New Leadership

Xi Jinping, as expected, has been named General-Secretary of the CCP. The Politburo standing committee includes six others.

The six other members of the standing committee are:

Li Keqiang
Zhang Dejiang
Yu Zhengsheng
Liu Yunshan
Wang Qishan
Zhang Gaoli

More details to follow.

Hu's Legacy

The 18th Party Congress is coming to an end. So I decided to swing by to Popup Chinese to listen to Sinica, a China news podcast. Of course the conversation soon turns to the question of internal party democracy. As Jeremy Goldkorn says, "Come on, let's be straight, they're not going to make any meaningful reforms to the way the place is governed at this f**king meeting." More over at Popup Chinese.

How will the Hu period be remembered? Welfare will probably be high on the list, and rightly so. 

In the coming years though, China will have to run faster and faster just to keep up. Reading the news today, I'm optimistic about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free trade bloc encompassing nearly 700 million people. Its unwitting midwife the CCP.

Education

Tonight I decide to re-listen to a podcast by Diane Ravitch on Education. She starts by discussing the two latest fads in Education reform: accountability and choice. I've also started her book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.

Accountability 

Accountability gave us No Child Left Behind, utopian goals, merit pay, standardized testing, and the idea of "failing schools". It has also created perverse incentives that encourage schools to focus more and more attention on the basics like reading and math.

Schools, and states, doctor their results; because the goals are unachievable. This isn't surprising. Their funding is at stake. Their livelihoods are at stake.

They'll tell poor preforming students to stay home. They'll change testing standards. That's human nature.

During the Great Leap Forward Chinese bureaucrats over reported grain reserves. Consequently Beijing continued to sell grain overseas in exchange for much needed currency, Communists don't believe in running up a debt. Millions of people died including my mother-in-law's youngest sister.

They starved. Some bureaucrats too.

Grade inflation? Doctoring test results? Not a problem--for them. But someday we as a nation will pay the price.

Worst of all, judging by the only test Diane Ravitch trusts, we've achieved limited improvements in Mathematics and no improvements in Reading.

We can't even teach the basics.

Choice

Choice is the other fad. Charter schools the hot idea. Vouchers too get mention. But only 3% of children in the public education system attend charter schools. During the national debates public education was ignored. There's no other word for it; ignored.

Even worse, charter schools aren't improving results. Our evaluation of them is distorted. When we think of charter schools, we think of inspiring stories. There are plenty of heartwarming stories to be had. These are the exceptions. Charter schools do not outperform public schools in the one test Ravitch trusts.

And it turns out vouchers aren't a viable solution either. Why? Because of legal challenges. And a lack of supply.

Plus in many states vouchers can't be used to send students to faith-based schools. This is a worse problem than you might think. Faith based schools are denied voucher money. And their students are poached.

Parents withdraw their children from faith-based schools. They send their children to secular schools.  In doing so, they become eligible for voucher money.

Conclusion

The real solution to our education woes is getting qualified teachers into the classroom. But as Arthur C. Clarke says, I paraphrase, if a teacher can be replaced with a computer, they should be replaced.

Programs like Kahn Academy come to mind. Maybe Kahn Academy can't teach everyone math, but it can teach a lot of people. That frees the teacher to focus on students requiring the most assistance. Technology isn't the answer; we still need flesh and blood teachers, but technology will play a part.

The larger point is this: we don't know the answer to our education problems. We need to experiment responsibly. Our task isn't to abolish all inequalities. We must accept the odds don't favor the poor. Our task is simply to improve the odds. Something we've been failing at for quite a while.

Look Out For Jim

Walter Russell Mead is right.

Even if he isn’t telling her security secrets, the Director of Central Intelligence should not be having an affair with a working reporter in his field of activity. That in itself is an error of judgment that merits and in all but the most exceptional of circumstances demands immediate dismissal.

Did politics play a role in waiting until after the election? Possibly.

Is this some vast conspiracy to force Petraeus out? Hopefully. But it wasn't orchestrated from the White House.

