In mid/late February I had the chance to join a 9-day study trip organized by my university to go to Japan. It was my first visit to the country and here are some thoughts on the economic prospects of Japan:

When I was a child (that was at the turn of the 80s and 90s), people in Germany (and I guess elsewhere) used to smile over the weird Japanese tourists who traveled 8 European cities in 6 days. Today the Japanese tourists are hardly realized among increasing shopping tourism from China. But China is not only flooding European shopping streets with its newly-rich, it has also become a point of attraction for ambitious young students as a destination for internships, studies and a possible career. In the meantime Japan appears to have disappeared somewhere in the Asian nirvana. I guess its image (if there is any) is to be some sort of a rich and friendly country. But it is not really known as the place to be (like China) nor for anything else really. The slightly more informed person will know that Japan’s prime minister changes every few months (making it even harder to remember anything about the country) and it somehow manages to get credit even though it has had higher debt levels than Greece or Italy. While China is rising, Japan simply does not seem to take place in Europe anymore. For those few public policy students who read the occasional news about world developments, Japan is the country of extreme debt and aging. – Hardly a place that appears to play a role in the future.

Big in Japan: problems
Admittedly, I did not know too much about Japan but I probably had a positive interest in the country because I have met a couple of slightly crazy and very nice Japanese people over the past years and, if anything, that gave me at least a good portion of curiosity to see the real thing. Since the school’s study trip had been known for a while, I have followed reporting, or basically any coverage, on Japan more intensively over the last weeks before finally flying over at the end of February. During a number of the excellent talks and meetings we had during that week, the general problems and challenges that Japan faces were confirmed by the local experts: an aging society, slow-to-stagnant economic growth since the early 1990s, extreme levels of debt and continuous changes in government. It also appeared as if the image Japanese people we met had of their own country was somehow not too positive or optimistic. On top of all of this came the triple disaster of “3/11”, the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-accident shock that hit big parts of the country almost a year before our visit. Most of the affected places were still devastated despite the incredible efforts and capacity of a developed country like Japan.

Bleaker than bleak
Obviously, the restoration efforts post-3/11 were one of the foci of our one-week visit and it was clear that all the affected areas (and not only those affected by the nuclear fallout) were still struggling to recover – and will continue to do so for months if not years. Structural challenges for society and policy-makers alike are even broader than that and include the persistently low levels of female labor participation, the lack of job perspectives for the young, risk-awareness in the business field, hierarchical thinking and quite unambitious politicians. But the thing that struck me most was the lack of internationalization in a country that is so export-oriented and has had such high levels of wealth over at least a generation. Hardly any ‘average’ Japanese could speak any reasonable degree of English (or any other foreign language). Still, the country has hardly any immigration and visible foreign population beyond the respective districts in Tokyo. Brand and production loyalty to Japanese produce appears to be extremely high (food, mobile phones, cars, household hardware etc.) despite the ready availability of arguably cheaper and better products in at least some fields.

