Capture the Regulator!
(Caution! Reading this drivel may bring the mafia to your door)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Having myself been a victim of a long-drawn conspiracy involving regulations on the industry, I have over the years developed what has been described as an acerbic tongue, not to mention, an acerbic style of writing. After all, after years of mail and email fraud, not to mention gassing at office, and murderous mobikes whizzing past at 2.9 mach, and perhaps having been declared 'dead' a thousand times over, I have learnt not to rub the shoulders of the powers that be. NNNOOOTTT! So,for a change, here are some absolutely frivolous regulatory wisecracks to chew on. Mind you, they are rather unbecoming of my credentials.
No, not all regulators are treated like spies. Just this past weekend I played golf with the ....well, never mind!
That puncturing of new car tyres, that was not us. And that camera you lost on your way back. That too. ...No, not that head-on accident on the highway.
Why do you get angry if we gas you at work in your office?
Yes, we reward your detractor everytime you decide against us!
So you'd rather earn your money? But what about the 'key' that we are offering (You just have to be a spy till you turn 65!)?
No, not that regulation. Put him in this one. We stand to profit if he stings us.
But you resigned from the job!! (Who said we forged your resignation?)
Let's add up the numbers. Hmm, so it makes sense to violate the rules and drag the matter in to the Presidential elections year. (That's right, we did contribute to his campaign the last time around) You got yourself a pay hike, smart guy!
Those documents were shredded just last week!!
We don't subscribe to that journal.
We bench you everytime you earn money or win a regulation!
Well yes, the earth belongs to us. Try Mars!
Honest to God, we don't sell your soul to the devil.
That vent is a standby!!!!
That gift from that relative ..yeah, the one beside the pretty one.. wasn't from her you know!
Don't be naive. That special award was not for your work.
Yes, it is our right to stalk you and smoke you out.....(and the car tailgating you was just the 'you have a friend in me' guy)!
No, we have no ties with the Sicilian mafia!
What makes you think the plane did not fall out of the sky by accident?? (...he just happened to be on board)
Believe me, it was an arranged marriage!
That data point? Honest to God, just an outlier!
No, we don't suppress the left-leaning intelligent at school. What made you suspect so?
Witchcraft and headshrinkers? ... Did I hear you right?
A paper? With this result? You must be joking!
The only way we can win the regulation is by turning you insane and bankrupt! Wouldn't you cooperate? Is that too much to ask for?
You won the regulation? Alright, we'll 'reboot' you; Return to your country and start as an unemployed. (Now DON'T give that quizzical look!)
We make sure the judge is jailed as a criminal on the day we make a 'deal of the century' with the lameduck President!!!
So, we can't get away with the rape of earth by promoting you from intern to a full-time status???
You want more data?? What for? The regulation is already decided. Ask your boss!!!
We don't capture regulators. We own them!
Don't chew too long. You might bite your tongue .. and have a bitter aftertaste!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Public Utilities, Private Angst
Public Utilities, Private Angst
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
When I was young, India was very much a poor country. Though many industries dotted the country, the Government was by far the primary provider of many essentials of living – electricity, water, kerosene, buses, even milk. Things have changed and changed a lot. Yet, the past continues to hold on to the present, and I am afraid, the future too. While the private sector has grown by leaps and bounds, the Government, especially the local administration and public utilities, continue in their moribund traditions of inefficiency and gargantuan waste. Consider drinking water. Practically every city and town has a public water supply network maintained by the Corporation or the Municipality. Crores were invested in building it; crores are spent renovating and maintaining it, yet, when it comes to using it, many residents back away and rely instead on packaged or bottled water. Those who don't, often use a purifier at home to process the piped water for consumption. In the height of water shortage in 2002 summer, practically every other household in Chennai invested up to Rs30,000 to drill borewells when it would have been optimal to hook the water supply network to a community borewell locally and purchase packaged water for drinking purposes. Consider this. A new water purification plant has just come on stream to supply water to Chennaites. I don't have the estimates, but it cost quite a bundle. But water is pumped at such low pressures that almost all residences have attached a hand pump to the pipe. A hand pump that is open to all worms, frogs and denizens of the dark. Many a times, water must be poured in to the pump to create a water column for suction – leaving the public vulnerable to innocent and intentional contamination. So, an investment of thousands of crores to construct the infrastructure, and process clean, potable water is undone at the consumer's end on account of improper operation of the water system. Makes you wonder if those investments were meant for only those who don't care or are willing to spend more on water at the receiving end!.
The situation is no different with power supply. Despite public investments to the tune of thousands of crores, the power supplied to consumers – both residential and commercial/industrial - is unreliable and subject to fluctuation. Just the other day, I pointed out how a textile manufacturer from the South was unable to purchase higher productivity machines from Thailand on account of the lack of reliable power supply. (Until the recent Electricity Act, most firms invested in and generated power the costly way at small scales to counter the problem). So bad was the situation among residential users, that for many years, private companies had a field day hawking UPSs, emergency lights and voltage stabilizers. But as the conventional desi wisdom goes, who cares so long as they turn in profits to the private manufacturers and add to the country's GDP!
Two years back, I wrote to my MP, Mr. Maran, with a copy to the Chennai Corporation, suggesting a small drain be constructed from the front of my residence (where water pools up to near knee height during rains) to the storm water drain not 50 meters away on the parallel street – if only to save passers by from an open electricity junction box. But no, they'd rather electrocute us or have each household spend a lakh to raise the floor than commit a few thousand rupees to construct the drain. It's one thing to provide unsatisfactory service; it is another to induce expenditures from poor planning, bad work or one's dereliction of duty. This is no one off example. It is pretty much the rule in this country. The Government spends thousands of crores on your behalf, does a bad job with it, and sticks you with additional expenses merely to benefit from the project. Strangely, and as ardently as economists seek to minimize costs and improve efficiency, there are many among us, at least in the lower rungs of public administration and society, who seek just the opposite. Apparently, there is a constituency that lives on corruption, public waste and inefficiency (including those who profit in the industry and at the bourses). Their motives are clearly at cross-purposes with the rest of the society. The earlier we identify and deal with them, the better for (the rest of) us.
