Aguanomics

"The Future of Irrigated Agriculture - Where's the Water?"

noreply@blogger.com (Damian) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:28:00 +0000

On UC Berkeley's campus Tuesday, Juliet Christian-Smith from the Pacific Institute will be speaking along with David Zoldoske from Fresno. There is no abstract yet, but hopefully it will be be informative. If you have questions, put them in the comments and I will try to ask one or two and write up the details tomorrow...

Profit seeking

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:39:00 +0000

Jack Ceadel over at Global Water Intelligence wonders what is going on:

Mostly we talk about market consolidation, but over the past decade, the reverse has been happening in the desalination industry. Growth has sucked more and more players into the industry, to the extent that the market leaders have actually been losing market share. It is such an unusual phenomenon that I am not sure there is a word for it. I call it market proliferation.

No Jack, it's called profit seeking, as in... businesses with extraordinary profits attract entrants, and these entrants drive down profits for incumbents.

Read Schumpter :)

Bottom Line: Easy money attracts attention, and the fear-driven rise in demand for desal has got a lot of corporate attention.

Monday Funnies

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:16:00 +0000

Wasting our most precious resource?

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:49:00 +0000

"California's Central Valley will be the Appalachia of the West" says the Economist. It won't be if California's scarce water is traded at market prices, instead of allocated to historic users. That's the fastest way to maximize the value of our scarce asset. No change will merely enrich a few while producing crops (and goods and services) is lesser value.

Speaking of precious resources, this conservative pundit says that "economic growth depends strongly on an expanding population." He goes on to equate more babies with more prosperity. I've got four objections to his line:

He's got it backwards: More prosperity leads to more babies, and even that trend has its limits.*
"Growth is good" depends on your acceptance of GDP as a measure of happiness, which it isn't. (It measures trade in the cash economy.)
He's missing the (negative) environmental impact of more people.
Many economic "problems" with smaller populations result from Ponzi scheme policies that require the young to pay for the old (as with social security). Those polices can be reformed, defusing "demographic timebombs."

Bottom Line: Many of our problems result from the perverse incentives of bad policies, not human stupidity or natural constraints.

* Unless ignorance reigns:

Flashback: Jan 31 -- Feb 6 2009

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:17:00 +0000

These posts are still relevant, so please comment!

The Cost of Rationing is less reliability.

BEST: Cochabamba Update -- Bechtel was kicked out, but the re-affirmed public service provider provided little service to the public.

Water Rights are necessary for water markets.

BEST: Speaking of Australia -- water markets Down Under. Now I am here, and I'm planning to meet with Mike Young (and others) to learn more about water. Speaking of Down Under, here's more evidence of global warming:

BEST: Quiz: Midwestern Eutrophication -- can you have farms AND rivers? The Trouble with Trees and carbon offsets? Here's my plan for Fixing the Food System by ending (not raising!) subsidies.

Speed blogging

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:08:00 +0000

Emily Green tells how Pat Mulroy's obsession for imported water and growth got too sloppy and hit the wall (a recent court ruling that may undo 20 years of Mulroy's maneuvers.)
Aquadoc lambasts water cliches. I'll drink to that!
Scientists create a test to identify contaminated water CHEAPLY [in Spanish]
Dams affect rainfall. Lessons for climate change?
Stanford gets into the water research business (groundwater and re-use). I'd bet my lunch that they just got a grant funded; let's see if they have IMPACT :)
Russ Roberts talks about many economic questions with Mike Munger. Their first topic (6 min) is water sanitation -- Mike is horrified that toilet use potable water -- but the other topics are also interesting. This talk with Mike Spence on development is EXCELLENT.
Speaking of toilets, here's how the toilet on the 110th floor works.
In this interview, Mike Young talks good sense about water in Australia and elsewhere. Listen to him! He also says that reclaimed water is better than desal.

Hattips to AC, DL, EP and DW

Avatar and King Leopold's Ghost -- The Reviews

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:10:00 +0000

Coincidental juxtapositions can be interesting.