But think about it – Japan.0
Maybe the good thing is that when you expect so much gloom – and then you visit the disaster-hit areas during your first days – it can’t really get worse than what you expected. The challenges are so huge and many have existed for quite a while, so that Japan turns out to be a fascinating place particularly for the public policy student I am. Given Japan’s structural similarities to (aging, industrial) Europe, it is in many ways ten years ahead. – The challenges Japan has been facing for a while are those many European countries are beginning to phase already – with a bit of a time-lag. Maybe the three most relevant are aging, increasing levels of debt and the end of economic growth as we know it. And when you think about it, Japanese society has coped with these challenges surprisingly well so far. From afar you might just say that it can hit at any time. But after seeing its cities and villages, I think there is a great deal of opportunity in Japan and much to learn for outsiders. Firstly, the country is still amazingly rich (while lacking the Asian bling-bling) – without an apparent inequality. These levels of wealth have persisted despite 20 years of de facto economic stagnation. Hence, lesson one: measuring economic ‘progress’ in terms of GDP does not work anymore in advanced industrial societies like Japan. In particular after coming out of Singapore, it is positively surprising that a city like Tokyo can be so rich without people showing off but rather dressing and behaving in (local) style. Secondly, you feel that you hit a deeply cultural place as soon as you land in Haneda and this impression has been reinforced by the people and all these small things between Tokyo and up to the smaller villages we visited in the north. Lesson two: Japanese have style, they have fashion and there is a lot of cultural content generated on so many spheres. Only after having been to Tokyo have I really understood why young people across Asia look for the whole range of cultural products and content from Japan. Thirdly, people’s reaction to the harshness of 3/11 has seriously impressed me. There is an amazing sense of resilience in the country and it stretches beyond the effects of disaster. Lesson three: if you are ever responsible for managing natural disaster, try to get hold of some Japanese to help you sort out the mess. Fourthly, Japanese infrastructure is pretty amazing. This starts with the crazy roads and metro/rail tracks that are all over you in Tokyo (and under conditions of constant earthquake danger) to the reliability and speed of the Shinkansen. Lesson four: get Japanese managers to run your railways. Fifthly, resource efficiency goes without saying in Japan. This is possibly one of the observations which is closest to the German mentality. – It’s simply no biggie to recycle everything possible and trying to develop ever more efficient electronic products (following the famous top-runner principle). One MP from a very rural constituency in the north was very proud to tell me that a small local company from his district was a leader in rare earth recycling. Lesson five: wonder if German and Japanese recycling and efficiency efforts cannot be closer combined. Sixthly, I had a bit of a feeling that Japan might witness a political spring moment. Not only had decades of LDP rule been broken with the historic success of the DPJ in 2009, this shift as well as the 3/11 disaster seem to have encouraged more people to question government-as-they-knew-it and get involved or raise their opinion. A number of interesting individuals and movements have begun to spring up over the past months, and the current prime minister is even considering tackling the revenue-deficit with a significant VAT raise. Japanese politics might eventually become dynamic and interesting – to the great benefit of the Japanese people. Lesson six: follow these developments and provide information to those groups active in the energy field.

Big in Japan again – a choice
Japan appears to have strong cultural and economic foundations that may well serve it long into the future. Disaster could hardly have been worse than 3/11 and yet the country remains one of the richest countries in the world and with continuing opportunities for successful entrepreneurs. More can and needs to be done and if that potential is realized very much depends on my last observation: will the politicians evolve in Japan release the country from its bonds of the past? There is room to be optimistic. And even if the country fulfills half of its potential in the next ten years, it is unlikely that anyone but possible Korea or Taiwan will come anywhere near its level of economic development. Growth will slow down in places like China eventually and sooner than they think will they face those aging and debt issues that Japan faces now – but with maybe only half the average income levels. It is up to Japan to show itself and others that these obstacles can be overcome. After my first visit to Japan I am confident that the Japanese have what it takes. Now it is up to them to get involved in making Japan big again. Lesson seven: return to Japan in a year and check on its progress.

Key indicators for Japan and selected countries (2012 or newest)

All economic/demographic data from IMF World Economic Outlook Database, September 2011.

After I consumed that article last weekend, I was stuck yesterday when another story on online dating appeared in the BBC online news – interestingly referring back to the same article by Finkel. And to make things worse, today the German edition of Spiegel Online published another article, again, refering to the same Finkel journal article.

Can it be coincidence – three news articles refering to the same academic paper?

Even though it is well possible that Holger Dambeck, the author of the Spiegel article, has not been aware of both the Economist and the BBC (and possibly other) articles, you cannot tell me that all of these media people scan (pretty random) academic journals and then cover the same one article within a few days. So, where does this leave us? How about plagiarism in the media?

Just to remind my readers: what is plagiarism? – It is the non-acknowledgement of the intellectual work of others. Neither the BBC nor the Spiegel article mention the Economist article. On top of that none of the three articles actually provides a proper reference (or even title) of Finkel’s article – at least in their online version! – Equally ridiculous is that the publisher of the journal does not have the current edition of the journal online either (as of today). The last featured edition is that of December 2011. Now you might wonder: 1. how did the Economist journalist even hear about the article? 2. how did he get hold of it (quite possible that the author provided it if he didn’t get it right from the publisher) and most importantly 3. have the BBC and Spiegel hacks ever read the original article or have they simply rephrased the original article by the Economist? Think about it.