(Check back at this blog a year from now to learn if I survived the rains!)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
When I was young, India was very much a poor country. Though many industries dotted the country, the Government was by far the primary provider of many essentials of living – electricity, water, kerosene, buses, even milk. Things have changed and changed a lot. Yet, the past continues to hold on to the present, and I am afraid, the future too. While the private sector has grown by leaps and bounds, the Government, especially the local administration and public utilities, continue in their moribund traditions of inefficiency and gargantuan waste. Consider drinking water. Practically every city and town has a public water supply network maintained by the Corporation or the Municipality. Crores were invested in building it; crores are spent renovating and maintaining it, yet, when it comes to using it, many residents back away and rely instead on packaged or bottled water. Those who don't, often use a purifier at home to process the piped water for consumption. In the height of water shortage in 2002 summer, practically every other household in Chennai invested up to Rs30,000 to drill borewells when it would have been optimal to hook the water supply network to a community borewell locally and purchase packaged water for drinking purposes. Consider this. A new water purification plant has just come on stream to supply water to Chennaites. I don't have the estimates, but it cost quite a bundle. But water is pumped at such low pressures that almost all residences have attached a hand pump to the pipe. A hand pump that is open to all worms, frogs and denizens of the dark. Many a times, water must be poured in to the pump to create a water column for suction – leaving the public vulnerable to innocent and intentional contamination. So, an investment of thousands of crores to construct the infrastructure, and process clean, potable water is undone at the consumer's end on account of improper operation of the water system. Makes you wonder if those investments were meant for only those who don't care or are willing to spend more on water at the receiving end!.
The situation is no different with power supply. Despite public investments to the tune of thousands of crores, the power supplied to consumers – both residential and commercial/industrial - is unreliable and subject to fluctuation. Just the other day, I pointed out how a textile manufacturer from the South was unable to purchase higher productivity machines from Thailand on account of the lack of reliable power supply. (Until the recent Electricity Act, most firms invested in and generated power the costly way at small scales to counter the problem). So bad was the situation among residential users, that for many years, private companies had a field day hawking UPSs, emergency lights and voltage stabilizers. But as the conventional desi wisdom goes, who cares so long as they turn in profits to the private manufacturers and add to the country's GDP!
Two years back, I wrote to my MP, Mr. Maran, with a copy to the Chennai Corporation, suggesting a small drain be constructed from the front of my residence (where water pools up to near knee height during rains) to the storm water drain not 50 meters away on the parallel street – if only to save passers by from an open electricity junction box. But no, they'd rather electrocute us or have each household spend a lakh to raise the floor than commit a few thousand rupees to construct the drain. It's one thing to provide unsatisfactory service; it is another to induce expenditures from poor planning, bad work or one's dereliction of duty. This is no one off example. It is pretty much the rule in this country. The Government spends thousands of crores on your behalf, does a bad job with it, and sticks you with additional expenses merely to benefit from the project. Strangely, and as ardently as economists seek to minimize costs and improve efficiency, there are many among us, at least in the lower rungs of public administration and society, who seek just the opposite. Apparently, there is a constituency that lives on corruption, public waste and inefficiency (including those who profit in the industry and at the bourses). Their motives are clearly at cross-purposes with the rest of the society. The earlier we identify and deal with them, the better for (the rest of) us.
(Check back at this blog a year from now to learn if I survived the rains!)
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Have a Smoke?
Have a Smoke?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
No, thank you. I don't smoke. God knows I have cursed smokers, especially those who choose to exercise their right in parks around infants and children or on cool, windy mornings on vacation in the mountains. In fact, I hate smoke, and not just from cigarettes, beedis or cigars. And there is no dearth of smoke and odors around, thanks to kitchen fires, garbage fire, 'dry leaves in the garden' fire, 'bhogi' fire, 'tar for cable repair' fire, and last but not least, 'keep me warm' fires on cold mornings that are fast disappearing from many parts of the country (any guesses why?). There was a time when I wondered incredulously at the stupidity of smokers who did themselves in by inhaling proven carcinogenic tars. I also had less than complementary words to say about governments that permitted import of foreign cigarettes or the operation of cigarette factories at home. As I grew up though, I realized that genetic health proclivities, behavioral and other environmental factors had as much to do with smoking risks as did the number and type of smoke (riding behind a black-smoke belching 4x4 or breathing smoke from burning tyres couldn't be any worse than a puff from a filter cigarette?). And that so many of our poor make their livelihood serving this industry. So much so, it no longer hurts my conscience to invest in mutual funds that own shares in cigarette companies.
But the story doesn't end there. India is a land of people. A billion people who must be sheltered, fed, clothed....and, yes, who must enjoy a smoke once in a while. Their choices impacts on public health and could make or break the fortunes of companies (and their employees and suppliers). Now, the Government (well, atleast the official in the public health department reporting to Chidambaram) is in a dilemma. If it promotes safer smoking, it hurts the farmers who live by cultivating, processing and rolling tendu leaves in to beedis. If it seeks to reduce smokers by drastically raising taxes, it risks the contraction of firms that make up the Indian GDP and the stock market, and leaves their employees and suppliers in the lurch. In doing so, it ups the ante against Indian cigarette firms who must contend with legal and contraband foreign cigarettes that offer superior smoking experience at lower risk. (who, if I am not wrong, also happen to be the lowest cost producers worldwide at the scale they operate). That only plays in to the economic trend of the day as the lower- and middle-class smokers switch to cigarettes from beedis and foreign cigarettes from Indian ones as their wallets bulge with higher incomes.
