Juan Cole on the Iranian elections

For a quick summary of the extreme implausibility of the Iranian election results, see (of course) Prof Juan Cole.  And wear green on Monday.

Joseph Stiglitz describes the impact of the economic crisis on policy

In the current Vanity Fair, Joseph Stiglitz provides a broad but telling picture of ways that the current global economic crisis will combine with colonial and post-colonial economic history to generate retrograde policies in many countries: 

Many countries may conclude not simply that unfettered capitalism, American-style, has failed but that the very concept of a market economy has failed, and is indeed unworkable under any circumstances. Old-style Communism won’t be back, but a variety of forms of excessive market intervention will return. And these will fail. The poor suffered under market fundamentalism—we had trickle-up economics, not trickle-down economics. But the poor will suffer again under these new regimes, which will not deliver growth. Without growth there cannot be sustainable poverty reduction. There has been no successful economy that has not relied heavily on markets. Poverty feeds disaffection. The inevitable downturns, hard to manage in any case, but especially so by governments brought to power on the basis of rage against American-style capitalism, will lead to more poverty. 

Among the faults that he descries are the reciprocal, but exclusive, trade packages that are under consideration in the US and Europe: 

Joseph E. Stiglitz on the economic crisis.

Capitalist Fools, January 2009

Reversal of Fortune, November 2008

The $3 Trillion War, April 2008 (with Linda J. Bilmes)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush, December 2007

There used to be a sense of shared values between America and the American-educated elites around the world. The economic crisis has now undermined the credibility of those elites. We have given critics who opposed America’s licentious form of capitalism ample ammunition to preach a broader anti-market philosophy. And we keep giving them more and more ammunition. While we committed ourselves at a recent G-20 meeting not to engage in protectionism, we put a “buy American” provision into our own stimulus package. And then, to soften the opposition from our European allies, we modified that provision, in effect discriminating against only poor countries.

Of course poor countries are going to bridled at OECD protectionist policies. But with the exception of the BRIC and OPEC countries, there's not much they can do about it--which of course only throws fuel on the fires of resentment. As a result, and as a result of OECD investments in key players in telecommunications, media and other information-related players in Africa, Asia and Latin America, the fall-out will ultimately show up as decreased competitiveness in those sectors. Africa is going to get high-speed backbone across the continent within the next 5 to 7 years (and potentially sooner), but it might just be happening at a time when sectoral competitiveness and deregulation are in retrograde. 

Bummer.

The end of "dragons ascending from the sewers"

Ultra-high-stakes testing and private tutoring have created a pressure-cooker for students and parents in South Korea. The costs of face-to-face exam preparation make such courses available only to the rich. However online cram-course Web sites offer only partial relief: 

Last year, South Korea spent 55 trillion won, 6 percent of its gross domestic product, on public education. But private education expenditures amounted to an additional 20 trillion won, a burden that has been cited as a factor in South Korea’s low birth rate. Eight of every 10 students from elementary school through high school take after-school classes from private tutors or at cram schools, online or offline. Offline cram school courses cost up to five times as much as their online counterparts.

One major problem--and it's a problem anywhere that test preparation and high-stakes testing are the principle means of securing a child's future--is that high rates of spending on education take place in a "gray market" that distorts expenditures and organization in public education. Take that additional ~2 percent of GDP that's spent on private education (exam prep) and channel it back into the public-education system and you have the wherewithal to create schools with worldclass teachers and learners that are truly egalitarian.

This _doesn't_ mean that you forego Web-based content delivery, or even that you foreswear rock-star test-prep teachers. Use every means available, but make those resources available to all. 

Scan Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. Gladwell makes a pretty convincing argument _against_ exceptionalism. From WA Mozart to Bill Gates, the titans of achievement who have emerged among us have benefited from a confluence of advantage, timing and context (as well as from vision, hard work, and in some instances extraordinary gifts). 

Accelerating our economic and cultural progress (and don't we need to do that!) is far more dependent on our shared development than it is on the development of a select few. 

To revise the Korean education adage in the title of this post: If we improve conditions in the sewers, more dragons will ascend. 