The funniest, and maybe most useful, is from last weekend’s Financial Times. Always wondered how to max your hand luggage? – Here is the solutionn – the Dutch version of ‘wearable luggage’. This is a coat into which you can put up to 10kg of luggage and later (e.g. after check-in) fold into a bag. Very handy for flying with hand luggage only! Find out more at their website www.jaktogo.com. (Note that they are selling with 25% discounts until end of October).

Spiegel Online ran a nice article (unfortunately only in German) on how the freak travellers (backpackers) minimise the weight of their luggage. The bottom line is to buy a scale. But not the one you think. We are talking about the ones you normally use for food or letters etc., i.e. one to measure the 50 grams some stuff weighs too much. More in this (how to pack) and this article (how to spread in your backpack).

Read this blog if you consider a longer stay-over in an airport (or an overnighter). Nice reviews of experiences of sleeping over in various airports world wide. A particularly relevant read for Ryanair & co travellers. – My Facebook agreement with Manila having been voted the world’s worst airport has created a debate among friends, and it turns out that some Asian airports have probably not (yet?) received the (negative) attention they deserve. But Manila is a seriously crappy airport, with no proper connections between the four terminals and clueless staff all around. Point made.

Singapore (for once) trailing global cities in life quality?

After having spent a bit of time in Singapore, I wonder why this city is not investing far more attention and infrastructure to cycling. Surely, the all-year humid climate and temperatures for 30 degress during the day are not permitting a cool 10-minute bike-ride to university as relaxed as in Berlin. But then again, the government is very keen to emphasise health issues and constraining car traffic with some of the highest obstacles (i.e. prices) to car driving in the world. Would it not make more sense to start providing bike lanes on at least the big roads? Nowadays, you do not even know where to go as a cyclist in Singapore because roads are crowded and dangerous – and pavements are often too narrow even to walk.

Just like in other business metropolis, many offices (read: banks) and public institutions (read: schools, universities or even ministries) already have showers and changing rooms so that even longer bike rides to work or school should pose no major obstacle. I just do not know why Singapore politicians do not see cycling as such a big chance to ramp up the ‘green’ image of their city?

A particularly positive cultural side-effect of opening Singapore to cycling would be that its citizens would regain a more natural affiliation to their city. While the typical Singaporean today is avoiding even the 5-minute walk to the super market around the corner, creating a ‘hipness’ about biking and bikes might also allow them to appreciate the physical nature and spacial use of their city much more.

Ironically, I remember several interesting discussions with my Italian federalist friends who have always lobbied within JEF and UEF to support the introduction of Eurobonds – to allow the EU (budget) to run deficits primarily for EU-wide infrastructure projects. I have always (and continue to) oppose this idea because I think we do not need another layer of debt  in the EU while there is sufficient room for mobilising funds to invest in EU-wide infrastructure projects from the ineffective CAP and structural policy – and where necessary also from national coffers. While the financing mechanism for these Eurobonds would be the same, the current discussion is promoting Eurobonds on a very different level.

Eurobonds to solve the debt crisis

Eurobonds as advocated these days are seen as a tool to lower borrowing costs for peripheral Eurozone countries (Greece, Ireland etc.) who struggle with run-away interest rates on newly issued debt. They are practically cut off from the market, hence EU intervention mechanisms like the EFSF are now used to finance their debt. In some ways the EFSF is not so much different from the Eurobonds discussed today except the fact that the EFSF is primarily seen as a crisis intervention – and not a permanent – vehicle. Because (just like with the EFSF) Eurobond debt is guaranteed by countries like Germany or the Nordics borrowing is cheaper for such jointly guaranteed Eurobonds. So, why should we not issue Eurobonds for all EU countries, lowering borrowing costs for those in trouble and thereby help them out? – Because of moral hazard, you silly.