Thankfully, we are also turning more literate and more 'educated'. Smoking is discouraged, and smokers are provided smoking rooms. Smoke-free offices and zones are a start. Look at Chandigarh. It is already a smoke-free city (tyre burning is still permitted though!). Where does that leave the tendu farmers who already live a hand-to-mouth existence? Do they enjoy Dire Straits in Hotel California after enriching the cigar-smoking owner of the cigarette company for decades? If I were the agriculture minister, I would warn tendu farmers of what's coming. Perhaps they are best served by hedging their risks and moving to an alternate crop, leasing land to a wind tower, or for the cultivation of bio-fuel plants (unless ofcourse, a business house wants to start an SEZ in the hinterlands to export software or whatever).
Ofcourse they could join me and and be a part of a $10 billion group settlement awarded to passive smokers!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
No, thank you. I don't smoke. God knows I have cursed smokers, especially those who choose to exercise their right in parks around infants and children or on cool, windy mornings on vacation in the mountains. In fact, I hate smoke, and not just from cigarettes, beedis or cigars. And there is no dearth of smoke and odors around, thanks to kitchen fires, garbage fire, 'dry leaves in the garden' fire, 'bhogi' fire, 'tar for cable repair' fire, and last but not least, 'keep me warm' fires on cold mornings that are fast disappearing from many parts of the country (any guesses why?). There was a time when I wondered incredulously at the stupidity of smokers who did themselves in by inhaling proven carcinogenic tars. I also had less than complementary words to say about governments that permitted import of foreign cigarettes or the operation of cigarette factories at home. As I grew up though, I realized that genetic health proclivities, behavioral and other environmental factors had as much to do with smoking risks as did the number and type of smoke (riding behind a black-smoke belching 4x4 or breathing smoke from burning tyres couldn't be any worse than a puff from a filter cigarette?). And that so many of our poor make their livelihood serving this industry. So much so, it no longer hurts my conscience to invest in mutual funds that own shares in cigarette companies.
But the story doesn't end there. India is a land of people. A billion people who must be sheltered, fed, clothed....and, yes, who must enjoy a smoke once in a while. Their choices impacts on public health and could make or break the fortunes of companies (and their employees and suppliers). Now, the Government (well, atleast the official in the public health department reporting to Chidambaram) is in a dilemma. If it promotes safer smoking, it hurts the farmers who live by cultivating, processing and rolling tendu leaves in to beedis. If it seeks to reduce smokers by drastically raising taxes, it risks the contraction of firms that make up the Indian GDP and the stock market, and leaves their employees and suppliers in the lurch. In doing so, it ups the ante against Indian cigarette firms who must contend with legal and contraband foreign cigarettes that offer superior smoking experience at lower risk. (who, if I am not wrong, also happen to be the lowest cost producers worldwide at the scale they operate). That only plays in to the economic trend of the day as the lower- and middle-class smokers switch to cigarettes from beedis and foreign cigarettes from Indian ones as their wallets bulge with higher incomes.
Thankfully, we are also turning more literate and more 'educated'. Smoking is discouraged, and smokers are provided smoking rooms. Smoke-free offices and zones are a start. Look at Chandigarh. It is already a smoke-free city (tyre burning is still permitted though!). Where does that leave the tendu farmers who already live a hand-to-mouth existence? Do they enjoy Dire Straits in Hotel California after enriching the cigar-smoking owner of the cigarette company for decades? If I were the agriculture minister, I would warn tendu farmers of what's coming. Perhaps they are best served by hedging their risks and moving to an alternate crop, leasing land to a wind tower, or for the cultivation of bio-fuel plants (unless ofcourse, a business house wants to start an SEZ in the hinterlands to export software or whatever).
Ofcourse they could join me and and be a part of a $10 billion group settlement awarded to passive smokers!
Friday, July 20, 2007
Highway to He...ll!
Highway to He...ll!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Tar vs Concrete roads. The ultimate slugfest! $100 for ringside tickets! Won't last an hour! Buy it now! ......Well, may be not quite, but an interesting matter nonetheless, particularly so, if you happen to be a car owner or following the economy. It's not something weighs heavily on the mind of either the refiner or the cement firm CEO. After all, the moolah comes not directly from roads, but from auto fuels in the case of refiner and from building construction activity in the case of cement companies. But, at the rate tar roads turn in to martian surface – what with global warming increasing rainfall intensity and traffic density following an upward trend inexorably – the competition may heat up for tar roads in the not too distant future. It's not that one is inherently superior to the other. Properly laid, a tar road could last years. But, in the Indian context, where contractors and employees, more often than not skimp on details, not to mention procedures, materials and diligence, roads barely last one cycle of seasons (Could it be that roads must be relaid annually to keep up with refiner's 'supply' of asphalt? What's the word for it? Ahh, Conspiracy! Conversely, are they limited by its availability? It's a regulated world, baby!). Unscheduled 'dig ups' to accommodate a water pipe here, an underground cable there, a roadside auto mechanic shop and overloaded trucks and lorries - all share in the honors for reducing roads to a state of utter disrepair. (One can tell whether the auto driver owns the vehicle by his willingness to ply on these roads!). It was so bad at intersections that the traffic police were caught between hastening vehicles through the signals discomforting passengers, damaging vehicles and risking accidents on one hand, and, on the other, holding up the traffic on all sides for eternity. And with roads repaired only after rains, and that too, if budgeted money survived the other 'noble' designs of the municipal authorities, one can imagine the plight of commuters, specially those with 2-wheeler with dish-size wheels that scurry at 60 kph to avoid being rammed by the truck snorting behind. God knows how many 'accidents' have been committed in the cover of bad roads!
