigration votes (Brexit, Trump) might have been better challenged if voters were armed with facts.

Similarly, people tend to exaggerate and overestimate the impact of global trade, information flows and more. Global trade and information exchanges are significant, but not as extensive as people think.

8. “Distance still matters — even online. Most international flows take place within rather than between regions.”

For example, the authors note that more than 70 percent of the average European country’s international trade, capital, information, and people flows take place within Europe itself.

And looking at who follows whom on Twitter (information flows): 39 percent of all Twitter ties turn out to be local (as in within the same metropolitan area), 36 percent fall outside the same area but within the same country and 25 percent are international. Facebook traffic is even more locally bound.

9. “Emerging economies trade as intensively as advanced economies, but advanced economies are four to nine times as deeply integrated into international capital, information, and people flows.”

More specifically, advanced economies are about four times as deeply integrated into international capital flows, five times as much on people flows, and nine times with respect to information flows.

10. “Looking forward, the future of globalization is shrouded in an unusual amount of ambiguity, and depends critically on the choices of policymakers around the world.”

Launched just days after Donald Trump’s surprising win, the report hopes to arm policymakers with real information about the actual levels of globalization — which, in sum, are still lower than most people think.

Methodology, Very Briefly
Analyzing more than 1.8 million data points going back to 2005, the Global Connectedness Index measures the depth and breadth of connectedness and tracks trends. The 2016 report ranks 140 countries and territories encompassing 99 percent of the world’s GDP and 95 percent of its population are measured.

The index tracks 12 types of cross-border interactions grouped into four pillars:

1. Trade: covers flows of goods and services.
2. Capital: focuses on the flows and stocks of FDI and portfolio equity. (Note that debt capital is excluded because of the dangers associated with high levels of international indebtedness.)
3. Information: incorporates data on international internet bandwidth, international telephone calls and trade in printed material.
4. People: measures cross-border movements for the long-term (migration), medium-term (university students pursuing degrees abroad) and short-term (tourism).

See also: “Two Laws for Global Business” for a summary of the 2016 book The Laws of Globalization and Business Applications.

By Luis Durani*

With the elections over and a new president elected, half of the electorate is still reeling from the surprise upset created by Donald Trump. Due to the mechanisms behind the American democratic system, Donald Trump has managed to assume the highest office in the US and perhaps the world.

Trump managed to break all electoral rules and surprised the media and pollsters by the different electoral demographics he won. Trump’s victory is not so much a testament to his campaigning ability but more of the people’s ennui and wearisome of politicians, both parties, and the system. Trump represents the repudiation of the system. Trump managed to tap into the distress among people of all ages, color, creeds, and education level. Despite what he may have said about certain groups, the majority of the country had reached a boiling point with the status quo and decided to elect him to change things up.

After 8 years of George Bush and his failed adventurist foreign policy in the Middle East as well as enlarging the leviathan that is government by skirting constitutional restraints, Barack Obama swept into the presidency with the promise of hope and change for a new generation of voters and those looking beyond failed wars and a languishing economy. Unfortunately to the chagrin of many supporters, Obama became a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as Oliver Stone put it. Obama dismayed, disappointed and pushed many voters away from the Democratic Party.

After decades of hoping either Democrats or Republicans would help remedy the concerns of the American voters, people became exhausted, hoping that a new kind of candidate, even one not fully qualified, would bring the change and hope they yearned for. But in a larger picture, the world is undergoing a rise in populism once again. Countries are beginning to turn away from the so-called establishments that have ruled their countries to populist candidates. Trump may have begun the domino the effect that will see a rise in populism Trump-style or Trumpism.

Why Trump Won

Voter Apathy

As the media continues to scramble to explain the major surprise of why Trump won, most of the mainstream media that had blatantly opposed Trump in favor of Clinton characterized the victory as “Whitelash”. The media did what it was best at, sensationalized the election as a reflection of identity politics. White America was sick and tired of a black president and vociferous minorities; at least this is how the media was able to explain their failure in not being remotely close to predicting the victory of Donald Trump. As a result, a large group of voters have begun to protest the presidency of Donald Trump by chanting, “Not my President.” Yet these same voters claimed bigotry about those who protested against Obama as not my president. The media characterized the Trump campaign as racist and sexist. While the campaign did, without a doubt, engage in questionable and downright unsavory actions, the victory of Trump isn’t due to a racist or sexist America, but a failed America due to decades of neglect by America’s elite.

It’s the economy again, stupid. Despite claims of the sexism, almost 45% of all women voted for Trump. Trump managed to outperform previous Republican presidential candidates in winning the minority votes. Finally, Trump’s key to victory was being able to demolish the “Blue Wall” as it was labelled. These rustbelt voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. tilted to Trump and his promise of bringing jobs back. The white working class here that voted for Trump was the same voters who had elected Obama in the previous two elections. Nobody can deny that certain racist voters came to show their support for Donald Trump due to the nationalist tone he took during the campaign, but the preponderance of his white working class voters came from those who had formerly supported an African-American Democratic president in the previous elections. So despite casting this election as a repudiation of a Black president by white voters as the media is doing, it is perhaps a refutation of his predecessor and his policies, especially the failure in his ability to revive the economy as he promised in the past 8 years.

Economy

The main reason Trump won was due to the economy and the failure by the Obama administration to resuscitate it in the past 8 years despite what the President claimed. Despite the administration asserting that the unemployment rate dropping to new lows, in reality for those who do not understand, the job reports is an example of accounting voodoo that goes back several administrations. A more realistic indicator is the participation rate, which is still stagnating at 63%. The unemployment rate that is conveyed is one value of many. It doesn’t include those who have given up for work and trapped in part-time jobs wanting full-time. Accounting for those, the unemployment rate climbs up to at least twice as much it is now, 10%, if not more. Some economic experts believe it hovers even higher around 15-20%, reflecting recessionary and even depression-like numbers.

In addition, the quality of jobs is not accounted for. Most jobs that are created are service type jobs rather than high-skill high-paying jobs that many Americans are nostalgic for. The country has become a 1099 economy focused on service jobs such as uber. In addition, the so-called utopia that globalization promised to produce has failed instead resulting in more outsourcing of low and high-skill jobs abroad while corporations amass wealth.

The economy is key to any leader’s longevity. Not only has the American economic recovery failed but the global economy is flailing as well. The European Union is on the brink of collapse and with Brexit, it needs just an additional domino to bring that whole entity down. China, the second largest economy, may end up being the black swan for bringing the entire global economy into another depression. China is currently buried under a series of bubbles, whether it is the stock market or real estate, one market or another will trigger its meltdown.

Media

The media is another medium that has turned off many voters. The mainstream media who has been trusted as the fourth estate to check the overreach of the government has turned into the fifth column. The failure of the mainstream media is abundantly clear in its overall dropping of viewership whether it is Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. The incestuous relationship between the media and politicians is explicit and recognized by many. The media has created a bubble around themselves that is absent of reality and this was perfectly displayed by the election results in claiming a landslide victory for Clinton by all media outlets. Nontraditional outlets on the internet as well as WikiLeaks helped show the aristocratic system that has been in play for a long time between the media and political institutions. Despite their many attempts to hide Hilary’s failing, Trump with his many faults won. This election has begun to reveal the dislike of the voters, on both sides, for the establishment class.

Clinton – The Weak Candidate

One thing that many voters are continuing to overlook in their distaste for Trump is that the flaws that Hilary Clinton possessed overshadowed Donald Trumps. Despite Trump’s lack of depth in certain subjects as well as flip flopping on others, Clinton epitomized the pinnacle of the establishment class. She represented everything wrong with the system and the voters used that as a target for their rage. Clinton lacked credibility and trust with the voters; despite her credentials, her shortcomings dwarfed her strengths. While Trump stated certain statements that brought fear to many rightfully so, Clinton demonstrated through actions her hypocrisy and failures as a president to be. Even though the economy was the overriding factor in the elections for many, for more educated voters, Clinton’s actions demonstrated a failed to be president versus the unknown that a Trump presidency would be. Clinton not only supported the Iraq War, which resulted in at least 1-2 million people dying, but continued to endorse the neoconservative agenda for war. She was deemed the hawk candidate between the two major party’s candidates. Clinton not only supported trading treaties that would have further enhanced globalization such as the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), but she helped orchestrate the myriad of wars that continue to plague and destroy nations in the Middle East and the world such as Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, etc. along with Obama. In addition, she continued to support the growing government security apparatus with Obama by helping craft the NDAA or Patriot Act 2.0. Clinton created a veneer of progressivism to appease the Democratic base but in reality she was more of the same. This façade of being genuine is what perhaps hurt her more so than anything else.

The Rise of Trumpism

With the economic downturn in America and the rest of the world, people are turning to populist leaders to help give that last iota of hope; first was Brexit and now Trump. As the economy of the world continues to languish, the marching victory of populism will continue with the Italian referendum. Italy will vote on amending the constitution in a big way since the end of its monarchy. If the vote does not go in the direction Prime Minster Renzi expects he will resign, which is most likely the case. Italy will probably be the next major country to depart from the EU as well, perhaps initiating the end of the economic union altogether. In France, President Hollande sits on single digit approval ratings with Marine Le Pen’s national front in the lead in recent polls. Once again, a populist candidate/platform appears to be heading to victory. The tide appears to turning against Merkel in Germany as well. Other nations are undergoing this trend as well with the recent ushering of President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, the Filipino Trump.

One by one countries around the world are turning towards strong leaders that are populist in nature rather than the establishment. As the global economy slides towards recession once again, more Trump-like leaders will begin to rise. It has been said that good times lead to weak leaders and weak leaders lead to bad times, perhaps society is undergoing such a phase.

About the author:
*Luis Durani is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese foreign policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineering and B.A. in political science. He is also author of “Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State” and “China and the South China Sea: The Emergence of the Huaqing Doctrine.” Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Source:
This article was published at Modern Diplomacy.

By Allison Drew*

The US electoral system shows a profound disjuncture between law and legitimacy. A system that so disenfranchises the masses of Americans is illegitimate. Democratic elections must be based on the popular vote.

“The people have spoken. Donald Trump will be the next president,” President Obama told the American people on November 14. The people indeed spoke. The majority elected Hillary Clinton, who leads Trump by over two million votes. This will be the second time in sixteen years that America’s popular vote has been superseded by the Electoral College.

Yet most American political leaders remain silent about the seeming irrelevance of the popular vote. The best Senator Sanders has offered is: ‘We may want to take a look at the whole Electoral College, which is seating a man for president who didn’t get the most votes. This is something we need a serious discussion on’ (USA Today, November 14).

However, the slogan chanted across the country – ‘Not my president’ – suggests that irrespective of the Electoral College’s legality, millions of Americans no longer believe in its legitimacy.

Legitimacy concerns the right of an authority to govern. In a democracy, the acceptance of that authority’s right to govern and the belief in the political process reflect popular perceptions that the elected government follows democratic principles and is accountable to the people, who express their will through the vote.

To take a well-known international example, nowhere has the disjuncture between law and legitimacy been more apparent than in apartheid South Africa. The apartheid system – an elaborate legal edifice to ensure white racial domination in all areas of life – was illegitimate, both in the eyes of black South Africans and, increasingly over the 20th century, in the eyes of much of the world. Its lack of legitimacy reflected its denial of equal rights and political representation to the black population.

The US electoral system, too, shows a profound disjuncture between law and legitimacy, a disjuncture that is today reaching a crisis. Historically, African-Americans have faced repeated obstacles to their electoral participation. Now, the Electoral College is effectively disenfranchising millions of Americans of all colors and ethnic backgrounds.