Today I finished King Leopold's Ghost, a book about the Belgian king's ruthless exploitation of the people living in Congo (then Zaire, now Democratic Republic of Congo). The story is one of a colonial owner using force and cruelty to extract wealth (ivory, slaves, rubber) from vulnerable land and people. Rape and pillage was the norm, and the white colonials who raped, maimed and pillaged justified their acts by claiming that the natives were not human and the land was without owners. 10 million people died during Leopold's regime of terror (about 1880 to 1910). Unfortunately, that pattern was repeated in many colonies -- in the same period and even in recent years.

James Cameron's Avatar is a movie worth watching for its fabulous visual effects (and even the love story), but the plot echoes the colonial story: Earthlings invade another planet to get a valuable mineral ("unobtanium" is its cartoon name). Along the way, the natives are seen as beasts and Nature raped.

Of course, this is Hollywood and it includes a love story and happy ending. Formerly colonized people on this planet did not get the Holly-Happy ending. The Belgians established a pattern of corruption and lawlessness and a system for concentrating and abusing power that local "leaders" have adopted, with poor results for their "free" brothers and sisters.

Addendum: Here's a "Pandora" view on dams and rivers.

Bottom Line: People are much quicker to destroy what's not theirs and abuse people who are powerless. Stronger property rights and human rights are the key to the sustainable use of resources and progress in human development. I give the book and movie FIVE stars each.

Need I say more?

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:18:00 +0000

JF send this:

Restore the Delta revealed this week that Phil Isenberg, chairman of the Delta Vision group - the supposedly objective group that recommended the Peripheral Canal - lobbies for a Southern California water district. In other words, the man tasked with finding a solution to the destruction of the Delta works for an agency that benefits from the destruction of the Delta.

Bottom Line: It's hard to remain objective (or be perceived as objective) when you are getting paid by one side of a dispute that you are mediating.

More policies for People, not special interests

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:58:00 +0000

...and here are five more ideas for solving collective action problems (see yesterday's post) that caught my eye.

Anna O. suggested that carbon taxes be introduced, and that revenue used to offset a end to/reduction in income taxes for people making less than $22,500/up to $77,500, respectively. I liked this idea because the majority (of voters) would probably understand their net benefit and vote for it, in the face of lobbying by the minority -- high carbon consumers. The tax is fiscally neutral but environmentally helpful.

Candace A. introduces a different nuance to carbon taxes, suggesting that above-median polluting firms pay a tax and below-median firms receive a rebate. Instead of creating a united opposition to taxes on all carbon, this idea would split the opposition, since low-carbon firms would lobby for it, in opposition to their heavy-pollution cousins.

Julia A. suggests broadening the pool of those eligible to work on renewable energy (wind farming, for example) to include scientists, non-profits, schools and communities. Since they are currently excluded from power generation (my impression is that it's "managed" by utilities and bureaucracies), this additional involvement would increase innovation and public support for these programs.

Ryan L. goes straight for propaganda, suggesting that environmental programs (carbon taxes, wind farms, etc.) be branded, so that people can have stronger positive feelings towards "save the kids" programs. In Brazil, for example, the "bolsa familia" (family grant) is part of its Zero Fome (zero hunger) campaign. It seems that rebranding "taxes" would also be useful.

Stephanie L. promotes environmental justice by "empowering" poor people likely to suffer from local pollution. She suggests that local community organizations be mobilized to educate locals on issues, increasing feedback to bureaucrats and votes to politicians who will be forced to respond to this democratic noise.

Bottom Line: New ideas require new perspectives. What have you learned from "amateurs" lately?

Electric pipes for water

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:01:00 +0000

"Steve Shoap has invented a rapidly deployable system to move large quantities of water over long distances. The invention can rapidly bring water, electric power, and communications to areas that have lost them. Haiti shows how an earthquake can destroy the water supply to a large population. If you know anyone at FEMA or Homeland Security, please forward this post to them. The invention can also be used to fight wildfires.

He has also invented a new type of irrigation system. The idea is to embed the wire pair from a two-wire irrigation system into PVC pipe .When the pipe is installed, the control system is installed with it. No additional wires need to be trenched. The wires pair also supplies power to the valves by trickle charging rechargeable batteries at the valves. His proposed system has the potential to reduce the material, installation, and maintenance costs of advanced irrigation systems.