If deficit-prone countries can borrow at cheap rates again, what is their incentive to create sustainable public finances in the first place? Experience tells us that without tougher institutional provisions this is unlikely to happen: When (debt) interest rates decreased dramatically for countries like Italy or Greece after they joined the Euro in the early 2000s, their budgetary profligacy did not stop. Allowing them cheap access to new bonds is unlikely to change the picture. Unless it is done in a more intelligent way this time…

How to make Eurobonds work

The primary challenge is to prevent a repetition of what happened after the Euro introduction, i.e. letting countries accumulate even more debt because the interest on it is so cheap. However, if there were mechanisms to overcome this problem, then Eurobonds would be a helpful tool to potentially help Greece et al. out of the debt spiral they are in. How can this be done? – I believe this can be achieved through a number of (national) institutional provisions, which should be made a pre-requisite for anyone seeking Eurobonds. Such measures should include:

- a zero-deficit (balanced-budget) rule at national and sub-national level that is anchored in the constitution. Realistically, it would be phased in, just like Germany’s ‘Schuldenbremse’;

- a rainy-day fund (Singapore-style?) that takes away from policy-makers at least 50% of budget surpluses and any privatisation proceeds. It may only be tapped under severe economic downturns;

- an independent adviser on national economic development who suggests the growth assumption underlying the national budget (this could e.g. be the EU Commission, OECD etc). Any surplus achieved during the financial year or revenue beyond the initial projection would be locked up;

- a mechanism of regular EU inspections to oversee the reliability of national public finances (maybe via a special cooperation between OLAF-like units and Eurostat);

- a maximum debt level financed through Eurobonds. This could conveniently be at 60% (following the Maastricht criteria) but I think it should be lower at maybe 30%;

- an initial list of state assets that are handed over to the rainy-day fund to be sold or privatised whenever the highest value can be obtained;

- a sustainable answer to government pension (and potentially health) obligations, ideally by at least prohibiting defined-benefits for government employees as well as serious pension ages in the public sector.

This list is long and more than demanding. But given that trust is weak following the mess we are in, these provisions should act as a strong commitment stick for every government that wants to seriously get out of the mess.

//Picture from Rainer Ebert under CC

Putnam erklärt diesen extremen Unterschied damit, dass Wähler in Süditalien v.a. über Patron-Verhältnisse gegenüber ihren Abgeordneten verfügen. Weil es weniger “soziales Kapital” unter den Bürgern im Süden gibt, verbleibt ihnen für die Lösung ihrer täglichen Probleme in erster Linie der Gang zum “eigenen” Abgeordneten. Andere Institutionen wie staatliche Einrichtungen sind zu schwach und horizontale Kontakte (z.B. über ein Engagement in Vereinen) bestehen kaum. Putnam weist durch seine Umfragen sogar nach, dass süditalienische Abgeordnete völlig andere Aufgaben in ihrer Wahlkreisarbeit wahrnehmen als jene aus dem Norden. Dazu gehört die Suche nach Jobs genauso wie die Hilfe beim Erlangen von Lizenzen oder anderer Behördengänge.

Weil den Wählern in Süditalien nicht anders/besser über funktionierende staatliche Institutionen geholfen wurde, blieb ihnen in der Wahrnehmung nur der direkte Weg zum Abgeordneten. Dieser wiederum kann durch seine Rolle als Patron für tägliche Probleme seine besondere Stellung in einer vertikalen Machtkonstellation mit den Bürgern weiter verstärken. Putnam nennt das “patron-client exchang relationship” (S. 94) und elitär. Natürlich ist ein solches System extrem korruptionsanfällig, es schwächt eine aktive Zivilgesellschaft oder zerstört sie gar.

Nun ist die Kausalitätskette natürlich nicht so, dass die Vorzugsstimme zu einer Verarmung des Sozialkapitals in der süditalienischen Gesellschaft geführt hat. Sie ist Ausdruck dieser. Gleichzeitig ist sie aber eine Warnung an Wahlrechtsreformer. Wenn in Regionen oder Teilgesellschaften ähnliche gesellschaftliche Konstellationen bestehen oder zunehmen, würde ein Wahlrecht, das sich auf Vorzugsstimmen stützt, also möglicherweise zu einer Verschärfung der Probleme führen, weil Bürger und Abgeordnete nicht mehr voneinander emanzipieren. Vielleicht ist dies eh seit langem in der bayrischen Provinz der Fall. In Bremen und Hamburg ist eine andere (oder ähnliche?) Entwicklung zu beobachten. So waren es v.a. Politiker mit Migrationshintergrund, die vom  Vorzugsstimmen-Wahlrecht profitieren konnten, in dem sie sich gegenüber den für sie vorgesehenen Listenplätzen deutlich verbessern konnten. Andererseits mag genau dies auch erst eine faire Repräsentation von Deutschen mit Migrationshintergrund in diesen Parlamenten befördert haben.