The Electoral College originated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. In a direct popular election, the northern states would have outnumbered the southern slave-holding states, whose slaves could not vote. However, a compromise allowed the southern states to count each of their non-voting slaves as 3/5 of a person in order to increase the number of their electors. The more slaves, the more electors.

After the Civil War, the freed slaves achieved the right to vote through the 15th constitutional amendment. But white southerners imposed local and state barriers impeding African-Americans from voting. A century later, the 1965 Voting Rights Act overturned those barriers. However, in 2013 the US Supreme Court struck down section 4 of the act, which stipulated which states were required to have changes to their voting laws cleared by a federal authority. The impact of the Supreme Court decision was immediate. Freed from federal oversight, North Carolina, for example, passed regulations restricting the African-American vote. Barely were these overturned in July 2016 than local election boards implemented other restrictions. The concerted efforts across many states to suppress the African-American vote has been compounded by the American system of mass incarceration, which disproportionately impacts African-Americans, since those convicted of felonies lose their right to vote. As the black vote has been eviscerated in one community after another, whites have gained disproportionately in political influence.

The forthcoming Electoral College vote will be legal under the current law. But that does not mean that it will be seen as legitimate by millions of Americans. The African-American struggle for the franchise and the struggle for the popular vote to be paramount in choosing our president have converged.

Just as those who oppose the Electoral College and its decision must respect the law – while not forgetting the honorable history of non-violent civil disobedience against unjust laws – so politicians must respect the belief of millions of Americans that a system that so systematically disenfranchises masses of Americans is illegitimate. The Supreme Court must put a definitive end to the endless attempts to disenfranchise African-Americans, and the Electoral College must be abolished. Our democratic elections must be based on the popular vote.

It is ironic that just as South Africa gained its universal democracy at the end of the 20th century, so the disregard of the popular vote in the United States is becoming a major issue in the 21st century. The struggle for democracy in the US may well become, this century, what the South African struggle represented in the past.

* Allison Drew is Honorary Professor, University of Cape Town, and Professor Emeritus, University of York.

By Fraser Cameron*

Like Europe, Asia was stunned at the victory of Donald Trump. Asian leaders were planning on continuity of US policy with Hillary Clinton, one of the architects of the US pivot to Asia, in the White House. Now everything is in the air and uncertainty, whether in security or trade or human rights, reigns supreme.

During the campaign Trump castigated America’s allies (Japan and Korea) for not doing enough for their own defence; and castigated China for its unfair trade and currency policies.

It was this concern about one of the pillars of the post-war system that hastened PM Abe to New York just a week after Trump’s election victory to seek assurances from the President-elect. Abe said he had established a trusting relationship with Trump who later confirmed there would be no abandonment of allies in Asia.

But Trump did keep his word on TPP stating that US withdrawal from the tortuously negotiated trade deal involving several Asian countries would be the first priority on day one in the White House. At an APEC meeting in Lima, New Zealand PM John Keys jokingly said that they only way to keep TPP would be to rename it the Trump Pacific Partnership!

But Trump won the election playing to American concerns about free trade, blasting NAFTA and unfair trade deals with China as well as TPP. How he proceeds in office on the trade front will be of major importance to Asian countries as many have the US as their top trade partner. Meanwhile many Asian countries are considering joining the Chinese led RCEP trade negotiations as well as Beijing’s plans for the Free Trade Area of Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP).

As well as the death of TPP Trump has also signalled the demise of the transatlantic trade deal (TTIP) that was already struggling to stay afloat. Growing protectionism is hardly likely to raise living standards whether in the US or Asia. But how long before Trump can afford to make a U turn?

For the past half century US alliance arrangements across the Pacific provided security for trade and a conducive environment for a massive boost in economic growth. But by questioning the alliances with Japan and Korea, and even hinting that it would be of little consequence if these countries developed nuclear weapons, Trump was challenging decades of US security policy. As President-elect he has sought to reassure Tokyo and Seoul that there would be no reduction in the US commitment but the genie is out of the bottle. One positive development is that Japan and Korea have decided to cooperate more on intelligence as regards the DPRK. Another unknown is how Trump will deal with the erratic President Kim.

Apart from the election of Trump it is the election of President Duterte in the Philippines that has led to uncertainty. He has been vocal in criticising the US for questioning how he deals with drug traffickers; and he made a surprise trip to China to deepen economic and trade relations while putting aside differences over the South China Sea. This may be an attempt to play the major powers off against each other but it could have damaging consequences.

It has also led to a reduced role for ASEAN, an organisation that the Philippines will chair next year. There is a planned follow-up in November 2017 in Manila to the US-ASEAN summit in Sunnylands that Obama hosted in February this year. But will Trump attend? It is difficult to imagine him giving the same attention to ASEAN that Obama did.

And how will Trump deal with China? He is unlikely to follow through on threats to impose 45% tariffs on Chinese exports as this would hurt the US and go against WTO rules. He is more likely to try and go for a grand bargain whereby the US would tone down or refrain from criticising the internal political system and China would tacitly accept the continuing US security role in the Pacific.

The uncertainty in Asia is mirrored in Europe where EU leaders are scratching their heads at the implications of a Trump presidency for relations with Russia, Syria, Turkey and the Iran nuclear and the Paris climate change agreements. It will be a bumpy ride.

*Fraser Cameron, Director

By Gautam Mukhopadhaya*

Indonesian President, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo will be making an official visit to India in a couple of weeks. This will be the first bilateral bilateral visit at that level since Prime Minister Modi took charge in May 2014 and President Jokowi assumed office as President in October 2014 (after elections that brought the PDP-I headed by Megawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of the founding leader of Indonesia, Soekarno, to power), though both have traveled extensively during this period visiting key regional and world capitals. Former Indonesian President Susilo Bambamg Yudhoyono and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had earlier given a big boost to India-Indonesia relations with the signing of a strategic partnership agreement and reciprocal visits.

The visit should not be treated as a routine state visit with little long term outcomes. Indonesia with its size, population, strategic maritime location and natural resources, is a latent Asian power. Since the heydays of the struggle for independence against colonial rule when Nehru, Biju Patnaik, Soekarno and other Indonesian independence leaders like Mohammad Hatta and future PM Sutan Syahrir forged such close political bonds, as well as the 1955 Bandung Asia-Africa Conference that laid the foundations for the Non Aligned Movement, the India-Indonesian relationship, like the two countries themselves, has been one of more promise and potential than realisation. India and Indonesia should therefore consciously utilise this visit to turnaround this relationship which theoretically can be one of the defining relationships in Asia

Much of the excitement of that honeymoon period in our relationship has now faded with the ennui that followed the turbulent and dramatic early years of our modern relations. Those were the times when Biju Patnaik flew his Dakota to rescue the future Prime Minister of Indonesia, Sutan Syahrir, from a Dutch siege of Indonesian independence leaders in Surabaya; Nehru denied Dutch KLM airlines any stop, fuelling or over-flight facilities in or over India; PM Syahrir offered to send rice from Indonesia to help counter a rice shortage in India after independence (that Nehru discouraged but Syahrir insisted on sending) and Nehru reciprocated the gesture by sending Indian textiles to Indonesia; Nehru organised an International Conference on Indonesia in Delhi just before India’s independence in July 1947; and Soekarno became the first foreign Head of State to attend India’s first Republic Day celebration in January 1950.

There have been many earnest attempts, starting with Soekarno and Nehru, and later, post the Suharto years, with Abdul Rahman Wahid “Gus Dur’ and President Megawati up to President Yudhoyono who visited India three times, signing a Strategic Partnership Agreement in 2005 and attending Republic Day 2011 as Chief Guest, to bring a vitality to the relations. Yet, despite this, the relationship is yet to pick up traction.

Three seminal issues stand out amongst the many reasons for India and Indonesia to give this visit special importance. First, Indonesia’s geo-strategic significance, globally, and for India. Second, the role that Indonesia and India can play, separately, in providing alternative models of relations between religious majorities and minorities in South and South East Asia rooted in their own traditions of pluralism, syncretism and tolerance against a rising tide of religious fundamentalism in the region coming from the Gulf. And third, the concrete steps the two countries can take to augment their relationship and realise their potential for their mutual good.

Accustomed as we are to thinking of history and international relations in terms of empires, big powers and major trading nations, the strategic community in general has tended to think of Indonesia as a filling station between China, India, the Arab-Persian-Muslim world, and Europe. This is misleading and has blinded us from the economic and strategic potential of Indonesia.

Admittedly, there are good reasons for this. Until the establishment of a Republican government out of the Dutch East Indies under Indonesia’s first President Soekarno, there never really had been a unified Indonesia as we know it today, and even historically, none of the major ruling dynasties of Sumatra or Java exercised the kind of dominion over the whole archipelago that could have given them the kind of stature enjoyed by the imperial dynasties of China or India.

Post independence, apart from the period under Soekarno when he shepherded the Non Aligned Movement together with Nehru and other world leaders, Indonesia even now remains too preoccupied with building its nation, economy and democracy out of a very diverse nation to pursue a more assertive maritime or foreign policy that corresponds to its size, population, economic resources and potential, and geographical breadth.

Yet, it is not as if the potential and historical precedent for the strategic use of the seas of the Indo-Pacific by Indonesia does not exist. First, stretching over 5,200 kms from west to east, and 2,200 kms from north to south, Indonesia with its over 17,000 islands spread over 1.9 million sq kms, is the world’s largest archipelago, one that straddles both the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. It shares the choke point of the Straits of Malacca with Malaysia and Singapore, but also sits exclusively astride, and, therefore, can potentially control, virtually all the straits linking the southern Indian Ocean with the South China Sea.

There were periods in Indonesia’s history, such as during the Srivijaya-Sailendra dynasty (8-12th centuries), when their rulers used their location on both sides of the Malacca straits to tax and control the thriving trade in spices between the east and west of which it was the epicentre, so much so that at one point, the Chola king Rajendra Chola 1 launched a punitive naval expedition against them, triggering their decline.

Later, during the colonial period, so central were the East Indies to global trade, that the British and Dutch signed a Treaty in Banda Neira in 1667 under which the Dutch exchanged New Amsterdam, later New York, for the tiny nutmeg growing island of Pulau Run in the Banda islands of the Moluccas (Maluku) in what is now the eastern Indonesian province of Maluku.

While Indonesia does not yet seem to have developed or articulated a strategic vision of what to do with its extraordinary strategic location, the kernel of such a vision can be found in the words that Indonesians use to describe their homeland, ‘Nusantara’ (archipelago) and ‘tanah air’ or ‘land and water’, indicating that they see their seas as being as much a part of their national identity as land. But President Jokowi has drawn up a vision of Indonesia as the world’s ‘maritime axis’ requiring a strong naval force to protect its territorial integrity, fishing waters and energy interests, supported and funded by strong economic growth. India should welcome such a role for Indonesia around its territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zone and beyond in the east Indian Ocean and adjacent areas of the Pacific.

Second, there is, presently, a battle for the soul of Indonesia being waged over the role of religion in forging Indonesia’s national identity around issues of ethnicity, religion and language that in some ways mirror our own.

Indonesia’s leaders have invested a great deal in the national motto of ‘unity in diversity’ (‘Bhinneka Tunggal Ika’) to hold this widely spread and diverse country together. One of the areas where Indonesia has been most successful in implementing this has been in adopting Bahasa Indonesia, a version of the Malay language used as a bazaar language in coastal areas for trade adapted to the Roman script, as a lingua franca across its length, breadth, and over 400 local languages and dialects, many with their own scripts and disparate origins, as a national language. It was able to do this at least partly because the culturally and politically dominant Javanese did not insist on Javanese as the foundation of their national language.