To cut the long story short, the reasons behind the protagonists of concrete roads are not inscrutable. Concrete roads stand up well to pounding rain, overloaded vehicles, .....and yes, they are durable. Also, most cement formulation recycle fly ash from coal combustion (Need I remind you, we have PLENTY of low grade coal). The first applications of these concrete roads have been at those city intersections that were simply impassable just a few years back. If no other consideration mattered, one would readily pitch, oops!, for cement roads. But cement comes at a stiff price. The industry is stretched to its limits; prices are already sky-high and the inflation hawks have beaks quite sharp! Besides, any addition to demand could only increase emissions - not that we are any short of it (though, come to think of it, we could claim it as part of our 'baseline emissions' – what a strategy! Whatte Fun!). I shudder to think what looms ahead as we open up our villages and hinterlands to meet road density targets. (Must we always compare ourselves to the developed world with such inane measures). I don't know which side to go with – tar roads that melt under the hot Indian sun or cement roads that bring the glaciers to my doorsteps (Hey! You guys on other side, you know what I mean!). So, here we have yet another instance of 'development' bringing about familiar trade-offs (beyond the strictly monetary comparison): private comfort vs vehicle damage vs industry fortunes vs inflation vs global environment. Forget the politicians, can we expect our bureaucrats and policy makers in the Transport ministry to realize these trade-offs? Can we rely on them to make the right decisions – decisions that minimize damage and re-laying costs, minimize inflation and environmental damage yet maximize road longevity and performance? It's not a make or break fight for either side, but a matter of efficiency and productivity in road transport (and whether you arrive home in time and in good shape for your evening tea).
You be the judge!
psst: Shall we propose a cost-benefit analysis? It could support the department for two years, you know! (There might even be an opportunity to........Yahoo!)
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Tar vs Concrete roads. The ultimate slugfest! $100 for ringside tickets! Won't last an hour! Buy it now! ......Well, may be not quite, but an interesting matter nonetheless, particularly so, if you happen to be a car owner or following the economy. It's not something weighs heavily on the mind of either the refiner or the cement firm CEO. After all, the moolah comes not directly from roads, but from auto fuels in the case of refiner and from building construction activity in the case of cement companies. But, at the rate tar roads turn in to martian surface – what with global warming increasing rainfall intensity and traffic density following an upward trend inexorably – the competition may heat up for tar roads in the not too distant future. It's not that one is inherently superior to the other. Properly laid, a tar road could last years. But, in the Indian context, where contractors and employees, more often than not skimp on details, not to mention procedures, materials and diligence, roads barely last one cycle of seasons (Could it be that roads must be relaid annually to keep up with refiner's 'supply' of asphalt? What's the word for it? Ahh, Conspiracy! Conversely, are they limited by its availability? It's a regulated world, baby!). Unscheduled 'dig ups' to accommodate a water pipe here, an underground cable there, a roadside auto mechanic shop and overloaded trucks and lorries - all share in the honors for reducing roads to a state of utter disrepair. (One can tell whether the auto driver owns the vehicle by his willingness to ply on these roads!). It was so bad at intersections that the traffic police were caught between hastening vehicles through the signals discomforting passengers, damaging vehicles and risking accidents on one hand, and, on the other, holding up the traffic on all sides for eternity. And with roads repaired only after rains, and that too, if budgeted money survived the other 'noble' designs of the municipal authorities, one can imagine the plight of commuters, specially those with 2-wheeler with dish-size wheels that scurry at 60 kph to avoid being rammed by the truck snorting behind. God knows how many 'accidents' have been committed in the cover of bad roads!
To cut the long story short, the reasons behind the protagonists of concrete roads are not inscrutable. Concrete roads stand up well to pounding rain, overloaded vehicles, .....and yes, they are durable. Also, most cement formulation recycle fly ash from coal combustion (Need I remind you, we have PLENTY of low grade coal). The first applications of these concrete roads have been at those city intersections that were simply impassable just a few years back. If no other consideration mattered, one would readily pitch, oops!, for cement roads. But cement comes at a stiff price. The industry is stretched to its limits; prices are already sky-high and the inflation hawks have beaks quite sharp! Besides, any addition to demand could only increase emissions - not that we are any short of it (though, come to think of it, we could claim it as part of our 'baseline emissions' – what a strategy! Whatte Fun!). I shudder to think what looms ahead as we open up our villages and hinterlands to meet road density targets. (Must we always compare ourselves to the developed world with such inane measures). I don't know which side to go with – tar roads that melt under the hot Indian sun or cement roads that bring the glaciers to my doorsteps (Hey! You guys on other side, you know what I mean!). So, here we have yet another instance of 'development' bringing about familiar trade-offs (beyond the strictly monetary comparison): private comfort vs vehicle damage vs industry fortunes vs inflation vs global environment. Forget the politicians, can we expect our bureaucrats and policy makers in the Transport ministry to realize these trade-offs? Can we rely on them to make the right decisions – decisions that minimize damage and re-laying costs, minimize inflation and environmental damage yet maximize road longevity and performance? It's not a make or break fight for either side, but a matter of efficiency and productivity in road transport (and whether you arrive home in time and in good shape for your evening tea).
You be the judge!
psst: Shall we propose a cost-benefit analysis? It could support the department for two years, you know! (There might even be an opportunity to........Yahoo!)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
DEATH TRAP EN ROUTE TO SCHOOL: COME, JOIN THE DAILY AUTORICKSHAW LOTTERY!