Natürlich öffnet das neue Wahlrecht auch Chancen, in dem den Bürgern eine größere Wahl gelassen wird. Wer allerdings das Umfeld, in dem dies geschieht, nicht beachtet, darf sich letztlich nicht wundern, wenn ein solches Wahlrecht strukturelle gesellschaftliche Probleme noch verstärkt (wie die Unterrpräsentation von Frauen in Parlamenten).

Disclaimer: die Infos zum preferential voting finden sich u.a. auf S. 94f in der englischen Ausgabe

Für ein Land, das sich global als Wissenschaftsstandort definiert und vermarktet, sind die Enthüllungen der letzten Monate aber nicht nur peinlich. Sie sind für seine Zukunftsfähigkeit auch gefährlich, wenn nicht endlich auch auf Seiten der Universitäten und in der überliegenden Wissenschaftspolitik Konsequenzen gezogen werden. Natürlich sind in erster Linie die entsprechenden Plagiateure die Kriminellen und Schuldigen. Betrug wird sich nie komplett verhindern lassen. Aber eine “Wissenschafts-”Kultur, die siolch einen Massenbetrug wie in Deutschland zugelassen hat, macht sich zumindest mitschuldig. Die einfallslosen Kommentare der verantwortlichen Doktorväter von Guttenberg & Co kommen mir mittlerweile fast schon wie Hohn gegenüber ehrlich arbeitenden WissenschaftlerInnen vor. Dass deutsche Professoren (zumindest in den Sozialwissenschaften, in denen ich mich bewege) sich weiterhin für das Maß aller Dinge halten – und wie kaum anderswo in der Welt mit Previlegien versehen sind – ist mit einem Blick von außen umso unverständlicher.

Ein ganzes Wissenschaftssystem scheint bei den deutschen Promotionen zu versagen. Ein Blick über den deutschen Tellerrand hinaus mag verdeutlichen warum – und was das deutsche System von der Mehrheit wissenschaftsführender Staaten unterscheidet.

1. Außer bei unseren deutschsprachigen Nachbarn gibt es kaum Länder in der Welt, wo der Dr.-Titel formeller Teil des Namens wird. Was für ein statusfokussierter Quatsch. Genau das ist doch der Grund dafür, dass in so vielen statusorientierten Berufen wie bei Juristen oder Politikern (oft ja identisch) ein Doktortitel so wichtig erscheint. Natürlich ist die Promition eine besondere geistige Leistung und sollte als solche von der Gesellschaft auch anerkannt werden. Aber doch bitte nicht als Teil des Namens!

2. Wohl in keinem anderen seriösen Wissenschaftsstandort ist das Promotionsstudium so privatisiert und individualisiert wie in Deutschland. in Skandinavien, Singapur (wie auch vielen anderen asiatischen Staaten), den USA, Großbritannien – oder ganz allgemein an führenden internationalen Universitäten – erfolgt die Aufnahme zur Promotion über ein reguläres Bewerbungsverfahren der Universität, in dem fachliche Kompetenz nachgewiesen werden muss. In Deutschland kann man auch mit dem schlechtesten Abschluss promovieren, sofern man sich – ganz privat und individuell – mit einem passenden Professor auf die Betreuung einigen kann. Das hat nicht ganz überraschend mehrere negative Folgen: a) Nicht akademische Reife oder Qualität entscheiden über die Aufnahme zur Promotion sondern Gefügigkeit und Gefallen des Professors/Betreuers/Notengebers. b) Das Promotionsstudium wird in zu vielen Fällen zum Parkplatz für arbeitslose Akademiker. Das hält diese in einigen Fällen nicht nur von der notwendigen Zuwendung zum Arbeitsmarkt ab sondern unterhöhlt auch die Sozialsysteme, wenn diese “Promovenden” sich (billig krankenversichert) eher dem täglichen Broterwerb als ihrer Promotion widmen. c) zu guter Letzt kann sich aber auch schon ein Professor nie ganz sicher sein, wie ernst sein Promovend es mit der Promotion überhaupt meint und hält die Betreuung gerade in den wichtigen Anfangsmonaten auf Sparflamme.