Today, Bahasa Indonesia is accepted as the language of administration, education and literature all over Indonesia including Java. Indonesia’s ‘experiment’ in nation-building through a common language could therefore have lessons for other multi-linguistic nations as well. Though conditions and solutions in India may not be the same, the Indonesian case may be worth examining in India too where the issue of a national language remains a live one.

Indonesia also prides itself on being the largest and most populous Muslim nation in the world, one that is both moderate, and now, a democracy. Indonesia’s syncretic traditions have bridged its indigenous, Indic, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic, animist and latter day Christian traditions into a tolerant mix. The Javanese court chronicle, the Serat Centhini vividly portrays the extraordinary compromises Islamic ‘walis’ consciously made in Indonesia to accommodate, co-opt and assimilate existing composite indigenous and Indic festivities, beliefs and practices to make Islam more acceptable.

Post-independence, Indonesian leaders, thinkers and even Muslim religious organisations like the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) and Mohammadiyah have so far stuck to the idea of a distinctively Indonesian or ‘Pribumisasi’ Islam (articulated by Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, later President of Indonesia after President Suharto, and others) characterised by respect for Indonesia’s syncretic and pluralist traditions that did not draw rigid lines between Muslims and non-Muslims and shariat and customary law, every bit as authentic as the ‘high’ Islam of the Hijaz.

In practical terms, this sustains a diversity of Islamic practices and a convivial framework of inter-religious relations and harmony in which Hindu epics, Sanskrit-origin words and names, Hindu and Buddhist temples, idols and images, an overwhelmingly Hindu majority Bali, and minority sects like the Ahmediyas, have historically coexisted without any problem.

Indonesia’s trajectory as a Muslim majority nation that is pluralist, democratic and still largely moderate and tolerant, finds a logical counterpoint in Islam’s trajectory in India. In India too, Islam struck roots at the popular and grassroots level by similarly fusing indigenous beliefs and practices to Islam to create a distinctive and more ‘Sufi’ brand of Indian Islam.

Amidst the tensions left by the legacy of the Partition of India, it is often forgotten that Indian Muslims too have made some remarkable adjustments in first accepting, at the height of Islamic rule in India under the Mughals that even with political power, they had to coexist with majority Hindus; then losing political power to the British; next, losing more than two-thirds of the Muslim population to Pakistan at partition; and finally having to live in a Hindu majority state under a secular Constitution accepting that they could practice their faith freely without the protective hand of an Islamic state. This is an act of faith in democracy and secularism, by an Islamic minority that once held imperial power, that has a doctrinal significance that does not seem to have been grasped even by its followers, possibly, because of an ideology that regards ‘true’ Islam as only the Islam of the Hijaz.

This pluralist, tolerant Indonesian social-religious philosophy has however come under serious pressure in recent years and months from a more literalist and Arabised version of Islam that looks at ethnic and religious identities in terms of binaries, and views Indonesia as a Sunni Islamic state where non-Muslims have to live by the rules of the majority Muslims and cannot aspire for political power or office. For a growing and vocal number of Indonesians, it is this homogenised version of Islam that is becoming the basis of Indonesian identity.

This trend has now come to a head with the controversy surrounding the candidature of Basuki ‘Ahok’ Tjahaja Purnama, an Indonesian Christian of Chinese ethnicity and formerly deputy governor of Jakarta under Jokowi, in elections in February next year for the post of Governor of Jakarta. ‘Ahok’ has drawn fire from more conservative Islamic organizations spearheaded by the Islamic Defenders Front (FDI) and including the Muslim Students Association (HMI) for alleged blasphemy in criticising those who are using a verse in the holy Qoran, the Meidah 51, to oppose his candidature for the elections because he is a non-Muslim.

Under pressure of street rallies organised on November 4, 2016, the police have decided to charge Ahok with blasphemy and hate speech under relevant laws much to the disappointment of the silent majority of liberal and tolerant Indonesians. This may be a tactical move to defuse the protest, but is nevertheless risky. President Jokowi has mounted a major political campaign to counter what many see as an existential threat to the idea of Indonesia and to his government by rallying around moderate Islamic organisations like the NU and Mohammadiayah and political parties, and the security forces, to the founding principles of ‘unity in diversity’ ‘pancsila’ and pluralism, with the words “…God created diversity and plurality, and our constitutional system recognises and protects such diversity and plurality…It is our responsibility to uphold it”. But the outcome is far from certain. Other examples of Islamic conservatism, militancy and extremism continue to manifest themselves.

India has a stake in the diversity of Islam found in Indonesia amongst other places in Asia against the exclusive and homogenising influences coming from the Arab world. Indonesia and India can also provide complementary models for coexistence of religious minorities with majoritarian communities in Asia and a globalised world (whether they are Islamic minorities in the West or India, or Hindu and other non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim world) based on their own authentic traditions of co-existence. This may seem a hopeless cause but is still worth championing in the face of what appears to be an inexorable rise of intolerance in many major religions.

Strategic Convergences

Against this background, there are some bold steps that Prime Minister Modi and President Jokowi could push over and above initiatives that are already in the pipeline to strengthen our relations at a strategic level agreed to more than 10 years back.

First, they could take a major initiative in the area of maritime security predicated on Indonesia’s ‘maritime axis’ vision and a more central future security role for Indonesia in the Indo-Pacific commensurate with its size and geographical location and spread.

So far, we have engaged with security issues with the ASEAN within the framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the ASEAN Defence Minister’s Meetings Plus (ADMM+) with limited but growing bilateral engagements with Vietnam, Singapore, Indonesia and others. These mechanisms have also been the platform within which major players like the US and China, and individual countries within ASEAN that have disputes with China in the South China Sea (and little beyond the horizon, Japan and Australia), have tried to exert their influence in promoting their visions of territorial integrity, security, stability, consensus building and conflict prevention in the region.

But none of the ASEAN states have particularly robust navies; nor, given the power plays in the region, are they or the ARF likely to evolve into collective security mechanisms in themselves. One could argue that there is a bit of a security vacuum in the South Pacific as a whole that has so far been filled by the US, but which is increasingly being called into question by China. Political developments in the US too have introduced new uncertainties in the balance of power and stability in the Asia-Pacific.

In this context, a more robust maritime security capability for individual ASEAN countries (that could in future also provide the nucleus for an ASEAN maritime security force) could be in our interest. We have so far been a bit wary of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ concept promoted by Indonesia’s last Foreign Minister in the East Asia Summit forum fearing perhaps that it could introduce tensions in the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean or be used to enhance the presence extra-regional navies there, but the concept can also be used to develop a vision of shared security in which parties take responsibility for maritime security in their respective oceans and seas for the benefit of all. With Prime Minister Modi, this defensive mentality appears to have been shed and we may be ready to proceed with the idea.

Indonesia, with its geo-strategic location and reach, size, demography and economic potential, and balanced and nuanced relations with the US, China and Japan, would be the best placed to play a broader stabilising role in the region. Indonesia may be reticent about embracing such an idea openly as yet, and India may not be able to contribute much directly to enhancing Indonesia’s maritime capability presently, but at the least, it could recognise the latter’s centrality in the Indo-Pacific and initiate a strategic dialogue and defence partnership to the extent mutually convenient.

It could also be a hedge against dependence on big powers from outside the region whose commitment to regional security cannot be taken for granted and are subject to their own political predilections, and to rely more on neighbors and middle powers whose security concerns are far more anchored and predictable.

The political basis for such a relationship already exists in the Joint Declaration on the Establishment of a New Strategic Partnership agreed to during the visit of the President Yudhyono in 2005, and its subsequent elaboration into a five-pronged initiative that included a strategic engagement and defence and security cooperation amongst other areas adopted during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Indonesia in October 2013. An Eminent Persons Group was also created during President Yudhyono’s state visit to India as Chief Guest on our Republic Day in 2011 and tasked to come up with a ‘Vision Statement 2025’ to enhance India-Indonesia bilateral relations.

These could now be used to initiate a strategic dialogue premised on realising Indonesia’s maritime axis vision and bolstering Indonesia as a maritime power through an appropriate level and forum that includes the armed forces and key Indonesian Ministries on the one hand, and the utilisation of space data under the India-Indonesia space cooperation programme to monitor and protect Indonesia’s natural resources, especially fishing in its territorial waters and EEZ, and greater Indian investment in other areas of strategic importance for Indonesia, on the other.

On defence and security, the New Strategic Partnership (NSP) could also be used to renew and upgrade our MoU on Defence Cooperation of 2001. This could cover cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, exports of equipment for defence and maritime and coastal surveillance, defence production, technical cooperation, more advanced service-to-service talks and exercises, cooperation on hydrographic surveys, HADR, and pollution control; and separate MoUs or mechanisms for sharing of maritime security information on non-traditional threats including environmental threats, counter-terrorism, and information on white shipping.

They could also take some imaginative steps in the areas of trade and investment and Culture and People-to-People Relations as part of the proposed Comprehensive Economic Partnership under the NSP. Chief among the former could be a thrust towards Indian investment in Indonesia taking advantage of the natural resource and industrial potential of the country, its large 250 million market, the 600 million ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) market and US$ 2.6 trillion economy, and ASEAN FTAs with India and major East Asian economies, to shape the Comprehensive Economic Partnership as part of our NSP. It is also well qualified to join and revitalize the now neglected India-Brazil-South Africa IBSA grouping.

India has been traditionally ambivalent about the idea of Indian investments abroad, focusing as it has, on first, domestic, and now also foreign investment into India for capital, technology, know-how and employment on the principle that capital invested abroad is capital lost to India. PM Modi’s ‘Make in India’ is no different in this regard. This is shortsighted. All major powers, be it the US, EU, Germany, Japan or China today look at foreign investment in economic and strategic terms. Investing in a foreign country is a stronger tool for influence than trade. Indian investment in strategically important countries, particularly in our neighbourhood and extended neighbourhood, should thus be seen as an arm of our foreign policy. We are not yet doing so.

People-centric growth is President Jokowi’s top priority, one that he would like to leave as his legacy, for which he has courted foreign investment particularly in the energy, infrastructure, manufacturing and tourism sectors. Indian investment in Indonesia is perhaps President Jokowi’s top most objective from this visit to India.

So far, the principal foreign investors in Indonesia are Singapore, Japan, China and South Korea. While there is already substantial Indian investment in areas like coal (Reliance, Adani, Aditya Birla), textiles (Aditya Birla), steel, automotive (Tata Motors, TVS) and banking sectors, much more can be done, There are huge new opportunities in the power sector where Indonesia faces a significant shortfall in funding to reach its target of 35,000 MW by 2019; roads, railways, ports and airports; industrial estates and Special Economic Zones; ICT; and tourism, where 10 destinations have been prioritised.

But apart from these, mostly lucrative, long gestation infrastructure projects that are attractive to major players. particular policy attention needs to be paid to increasing our presence in the manufacturing sector in areas of our strength like consumer goods, textiles, pharmaceuticals, automotive and auto parts, steel, agricultural machinery, engineering and industrial goods like boilers, pumps, valves, machine tools, plastics and chemicals, small & medium industries, etc. where medium and smaller industries can also play a part. Investing in these sectors will be a win-win for both Indonesia and India, contributing to local employment and the economy in general for the former, and to markets and brand visibility for India.

A number of well planned industrial estates with adequate infrastructure for power, transport, ports, bonded warehouses, training facilities, and residential and commercial areas have already come up in Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya, Medan and Batam, and a new 2,700 hectare estate created in partnership with Singapore has just been inaugurated during Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien ‘s visit to Indonesia in mid-November in central Java. Of particular interest to us from a connectivity point of view should be the Medan industrial zone near the port at Belawan in north Sumatra that is physically the closest to the eastern seaboard of India and where we also have long had a Consulate General, to help our investors.