$4 Trillion in Unfunded Liabilities

Every state, except for Vermont, has to balance their budget. But Joshua Rauh explains why 92% of economists surveyed by University of Chicago agree or strongly agree some states will require federal bailouts, austerity budgets, or default. More at Russ Roberts' EconTalk.

Pretty shocking stuff.

One of the problems is unfunded healthcare benefits for state retirees.

Here's a breakdown of unfunded liabilities related to state retiree healthcare benefits (using optimistic assumptions). Click on your state to complain.

Let's start with a list of states with 0% of their liabilities funded:

Arkansas 

Connecticut 

Florida

Hawaii

Iowa

Louisiana 

Minnesota 

Mississippi

Montana

New Jersey

New York 

Oklahoma  (No major liabilities.)

Rhode Island 

South Dakota

Tennessee

Washington 

Wyoming 

The following states have funded 0.1% to 1% of their liabilities:

California (0.1%)

Illinois (0.1%)

Maryland (1%)

Pennsylvania (1%)

Texas (1%)

Vermont (0.5%)

The following states have funded between 2% to 5% of their pension liabilities: 

Alabama (5%)

Delaware (2%)

Georgia (3%)

Indiana (5%)

Kansas (2%)

Massachusetts (2%)

Michigan (2%)

Missouri (3%)

Nevada (2%)

New Hampshire (2%)

New Mexico (5%)

North Carolina (3%)

South Carolina (5%)

The following states have funded more than 5% of their liabilities:

Alaska (50%)

Arizona (69%)

Colorado (14%)

Idaho (12%)

Kentucky (15%)

Maine (6%)

North Dakota (30%)

Ohio (32%)

Oregon (31%)

Utah (22%)

Virginia (26%)

West Virginia (6%)

Wisconsin (38%)  

(No data for Nebraska.) [Pew Trust source.]

Remembrance Day as Singles Day

Today is Poppy Day, Veterans Day, Single's Day!

In China the day (literally bare sticks day) is celebrated by singles gathering for dinner to celebrate their continued singleness. Over its relatively short lifespan, it was first celebrated in 1993, it has morphed into a sort of sales day extravaganza. As you can imagine, last year's Single's Day (11.11.11) was the Single's Day rapture of almost Black Friday proportions.

It isn't all fun and games and shopping though.

Due to China's One Child policy, there are 50 million men doomed to singleness. For these men there is enormous family pressure to marry.  Pressure is not limited to just men though. Men may be in surplus, but quality is in short supply. It's snobbish to say so, I admit. But as we all know, more women graduate from university than men. Hence, for some Single's Day is devoted to speed dating. Now for the tangent.

In the United States, just glancing at the data, the assumption that more women than men are graduating from university is justified. It also seems justified for the United Kingdom. Listening to Chinese academics, you'd think something similar is occuring in China. It isn't.

In 2004, women made up 43.8 percent of undergraduate students, rising to 49.6 by 2012, according to Education Ministry figures cited by The 21st Century Business Herald. 

In master’s programs, women made up 44.1 percent of students in 2004, rising to 50.3 by 2010. Among doctoral candidates in 2010, however, just over 35.4 percent were women, up from 31.3 in 2004.

Turns out China is introducing gender quotas to keeps things "balanced".

The rules affected students like Ouyang Le, according to Ms. Xiong. A fresh graduate from a Guangzhou high school, Ms. Ouyang had wanted to study at the University of International Relations. She scored 614 points on the gaokao, but as a woman, needed 628. If Ms. Ouyang had been a man, she would have needed just 609.

Quotas are nothing new. The Qing imposed both provincial and ethnic quotas. And provinces have long reserved more places for local students. But the fairness of the gaokao, the university entrance exam, is something people care about; but protests are understandably muted.

Party Conference

It is that time again. Today Astrill, my VPN provider, sent me the following:

China issue

Dear China customers,

Due to the Chinese communist party congress, there is increased blocking of VPN protocols. This is not targeted.

The last bit is reassuring. In any case, the censor's blanket attack on VPN protocols is becoming more problematic. And I suspect it will only worsen. So, if I go off the air, you know why.