DEATH TRAP EN ROUTE TO SCHOOL:
COME, JOIN THE DAILY AUTORICKSHAW LOTTERY!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
We call ourselves members of a civilized society; in fact, pride ourselves as educated, informed with access to the convenience and amenities that comes from living in one of four metros of India. Yet, when it comes to everyday decisions, our common-sense seems to desert us. Why else in the world, would we send our children – our future, our hope, our everything – to school in those weird three-wheeled vehicles christened 'autorickshaw' or 'auto' that are no more than a rexin-covered half-open metal shell. Why would parents who care enough to scout for a good english-medium school, even if they are kilometers away, send their children in autorickshaws that can overturn when veering to avoid larger vehicles that treat them like scum or get crushed like the proverbial 'humpty dumpty' under overloaded trucks with foggy windscreens revving up at intersections to jump the red signal on a rainy day? Add to this, faulty signals, worn treads, potholed roads and inexperienced and aberrant drivers, and what you have is a veritable deathtrap on roads – a lottery on the lives of the young, crouching hapless in the auto, worried about getting to school on time. As if this is not enough - call it the last straw on the camel's back - these autorickshaws are dangerously overcrowded. A typical auto, whether private or public, meant to carry 3, carries anywhere between 4 to 10 children (mind you, with both sides open). I used to remark about the absence of a seat belt to restrain these children, but given the gravity of the problem, I do not know if they are any better off with it!
Truth be told, school authorities and the police have publicly issued warning about the dangers of such transportation. Where then is the failure? I suspect, it is us parents. Perhaps, we underestimate the risks that auto travel imposes on these tender innocents? Alternatively, could it be that we perceive the risks incorrectly (Public memory is short. After all, bad things only happen to others!)? Could it be that we undervalue their future, or, simply don't care? Whatever the case, it is important that we as a society give at least as much importance to health and safety of children as we do to their education. They deserve nothing less.
Strangely, it's not money or the absence of alternatives. Van service is available or can be arranged. The question boils down to choices – like the choice between 999-channel Dish TV or the weekly pizza and child safety! Sometimes, I feel like giving parents a bunch of randomized stubs with an 'accident' stamped on one stub. Parents could hand out one each day to their child as they cram into the auto with schoolbags and lunch boxes hanging out.... and say “Bye Bye”.
WAKE UP!!!
COME, JOIN THE DAILY AUTORICKSHAW LOTTERY!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
We call ourselves members of a civilized society; in fact, pride ourselves as educated, informed with access to the convenience and amenities that comes from living in one of four metros of India. Yet, when it comes to everyday decisions, our common-sense seems to desert us. Why else in the world, would we send our children – our future, our hope, our everything – to school in those weird three-wheeled vehicles christened 'autorickshaw' or 'auto' that are no more than a rexin-covered half-open metal shell. Why would parents who care enough to scout for a good english-medium school, even if they are kilometers away, send their children in autorickshaws that can overturn when veering to avoid larger vehicles that treat them like scum or get crushed like the proverbial 'humpty dumpty' under overloaded trucks with foggy windscreens revving up at intersections to jump the red signal on a rainy day? Add to this, faulty signals, worn treads, potholed roads and inexperienced and aberrant drivers, and what you have is a veritable deathtrap on roads – a lottery on the lives of the young, crouching hapless in the auto, worried about getting to school on time. As if this is not enough - call it the last straw on the camel's back - these autorickshaws are dangerously overcrowded. A typical auto, whether private or public, meant to carry 3, carries anywhere between 4 to 10 children (mind you, with both sides open). I used to remark about the absence of a seat belt to restrain these children, but given the gravity of the problem, I do not know if they are any better off with it!
Truth be told, school authorities and the police have publicly issued warning about the dangers of such transportation. Where then is the failure? I suspect, it is us parents. Perhaps, we underestimate the risks that auto travel imposes on these tender innocents? Alternatively, could it be that we perceive the risks incorrectly (Public memory is short. After all, bad things only happen to others!)? Could it be that we undervalue their future, or, simply don't care? Whatever the case, it is important that we as a society give at least as much importance to health and safety of children as we do to their education. They deserve nothing less.
Strangely, it's not money or the absence of alternatives. Van service is available or can be arranged. The question boils down to choices – like the choice between 999-channel Dish TV or the weekly pizza and child safety! Sometimes, I feel like giving parents a bunch of randomized stubs with an 'accident' stamped on one stub. Parents could hand out one each day to their child as they cram into the auto with schoolbags and lunch boxes hanging out.... and say “Bye Bye”.
WAKE UP!!!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Tsunamiconomics! - Stupidity or Conspiracy?
TSUNAMICONOMICS - Stupidity or Conspiracy?
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Who doesn't remember the carnage wrought by nature as the rest of the world basked in the afterglow of Christmas? Unlike the criminal indifference that accompanied the Bosnian massacres, the entire world responded with aid for tsunami victims. While much of that aid has been distributed, some has been directed toward constructing a tsunami warning system. My worry however, is that, as well-meaning as it is, the tsunami warning system may fall short, and is certainly not the best way to combat the risk from tsunamis.
First, tsunamis travel at great speeds, necessitating speedy detection and response. Even if tsunami detectors are placed many miles offshore of the coast at risk, that still leaves too little time for the authorities to broadcast it and enable the coastal population to seek higher ground. (I have my suspicions and doubts about the detection technology but defer it to experts and conspiracy theorists). A disaster looms on the hapless should the tsunami detectors fail, or there be any other delay even of a minute. It'd be far superior from both the risk and the monetary perspective to announce earthquakes immediately on detection at 'tsunami receiving' locations. Earthquakes are detected almost instantaneously. One does not need to wait till the tsunami waves travel across the high seas to meet and activate the detectors. Second, their epicenter is detected much earlier, permitting oceanographers to pinpoint areas under threat of tsunami. (For example, Chennai would monitor earthquakes occurring along the Andamans and Java Sumatra chain of islands) Would it not be easy to take an over-riding radio-feed from the earthquake center so that a tsunami warning is broadcast automatically over the radio to coastal residents every time there is an earthquake of more than a threshold magnitude? One could even 'code' the warning tone (from gentle to shrill) to reflect both the magnitude and proximity (and angle) of the epicenter so residents don't panic over low magnitude earthquakes.