This could be combined with a shipping service from Chennai or Krishnapatnam to Medan via the Andaman islands that could be used to export Indian engineering, consumer goods, textiles, pharmaceuticals etc. to at least partly offset the large imbalance in our trade with Indonesia in which exports from India only account for US$ 2 bn out of a total trade of US$ 15.9 bn. The Prime Minister’s announcement of a US$ 1 bn credit line for connectivity projects in the ASEAN could be partially used to fund this shipping line. Air links from Medan to Chennai directly or via Singapore should also be explored.

Efforts should also be made to unlock the US$ 500 million LoC extended by India to Indonesia to promote Indian exports that has been stuck on the issue of sovereign guarantees. Our LoCs could also be better structured to cater to standard infrastructure to more innovative social development projects, and a better mix of Government-to-Government loans against sovereign guarantees and buyers and sellers credits with more commercial guarantees. India could also think of funding some quick impact small social development projects in the provinces executed by Indian or local companies or NGOs that could have direct impact at the grassroots level.

Finally, in the areas of education, culture, and people-to-people relations, bearing in mind, Indonesia’s youthful population, its Indic cultural foundations that are still living, and the generally good image of India, it would be in order to give a thrust to ICCR scholarships in Indian universities, increased slots for training under ITEC, closer university-to-university academic exchanges and ties at the student and faculty levels, and vocational training by Indian companies in Indonesia especially in areas like IT, business management, accounting, etc. to give a fillip to enduring people-to-people ties.

There is a lot that India could gain from Indonesia on Indian culture too. India ranks high in the list of nationalities visiting Bali, at least, in part, because of its Hindu population. There is a lot that we could learn from Bali on tourism promotion, but also about a more ‘simple’ Hinduism relatively free from caste and sectarian divisions. Apart from an absence of harsh and unequal caste practices, Hindu temples in Bali typically feature the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva and other gods like Ganesha, Saraswati etc. free from sectarian loyalties that are worthy of study and emulation in India.

Indonesian renderings of the Ramayana and Mahabharata too are living narratives and are being constantly reinterpreted, and Indonesian renderings occasionally give a prominence of characters who have been either forgotten or sidelined in renderings of the epics in India. A large sculpture of Ghatotkacha, a relatively minor figure in Indian renderings of the Mahabharata, graces the most prominent roundabout as you leave the international airport at Bali. There is much that both countries can learn from a study of the variations in the renditions of the two epics in India and Indonesia.

Likewise, despite the close ties of religious scholarship, both Hindu and Buddhist, the latter manifested by the visits of Chinese scholars to the Srivijayan capital of Palembang that was then famed for its Buddhist studies and the close ties between the latter and the Palas in connection with Nalanda and Bodh Gaya, and the prominence of Sanskrit origin names and words across religions in Indonesia, there is no professor or Sanskrit or Pali in Indonesian centres of learning mainly because of a lack of response from the Indonesian side. From a purely linguistic sense, this is a big lacuna. If nothing else, we should promote research into our historic and contemporary linguistic ties. The earliest writing preserved in the entire Indonesian archipelago are stone inscriptions in Sanskrit derived from the Pallava script in Kutei in Eastern Borneo dating back to the 5th century.

In general, there is a dearth of scholarship on both sides on the Indian roots of, and influences on Indonesian culture that is a bit puzzling for a country that prides itself on its cultural impact in South East Asia.

Lastly, if we were to invest more substantially on studying the foundations of our cultural relations through history, there could also be a case for joint Indian-Indonesian productions of our common cultural heritage that could be presented and promoted in other parts of Asia like Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia where Indic influences still remain visible or strong, though increasingly driven down to the foundations.

The story of India-Indonesia relations in modern times thus presents a case of great depth and potential that have not yet been plumbed for their strategic value. Arguably, despite their many successes, both countries, in different ways, have also underperformed, nationally, regionally and internationally. It is hoped that President Jokowi’s state visit to India in December will provide the thrust to develop a truly strategic relationship that covers maritime security and defence of the Indo-Pacific, economic relations, both trade and investment, and cultural, training educational, and people-to-people interactions that can, together perhaps contribute to the realisation of the full potential of two major Asian powers in the 21st century.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.

Ambasassador Gautam Mukhopadhaya has served as Indian Ambassador to Syria, Afghanistan, and most recently, Myanmar. He has also worked in the UN Headquarters in New York as a Consultant on Social Development, and has been a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His range of interests include media, culture, human rights, social development, defence and security. He currently divides his time between Jakarta and Delhi.

Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/specialfeature/indonesian-president-visit-to-india_gmukhopadhaya_251116

By Deepak Kumar Nayak*

On November 25, 2016, a Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist) cadre was killed during an encounter with the Security Forces (SFs) in a forested area under the Kondagaon Police Station in Kondagaon District. The body of the slain Maoist along with one rifle and one 12 bore gun was recovered from the encounter site.

On November 22, 2016, a Sub-Inspector (SI) of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was killed and a head constable was injured in an improvised explosive device (IED) explosion in the forest areas of Sukma District. The incident took place when two personnel of a patrolling team of the CRPF’s 74th Battalion, which was out on an area domination operation between Burkapal Police camp and Chintalnar, inadvertently stepped on a pressure IED concealed beneath the ground by cadres of the CPI-Maoist.

In a similar incident, two CRPF personnel sustained injuries when they stepped on a pressure IED on November 21, 2016, half a kilometre away from the CRPF camp at Narsapuram in Sukma District.

On November 19, 2016, at least five Maoists were killed by the SFs in the jungles of Tuspal and Becha Kilam villages in the Abujhmaad area under the Chhote Dongar Police Station of Narayanpur District. Commenting on the operation, Superintendent of Police (SP) Abhishek Meena, disclosed, “The counter-insurgency operation led to the decimation of Military Company No. six of CPI-Maoist and killing of at least half a dozen Naxals [Left Wing Extremists (LWEs)]. However, we could recover bodies of five Maoists along with their weapons.” SFs recovered three 12 bore guns, one .315 rifle, and articles of daily use from the spot.

On November 16, 2016, six Maoists were killed in an encounter with SFs near the Bugum-Perma forest in Dantewada District. Special Director General of Police, Anti-Naxal Operations, D.M. Awasthi disclosed that the bodies of six slain Maoists were recovered, while many more may have been injured or even killed. “Of these six, three are men, all of them wore uniform and the weapons recovered include three .303 rifles, two 12 bore guns and one single barrel weapon among other items.’’ Two Naxals were arrested from the encounter site.

Incidentally, these three Districts – Sukma, Dantewada and Narayanpur – along with Bijapur, Bastar, Kanker and Kondagaon, form the Bastar Division of Chhattisgarh, which continues to remain the nucleus of Maoist-violence in Chhattisgarh in particular, and the country at large. According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), the Bastar Division has already recorded 190 fatalities in Maoist-related violence in 2016 (data till November 27). These include 124 Maoists, 33 civilians and 33 SF personnel. Total Maoist–linked fatalities in the State stand at 195 – 125 Maoists, 35 civilians and an equal number of SFs. Thus, of a total of 195 Maoist-linked fatalities in the State in 2016, the Bastar Division alone accounts for 190, i.e. 97.43 per cent.

Unsurprisingly, all 16 major incidents (each involving three or more fatalities) that have occurred in Chhattisgarh during the current year were reported from Bastar Division. In these incidents, three civilians, 10 SF personnel and 56 Maoists have been killed.

Spread over a geographical area over 40,000 square kilometres, the Bastar Division is afflicted by low standard human development indicators, as well as widespread absence and worsening access to healthcare, education, drinking water, sanitation and food, creating an alarming humanitarian situation. These conditions clearly suit the Maoists. According to the “District Development and Diversity Index Report for India and Major States,” a joint survey conducted by the US-India Policy Institute (USIPI) and the Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy (CRDDP), New Delhi, released on January 29, 2015, among the 599 Districts across India covered by the survey, all the Districts of the Bastar Division were ranked towards the bottom . The seven Districts of the Bastar Division were also among the 35 worst Naxal-affected Districts identified by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (UMHA) across the country.

An overview of fatalities over the last seven years shows that the Division has recorded 1,106 Maoist-linked fatalities, including 438 Maoist, 426 SF personnel and 242 civilians. Thus, of a total of 1,167 fatalities, including 456 Maoists, 432 SF personnel and 279 civilians, recorded in the State, since 2010, the Bastar Division alone accounted for 94.77 per cent. It is pertinent to recall here that Chhattisgarh alone contributes to 32.91 per cent of the total of Maoist-linked fatalities across the country over the corresponding period.

Current trends do, however, indicate that SFs have made considerable gains against the Maoists in the Division and in the State at large. According to the SATP database, between 2010 and 2015, a total of 314 Maoists were killed in the Division, as against 393 SF personnel, a ratio of 1:1.25 in favour of the rebels. Remarkable SF consolidation in the current year is evident in the ratio of 1:3.75 against the Maoists. Significantly, the Maoists are facing a challenging time across India, and particularly, the onslaught against them in their final bastion, in Bastar has registered dramatic gains. The marginal increase in civilian fatalities is, however, a cause for concern, as Maoists target alleged ‘police informers’, collaborators, and those who have left their ranks with increasing frequency in desperate measures to stem the fragmentation of their organisation.

Moreover, sustained SF pressure has resulted in at least 821 Maoist surrenders in the Bastar Division. Overall surrenders in the State stand at 944 since the beginning of 2016. Hitting further at the Maoist cadre strength, SFs in the Bastar Division have arrested 330 rebels in the current year. The number of arrests in Chhattisgarh stands at 343.

Further weakening Maoist capacities, the Police have seized 45 automatic weapons, among a large cache of other weapons and explosives, from the Naxals during various anti-Naxal operations during the past two years, in the restive Bastar region, Inspector General of Police (IGP, Bastar), S.R.P. Kalluri disclosed on November 14, 2016. Significantly, according to the UMHA, during the same period 1,971 arms were recovered from Left Wing Extremists from various parts of the country (data till October 31, 2016).

The recent battering of the Maoists in their own ‘capital’ is, without doubt, extraordinary, but the Maoists continue to experiment with new plans to find spaces for survival. The State Intelligence Bureau (SIB), on October 26, 2016, disclosed that CPI-Maoist is reportedly working on a plan to create a new ‘guerrilla zone’ along the Chhattisgarh-Maharashtra-Madhya Pradesh (MP) border region as an “extension” of its current stronghold in Bastar. The proposed new ‘guerrilla zone’, will be nestled in the Satpura Hills range, spreading over eight Districts in the three States of Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and MP. It is said that this will facilitate the expansion of the CPI-Maoist base north and east of Bastar. According to the SIB, of the eight Districts, Maoists have already established bases in Rajnandgaon in Chhattisgarh, Balaghat in MP and Gadchiroli in Maharashtra. The extremists are on their way to expand to other border Districts of Kawardha and Mungeli in Chhattisgarh, Mandla and Dindori in MP and Gondia in Maharashtra. The new ‘guerrilla zone’ would function under the Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC), the most powerful entity within the CPI-Maoist operational setup.

Despite reverses inflicted on them, to believe that the Maoists are a spent force and will be ready for talks would be ill-advised. On October 23, 2016, the Chhattisgarh Government announced that they were open for dialogue with the Naxals. Reiterating Chief Minister Raman Singh’s statement on peace talk with Naxals if they shun violence and arms, State’s Home Minister Ramsewak Paikra, stated, “Government’s doors for talks with Naxals are always open provided that the dialogue must be under the purview of democracy and constitution.” The Maoists have not even acknowledged these overtures.