Steve believes that changing rainfall patterns and will force more farmers to use irrigation. Many regions are suffering droughts and then occasional deluges. Hopefully, the water from deluges can be stored and then later used for irrigating crops."

You thoughts? Comments?

Policies for People, not special interests

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 11:20:00 +0000

During my class at Berkeley, I gave my students "the hardest assignment in the world," i.e.,

Please explain how a leader can promote an environmental program that will benefit the average citizen --- but not special interest groups --- and still get re-elected.

Although I provided numerous clarifications to my students, this assignment is pretty straightforward: solve a collective action problem.

Collective action problems are rife in the water sector, and -- you will see -- many other areas of social and political action. They arise from two factors. First, there is the misalignment of costs and benefits. A collective good gives benefits to everyone (as a "public good" like a radio station or "common pool good" like a community reservoir), and it's hard to exclude those people from enjoying it. Because of this non-exclusionary characteristic, it's hard to force those who benefit from the good to pay for its provision. Thus, we may see (and do see) that people "free ride," enjoying the benefits but avoiding the costs. Because of this free riding, the good may not be provided at all, creating our collective action problem.

While people commonly assume that collective goods will only be provided when the government taxes everyone and uses those funds to create them, there are numerous examples of social and private provision of these goods. (Religion often plays a part in motivating people.)

Right. So that's the context for the assignment I gave my students. Although many of them thought it unfair that I ask them to give a solution to a collective action problem (in one page, no less!), several of them gave interesting suggestions. These are what I wanted when I gave the assignment: some new thoughts from people didn't know how hard their assignment was supposed to be!

Before I get to those, note this further wrinkle: Their brief was directed at a politician who was going to face re-election, and -- it is assumed -- an opponent who would be able to draw support from whatever special interests were free-riding on the currently provided collective good or would suffer if that good (e.g., a clean environment) were to be provided.

And here are the first two ideas:

Andrew C. introduces an interesting idea to promote open spaces. Developers want to build houses, but home-owners (and enviros) want open space next to their properties. Politicians are caught between the two, but they often bow to developer interests. Andrew suggests that residential properties pay a higher tax, that this tax be used to retire undeveloped land, and that developers have the option of selling their parcels for open space -- or developing them -- via a tradable development permit that builds in the open space. This scheme works by linking present and future values, allowing future homeowners to pay off present developers.

Daniela C. has an easy answer to the problem of water that's too cheap -- let rate payers decide what the prices will be. Given that the current system tends to favor a minority -- water hogs -- at a cost (in terms of reduced reliability) to the majority, this makes a lot of sense. Of course, there's the problem of "let's charge nothing!" but that's easily overcome by presenting voters with a series of "break even" price decisions. I like it!

Check in tomorrow for five ideas to address climate and environmental issues..

Water is Boring

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:55:00 +0000

JG sent this column by Ben Baeder. It's funny -- and pointed. You can write your own bottom line...

Is it just me, or have we been in a water crisis my entire life? No joke, some of my earliest memories are sitting with my dad watching super-spooky "WATER CRISIS!" stories on the local news.

People in California's water business are constantly screaming that the sky is falling - or that water or snow are not falling from it fast enough.

"Wolf! Wolf!," they scream.

But every time I turn on the faucet, water comes out.

It's cheap. It's sort of clean. And it seems like there's plenty of it.

I'm tired of hearing about water. It's so boring.

[snip]

If water agencies are so hard-up, they should stop giving their workers big pay raises.

And if they are still broke, they should raise rates.

Otherwise, I don't care anymore.

Seriously, Azusa Light and Water employees just got a one-time payment of 3.75 percent of their pay from the city. LA's utility workers recently got a similar deal.

Maybe they were due for a raise, but they got it when everyone else in the private sector is getting hammered.

And, before its board buckled under political pressure, the Metropolitan Water District in October was on the verge of giving employees a 23-percent raise over the next five years.

So, do water companies have ample water and lots of money, or don't they? I can't tell.