Es wird also Zeit, dass der Zugang zur Promotion auch in Deutschland endlich über seriöse Promotionsprogramme gesteuert wird, wie es sich immerhin schon an vielen Graduiertenkollegs deutscher Universitäten entwickelt. Es gibt in Deutschland viel zu viele Promotionsstudenten, die ihre Promotion anfangen aber nicht beenden. Ihnen (und der Wissenschaft allgemein) ist damit am besten geholfen, wenn eine Auslese vor Beginn der Promotion und nicht drei Jahre danach stattfindet. Es ist an der Zeit die privatisierte Promotion in Deutschland zu beenden.

3. Deutschland lobt sich als Hochtechnologiestandort, deutsche Universitäten sind aber nicht in der Lage Plagiatssoftware wie Turnitin anzuwenden. Natürlich kostet diese Geld, aber wer es ernst meint mit Wissenschaft, der kann eben nicht auf die Allwissenheit deutscher Professoren vertrauen (die ja nun eh meist nicht diejenigen sind, die zumindest bei Bachelor oder Master-Studenten die Hausarbeiten korrigieren). Dass man Plagiaten auf software-basierten Wegen am einfachsten auf die Schliche kommt, ist ja wohl offensichtlich. An meiner Uni müssen alle Hausarbeiten von den Studenten selber hochgeladen werden und laufen danach durch Turnitin. Wem diese amerikanische Lösung zu teuer ist, der hätte schon lange eine auf den deutschen Wissenschaftsbetrieb angepasste Software im Verbund von deutschsprachigen Universitäten oder z.B. der DFG entwickeln lassen können. Aber dazu müssten deutsche Institute, Fakultäten, Universitäten und v.a. Professoren ja kooperieren – und das ist im globalen Vergleich ja nun auch nicht gerade ihre Stärke.

Eigentlich müssten deutsche Universitäten gerade jetzt standarmäßig alle Promotionen durch solch eine Software laufen lassen und systematisch alle Promotionen noch einmal überprüfen. Dass sie es bisher nicht getan haben – und anscheinend nicht einmal jetzt standardisierte Verfahren dafür haben – zeigt wie wenig sie aus den letzten Wochen gelernt haben.

Wem nur ein bißchen an der Qualität und dem Ruf deutscher Wissenschaft liegt, sollte sich einmal in der Welt umschauen. Notwendige Änderungen in Deutschland sind nicht unbedingt teuer aber sie erfordern ein Umdenken und einen neuen, seriösen Umgang mit wissenschaftlicher Qualität. Auch in den nächsten Monaten werden immer wieder und eins nach dem anderen Promotionen v.a. von PolitikerInnen in Frage gestellt werden. Da ist es doch besser, jetzt einmal Tabula Rasa zu machen und dem globalen Wissenschaftsbetrieb zu zeigen, dass es den deutschen ernst ist um ihren Ruf.

[Picture / CC from dullhunk/Flickr]

A Greater Mission – 13 Min. Preview from Dulanie M. Ellis on Vimeo.

Zum Glück sind wir in Deutschland noch weit von den Herausforderungen entfernt, die die USA mit ihren Veteranen haben. Mit dem kontinuierlichen Einsatz in Hoch-Risiko Krisenherden wie Afghanistan wird aber auch die deutsche Gesellschaft zunehmend vor dem Problem stehen, heimkehrende Soldaten nicht nur eine wirtschaftliche und soziale Perspektive zu bieten, sondern sie v.a. auch psychologisch so zu betreuen, wie das noch solchen Einsätzen notwendig ist. Erfahrungen gibt es damit bisher wenig, aber wenn das Thema nicht ernst genommen wird, dann kann das nicht nur für die Betroffenen sondern für die gesamte Gesellschaft zu unerwünschten Folgen kommen.

In den USA gibt es seit einiger Zeit ein spannendes Programm, das Veteranen in der Landwirtschaft und speziell als Öko-Bauern integriert. Dieser Trailer einer spannenden Doku zeigt auf beeindruckende Weise, wie gut das Programm bei den Veteranen ankommt und wie sehr es ihnen nach den traumatischen Erlebnissen hilft, in der Natur zu arbeiten.

