It was a great honour to have been invited – a few hours beforehand – to give one of the inaugural WSIS TalkX presentations last Thursday evening as WSIS 2019 drew towards its close. Seven of us had been asked if we would like to talk about our lives in technology for around 5 minutes. I opted to go last – just before the closing cocktail party. Several colleagues had to leave before the end to get to other commitments and so they spoke first; I knew I would be remaining to enjoy the wine. Before me there were some amazing, inspirational speakers: Stephenie Rodriguez, Joel Radvanyi, Gloria Kimbwala, Ayanna T Samuels, Sebastian Behaghel and Ted Chen…
With little time to prepare it was difficult to know quite what to say. We had been asked to tell our own stories, and so I chose five images as five “scenes” around which to tell my tale. Posting the images on social media, I had hoped that people might be able to see them as I spoke…
In reality, I’m not sure that many people actually saw the pictures, and I know many were rather confused when I began and introduced myself in the persona of one of my aliases. I had, though, been introduced by the Master of Ceremonies as someone learning from the life of Hassan-i Sabbah…
To see and hear what I had to say, click on the image above (or here). Fully to understand it, though, you would need to listen to the other six talks, because I tried hard to link it to what the speakers had to say – especially, for example, about the best university in the world, and the SDGs!
The basic message is simple – if we really believe in empowering the poor and the marginalised through digital technologies we must become their servants…
Filed under Africa, agriculture, Asia, capitalism, Commonwealth, Development, Disability, Education, Empowerment, Geography, Higher Education, ICT4D, Photographs, research, South Bihar
I have long argued that people tend to use the word “corruption” mainly to describe cultural practices that differ from those with which they are familiar. It is a term that is almost always used negatively. Re-reading Transparency International‘s 2013 Corruption Perceptions Index has very much reinforced this view, but in a way that I suspect will not be expected by those who read what follows!
I have huge admiration and respect for the work of Transparency International. The map above shows the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 177 countries in the world. In brief, it indicates that 69% of countries have a score of less than 50%, indicating a serious corruption problem.
However, what stands out most to me about this map is that it is very largely the countries of northern Europe, northern America, and Australasia that are perceived as being least corrupt. The yellow “holiness” is so marked against the “evil” red of corruption that swathes most of the rest of the world!
Corruption according to Transparency International can be defined “Generally speaking as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain’. Corruption can be classified as grand, petty and political, depending on the amounts of money lost and the sector where it occurs”.
Three ideas seem particularly pertinent in this context:
- The notion of corruption is intimately tied up with the nature of capitalism. Put simply, the apparently least corrupt countries according to this definition are generally the most advanced capitalist countries. This suggests that it serves capitalist interests to try to reduce “corruption” as much as possible. It is interesting to ponder why this might be. One reason may be that reducing the abuse of entrusted power for private gain actually reduces the tendency for the rate of profit to fall. However, it is difficult to see how this might happen, and it seems in stark contrast to a fundamental characteristic of capitalism which is that it is actually designed to ensure the maximum possible private gain for the capitalists. I guess the reality may be that limiting or preventing private gain from entrusted power actually enables the market (i.e. the principles of capitalism) to flourish as effectively as possible. By extension a reduction of all entrusted power (i.e. limiting the power of the state) could be seen to enhance the power of the market, and therefore increase the potential for private gain of those who do not hold political power. Hence, keeping the power of the state as small as possible, and ensuring that it functions in a way that does not lead to private gain for the holders of power in the state, will ensure that the maximum surplus profit is available to the leaders of global corporations and their shareholders.
- However, it is very clear that there is also corruption in the leading capitalist states. The countries shaded yellow on the above map may be perceived as being less corrupt than others, but corruption still abounds in them! Hence, there is huge hypocrisy when leaders (and indeed others) in the “yellow” countries accuse those in the “red” countries of being corrupt. Those in the banking sector, for example, who pay themselves and their staff huge salaries are surely also using their positions of power for private gain? The amount of money spent in US Presidential elections is also an indication of the way in which “money speaks”: Obama thus raised $715,677,692 in the 2012 elections, and Romney raised $446,135,997. Together, this sum of money was worth more than the GDP of 25 countries in 2012 (according to UN figures). One needs huge amounts of money to be elected President of the US, and those who contribute this money expect the policies that the President introduces to benefit them – for private gain. Likewise, in the UK in 2012, Michael Meacher in a letter to the Guardian newspaper noted that “that the richest 1,000 persons, just 0.003% of the adult population, increased their wealth over the last three years by £155bn. That is enough for themselves alone to pay off the entire current UK budget deficit and still leave them with £30bn to spare”. Is not this also a form of corruption?