If water is so scarce, why is the Inland Empire full of homes and mega malls?

Why are Southern California lawns lush and green?

Why, when my kids get bored, do I make their plastic slide a little more interesting by running the hose at the top?

All the while, farms in the Central Valley are going fallow and pumps in the Sacramento River Delta - at least until last year - were grinding up fish that are the bedrock of the area's ecosystem.

Logic and economics aren't applied to water issues. And I think I know why.

Quick, name the directors of your water district.

See. You don't know. In the desk that is the human mind, water districts are just clutter that gets tossed away.

It's so boring that our elected water board officials flit away public money on booze and conferences, and we don't even pay attention.

Someone needs to do away with the whole system.

I wish I could say right now the best way to fix everything. My first instinct is: keep water rates low for businesses, farms and most residential customers, then jack the rates up super high for big consumers.

Hit extravagant people in the pocketbook.

If you want a Ferrari of a front lawn, you're going to have to pay for it.

Maybe the wasters can pay for all the new water infrastructure we supposedly need.

Secondly, we need to get rid of water districts. Nobody watches them, and they're inefficient.

I would offer more solutions, but my mind got too bored.

It's on to something more exciting: prime numbers! Three, five, seven, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23. . .

Travelblog: Incentives on islands

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:56:00 +0000

We ~~are~~ were on another island. Gili Trawangan -- like Nusa Lembongan -- has problems with fresh water shortages. As before, there is a fixed supply that is exceeded by demand. This demand -- given no constraints on new developments, visitor numbers or use by visitors -- is only likely to increase. (There are no signs in rooms saying "please use less water" and there are certainly no meters on rooms, to charge guests for the water they use.)

Hotels and guesthouses have responded to shortages in three ways:

The expensive and big places have desalination units (cost about $25,000 for the machine and one-half their monthly electric bill). All their guests have "fresh" water at the tap.
Luxury bungalows (we paid $40/night) have fresh water from 5 gallon jugs ($3 each) or big tanks that are shipped from shore; see photos. Again, fresh water from the tap.
The other places (and local people, in their homes) have brackish water from their wells. We are now in one of those, and the salinity varies from noticeable to "way too much."

Right, so that's a little more information on water.

This island is interesting for two other features: One rare feature is that they are trying to "regrow" their reef by sinking cages offshore and then connecting electrical cables to them. A small current encourages corals and other beasties to perch on the cages and grow at a much faster rate than normal. This effort is supported by the local dive industry (big money) as a means of recovering from a past of sloppy anchoring and dynamite fishing. Fish here are VERY expensive: lobster cost about $60/kg; prawns slightly less.

One common feature is rubbish -- everywhere. I picked up plastic bags and other stuff while snorkeling. There are plastic bottles everywhere and a surprising number of flip-flops and other shoe pieces. One thing that you do NOT see is empty beer bottles -- that's because they have a $0.20 deposit.

The reason that there's so much trash around is that locals are not used to dealing with plastics. In the past, they would use bamboo or leaves and then toss the old stuff on the ground to wash away or get eaten. Now that stuff doesn't "disappear" and the shoreline and reef is clogged with it.

Given the importance of tourism on this island (90+ percent of the economy), it seems like they should tackle trash, but they are probably not due to a tragedy of the commons: If one hotel cleans up its beach, then the trash of others just washes (or is dumped) there. So why clean?

It would be easy to fix this problem with a visitor trash tax that paid for trash to be hauled back to the mainland. Even better, locals could hold "trash olympics" with bounties and rewards for the largest volume of shoes, plastic bottles, etc. that were retrieved from the environment. I'd guess that a bounty of $0.01 per plastic bottle would result in HUGE piles of empty bottles -- those that are currently scattered throughout the island. (Miscellaneous plastic would have to be rewarded by weight, of course.)

Bottom Line: Incentive matter. This island has water "shortages" because tourists do not pay for fresh water consumption; it has garbage everywhere because there is no reward for collecting it. Locals understand why beer bottles are worth returning and reefs worth rebuilding; they can apply the same knowledge to reduce the stress from over-drafting fresh water and dumping garbage.