The battle against the Maoists in the Bastar Division is far from over. Despite mounting SF successes in this region, the Division continues to be the core of the surviving Maoist movement, and it is here that the decisive battle against the rebels would be won or lost.

*Deepak Kumar Nayak
Research Assistant, Institute for Conflict Management

By Ajit Kumar Singh*

Three Army personnel were killed and another four were injured when militants ambushed an Army convoy at Pengaree near Digboi in Tinsukia District on November 19, 2016. According to Defence Public Relations Officer (PRO) Lieutenant Colonel Suneet Newton, “They (the militants) had planted an improvised explosive device (IED) on the road. When the IED exploded, the convoy stopped. Then the militants fired indiscriminately.” On November 20, the Independent faction of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA-I) claimed that this was a “joint operation” carried out by the outfit and four members of the Manipur-based Coordination Committee (CorCom) – Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF, the political wing of the People’s Liberation Army, PLA), United National Liberation Front (UNLF), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), and progressive faction of PREPAK (PREPAK-Pro). The other two members of the CorCom, a conglomerate of six Manipur Valley-based militant outfits are the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) and the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL).

On November 16, 2016, a civilian was killed while two others, including one Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) trooper, were critically injured in an attack by suspected ULFA-I militants on a commercial vehicle belonging to the Pengaree Tea Estate in Tinsukia District. The vehicle was fired upon when it was passing through a thick forested area alongside the Pengaree-Digboi road under the Digboi Police Station. Tinsukia Superintendent of Police Mugdhajyoti Dev Mahanta stated, “Though it is yet to be confirmed, the attack could have been carried out by the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (Independent).”

On August 12, 2016, suspected militants of the Independent faction of the ULFA-I killed two persons, identified as Kishori Shah and Rajen Shah, and injured eight, at Bahbon village in the Philobari area of Tinsukia District. Police said that a group of five militants came on foot and opened fire at the two households at around 7.30 pm, killing two persons and injuring the others.

According to partial data compiled by the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP), at least 11 persons, including three civilians, three Security Force (SF) personnel and five militants have been killed in the Tinsukia District in the current year (data till November 25, 2016). During the corresponding period of 2015, the District had recorded just two fatalities (both civilians), and there were no further fatalities in 2015. There was only one fatality (civilian) through 2014. In terms of total insurgency-linked fatalities, the 2016 total of 11 is the highest since 2008, when such fatalities stood at 26. The three SF fatalities are the highest recorded in this category since 2006, when 10 SF personnel were killed. There were no fatalities among SFs in the District in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, with an aberration of 2013 which recorded four civilian fatalities, the three fatalities recorded in this category are highest recorded since 2008, when nine civilians were killed.

While there was only one incident of killing through 2015, the number of such incidents has already risen to five in the current year. Two of these five incidents were major (involving three or more fatalities), including the November 19 incident. In another major incident this year, SFs killed four militants in Na Kathalguri village under Bordumsa Police Station in Tinsukia District on February 16, 2016. The District had previously recorded its last major incident on April 19, 2013, when an Inspector of a commando unit of Assam Police, identified as Lohit Sonowal, two militants of ULFA-I (then known as ULFA-ATF, Anti Talk Faction) and a civilian, were killed in an encounter at Kordoiguri village in Tinsukia District.

There were nine incidents of explosion in 2016 as against just two recorded through 2015. This is the highest number of such incidents recorded in the District since 2007, when there were such 13. In 2016, SFs recovered arms and ammunition on at least 13 occasions from militants active in the District. There were eight such incidents through 2015.

Tinsukia District covers an area of 3,790 square kilometers in the eastern part of Assam. It shares borders with five Districts of Arunachal Pradesh (East Siang, Lower Dibang Valley, Lohit Changlang, and Tirap) and two Districts of Assam (Dibrugarh and Dhemaji). All these Districts are insurgency infested. Two of these – Changlang and Tirap – share borders with Myanmar, which has for long served as a safe haven for major insurgent groups operating in the Northeastern region. Adjoined to the areas with thick rain forests, such as Dibru-Saikhowa, Naamsang and other hilly forest areas of Arunachal Pradesh, Tinsukia provides a safe sanctuary to insurgents and its strategic location is used by the militants as a transit route. Significantly, according to an August 22, 2016, report, an arrested militant of the Isak-Muivah faction of National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN-IM), Phoren Ramwaone, revealed during interrogations that Tinsukia District was being used as a transit route and corridor by NSCN-IM militants, from their Headquarters at Hebron in Dimapur (Nagaland) to the Lohit District of Arunachal Pradesh, over the past several years.

Tinsukia District has recorded at least 297 fatalities, including 147 civilians, 120 militants and 30 SF personnel, since March 2000, according to the SATP database (when the database commenced recording insurgency-related incidents in the region). At the peak of insurgency, the District recorded 74 fatalities (50 civilians and 24 militants) in 2007. Though fatalities in the District have reduced considerably since then, the recent upsurge in insurgent activities is worrisome.

Since the insurgents have suffered losses across the Northeast over the last several years, they are trying to regain footholds in areas which they once dominated. Because of its strategic location, Tinsukia is one among these. To recover some operational presence here, as SAIR has noted earlier , the major terror outfits operating in region have reportedly joined hands. Significantly, claiming responsibility for the November 19, 2016, incident, ‘Captain’ Arunudoy Asom of ULFA-I in an e-mail statement claimed that ’Operation Barak’ was carried out jointly by cadres of the ULFA [ULFA-I] and four CorCom members.

Perturbed by increasing insurgency-related incidents in Tinsukia, Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal held a review meeting on September 14, 2016, and urged the Police and other security agencies to work in tandem to prevent such violence. He also announced that the Police would be provided modern equipment. Similarly, during a meeting of the Unified Command chaired by Vinod Kumar Pipersenia, Chief Secretary to the Assam Government, in the aftermath of the November 19 attack, it was decided to step up operations in the Upper Assam Districts, particularly the Districts bordering Arunachal Pradesh (Tinsukia lies in this region) and Nagaland, as the rebels have reportedly been sneaking into the Assam through those States.

The relatively deteriorating security scenario in Tinsukia reflects the overall security situation in Assam. The State has recorded increases in insurgency-linked fatalities – 82 in 2016 so far as, against 58 during the corresponding period of 2015. It is crucial, consequently, that the State and Union Governments work together with other bordering States, to contain the insurgent groups operating in the region. Implementation of an effective border management policy is another critical need, as most of the infrastructure of terrorism used by these groups is located in areas which lie beyond Indian territory.

*Ajit Kumar Singh
Research Fellow, Institute for Conflict Management

By Bryan Riley and Ambassador Terry Miller*

The latest rankings of trade freedom around the world, developed by The Heritage Foundation in the forthcoming 2017 Index of Economic Freedom,[1] once again demonstrate that citizens of countries that embrace trade freedom are better off than those in countries that do not. The data continue to show a strong correlation between trade freedom and a variety of positive indicators, including economic prosperity, low poverty rates, and clean environments.

Worldwide, the average trade freedom score improved just barely over the past year, from 75.6 to 75.9 out of a maximum score of 100. The improvement was due to a small decline in average tariff rates among the countries measured.

Why Trade Freedom Matters

A comparison of economic performance and trade scores in the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom demonstrates the importance of trade freedom to prosperity and well-being. Countries with the most trade freedom have higher per capita incomes, lower incidences of hunger in their populations, and cleaner environments.

Boosting Trade and Economic Freedom. Since World War II, government barriers to global commerce have been reduced significantly. Today, the average worldwide tariff rate is less than 3 percent. The average world tariff rate has fallen by one-third since the turn of the century alone.[2] Sixteen countries have an average tariff rate of 1 percent or less.

These countries with low tariffs and few non-tariff barriers benefit from stronger economic growth. But more open trade policies do not just promote economic growth, they encourage freedom—including protection of property rights and the freedom of average people to buy what they think is best for their families, regardless of attempts by special interest groups to restrict that freedom.

But not all countries have embraced openness to trade. Double-digit tariff rates are applied in 34 countries, and even countries with low average tariff rates often have high tariff peaks for some items. In the United States, for example, the average tariff rate is just 1.4 percent, but pickup trucks face a prohibitive 25 percent tariff, and many types of clothing are subject to double-digit tariffs.[3]

Threats to Trade. The volume of U.S. and world trade in goods and services plummeted during the global recession, declining by roughly 20 percent between 2008 and 2009. From 2009 to 2014, U.S. and world trade volume increased by around 50 percent, followed by a 10 percent drop in world trade volume in 2015, along with a 4 percent decline in U.S. trade volume. The World Trade Organization (WTO) predicts an increase in global trade of just 1.7 percent in 2016.[4]

The recent stagnation in global trade volume and anti-trade rhetoric is cause for concern in many quarters. Consider the following observations:

• International Monetary Fund (IMF): “The slowdown in trade growth since 2012 is largely because of weak growth, but also fewer trade deals and a recent uptick in protectionism.”[5]
• Peterson Institute for International Economics: “[T]he absence of liberalization and the eruption of micro-protection have been major contributors to weak trade and investment performance.”[6]
• WTO Director-General Roberto Azevêdo: “Out of the more than 2,800 trade-restrictive measures recorded…since October 2008, only 25 per cent have been removed. In the current environment, a rise in trade restrictions is the last thing the global economy needs.”[7]
• Center for Economic and Policy Research: “Between 1 January and 31 October 2015, a total of 539 measures were taken by governments worldwide that harmed foreign traders, investors, workers, or owners of intellectual property. In no previous year have we found so many trade distortions so quickly.”[8]

Trade Is for Everyone

There is no doubt that free trade is popular among economists and CEOs. A panel of economic experts was recently asked to respond to the following proposition: “Adding new or higher import duties on products such as air conditioners, cars, and cookies—to encourage producers to make them in the US—would be a good idea.” All of the respondents either “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed.”[9]

According to the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies, “Expanding international trade is essential to higher economic growth and creating new jobs.”[10]

But support for trade is not limited to economists and CEOs. Despite the relatively weak economy and an increase in anti-trade rhetoric, most Americans remain open to the idea of expanding trade:

• According to a February 2016 Gallup Poll, 58 percent of Americans view trade as more of an opportunity for the U.S. economy than a threat, versus just 34 percent who viewed trade as more of a threat than an opportunity.[11]
• According to a June 2016 survey from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 59 percent of Americans believe international trade is good for the U.S. economy.[12]
• A July 2016 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 55 percent of Americans believe trade with foreign countries is good and just 38 percent believe it is bad.[13]
• The Heritage Foundation’s American Perceptions Initiative asked, “Which is more important: allowing free trade so companies can buy the inputs they need at a lower cost, low-income families can buy clothing at more affordable prices, and the economy can create new jobs, or allowing Congress to protect some politically connected industries from low-priced imports?” Just 9 percent of Americans chose protectionism.[14]

Freedom to Trade Is a Populist Policy

The idea behind freedom to trade is simple: People are better off when they decide for themselves how to spend their money than when politicians or bureaucrats decide for them. This is hardly an elitist point of view.

The 2017 Index of Economic Freedom shows that people who live in countries with low trade barriers are better off than those who live in countries with high trade barriers. Reducing those barriers remains a proven recipe for prosperity. Governments interested in higher economic growth, less hunger, and better environmental quality should promote freedom, not pander to special interests who want to restrict it.