- Corruption is seen differently in countries where rampant capitalism and private financial gain may not be seen as the most important priorities. According to the Transparency International report, most countries in the world are perceived as having a serious corruption problem. This poses an interesting question: might their systems of priorities actually in some ways be better? If they were not, why do these systems persist? For a person living in a culture where ties to family and tribe are more important than individual private financial gain, it must seem very wrong not to give employment opportunities to members of one’s family, regardless of actual ability. Likewise, where personal loyalty matters more than direct monetary return, supporting a friend to achieve their particular job aspirations would seem much more appropriate than ensuring that there is a “fair” competence based application process. Giving gifts to reciprocate for generous hospitality is merely a different way of redistributing and sharing financial benefits. Moreover, much of what passes for probity in the “yellow” countries actually tends to be a smokescreen for traditional modes of “corruption”. The appointments process is invariably biased through friendship ties – not least through the reference system and the use of headhunters – and is never purely competence based. Likewise, the UK’s honours system is still very largely determined by personal friendship networks, rather than necessarily by ability or contribution to the common good.
In short, I am more than ever convinced that “corruption” is simply a pejorative term that people use to describe political, social and economic systems that are different from their own. In a world dominated by capitalist interests, it is scarcely surprising that less-advanced capitalist economies are perceived as being more corrupt than those where the search for individual gain and success is highest. Yet this very focus on individual gain in capitalist societies is itself fundamentally “corrupt”, since it detracts from the communal good which, at least for me, is ultimately far more valuable. I suggest that we may have much more to learn from the mutually supportive social and cultural networks that underlie such “corrupt” regimes, than we do from the economic interests that determine definitions of probity in the capitalist heartland. However, this is because I believe that the common good is far more important than private individual gain.
I have often driven past the Hobbit pub in Portiswood, on the edge of Southampton, and although I have never been inside I have always thought that it was a great name for a pub – and it has been there for some 20 years. So, I was more than a little concerned to read a recent BBC report that mentioned that the pub has been threatened with legal action by the Saul Zaentz Company (SZC) back in March 2012. SZC owns the worldwide rights to various brands association with the author JRR Tolkien (acquired in 1976), including the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, and appears to be flexing its muscles to ensure that these rights are not infringed. However, taking it out on an English pub seems to be going a bit too far.
It is good to see that others have come to the rescue of the Hobbit – that is, the pub! Some 59,830 people have indicated that they like the Facebook page Save the Hobbit, Southampton, and actors Stephen Fry and Sir Ian McKellen have apparently offered to pay for the copyright licence fee so that the pub can carry on trading under its present name.
Tonight, there is a party at the pub to raise money to pay for legal fees to ensure that this dispute is resolved sensibly. So, if you are anywhere near Southampton do get on down to the Hobbit and party for a cause.
Could this be a reason not to watch the Hobbit (in all its money making parts) when the film comes out?!
Official US date recently released shows that the number of US citizens living in poverty rose to a record 46 million last year. Yet the world is encouraged to believe that the US model of ‘democracy’ and ‘economic growth’ is the one that should be followed to eliminate poverty. Surely there is a contradiction here?
The BBC reports the release of these data as follows: “The number of Americans living in poverty rose to a record 46.2 million last year, official data has shown. This is the highest figure since the US Census Bureau started collecting the data in 1959. In percentage terms, the poverty rate rose to 15.1%, up from 14.3% in 2009. The US definition of poverty is an annual income of $22,314 (£14,129) or less for a family of four and $11,139 for a single person. The number of Americans living below the poverty line has now risen for four years in a row, while the poverty rate is the biggest since 1993. Poverty among black and Hispanic people was much higher than for the overall US population last year, the figures also showed. The Census Bureau data said 25.8% of black people were living in poverty and 25.3% of Hispanic people. Its latest report also showed that the average annual US household income fell 2.3% in 2010 to $49,445. Meanwhile, the number of Americans without health insurance remained about 50 million. The data comes as the US unemployment rate remains above 9%”.
Is it not time that global organisations, aid agencies, and governments across the world stopped pretending that economic growth leads to a reduction of poverty? Capitalism fundamentally depends on the maintenance of inequalities: between rich and poor countries, between rich and poor people. The increase in US poverty revealed in these data reinforces such arguments. The US ‘system’ enables Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to acquire huge wealth, while large numbers of their compatriots are consigned to poverty.
Freedom carries responsibilities. The focus of US capitalism on the freedom of the individual at the expense of the wider public good is surely not a model that the world should be encouraged to follow. As the BBC report notes, 50 million people in the US do not have health insurance. While the rich can have the benefit of the latest medical research, such care is beyond the means of the poor.
These figures should be seen as a wake up call to economists and politicians across the world. Unfettered capitalism, fueled by a self-reinforcing cycle of individual greed, can never lead to a reduction in poverty. Only when governments act explicitly to support the most marginalised in their societies can we begin to redress the balance.