Politics and the destruction of our cities

Years back, I sent an article titled, “Nationalization of social and moral values in Pakistan,” to a newspaper. It did publish but with entirely a different title. The new title, “A state that took over society” aptly described what that article was about. Now when I want to write about the destruction of our cities by the political elites in their bid to impress the citizens as voters, I cannot think of a better title than the present one. First I thought of this one: “Preserving the older cities.” However, both the titles communicate what this article argues about. First, the political elites are destroying our cities; and, second, we need to preserve our cities and their age-old soul.

As far as the concept of cities prevailing in our society is concerned, it needs to be reminded that cities are not a complex of roads, buildings, houses, streets, schools, colleges, universities, markets, hotels, restaurants, parks, gardens, libraries; in fact, they are a complex of conceptual environment in which people are born; where they are brought up; where they play, study, comingle, make friends, indulge in love; where they do business, politics; where they organize in various associational initiatives; where they build their world of dreams; where they wage struggle for the improvement of their life or others’ life; where they marry, settle in new homes and beget children; where they pass their old age completely in harmony with their cities; and finally where they are buried. And cities are such places where after their death, they are remembered and visited and prayed for a peaceful afterlife by their survivors. Ultimately cities are made of the stuff dreams are made of.

But as the Pakistani state has taken over its society; along with it, it has grabbed that environment of our cities also where the citizens used to be part of the city’s conceptual environment, and now they feel stranger in their own cities. Now when I go about in Lahore here and there, I miss so many things that were the part of my existence, and like me part of millions of Lahoris’ existence; however, they are no more there. Flyovers, underpasses, overhead bridges, metro-bus have encroached upon the canvas of Lahore. I really feel lost. Just go in front of the MAO College, and see how that Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College has lost its look and image under the ugly shadow of the elevated road for the metro-bus. Not only the MAO College, but just opposite to it another old red-brick building of the erstwhile government college of education stands eclipsed by the same elevated road.

That may mean that one is despising the progressive work meant for the benefit of the people at large, and he may be diagnosed of having a retrogressive mindset. For example, metro-bus is such a good facility that saves time and money of the thousands of commuters. Flyovers, overhead bridges, or underpasses, they all facilitate smooth flow of vehicles and do not allow for any traffic jams. That it’s a great achievement seems to be a truism.

However, the underlying story is quite different. As far as Lahore is concerned, its population has increased manifold and it lacks many of the civic facilities. Good roads and smooth traffic are two big issues. But the question is how to solve these issues; by running metro-bus (which consumed so muc of the space), building flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses; or by improving the roads and managing the traffic as is required by the traffic laws. It cannot be controverted that in Lahore and in other cities also, rules and laws of traffic are not implemented. Nobody in the department of the traffic police, and up to the chief minister, bothers about controlling the traffic mess that’s a daily suffering for millions of people. While a number of flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses do not witness much traffic using them, one is forced to ask why so much money has been spent on such “political marvels.”

Clearly, it is political economy working behind these, in most of the cases, un-needed and un-wanted projects. And, no doubt, they are to prove that the government is doing a lot, and surveys and studies are misled by this illusion of progress and development. In Lahore, there has been built an overhead bridge where the Shalimar Link Road crosses the Canal Road; one can stand there for one hour and count only dozens of vehicles use this bridge; and just beneath this bridge, there is almost always a painful traffic mess facing the people. That shows what is needed is management of traffic on the roads by strictly implementing the rules and laws of traffic, not these political impressive!

It reminds me of a short-story which narrates the ordeal of a simple woman from a suburban village coming to one of the biggest city hospitals to have her daughter treated by the specialist doctors. The first day she has to go back unattended by the doctors; because she has to face a complex network of doors, corridors, floors, stairs on the one hand, and on the other, complicated system of availing various medical services provided by the hospital. She was not familiar to that complicated style of building housing the complicated way of providing services. It takes whole of her second day to know where to go for this and where to go for that.

The gist of the matter is that progress and development means facilitation; not complication; simplicity, and not complexity. Sure, that means simple cities imbued with their soul and spirit. That amounts to saying that development in cities doesn’t mean disfiguring of the face of those cities. Politicians and rulers must understand this simple truth that their mandate to rule is just for 5 years, and they have no authority or right to destroy the 500 years old existence of our cities. In many cases, these cities of ours, like Lyallpur, Gujrat, Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore and so many others may be much older than a period of 500 hundred years.

The politicians and rulers must not impose their dreams on our cities; they should go and develop new cities and do whatever they like, just as they did in Islamabad. Our cities are the dreams of our ancestors as well as ours. We want our cities back. O politicians and rulers leave our cities alone to us, the civil society which can better take care of them. O politicians do not destroy our cities for your temporary political gains! Do not politicize our cities! Let our cities be ourselves!

Note: This article was completed on June 9, and was originally posted in June 2014.

Renaissance for Reforms - Introducing a new book

Here is the Introduction by the authors:

The recipe for growth is well-known. Most economists would agree that lower taxes and less regulation can encourage entrepreneurship and job creation. Yet, many governments are unwilling to introduce such reforms. An important reason is concern over a voter backlash. Jean-Claude Juncker, a likely candidate for the EU-presidency after two decades as Luxemburg’s Prime Minister, famously lamented “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it.” Based on an analysis of 109 governments in developed countries, we would suggest that Juncker’s view is mistakenly gloomy. Although market-oriented reforms may initially meet fierce resistance, governments that introduce them are more often than not rewarded by voters.