Nicht ganz unpatriotisch sehen einige der Veteranen sogar in der Landwirtschaft ihre neue nationale Mission der Ernährungssicherheit. Ob man es ideologisch so weit treiben muss, ist eine andere Frage. Aber Bundeswehr und regionale LandwirtschaftlerInnen sollten sich einmal überlegen, ob es nicht auch in Deutschland ein Modellprojekt in ähnlicher Ausgestaltung geben kann. – Auf der Website der Bundeswehr findet sich auf den ersten Blick bisher gar kein einziges Projekt zur Betreuung und Wiedereingliederung heimkehrender Soldaten.

Film tip: My favourite (and most moving) film about the Bosnian war is the BBC’s semi-documentary ‘Warriors‘.

Of the 94 countries reviewed, only 24 yielded satisfactory results when it came to maintaining a transparency in their budgets. Despite some notable improvements, many of the countries surveyed have numerous milestones to achieve. The situation in Southeast Asia is even more worrying as none of the seven countries surveyed achieved a satisfactory score (i.e. at least 60 out of a possible 100 points). Singapore was, however, not included in the recent survey.

The importance of budget transparency for democratic, economic and social development

Transparency is a central theme of the good governance discourse. For economic and social development, in particular in a transitional/developing region like Southeast Asia, access to and information about budgets can make a real difference to citizens’ lives.

There are several reasons that make budget transparency relevant
1. Openness enables accountability of the government and is, therefore, a cornerstone of the democratic process;
2. The knowledge and analysis of revenues and expenditures can improve effectiveness and the quality of expenses;
3. Only open budgets allow ultimate trust in government policies. This, in turn, empowers citizens to participate in decisions taken by governments, thereby enhancing the credibility of public policies;
4. Transparency is key to prevent corruption and wasteful spending. Openness to government policies is bound to attract investments. Borrowing and lending costs would be considerably lowered if open information is provided to investors; and
5. Finally, budget transparency is imperative for advanced monitoring of the expenditure of public funds. This will facilitate processes such as fair use of revenues from natural resources or donor aid.

What does the index measure?
Keeping in mind the above parameters of budget transparency, the OBI developed a scorecard for the level of budget transparency of each country. The evaluation process consisted of independent researchers, in the respective countries, answering 123 survey questions. The focal point of transparency was determined predominantly on the publication and openness of the budget proposal of the government. The budget proposal accounted for about half of the score required to adjudicate the level of transparency of a country’s overall budget.
Once the questions were answered by different country analysts, the answers were reviewed by external reviewers to ensure consistency across the board. Thereafter, the results were sent to various government officials and anonymous reviewers for comments and feedback. Finally, the International Budget Partnership accumulated and published the results. This process is repeated every two years.

The importance of the OBI attaching a numerical value to the budget transparency of the countries surveyed is that it is of empirical value to researchers and it helps to stimulate debates between countries, analysts and observers. Not only does the overall score help compare countries on crucial performing indices such as the state of development, resource dependency and legal systems to explain the numerous variations of openness, in fact the OBI endeavors to create an improved understanding of why and where transparency matters and how it could be used as an advocacy tool to improve the lives of citizens.

Findings of the Open Budget Index 2010

The scores in the OBI 2010 range from an almost near ‘ideal budget transparency’ in South Africa and New Zealand to a total lack thereof in Iraq, Fiji and Chad. What is interesting to note is that budget transparency is not necessarily linked to the state of development of a country. While South Africa is the top scorer, developed countries like Italy and Portugal fall in the upper middle-field of the index. One can also easily identify signs of resource curse, i.e. countries dependent on revenues from hydrocarbons, and which are not democratic, are ranked very poorly in terms of budget transparency. The fact that Mongolia and Liberia have made impressive advances in budget transparency while that in Fiji has decreased depicts that development is indeed in the hands of governments. In that context, quite often progress can be achieved by simply publishing documents that would have traditionally remained only for internal use.

More information about the OBI 2010 and its results can be found on www.openbudgetindex.org. The authors are currently working on a scoring for Singapore and are available for advice on the general findings of the OBI and its results for Southeast Asia.

This article was published in ‘global-is-asian’, issue 09, Jan-Mar 2011. It can be accessed online here (pages 16/17) and was co-authored with Ora-orn Poocharoen. Both of us have worked as reviewers in the OBI process.