Now look at the costs and benefits. The earthquake detection system is already in place, operational globally and monitors all regions, including tsunami-generating hot spots. The cost of buying in to the earthquake warning system is likely several magnitudes lower than the cost of ordering tsunami detectors, placing them in the high seas, and monitoring them regularly. From the benefit perspective too, the earlier detection of tsunami-causing earthquakes and, consequently, earlier evacuation of the population at risk, by the earthquake-warning system translates to more lives saved. In other words, the EWS has lower costs and higher benefits than the elaborate tsunami warning network envisaged by specialists. Some may claim that this is not unlike closing the stable gates after the horse has bolted. After all, the orders for tsunami equipment have been placed and the same are being installed. But, will they achieve their purpose?
God forbid, we wait until the next big one to find out!
Ganga Prasad G. Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
Who doesn't remember the carnage wrought by nature as the rest of the world basked in the afterglow of Christmas? Unlike the criminal indifference that accompanied the Bosnian massacres, the entire world responded with aid for tsunami victims. While much of that aid has been distributed, some has been directed toward constructing a tsunami warning system. My worry however, is that, as well-meaning as it is, the tsunami warning system may fall short, and is certainly not the best way to combat the risk from tsunamis.
First, tsunamis travel at great speeds, necessitating speedy detection and response. Even if tsunami detectors are placed many miles offshore of the coast at risk, that still leaves too little time for the authorities to broadcast it and enable the coastal population to seek higher ground. (I have my suspicions and doubts about the detection technology but defer it to experts and conspiracy theorists). A disaster looms on the hapless should the tsunami detectors fail, or there be any other delay even of a minute. It'd be far superior from both the risk and the monetary perspective to announce earthquakes immediately on detection at 'tsunami receiving' locations. Earthquakes are detected almost instantaneously. One does not need to wait till the tsunami waves travel across the high seas to meet and activate the detectors. Second, their epicenter is detected much earlier, permitting oceanographers to pinpoint areas under threat of tsunami. (For example, Chennai would monitor earthquakes occurring along the Andamans and Java Sumatra chain of islands) Would it not be easy to take an over-riding radio-feed from the earthquake center so that a tsunami warning is broadcast automatically over the radio to coastal residents every time there is an earthquake of more than a threshold magnitude? One could even 'code' the warning tone (from gentle to shrill) to reflect both the magnitude and proximity (and angle) of the epicenter so residents don't panic over low magnitude earthquakes.
Now look at the costs and benefits. The earthquake detection system is already in place, operational globally and monitors all regions, including tsunami-generating hot spots. The cost of buying in to the earthquake warning system is likely several magnitudes lower than the cost of ordering tsunami detectors, placing them in the high seas, and monitoring them regularly. From the benefit perspective too, the earlier detection of tsunami-causing earthquakes and, consequently, earlier evacuation of the population at risk, by the earthquake-warning system translates to more lives saved. In other words, the EWS has lower costs and higher benefits than the elaborate tsunami warning network envisaged by specialists. Some may claim that this is not unlike closing the stable gates after the horse has bolted. After all, the orders for tsunami equipment have been placed and the same are being installed. But, will they achieve their purpose?
God forbid, we wait until the next big one to find out!
Friday, July 6, 2007
Once Too Often and No One Cares!
Once Too Often and No One Cares!
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
We Indians are habituated to many things – crowd, pollution, floods, noise, filth – to name a few. And yes, to fatal incidents - accidents and killings - as well. Not a day passes without the newspaper reporting a murder here, a shooting there and accidents on- and off-road. Living in a city with a population in the millions, any event with a diurnal probability of greater than one in a million is played out in real life and reported in the newspapers. If it is not death in the abyss of a bore hole, then it is asphyxiation in a sewage tank; if it is not a pile-up at a level-crossing or an overcrowded boat overturning, it is a bus that rolled off the hill or an accident at the neighborhood intersection on account of a faulty signal and hasty drivers. Nothing deadens attention and alertness as much as repetition. And if these incidents do not occupy the headlines on the front page, it just might totally escape attention in the 10 minutes one has to read the newspaper at the breakfast table. Ignorance is bliss, or is it?
Sure, there are rules and officials to take care of these mundane matters. Of course. Then, why do these incidents recur, and recur so often that the informed and risk-averse among us fear their turn in this daily lottery. Because, we as a society don't learn from our mistakes. We almost don't care when it is not our hide on the line. Elsewhere, notably in the US, even an isolated loss of life that should not have occurred is probed, a public outcry raised and the matter pursued by friends and relatives of the victim until it is rectified on paper and in practice. Why aren't our bureaucrats, civic service officials and workmen, and the general public more attentive to the accidental loss of lives amidst them? Why the administrative lethargy? I have heard the excuse 'Out of sight; out of mind', but here, we seem to have a case of 'Once too often and no one cares'! Could it be that the penalty for dereliction of duty or improper procedures/supervision is all too minimal? Perhaps, the ready, if minimal compensation pre-empts expensive lawsuits and perpetuates the risk? The simple fact, most of the time however, is that the public, or for that matter, workmen, do not follow rules and procedures even knowing the risks involved. They prefer riding their luck than to consciously abate or avoid the risk. With public officials not allotting the required budget (ostensibly, for lack of complaints?) and supervisors out of sight, or more likely, 'in the ring', corruption, dereliction of duty, carelessness and deceit take the reins of public life, leading to tragic loss of lives repeatedly – to the point of routine.
What we need, more than anything else, is accountability. We need to re-align the incentives facing both the public at large and our bureaucrats, civic servants and workmen to ensure that negligence is punished severely. Our public servants must feel the pressure of public angered by even a single loss of life caused by negligence of duty. We need watchdogs agencies and individuals monitoring and alerting, even inciting the public to seek justice when it comes to public safety (A nationally-advertised hotline for open borewells and wells, dangerously overloaded vehicles and boats, and the like?). By the same token, the public must be informed and, if necessary, punished until they follow rules for the larger good of the society. Life and general insurance companies too have a fiduciary stake in lowering risks to public safety. They could take the initiative.