*About the authors:
Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy
Center for Trade and Economics (CTE)

Ambassador Terry Miller, Director, Center for Data Analysis and the Center for Trade and Economics and Mark A. Kolokotrones Fellow in Economic Freedom Center for Trade and Economics (CTE)

Source:
This article was published by The Heritage Foundation

Appendix B: Methodology

The trade freedom scores reported in this Backgrounder are based on two variables: trade–weighted average tariff rates and non-tariff barriers (NTBs).

Different imports entering a country can, and often do, face different tariffs. The weighted average tariff uses weights for each tariff based on the share of imports for each good. Weighted average tariffs are a purely quantitative measure and account for the basic calculation of the score using the equation:

Trade Freedomi = (Tariffmax – Tariffi) / (Tariffmax – Tariffmin) x 100 – NTBi

where Trade Freedomi represents the trade freedom in country i, Tariffmax and Tariffmin represent the upper and lower bounds for tariff rates, and Tariffi represents the weighted average tariff rate in country i. The minimum tariff is naturally zero, and the upper bound was set as a score of 50. NTBi, an NTB penalty, is then subtracted from the base score. The penalty of 5, 10, 15, or 20 points is assigned according to the following scale:

• Penalty of 20. NTBs are used extensively across many goods and services or impede a significant amount of international trade.
• Penalty of 15. NTBs are widespread across many goods and services or impede a majority of potential international trade.
• Penalty of 10. NTBs are used to protect certain goods and services or impede some international trade.
• Penalty of 5. NTBs are uncommon, protecting few goods and services, with very limited impact on international trade.
• No penalty. NTBs are not used to limit international trade.

Both qualitative and quantitative data are used to determine the extent of NTBs in a country’s trade policy regime. Restrictive rules that hinder trade vary widely, and their overlapping and shifting nature makes gauging their complexity difficult. The categories of NTBs considered in the trade freedom penalty include:

• Quantity restrictions. These include import quotas, export limitations, voluntary export restraints, import/export embargoes and bans, and countertrade measures.
• Price restrictions. These include antidumping duties, countervailing duties, border tax adjustments, and variable levies and tariff rate quotas.
• Regulatory restrictions. These include licensing; domestic content and mixing requirements; sanitary and phytosanitary standards; safety and industrial standards regulations; packaging, labeling, and trademark regulations; and advertising and media regulations.
• Customs restrictions. These include advance deposit requirements, customs valuation procedures, customs classification procedures, and customs clearance procedures.
• Direct government intervention. These include subsidies and other aids; government industrial policy and regional development measures; government-financed research and other technology policies; national taxes and social insurance; competition policies; immigration policies; state trading, government monopolies, and exclusive franchises; and government procurement policies.

As an example: Brazil received a trade freedom score of 69.4. By itself, Brazil’s weighted average tariff of 7.8 percent would have yielded a score of 84.4, but the existence of NTBs in Brazil reduced its score by 15 points.

Gathering data on tariffs to make a consistent cross-country comparison can be a challenging task. Unlike data on inflation, for instance, some countries do not report their weighted average tariff rate or simple average tariff rate every year. To preserve consistency in grading trade policy, the authors use the World Bank’s most recently reported weighted average tariff rate for a country. If another reliable source reported more updated information on a country’s tariff rate, the authors note this fact and may review the grading if strong evidence indicates that the most recently reported weighted average tariff rate is outdated.

The World Bank produces the most comprehensive and consistent information on weighted average applied tariff rates. When the weighted average applied tariff rate is not available, the authors use the country’s average applied tariff rate. When the country’s average applied tariff rate is not available, the authors use the weighted average or the simple average of most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates. In the very few cases in which data on duties and customs revenues are not available, the authors use international trade tax data instead.

In all cases, the authors clarify the type of data used and the different sources for those data in the corresponding write-up for the trade policy factor. When none of this information is available, the authors simply analyze the overall tariff structure and estimate an effective tariff rate.

The trade freedom scores for 2017 are based on data for the period covering the second half of 2015 through the first half of 2016. To the extent possible, the information is current as of June 30, 2016. Any changes in law effective after that date have no positive or negative impact on the 2017 trade freedom scores.

Finally, unless otherwise noted, the authors use the following sources to determine scores for trade policy, in order of priority:

1. The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2016.
2. The World Trade Organization, Trade Policy Review, 1995–2016.
3. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2016 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.
4. The World Bank, Doing Business 2015 and Doing Business 2016.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of State, Country Commercial Guide, 2011–2016.
6. Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Commerce, 2016.
7. World Economic Forum, The Global Enabling Trade Report 2014.
8. Official government publications of each country.

Notes:
[1] See Appendix A.

[2] The World Bank, “Tariff Rate, Applied, Weighted Mean, All Products (%),” http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS (accessed October 17, 2016).

[3] U.S. International Trade Commission, “Harmonized Tariff Schedule (2016 HTSA Supplement Edition),” http://hts.usitc.gov/current (accessed October 18, 2016).

[4] News release, “Trade in 2016 to Grow at Slowest Pace since the Financial Crisis,” World Trade Organization, September 27, 2016, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres16_e/pr779_e.htm (accessed October 18, 2016).

[5] News release, “Keeping the Wheels of Trade in Motion,” International Monetary Fund, September 26, 2016, http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/26/NA092716%20Keeping-the-Wheels-of-Trade-in-Motion (accessed October 18, 2016).

[6] Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Euijin Jung, “Why Has Trade Stopped Growing? Not Much Liberalization and Lots of Micro-Protection,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 23, 2016, https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/why-has-trade-stopped-growing-not-much-liberalization-and-lots (accessed October 18, 2016).

[7] News release, “Report Urges WTO Members to Resist Protectionism and ‘Get Trade Moving Again,’” World Trade Organization, July 25, 2016, https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news16_e/trdev_22jul16_e.htm (accessed October 18, 2016).

[8] Simon J. Evenett and Johannes Fritz, The Tide Turns? Trade, Protectionism, and Slowing Global Growth: The 18th Global Trade Alert Report (London: CEPR Press, 2015), http://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/GTA18_final.pdf (accessed October 18, 2016).

[9] IGM Economic Experts Panel, “Import Duties,” October 4, 2016, http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel (accessed October 18, 2016).

[10] Business Roundtable, “Momentum for America,” 2016, http://businessroundtable.org/growth (accessed October 18, 2016).

[11] Frank Newport, “Americans Split on Idea of Withdrawing from Trade Treaties,” Gallup, April 28, 2016, http://www.gallup.com/poll/191135/americans-split-idea-withdrawing-trade-treaties.aspx (accessed October 18, 2016).

[12] Dina Smeltz, Craig Kafura, and Lily Wojtowicz, “Actually, Americans Like Free Trade,” Chicago Council on Global Affairs, September 7, 2016, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/actually-americans-free-trade (accessed October 18, 2016).

[13] Vaughn Ververs, “NBC News/Wall Street Journal July National Poll,” Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, July 2016, https://www.scribd.com/document/318518107/NBC-News-Wall-Street-Journal-July-National-Poll (accessed October 18, 2016).

[14] Bryan Riley, “Americans Are Pro-Trade When They Understand the Tradeoffs,” The Daily Signal, July 10, 2015, http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/10/americans-are-pro-trade-when-they-understand-the-tradeoffs/ (accessed October 18, 2016).

Dutch MPs on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban the Islamic full-face burka from some public places such as schools and hospitals. This way, Netherlands is the fourth country in the European Union (EU) to ban the full-face burka after France, Belgium and Bulgaria.

Interior Minister Ronald Plasterk suggested this ban because he considered that the burka hurdles communicating with others and identifying them. He also said that it is a normal thing for people to see each other in public places.

Muslim women can still wear the burka in streets but will be fined up to EUR400 if in public places. This law was faced with huge objection because “it contradicts with the freedom of religion,” as stated by the Council of State.

Pro-burka defended it, saying that it is a personal choice but is being banned for security necessity as claimed by the law makers.

The first government of Mark Rutte (2010-2012) submitted a draft to impose a ban on burka in public places but it wasn’t implemented because the government was toppled. During forming the government, parties agreed to present a new draft as a substitute to the old one.

In July 2014, the European Court of Human Rights approved banning the burka applied in France in 2010 then Belgium, Bulgaria and some Swiss regions.

Original source

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s real GDP grew 1.3% in October, after 1.5% growth in September, according to preliminary data released by the state statistics office on November 30.

Economy grew 2.5% in the first ten months of this year, according to Geostat’s preliminary data.

Government’s forecast for 2016 economic growth stands at 3%. But PM Giorgi Kvirikashvili, who appeared before lawmakers last week as part of confirmation hearings for his cabinet, said that the government projects 2.7% economic growth this year.

Kvirikashvili also said that the government expects 3.4% economic growth next year, but initial draft of 2017 state budget projects 4% economic growth.

Georgia’s economy expanded by 2.9% in 2015, the weakest growth since 2009.

By Dr Subhash Kapila

Pakistan’s announcement of new Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa on November 24 2016 set in motion a torrent of futile Indian media speculation on positive implications for India in terms of his attitudinal postures.

India must learn to recognise that no Pakistan Army Chief ‘controls’ the Pakistan Army even though by virtue of his office he commands it. It is the Pakistan Army which institutionally through its Corps Commanders Collegium that controls the Pakistan Army Chief and Pakistan.

Strangely, the Indian media and strategic community comparatively never debates such aspects when changes in China’s military hierarchy takes place even though the fact is that China’s policies towards India are conditioned by the Chinese military hierarchy and that China is more decidedly the major threat to India amplified since 2014 by the China-Pakistan Axis.

Before moving on to the examination of the main theme it would be proper to briefly shed light on the external and internal environment that presently dominates Pakistan. The new Pakistan Army Chief cannot operate in a vacuum and Pakistan’s political and security environment that prevails will certainly count for much as General Bajwa’s operational assessments and the policy he crafts when he dons the mantle on November 29 2016.

Pakistan can be said externally to be bereft of support of the United States and Western countries, its traditional supporters. China and with Russia in tow cannot fill the vacuum so caused. China is only an aphrodisiac that excites delusionary military highs in the Pakistan military hierarchy in confronting India

Regionally, Pakistan and the Pakistan Army are at confrontational odds with its two major neighbours, Afghanistan and India. This makes Pakistan Army’s both military flanks troublesome. Within SAARC also Pakistan stands isolated.

On Afghanistan, with Pakistan Army’s fixated obsession of controlling it for strategic depth, Pakistan Army Chief has to confront the new reality that today there is a strategic consensus between India, Iran and Afghanistan and that is at cross-purposes with Pakistan Army’s end-aim.

Internally, the domestic environment is in turbulence not only politically but also militarily. Politically, Pakistan PM has not been allowed to settle down stably on many counts. Militarily, Balochistan and to some extent Sindh and the Western Frontier regions will provide challenges to the new Pakistan Army Chief. These can be serious distractions as General Bajwa confronts the military turbulence on its Western and Eastern Flanks.

Then are the major challenges that could arise within the Pakistan Army hierarchy as in their perceptions the smooth transition of command of the Pakistan Army Chief in a way for the first time opens a window for greater Pakistani civilian control of the Pakistan Army. There could be reverberations as General Bajwa by Pakistani media accounts was not the favoured choice of the outgoing Pakistan Army Chief General Raheel Sharif or the Pakistan Army.

Surely, it is an established fact that Pakistan’s policy stances towards India are not dictated by any incoming Pakistan Army Chief’s personal preferences. It is the Pakistan Army’s institutional mindset on India that prevails ultimately and no new Pakistan Army Chief can afford to shrug that off.

Pakistan Army’s institutional mindset on India is decidedly Anti-India not only because of post-1947 reverses that Pakistan Army has suffered at the hands of the Indian Army. The Pakistan Army’s mindsets are also historically moulded by the nostalgia and hangover that the Pakistan Army are the true heirs of the Islamic Slave Kings and Mughal Empire that ruled India for nearly eight hundred years before the advent of the British.

