Posted by
voice_of_reason on Saturday, September 08, 2007 10:12:56 AM
A recent article in the New York Times caught my attention. It is titled "Jobs Abroad Support ‘Model’ State in India" and
may be found at this link.
Although the NYTimes correspondent Jason DeParle attempts to show both sides of this story, a reader can't help being impressed - at least initially - by the achievements of the Socialist state. After all, when one considers that the state (which has been run by the local Communist Party since 1957) is a role model that boasts:
* a life expectancy of 74 years - almost as good as the average of 77 years for Americans,
* a 91% literacy rate - approaching the 99% literacy rate in America,
* a well-established minimum wage, and Government run health clinics and schools,
* hostility to business, with heavy regulation & militant unions,
* Government as the largest employer,
wouldn't
everyone want to live, work and prosper there?
But that is
exactly the problem!
Despite the glowing statistics mentioned above, one-sixth of the State's workforce are migrants who live & work abroad while remitting $5B annually to their state's economy. Those remittances account for 25% of the State's economy, which is not bad considering that the unemployment rate in the State is at 20%.
What do the 'experts' think of all this?
* a United Nations report praised the state’s “impressive advances in the spheres of health and education.”
* Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate in economics, argues (in a book with Jean Dreze) that its “outstanding social achievements” were of “far-reaching significance” in other countries.
* In a book on three places that inspire global hope, Bill McKibben, an American, wrote that the State "demonstrates that a low-level economy can create a decent life” and shows that “sharing works.”
To be fair, the NY TImes article also mentions some critics:
* "far from escaping capitalism, they say, this celebrated corner of the developing world is painfully dependent on it"
* “There would have been starvation deaths in Kerala if there had been no migration. The Kerala model is good to read about but not practically applicable to any part of the world, including Kerala.”
* “So many educated people are here, but we have no jobs,”
While the article strives to be even-handed, the overall tone is positive, ending by quoting an admirer of the State's policies: Professor Franke, the Kerala admirer, said the economic forces that lead people to migrate were beyond the state’s control. “But what’s unique about Kerala is that the benefits are likely to be shared in a more fair and just way,” he said.
“I wouldn’t say it discredits the model,” Mr. Franke said of Kerala’s migration. “It shows that it has weaknesses.”
Clearly, there is nothing wrong with the people of the State of Kerala. They are literate, industrious and capable of putting up with adverse conditions in foreign countries to keep their families afloat. In fact, they are to be commended for their tenacity and hard work. It is the socialist system that has failed them.
Parallels may be found in other Socialist or semi-Socialist countries. Their most notable exports are their hardest-working, educated, entrepreneurial citizens.
But, what about the vaunted halls of academia that one hears about in Socialist countries?
Well, in a sort of back-handed way, the lack of private enterprise actually helped make their Universities better .. and this applies to countries like China, India etc. For more on this read:
Successful Soviets - an oxymoron?