Every life is precious. Let us not wait until someone chants:
"Unto that land of public safety, lead my nation to, O Insurance Behemoths"!
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
We Indians are habituated to many things – crowd, pollution, floods, noise, filth – to name a few. And yes, to fatal incidents - accidents and killings - as well. Not a day passes without the newspaper reporting a murder here, a shooting there and accidents on- and off-road. Living in a city with a population in the millions, any event with a diurnal probability of greater than one in a million is played out in real life and reported in the newspapers. If it is not death in the abyss of a bore hole, then it is asphyxiation in a sewage tank; if it is not a pile-up at a level-crossing or an overcrowded boat overturning, it is a bus that rolled off the hill or an accident at the neighborhood intersection on account of a faulty signal and hasty drivers. Nothing deadens attention and alertness as much as repetition. And if these incidents do not occupy the headlines on the front page, it just might totally escape attention in the 10 minutes one has to read the newspaper at the breakfast table. Ignorance is bliss, or is it?
Sure, there are rules and officials to take care of these mundane matters. Of course. Then, why do these incidents recur, and recur so often that the informed and risk-averse among us fear their turn in this daily lottery. Because, we as a society don't learn from our mistakes. We almost don't care when it is not our hide on the line. Elsewhere, notably in the US, even an isolated loss of life that should not have occurred is probed, a public outcry raised and the matter pursued by friends and relatives of the victim until it is rectified on paper and in practice. Why aren't our bureaucrats, civic service officials and workmen, and the general public more attentive to the accidental loss of lives amidst them? Why the administrative lethargy? I have heard the excuse 'Out of sight; out of mind', but here, we seem to have a case of 'Once too often and no one cares'! Could it be that the penalty for dereliction of duty or improper procedures/supervision is all too minimal? Perhaps, the ready, if minimal compensation pre-empts expensive lawsuits and perpetuates the risk? The simple fact, most of the time however, is that the public, or for that matter, workmen, do not follow rules and procedures even knowing the risks involved. They prefer riding their luck than to consciously abate or avoid the risk. With public officials not allotting the required budget (ostensibly, for lack of complaints?) and supervisors out of sight, or more likely, 'in the ring', corruption, dereliction of duty, carelessness and deceit take the reins of public life, leading to tragic loss of lives repeatedly – to the point of routine.
What we need, more than anything else, is accountability. We need to re-align the incentives facing both the public at large and our bureaucrats, civic servants and workmen to ensure that negligence is punished severely. Our public servants must feel the pressure of public angered by even a single loss of life caused by negligence of duty. We need watchdogs agencies and individuals monitoring and alerting, even inciting the public to seek justice when it comes to public safety (A nationally-advertised hotline for open borewells and wells, dangerously overloaded vehicles and boats, and the like?). By the same token, the public must be informed and, if necessary, punished until they follow rules for the larger good of the society. Life and general insurance companies too have a fiduciary stake in lowering risks to public safety. They could take the initiative.
Every life is precious. Let us not wait until someone chants:
"Unto that land of public safety, lead my nation to, O Insurance Behemoths"!
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Long Run is But a Series of Short-Runs (and Elections are Tomorrow!)
The Long Run is But a Series of Short-Runs
(and Elections are Tomorrow!)
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
The other day, I was pondering about the impact of the policy interventions of the government in cement, iron ore, and milk on my portfolio of stocks. I concluded they were decidedly unnecessary, meant to contain inflation or worse, change the balance of competition in the industry between domestic and international producers. That got me thinking about the incentives facing the ruling party. The ruling political party sets the long-term course of nation and affects the destiny of millions with policies crafted with a decidedly short-term, even self-serving perspective. Elected on forgotten promises, put together as a hodge-podge coalition, cabinets re-shuffled thrice since elections, and 'fighting fire' from one no-confidence vote to another even as they plan their finances and strategy for the 'surprise' election, these parties are ill-suited to giving policy direction to the nation.
It's such a widespread problem and has been our bane for so much time, that it is surprising serious attention has not been paid to resolving it. Some would presume that the ruling party would seek to maximize its re-election odds by seeking policy optimality. True, the chances of re-election following a term in office is, to some extent, a function of the policies adopted by the ruling party. But voters are often uninformed, extra-ordinarily fickle, not to mention, highly forgetful. Their votes represent more an opinion at a single point in time than an informed decision considering past record and evaluation of prospects and promises. Besides, elections are fought and votes are cast on the basis of many factors, of which past record with respect to policy promulgation is but one. No party will pass policies that hurt in the short-run (as truly corrective/optimal policies are likely to) in the hope voters will recognize their long-term worth at the ballot box. Therefore, though parties are likely to propose and pass policies that reinforce their platform and image among public, no one, not the least political parties, lays any claim to long-term desirability of policies from the perspective of the entire nation. In fact, and to the contrary, promulgated policies are likely to be of the 'self-serving concentrated benefits in the immediate run with dispersed long run societal costs' nature. Add to this, the fact that a party falling or fallen from public grace will adopt a 'scorch the earth for a bucketful of water' policy strategy, and what you have is an administration leaning to the immediate right at the cost of all ideals we hold dear for our future generations. In nations ruled by short-lived coalition governments and riddled with caste politics, regional politics, not to mention personal egos, this 'short the long' strategy can devastate the people.