With that contextual background it can be asserted that the Pakistan Army is in a state of paranoid fixation towards seeking strategic and military parity with India. Since this could not be achieved in the outcomes of Pakistan Army’s four wars with India, the Pakistan Army for the past few decades resorted to asymmetric warfare whose main instruments have been proxy wars and state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan Army jihadi terrorism affiliates.

With the advent of General Bajwa as Pakistan Army Chief, therefore, nothing changes for India in terms of conflict escalation and military brinkmanship on the LOC and the international border. India must learn to live and not only live but defeat Pakistan Army’s institutional obsessive fixation to downsize India and its military might.

Would General Bajwa as the new Pakistan Army Chief be able to restrain Pakistan’s terrorism and disruptive activities against India and especially in the Kashmir Valley, the answer is in the negative. Unlike previous Pakistan Army Chiefs, General Bajwa has practical hands-on experience and mastery of operational matters all along the LOC and the IB having served many tenures in every rank in Pakistan Army’s X Corps which is the largest Corps in the Pakistan Army whose operational responsibility covers the entire expanse of Jammu & Kashmir. That makes him a General to be reckoned with when it comes to military operations in Jammu & Kashmir.

The Indian media has widely quoted that General Bajwa had once stated that Pakistan faces more internal threats than the threat from India. But that does not imply that the Pakistan Army would isolate/insulate itself from its military adventurism in Kashmir or seek peace and tranquillity on India’s borders. Or, more significantly for India, restrain terrorism against India and other disruptive activities.

Pakistan is currently under great international pressure to defang Pakistan Army’s notorious affiliates the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, as the major powers feel that their activities could provoke India into an escalated armed conflict with Pakistan.

Should the new Pakistan Army Chief succumb to such international pressure, it would not be from any fears of Indian military backlash but out of coercive pressures from Pakistan Army’s erstwhile strategic patrons. The rest of Pakistan Army’s military adventurism against India is unlikely to cease.

The other major ongoing speculation in India is whether Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif having personally selected General Bajwa as the new Pakistan Army Chief could possibly expect him to second the Pakistani PM’s penchant for better relations with India which in the past were over-ruled by previous Army Chiefs.

It would be a flawed assessment that speculates that Pakistani PM’s main determinant in selecting General Bajwa was that the new Army Chief would be more accommodative in promoting Pakistan’s peace dialogues with India. Pakistan’s institutional opposition to such initiatives would ultimately prevail and even if there is no threat of military coups exist but until such time Pakistan Army comes under complete control of its civilian masters, no Pakistani PM can be oblivious to Pakistan Army’s institutional Anti-India fixations.

The ‘China Factor’ has now surfaced as a major factor and determinant in Pakistan’s and Pakistan Army’s policy attitudes towards India with the emergence of the China-Pakistan Axis in more concrete terms. Further, China prefers dealing directly with the Pakistan Army Chief and the Pakistan Army, and not with the elected Government of Pakistan. China can ill-afford any Pakistan Army Chief who displays soft attitudes’ towards India. General Bajwa cannot be expected to be an exception.

Lead editorials in Pakistan’s more prominent dailies reflecting on General Bajwa’s selection as Army Chief in outlining the agenda for the new Pakistan Army Chief have stressed that General Bajwa should focus on the continuation of his predecessor’s aggressive policies which in any case were not India-friendly.

Pakistan seems to be suffering from heightened besieged paranoia where one columnist has gone so far as to suggest that the ‘Trump-Modi Combine’ would be out to destroy Pakistan.

Concluding therefore, the major assessment that surfaces from the above analysis is that India should be under no delusions’ that Pakistan’s policy on India would change for the better with the advent of the new Pakistan Army Chief. A complex mix of external and internal factors may propel Pakistan to greater military adventurism against India on the plea that India threatens Pakistan’s very existence now with no restraining coercive pressures of the United States existent.

By Luis Ángel Saavedra

The corruption unveiled at the state-owned oil company Petroecuador has also unveiled the cynicism with which the government can act to get rid of political actors whom they feel threatened by or to protect their supporters.

All started in April with the so-called Panama Papers — the publication of confidential documents of the Panamanian company Mossack Fonseca that revealed the use of tax havens by companies and individuals to evade taxes and for money laundering — in which several Ecuadorians were mentioned, among them Carlos Pareja Yannuzzelli, a key man in the oil business of several governments.

In the current government of President Rafael Correa, in addition to having held high governmental positions and in the state oil company itself, Pareja Yannuzzelli was given the responsibility for increasing the installed capacity of the Esmeraldas State Refinery, a project for which an investment of US$170 million was planned back in 2007, which ended up costing about $2.2 billion in 2015.

Pareja Yannuzzelli argued that the costs were of different projects, arguing that there had been talk of repowering since 2007, but the final project turned out to be almost the complete replacement of the refinery. But this argument did not convince oil experts like Fernando Villavicencio.

“The analysis of the 157 contracts subscribed for the repowering of the refinery, obtained exclusively by (the research portal) Focus Ecuador, reveals the most important fact: the project did not cost $1.2 billion as the government has argued, but almost double that amount. The sum of all the contracts at the hands of this portal exceeds $2.2 billion. After learning of this figure, it can be said with certainty, that this is the most expensive and questioned project of the current government,” Villavicencio said.

In Panama it was possible to detect some companies linked to oil officials of the current government, something that Villavicencio had already warned about; he had even denounced the existence of bribes in the oil dealings led by Pareja Yannuzzelli and Alex Bravo, the CEO of Petroecuador. Villavicencio was prosecuted and was issued an arrest warrant against him, according to the government, for having intervened e-mails from which he obtained the information on which he based his allegations. Villavicencio denied the accusations and after going underground, obtained a habeas corpus that now allows him to present his defense in freedom.

Pareja Yannuzzelli fled the country on Sept. 28 when it was no longer possible for him to hide his activities, highlighting the negligence of the Attorney General, Galo Chiriboga. Christian Viteri, party-liner legislator, reported that Chiriboga knew of the actions of Pareja Yannuzzelli before he fled the country, since he had already received a report from International Criminal Assistance, an international legal support mechanism.

The war room

Viteri presented a certified document from the Panama Ministry of Government, dated Sept. 26, reporting to the Ecuadorian Attorney General’s Office about the investments of Pareja Yannuzzelli in ghost companies. Viteri also asked for the lifting of bank secrecy of some 25 bank accounts in Switzerland, Hong Kong, the Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands and Venezuela, something that Attorney General Chiriboga has also refused to request through International Criminal Assistance.

Pareja Yannuzzelli escaped and many demanded the dismissal of Chiriboga as a result of his neglect. The Alianza País (AP) parliamentary bloc decided to set up a “war room”, as Blanca Argüello, coordinator of the ruling party legislators said is called the political body that should define whether or not to prosecute Chiriboga. This war room was formed in the end of October with President Correa; the President of the National Assembly, Gabriela Rivadeneira; and the National Secretary of Political Management, Paola Pabón.

Argüello said that “they will hold a meeting in the Presidency to analyze whether or not the political trial can proceed from the political perspective and the harm or benefit that this will have for the candidacies”.

Apparently, the decision of this war room was to leave the prosecutor alone and see how to strengthen the official candidacies for the presidential elections of Feb.19, 2017, as there was no mention again of the political trial that was requested, not even by government supporters.

Jorge Glas, the current vice president and vice presidential candidate, was in charge of all the country’s energy programs, including the oil sectors. Pareja Yannuzzelli and Bravo were directly dependent on him, so Glas would have to bear at least some political and administrative responsibility for these acts, as expressed by analyst Lolo Echeverría, in a debate held on Radio Democracia, of Quito, on Nov. 16.

As if this were not enough, Glas’s name was once again mentioned in other acts of corruption, this time in the processes of assigning radio and television frequencies. Marcos Párraga Quinteros, who was an adviser to Glas and a counselor to the Information Regulatory Council (CORDICOM), together with Tulio Muñoz, a member of the Manabita Corporation of Radio and Television, were charged with demanding up to $200,000 for the allocation of radio frequencies.

Election campaign

According to legislator Gerardo Morán, the money requested was to be used in the AP election campaign, apparently at the request of the vice president and Pabón. These officials have denied their participation in these events.

Juan Carlos Solines, a member of the Observatory of Frequencies, a citizens group created to monitor the process of awarding radio frequencies, denounced the existence of two more corruption cases in this area.

Although the legal secretary of the Presidency, Alexis Mera, assured that Glas has no allegations of corruption, the allegations seriously affected the pro-government formula, to the point that the presidential candidate Lenín Moreno sought Glas’s replacement, but the candidacy of Glas was imposed on him. According to electoral polls, which cannot be disseminated by mandate of the National Electoral Council, the official candidature would have fallen by five percentage points, putting it at risk of not reaching the second round to be held on Apr. 2, and favoring the immediate candidacies behind them: banker Guillermo Lasso, of the right-wing Movimiento CREO, and General Paco Moncayo, from the center-left Acuerdo Nacional por el Cambio.

In the event of losing the elections, the government seeks to ensure that its actions are not investigated by a new administration and for this reason it is promoting the re-election of Ramiro Rivadeneira as Ombudsman, who has kept silent regarding the human rights violations committed in the current regime.

Likewise, it will seek the appointment of Mera as National Comptroller of the Nation, which will ensure that the expenditure of the last 10 years of government is not investigated. And as for Chiriboga, it seems that his re-election as Attorney General will be supported, for which he is doing merit, since after letting the big fish out he has dedicated himself to imprisoning the small fish that remained in the country, an act with which he seeks to clean his image.

If Rivadeneira, Mera and Chiriboga are ratified, a trio will be formed to facilitate the impunity of the current government and its followers, according to a manifesto signed by 20 social and human rights organizations in the country, led by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (COANIE) on Nov.15.

“The control of the Ombudsman, the Comptroller General and the Attorney General’s offices will keep intact that triangle of impunity that has benefited the interest of the government and its related groups,” the manifesto reads.

The no-first-use policy of the India nuclear Doctrine is, to a certain extent uncertain as India’s Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar is contravening this ‘no first use policy’ bit by bit.

Parrikar very recently expressed personal doubts about India’s nuclear no-first-use policy rhetoric “why should I bind myself? I should say I am a responsible nuclear power and I will not use it irresponsibly.” The statement became a hot debate among the global nuclear cognoscenti especially in south Asia. Evidently when it comes to India Pakistan each and every bit of such intentional or unintentional rhetoric plays a major role in shaping the future relevant moves.

The No first use (NFU) actually refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. It clearly depicts the preemptive mindset of Indian conscientious nuclear weapons managers/ regulators.

It would be more pertinent to mention here that this is not the first time of Indian Defence Minister giving such a treacherous thought, rather it is a series followed by something new after a span of time. In May 2015 also Parrikar blurted in New Delhi that “we have to neutralise terrorists through terrorists only. Why can’t we do it? We should do it. You remove a thorn with the help of a thorn.” This was the time when Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders were united in raising their voice in a public against Indian covert operations in Balochistan.

The Defence Minister also opined about the rethink of Indian submarine building program that it should look for greater numbers than the existing plan of constructing 24 such vessels. This was in referring to the existing 30-year submarine building plan that envisages construction of 24 submarines, including both nuclear and conventional, he suggested India need a longer term plan till 2050 as the existing plan ends in 2030.