In our new book “Renaissance for Reforms” we look at the pace and direction of reforms in 29 OECD governments between the mid-1990s and the end of 2012. We base our analysis on the Heritage and Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, which annually ranks nations according to parameters such as freedom from corruption, freedom for investments and respect for property rights.  We ask two simple questions: How did the level of economic freedom in these countries actually change according to the Index of Economic Freedom? And were the governments that reformed more often re-elected or not?  

After controlling for the levels of unemployment during the year of election and the year of possible re-election, we examine if these factors are related. In contrast to Juncker’s views, we find that the government that increased economic freedom most were also most likely to become re-elected. Perhaps even more surprising is that this trend is driven by governments on the left. 

Center-right governments that were re-elected increased economic freedom only marginally more on average compared to center-right parties that lost re-election. Governing parties on the left, which lost their bid for re-election, constitute the least reform-oriented group. Left governments that won however increased economic freedom at a 60 percent higher pace than the average center-right governments. 

For example, during Tony Blair’s first term from 1997 to 2001 the economic freedom score in the UK increased by 1.2 points. True to Tony Blair’s reputation as a champion of New Labour’s moderate policies, the economic freedom score of the country increased by 1.6 points during his second term. Based on this track-record, Labour managed to win a third election, during which Blair handed over power to his more left-leaning rival Gordon Brown. As the leadership changed, so did the direction of reform. Between 2005 and 2010 the United Kingdom’s economic freedom fell by 2.7 points. The next election was won by the conservatives. 

A commonly held view is that parties on the right introduce market reforms in order to boost growth, whilst those on the left mainly reduce economic freedom and aim to spread the wealth through welfare systems. In fact, countries that have successfully increased their levels of competitiveness have seen both sides of politics pulling in the same direction. Bob Hawke, former leader of the Australian Labor Party led his party to four consecutive victories in 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990 based on wide ranking economic liberalizations. Paul Keating, the reformist treasurer under Hawke, took over party leadership and won a fifth victory in 1993, in an election initially thought to be unwinnable for Labor. Since then both conservative and left governments in Australia have continued on the path of market reform. The end result is more than two decades of consecutive growth. 

Similarly, Canada was in very bad shape when Paul Martin, minister of finance in the newly elected left-liberal government, took office in 1993. The government made the difficult choice of market reforms, focusing on reduced spending through action such as abolishing transport subsidies for farmers as well as market liberalizations and lower taxation. Many interest groups objected to the changes. And yet, the Canadian Liberal party won a second term in 1997. The party campaigned on the promise to continue to cut the federal deficit, thereby creating a budget surplus which would allow tax cuts as well as repayment of Canada’s national debt. After another term of reformist policies, the liberals managed to win the elections again in 2000. In 2003 Paul Martin took over the reins and won yet another re-election. Conservative governments have since built upon the same policies, transforming Canada into North America’s new free market role model. 

Why is it that governments on the left in particular can be rewarded by introducing market reforms? One explanation might be that this attracts centrist or even right-wing voters to the left. Another is that leftist government can couple market reforms with social features. A research survey by the OECD observes that when markets are opened up, competition often leads to higher employment. This tends to increase income equality, since those who would otherwise not work, or work only part-time, will raise their income. The same reforms can also help those with high productivity to raise their income compared to others, which instead will lead to higher income inequality. Hence, market liberalizations can lead to lower or higher equality, depending on which of these two factors come to dominate. There are good reasons to combine market oriented reforms with policies that strengthen the less well-off in society, such as strengthening publicly funded school programs. 

Today many governments are wary of reforms. Change is seen as unwanted in the short term, and politically difficult to implement. This can explain why some governments in particularly Southern Europe are stuck on a path to failure. A common view is that “Juncker’s curse” will doom governments that are bold enough to change the status quo by cutting government handouts or liberalizing the economy. Our analysis of recent history shows that this impression is mistaken. Change is anything but easy to introduce, but can prove popular in the long term by boosting growth and employment.  Of course, policies must always be adjusted to the particular needs of each individual country.  

Pakistan has historically relied much on trade and enterprise for its prosperity. Currently however ranks as the 126^th freest nation on the Index of Economic Freedom. The countries score is both below that of the world average and the regional average. In some areas, such as fiscal policy and government spending, Pakistan already has good conditions for a well-functioning market economy. Also business and monetary policies score high. The hinders to development are mainly found in corruption and lack of protection for private property. By strengthening market economic institutions greater wealth and job opportunities can be created for the broad public, whilst funds are generated for social programs. Such institutional changes will take time and political will to introduce. But once in place, they can influence long term competitiveness and prosperity. 

Nima Sanandaji, PhD at the Royal Institute of Technology and policy analyst.

Stefan Fölster, Professor of economics at the Royal Institute of Technology, and director of the Reform Institute.

The authors have written the new book ”Renaissance for Reforms” which is co-published by Timbro and the Institute of Economic Affairs.

Note: This was originally posted in March 2014.