With the exception of long-term bilateral- or multilateral- trade policies, no administration adheres to policies formulated by the previous government – five year plans notwithstanding. Should we then expect and live with frequent policy reversals and re-orientation? Can't we guide, almost force the government to promulgate policies with a long-term perspective? The pessimist in me says 'No, not with the realities and incentives facing them'. What then is the answer? There is a solution, even if radical. If all parties (and voters) agreed to a scheme in which indices of administrative performance and long-run policy optimality were weighted in with votes in determining the change of government, then, one could expect a 'sea change' in the behavior of ruling parties. To implement this, one would first have to constitute a panel of eminent experts – economists, academics, journalists, industry barons and social leaders (perhaps chosen by the public) – who, after deliberating on the pros and cons of the issues, vote on a periodic basis to pass judgment on the administrative-, governance- and policy-performance of the government in various fields using an objective set of criteria. In particular, the long-run optimality of government policies would be determined by various criteria including efficiency of promulgated policies, long-bond indices, housing mortgage index, sustainable development index, achievement of Millennium Development Goals, etc. An 'Administration and Governance' divisia index may be constructed from these indices and expert constructs and arbitrarily scaled to 1 at the start of a term. At any point in time following the assuming of power, the change in the index would represent the cumulative long-run performance of the government. When combined with voting shares obtained in a PR-type ballot, they obtain a composite measure of the total electoral score of the party. A 'threshold' score, that varies inversely with the vote share obtained could be adopted for the re-election of the incumbent party.
This system discounts the importance of voting and limits the damage caused by an uninformed, frenzied electorate whose perspective is manipulated by rhetorics practiced by political leaders, columnists and election psychologists. By punishing short-term self-serving policies, it prods the ruling party to adopt a longer-term horizon while designing policies; In doing so, it better achieves goals of the nation and its people. Developing nations, plagued by an uninformed electorate, coalitions and religious/ linguistic factionalism are particularly likely to gain by adopting such a system.
Sounds far-fetched? Try laissez faire!
(and Elections are Tomorrow!)
Ganga Prasad Rao
http://myprofile.cos.com/gangar
The other day, I was pondering about the impact of the policy interventions of the government in cement, iron ore, and milk on my portfolio of stocks. I concluded they were decidedly unnecessary, meant to contain inflation or worse, change the balance of competition in the industry between domestic and international producers. That got me thinking about the incentives facing the ruling party. The ruling political party sets the long-term course of nation and affects the destiny of millions with policies crafted with a decidedly short-term, even self-serving perspective. Elected on forgotten promises, put together as a hodge-podge coalition, cabinets re-shuffled thrice since elections, and 'fighting fire' from one no-confidence vote to another even as they plan their finances and strategy for the 'surprise' election, these parties are ill-suited to giving policy direction to the nation.
It's such a widespread problem and has been our bane for so much time, that it is surprising serious attention has not been paid to resolving it. Some would presume that the ruling party would seek to maximize its re-election odds by seeking policy optimality. True, the chances of re-election following a term in office is, to some extent, a function of the policies adopted by the ruling party. But voters are often uninformed, extra-ordinarily fickle, not to mention, highly forgetful. Their votes represent more an opinion at a single point in time than an informed decision considering past record and evaluation of prospects and promises. Besides, elections are fought and votes are cast on the basis of many factors, of which past record with respect to policy promulgation is but one. No party will pass policies that hurt in the short-run (as truly corrective/optimal policies are likely to) in the hope voters will recognize their long-term worth at the ballot box. Therefore, though parties are likely to propose and pass policies that reinforce their platform and image among public, no one, not the least political parties, lays any claim to long-term desirability of policies from the perspective of the entire nation. In fact, and to the contrary, promulgated policies are likely to be of the 'self-serving concentrated benefits in the immediate run with dispersed long run societal costs' nature. Add to this, the fact that a party falling or fallen from public grace will adopt a 'scorch the earth for a bucketful of water' policy strategy, and what you have is an administration leaning to the immediate right at the cost of all ideals we hold dear for our future generations. In nations ruled by short-lived coalition governments and riddled with caste politics, regional politics, not to mention personal egos, this 'short the long' strategy can devastate the people.
With the exception of long-term bilateral- or multilateral- trade policies, no administration adheres to policies formulated by the previous government – five year plans notwithstanding. Should we then expect and live with frequent policy reversals and re-orientation? Can't we guide, almost force the government to promulgate policies with a long-term perspective? The pessimist in me says 'No, not with the realities and incentives facing them'. What then is the answer? There is a solution, even if radical. If all parties (and voters) agreed to a scheme in which indices of administrative performance and long-run policy optimality were weighted in with votes in determining the change of government, then, one could expect a 'sea change' in the behavior of ruling parties. To implement this, one would first have to constitute a panel of eminent experts – economists, academics, journalists, industry barons and social leaders (perhaps chosen by the public) – who, after deliberating on the pros and cons of the issues, vote on a periodic basis to pass judgment on the administrative-, governance- and policy-performance of the government in various fields using an objective set of criteria. In particular, the long-run optimality of government policies would be determined by various criteria including efficiency of promulgated policies, long-bond indices, housing mortgage index, sustainable development index, achievement of Millennium Development Goals, etc. An 'Administration and Governance' divisia index may be constructed from these indices and expert constructs and arbitrarily scaled to 1 at the start of a term. At any point in time following the assuming of power, the change in the index would represent the cumulative long-run performance of the government. When combined with voting shares obtained in a PR-type ballot, they obtain a composite measure of the total electoral score of the party. A 'threshold' score, that varies inversely with the vote share obtained could be adopted for the re-election of the incumbent party.
This system discounts the importance of voting and limits the damage caused by an uninformed, frenzied electorate whose perspective is manipulated by rhetorics practiced by political leaders, columnists and election psychologists. By punishing short-term self-serving policies, it prods the ruling party to adopt a longer-term horizon while designing policies; In doing so, it better achieves goals of the nation and its people. Developing nations, plagued by an uninformed electorate, coalitions and religious/ linguistic factionalism are particularly likely to gain by adopting such a system.
Sounds far-fetched? Try laissez faire!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