 

 

Democracy: The Dignity of the Individual

I like Rory Stewarts work. I've read both The Places In Between and The Prince of the Marshes. Both were quite good. For a TED Talk though, his presentation leaves something to be desired.

He's right though. The best argument for democracy isn't instrumental. The best argument for democracy is deontological; democracy is the only form of government that respects the dignity of the individual.

Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry was never a good idea. Rupert Murdoch's employees broke the law. The issue isn't journalists failing to maintain professional standards. Licensing is not the solution. You don't get rid of Sweeney Todd by licensing barbers. You arrest him.

The Leveson Inquiry will likely recommend statutory regulation of journalism. This is tantamount to the reintroducing the Licensing of the Press Act 1662. In short, journalists, or some subset of journalists, will become licensed professionals.

Hugh Grant points out that doctors, dentists, and the BBC are perfectly fine with being regulated. Of course they are. Licensure decreases competition. What concerns is how licensed professions develop guild-like mentalities.

Right now Leveson's intent is to regulate only newspapers. But how long will that last? No doubt his proposed regulator will, over time, spread its tentacles.

The exact form licensure will take is uncertain. Who will be required to obtain a license: individual journalists or newspapers? I suspect newspapers. There is talk about establishing a regulatory entity for pre-vetting controversial stories.

So much for free press and enterprise. Last week's Spectator led with the issue.

A Silver Lining

We Republicans failed to capture the White House, but our democracy continues to capture hearts and minds. Two comments from the Chinese blogosphere:

From the black civil rights movement of the 60s in the 20th century to Obama being elected the first black present in the 21st century, to today, where Obama has been reelected for a second term, Americans have used only 50 years of time. On this kind of incredible ability to correct/change its society, who can still say that capitalism is decadent and degenerate? With one foot in its grave? Instead, all of those people who have said capitalism is dying have one by one passed away in history like smoke!

And

Why do Chinese people pay attention to the United States election? It’s because of media hype, because of market attention, but at the bottom of their hearts there is also a political longing. In the face of the wave of democracy, one country cannot integrate in the world economically, and stands apart from the world system politically. With only those few friends in the entire world, whether it be dying Syria or unreliable North Korea or Castro, who often faints during his speeches.

I'm happy for other reasons too. The growing consensus is China will become a democracy in the next ten or fifteen years. This actually worries me. This is also the sense I get from talking with Party members. My undergraduate students are more pessimistic.

Pays du seuil: An Insidious Idea

Reading Les Echos I came across this little gem:

Le president americain a repete qu'il ne "laisserait pas" Teheran se doter de la bombe atonmique. Sans preciser s'il tolereait que l'Iran devienne un "pays de seuil", ne possedant pas une bombe prete a l'emploi mais capable d'en assembler une en quelques semaines si necessaire.

The idea is to allow Iran to develop all the technology necessary for creating a bomb. The redline becomes assembly.

I hope this idea isn't gaining traction in American policy circles. This proposal is a mere face saving.

Does it address the problem of proliferation? If Iran is allowed to develop its nuclear weapons capacity to being weeks away from the bomb, then won't other countries in the region want a similar capacity? Or will assurances of American protection be sufficient?

At present, I suspect other countries won't be satisfied with American assurances--the British weren't. This, however, is a mere intuition of mine.

Another problem is trust. You'd have to establish reliable inspection regimes. What a bloody mess. And of course it will keep so many government and IGO functionaries busy. They'll love it. In the moment of crisis, they'll be uncertain. If the inspection regime fails, Israel, America, or a coalition of the willing will be forced to take unilateral actions. And Europe will be able to scream foul.

My greatest fear is if this idea gains traction, it will weaken Western resolve. The idea is insidious. If you assume Iran is a rational actor, it is so very pleasing. If your greatest worry is Iran's nuclear bomb being acquired by terrorists, the idea is still pleasing.

This proposal is a wedge; it challenges American/Israeli assumptions--or at least rhetoric. Iran is portrayed is irrational. And if you truly think that, then this idea is unsatisfactory. The power of the idea is that it reframes the debate; it gives Europe a way out; it give Obama a way out.

Will the President take it?