One laptop per teacher... in South Africa

Whenever I visit a successful project to put computers in schools, the teachers have lobbied me --hard, if ineffectively-- for a program that would let them get laptops for use at home. Now, in South Africa, it's happening: 

Minister Pandor announces Teacher Laptop Initiative 07 May 2009 The Minister of Education, Naledi Pandor MP, today announced a bold and substantive “ Teacher Laptop Initiative”. This is part of a critical strategy to take forward the objective of improving Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in teaching and learning.   The initiative aims to ensure every teacher owns and uses a laptop, by providing them with a monthly allowance which will cover the purchase costs as well as the costs of connectivity. The ICT package will consist of appropriate hardware and software, as well as, internet connectivity, all with prescribed minimum specifications. Teachers participating in the initiative will be required to utilize the facility in their teaching, as well as for administration. The initiative will be phased in from 1 July 2009, starting with the most senior teachers. Provincial Education Departments will implement the project and inform teachers about the venture. A monthly allowance will be paid to qualifying teachers for a period of 5 years, renewable every 5 years, upon proof of acquiring the computer.

Teachers never have enough time in school to brush up their skills, find resources, communicate (with other teachers, with students, with whomever). Having a laptop at home gives them the opportunity to do all of these things. The South Africa program is "opt in," it doesn't force lap-toppery on teachers. The program includes monthly check-ins to prove that the laptops are in place (not sold) and being used. And it provides a boat-load of targeted tools and resources (mostly developed by the MOE and Microsoft PiL). 

Most important, though, it's a huge sign of respect and professionalism. 

(Imagine you're a teacher, you're making maybe US $150 per month, your school suddenly gets 25 computers in a lab and your students get instructions in how to use them. You have to stay late to be trained, or maybe travel to another school, both of which cost you in terms of cash and opportunity. Your students already know more [and their parents make more than you do], they get more instruction, and they get more practice time. The ability to buy your own laptop is key. And, just as it is for students, the laptop itself and the program behind it--emphasizing your slender professionalism--is a major motivational factor.)

Yes.

Ad sales down, can I get a country license for YouTube?

 Sales of Web advertising have fallen so far that Internet start-ups are looking for new business models. Absent my crystal ball, it's hard to know where this will lead. But in light of challenges the big content-sharing services are already facing in their race to global ubiquity, I can easily imagine them offering "country licenses" to a few key players. Here's the news:

 

Since 2004, venture investors have put $5.1 billion into 828 Web start-up companies, and most of them are supported by ads, according to the National Venture Capital Association.

Now advertisers have cut back their online spending. So Web start-ups are searching for new ways to make money, like selling real, or virtual, goods or asking customers to buy subscriptions.

And venture capitalists who envision a sale of the company in the public markets are encouraging these efforts. Roger Lee, a partner at Battery Ventures who invests in digital media start-ups, said he considers only companies with one or two revenue streams in addition to advertising.

“Current troubles in the advertising economy are forcing people, out of necessity, to ask really hard questions about how do I build a profitable business,” he said.

As I've already mentioned, that ad-based model doesn't work so well in developing countries, including countries with large and growing tech-savvy middle classes. Advertisers--or advertisers' collective reticence--is impeding access to YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and other "free" services in India, Indonesia and many poor countries with high demand for Web-based content.
Well? What of it? 

For most of the past 8 years, the private-sector Web ecosystem has tended toward free content funded by targeted advertising. (And thank you, Google, for that!) The big media-content players like MySpace and YouTube are using ad revenues and user-developed-content models to compete for global market share and--eventually--the cutting off of investment capital to their competitors. (Who, for example, would advertise on Vimeo in Indonesia, when YouTube has the global brand for video sharing?)

It's impossible to guess where a global Web-ad slow-down is going to lead (or even if it will be sustained). But I can easily imagine forward-thinking governments such as Rwanda's looking at the big content-sharing services as components in the development of their nascent, tech-supported knowledge economies and electing to buy "country licenses" for the most critical social-networking and content-sharing tools. (Sorry, Vimeo. Again.)