Similarly, India is heading day by day into the continuous modernization of its military built-up, aspiring to become the giant arms trader of South Asian region. It outdoes China as the world’s largest importer of weapons systems, indicating the country’s intent of modernizing its military abilities and demonstrating capabilities beyond south Asia. It is feared that the whole Asian security is fueling arms trade now as the region has accounted for 46 percent of global imports over the past five years.

As according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), six of the world’s ten largest arms importers are in Asia and Oceania.
The above mentioned facts and these statements in point of fact, reflect a common sense approach to challenge a state that is certainly Pakistan, just to exercise and reiterate its colossal nuclear ambitions in South Asia. George Perkovich, a Vice President for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, observes that it is threatening to mount responses against Pakistan could augment deterrence of such acts and could add options for India to respond if deterrence fails and more terrorism occurs. Consequently, Parrikar’s observations and suggestions were far from crazy.

As India is considered in its media-age democracies, the defence minister or the ministry as a whole should not act so asinine. Such probabilities time in and time out, actually, provides an opportunity to believe on the security lapses along with a serious rethink about the dilemmas in the making of a sound national security policy of that country.

It needs to be explained in Parrikar’s next rhetoric that could there be any responsible use of nuclear weapons too? The spot on is, he is a responsible nuclear power and he will not use it irresponsibly, something irrational or just an attention-grabbing technique.

By Abhijnan Rej

A new study has shown that toddlers as young as two-and-a-half years old can understand when others have different thoughts from them – much earlier than the age of four as traditionally thought. This suggests that children may know when adults are lying or pretending.

The finding is made by developmental psychologists Assistant Professor Setoh Pei Pei from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore), Assistant Professor Rose Scott from the University of California Merced, and Professor Renée Baillargeon from the University of Illinois, who studied the behaviour of more than 140 children in the United States aged two-and-a-half years old.

Their study, published in this month’s edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the official scientific journal of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, used a methodology known by psychologists as “false belief task”.

The researchers used the test to find out whether younger children failed to show an understanding of what others think, either because false beliefs – misconceptions due to incorrect reasoning – are too advanced for children to understand, or because there is too much information for them to deal with all at once.

In a traditional false belief task, a child would listen to a story where a character Sally hides a marble in one of two containers and then leaves. The marble is then shifted to the other container without Sally’s knowledge.

When asked where Sally will look for her marble, younger children pointed to the marble’s new location, suggesting that they do not understand that Sally holds a false belief about the marble’s location. Children from around four years old onwards would point to the marble’s original location.

The study by the Singapore and US professors however showed that when the false belief task is simplified, younger children can answer the question correctly.

How the study was conducted

The modified story of Emma and her apple follows the same format except that the apple was taken away to an undisclosed location. The children were asked two additional location questions where they were shown two object pictures and asked which picture shows the object in question. This was before they were asked the critical question about where Emma will look for her apple.

The additional questions contributed to reducing the information-processing demands on the children, and made it easier for them to answer the critical question. They also became familiar with the test procedure as they learned to expect a question to be asked when they were shown two pictures.

The results suggest that young children are aware that others may hold different beliefs from them, but were not able to demonstrate this understanding due to information-processing overload.

Study shows cognitive abilities of two-and-a-half year olds more advanced than previously thought

Psychology professor Renee Baillargeon said, “When children around the world are asked what someone with a false belief will do next, it is usually not until age four or five that they answer correctly. Our study shows that when the task is made simpler, even two-and-a-half year olds succeed. So the ability to answer questions about persons with false beliefs is present very early in development, contrary to what was traditionally thought.”

Assistant Professor Setoh who heads NTU Singapore’s Early Cognition Lab said, “Having the ability to represent false beliefs means recognising that others can have different thoughts from us. This ability enables children to recognise when others are lying, cheating or pretending.

“If parents believe that children do not understand complicated matters, they may tell simpler versions of the truth and ‘dumb down’ what they view as complicated content for kids. Our findings suggest that children may be able to spot when parents are doing this from as early as two-and-a-half years old. Parents of young children and early childhood educators should be aware that children’s early cognitive abilities may be more advanced than previously thought.”

The study was supported by the US’ National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant.

Moving forward, Assistant Professor Setoh will embark on three new studies in the Asian/Singapore context related to false belief.

One is to find out whether parents in Singapore engage in parenting by lying (as opposed to truth-telling). Another will investigate the effect of such a parenting practice on children in the long run.

A third study will focus on toddlers’ understanding of social acting, which is social pretense that people engage in so as to maintain a positive relationship with their ingroup.

A lack of sleep among the U.S. working population is costing the economy up to $411 billion a year, which is 2.28 percent of the country’s GDP, a new report finds.

According to researchers at the not-for-profit research organisation RAND Europe, part of the RAND Corporation, sleep deprivation leads to a higher mortality risk and lower productivity levels among the workforce, putting a significant damper on a nation’s economy.

A person who sleeps on average less than six hours a night has a 13 percent higher mortality risk than someone sleeping between seven and nine hours, researchers found, while those sleeping between six and seven hours a day have a 7 percent higher mortality risk. Sleeping between seven and nine hours per night is described as the “healthy daily sleep range”.

In total, the U.S. loses just over 1.2 million working days a year due to sleep deprivation among its working population. Productivity losses at work occur through a combination of absenteeism, employees not being at work, and presenteeism, where employees are at work but working at a sub-optimal level.

The study – ‘Why Sleep Matters – The Economic Costs of Insufficient Sleep’- is the first of its kind to quantify the economic losses due to lack of sleep among workers in five different countries – the U.S, UK, Canada, Germany, and Japan. The study uses a large employer-employee dataset and data on sleep duration from the five countries to quantify the predicted economic effects from a lack of sleep among its workforce.

Marco Hafner, a research leader at RAND Europe and the report’s main author, said: “Our study shows that the effects from a lack of sleep are massive. Sleep deprivation not only influences an individual’s health and wellbeing but has a significant impact on a nation’s economy, with lower productivity levels and a higher mortality risk among workers.”

He continued: “Improving individual sleep habits and duration has huge implications, with our research showing that simple changes can make a big difference. For example, if those who sleep under six hours a night increase their sleep to between six and seven hours a night, this could add $226.4 billion to the U.S. economy.”

The U.S. has the biggest financial losses (up to $411 billion, which is 2.28 percent of its GDP) and most working days lost (1.2 million) due to sleep deprivation among its workforce. This was closely followed by Japan (up to $138 billion, which is 2.92 percent of its GDP, and around 600,000 working days lost).

Germany (up to $60 billion, which is 1.56 percent of its GDP, and just over 200,000 working days lost) and the U.K (up to $50 billion, which is 1.86 percent of its GDP, and just over 200,000 working days lost) have similar losses. Canada was the nation with the best sleep outcomes, but still has significant financial and productivity losses (up to $21.4 billion, which is around 1.35 percent of its GDP, and just under 80,000 working days lost).

To improve sleep outcomes, the report outlines a number of recommendations for individuals, employers and public authorities:

Individuals – Set consistent wake-up times; limit the use of electronic items before bedtime; and physical exercise during the day.

Employers – Recognise the importance of sleep and the employer’s role in its promotion; design and build brighter workspaces with facilities for daytime naps; combat workplace psychosocial risks; and discourage the extended use of electronic devices after working hours.

Public authorities – Support health professionals in providing sleep-related help; encourage employers to pay attention to sleep issues; and introduce later school starting times.

A new report by education researchers at RTI International found that the use of private student loans dropped by half between 2008 and 2012.

Conducted for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the study examines the use of private loans by college students over time and compares it to their use of federal loans. Private loans differ from federal loans because they originate from banks, credit unions or other commercial entities, and are not federally guaranteed. Like other consumer loans, the lenders set the terms and conditions of the loan, usually basing them on the market and the borrower’s credit history.

“Generally private loans have stricter terms and harsher penalties for non-payment than federal loans do,” said Jennie Woo, Ed.D., lead author and a senior education researcher at RTI. “Students who are eligible for federal loans are better off getting them instead.”

The study found that 5 percent of undergraduates took out private loans in 2004. After peaking in 2008 at 14 percent, the percentage of undergraduate students who took private loans dropped by about half in 2012 to 6 percent. In contrast, the percentage of undergraduates who took out federal loans through the Stafford Loan program rose from 35 percent to 40 percent between 2008 and 2012.

This pattern held for students at all types of schools and for all income levels. The proportion of students who took out private loans was highest at private for-profit schools, where the proportion of private loan borrowers was three times higher in 2008 than in 2012. Similarly, the percentage of graduate students who borrowed private loans also peaked and then declined: from 11 percent in 2008 to 4 percent in 2012.

Several factors probably contributed to this change. As the financial markets seized up and the economy contracted in the financial crisis that started in December 2007, banks tightened lending standards and increased underwriting requirements. Many banks found student loans no longer profitable and dropped out entirely. The 2005 Higher Education Reconciliation Act, which increased the maximum amount that students could borrow in federal loans, also may have contributed to the change. And finally, removing private banks from the federal loan system may have lessened the confusion between federal and private loans for some borrowers.

“We know that borrowing opens up opportunities for students to attend college or university, and we are glad that students are seeking loans with better terms,” said Erin Dunlop Velez, Ph.D., co-author of the study and an education researcher at RTI.

Journalists across the Western Balkans face a hostile environment that impedes their ability to do critical reporting.

More than a year after Human Rights Watch documented impediments to media freedom in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, and Macedonia, governments in the region and European Union institutions have failed to take concrete action to address the issue. Furthermore, troubling new cases have emerged.

“At a time when it has never been more important, independent journalism is up against the wall in the Western Balkans,” said Lydia Gall, Western Balkans researcher at Human Rights Watch. “That won’t change unless the EU makes absolutely clear to Western Balkans governments that their European aspirations depend on a thriving and free media.”

The former Yugoslav republics of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia are candidates for membership of the EU, and Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo are potential candidates. Freedom of expression and the media are part of the Copenhagen Criteria for EU membership.

In one recent case, in October, the editor of Gazeta Express in Kosovo received death threats via social media following the broadcast of his documentary on war crimes by the Kosovo Liberation Army. The case is under investigation.

The European Commission includes expressions of concern about media freedom in Western Balkans countries in its annual assessments of their human rights records. The commissioner responsible for enlargement, Johannes Hahn, has made reference to media freedom in the region in general terms, but he has not detailed the lack of effective investigations by individual governments into attacks on journalists. A new Commission enlargement strategy, announced on November 9, does refer to media freedom in the region but is short on detailed recommendations.

The European Parliament has offered more specific recommendations. The Commission and EU member states should more consistently press the authorities in the Western Balkans to stop intimidating journalists and make media freedom a high priority during accession talks.

In its 2015 report, “Difficult Profession: Media Freedom Under Attack in the Western Balkans,” Human Rights Watch quoted a Serbian police chief, who dismissively told a journalist: “What can you do, you have a difficult profession.”

Shrugging off responsibility in this way and reluctance to investigate and prosecute such attacks is all too common in the region. This lack of concern and response breaches countries’ obligations to prevent and prosecute such crimes and has created de facto impunity for most crimes against journalists.

Analysis of media and other reports and contact with journalists and NGOs in the region by Human Rights Watch since the publication of the report shows that there has been little or no improvement for media freedom in the Western Balkans. New threats and attacks on journalists that have come to light have gone unpunished.

There is little evidence of political will from governments to improve the climate for media freedom. Some journalists face prosecution on dubious criminal charges, and governments grant and withhold advertising revenues in an effort to dampen critical reporting and curb media independence.

“The list of pressures and violations on independent media in the Western Balkans makes for an unhappy catalogue,” Gall said. “Without a thriving independent media, it’s hard to see the countries in the Western Balkans region meeting the aspirations of their people or their European ambitions.”