Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Anonymous on
Hello all, I read all the postings.... I think when arguing on such issues, there is always one key mistake. And that is -- most of us would like to talk about a 'before-after' kind of analysis. In doing so, we simply compare the current situation with a situation in the previous regime, which was there two decades ago..... I think this need to be replaced by a 'with-and-without' analysis (following the World Bank!). This would require us to compare the current situation with what 'would have happened' in the absence of this regime. For example, could living conditions be better or worse. And we can arrive at a fair conclusion. The other thing is that we do not have common indicators? Some talk about only roads, some about schools, some about ..... I think we need to have common (holistic!) indicators, and build consensus. I think the World Bank has this -- could those in the 'World Development Report 2000/1: Attacking Poverty' serve here? There are four key issues there: creating opportunities, improving capabilities, reducing vulnerability, and enhancing empowerment (including democratization). So, the question should be -- is the current regime doing well on these (or other indicators!) compared to what 'could have happened' in the absence of it. Then we could arrive a really fair conclusion. rgrds