Sustainability and equity

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 21:28:00 +0000

TS sent this paper [pdf], which describes "The sustainable residential water use [sic]: Sustainability, efficiency and social equity. The European experience," but you probably will want to skip the obtuse discussion of sustainability. The author wades through three pages of confusion before settling on (paraphrasing) "sustainable water use means that you use as much water (or less) than you receive." No duh.

There's a mildly interesting description of retail water pricing mechanisms (not prices) in Athens, Amsterdam, London, Seville and Tel Aviv. The author also points out that increasing block rates are not "fair" if they do not take the number of household members into account. No duh. Again.

Monday Funnies

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:34:00 +0000

JWT sent this reminder [pps] that SOMEONE cares about you!

Water managers can't make a shake

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:00:00 +0000

David Foster sent this guest post, and he wants to know if the Lassi Shop (see below) should be (can be?) turned into a skit to teach people about water provision.

Just a few days ago, I watched Christiana Amanpour interviewing Robert F. Kennedy Junior, founder of the Water Keeper Alliance and all around friend of the poor and the environment. Kennedy began by quoting a clever observation by Mark Twain that: “Whiskey’s for drinking and Water’s for fighting”. Unfortunately, he left out another Mark Twain quote that I believe is just as applicable: “It ain’t what we don’t know that gets us in trouble. It’s what we know that ain’t necessarily so!”

Kennedy then began speaking on the many ills that confront the water sector and right at the very top was the Evil Threat of PRIVATIZATION. Now in my opinion Kennedy was absolutely right that sometimes private companies have done terrible things to the environment. Where I would fault him (and Amanpour) is in leaving the impression that private water systems have done more harm than public ones or that the poor and the environment would be just fine, if only we could keep the private sector out.

Now I know that I can’t get Kennedy or Amanpour to really visit the thousands of publicly run water systems throughout the developing world but I have this pipedream of having them come meet me at a “Lassi Shop” that is run on the same basic principles as a public water supply system in India.

There follows a brief description of the policies followed by the Lassi Shop -- all of them close replicas of their respective counterparts in the typical municipal water system over here:

Meet Me At The Lassi Shop*

Imagine, if you will, a lassi shop that was run on the same basic principles as most Indian water supply systems...

Now the Lassis are made with only the very best ingredients and usually under reasonably clean conditions BUT...

At least 4 (and often 5 or 6) out of every 10 lassis would be spilt during delivery,
While the remaining un-spilt lassis would be delivered to the customers, the containers used would often be the very same ones routinely used to carry night soil**,
And the lassis, if delivered to the customers at all, would be placed 6 feet under the table rather than on top, and finally
The lassi shop would, of course, only be open for about 2 unpredictable hours per day and in some places only at 2:00 in the morning.

Ah, but the lassis would be provided at a bargain price (far less than even the cost of operation and maintenance) ostensibly so that the poor could afford them.

Bottom Line: Strangely, even though the lassis are “subsidized for the benefit of the poor”, the poor are rarely afforded the “connections” that would allow entrance into the lassi shop. And even the regular customers seem reluctant to pay for their service.

* I refer here to a "Lassi Shop" (a place that sells very good Indian milkshakes) because unlike the now ubiquitous coffee shops and even the tea houses, lassi shops are indigenous rather than foreign imports introduced by Europeans and Americans.

** As you and other readers should know, whenever water pipes are pressurized for less than 24 hours per day those same pipes that are used to deliver drinking water are automatically subject to infiltration by whatever surface water (including raw sewage) lies in the vicinity. As you can imagine, referring to glasses used for serving drinks at "the same often used for carrying "night soil" (local euphemism for shit) doe strike some as indelicate but I am always struck by the fact that many high caste Brahmans still fear that they will be "polluted" by standing too close to an "untouchable" (much less ever eating meals with them) yet they never seem to think about the fact that their very own drinking water pipes are routinely filled with their neighbor's shit.

Flashback: Jan 24 -- 30 2009

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:08:00 +0000

These posts are still relevant, so please comment!

BEST: Why the Peripheral Canal Will Happen

BEST: How Much Water Do Farmers Use? Not as much as you think. In this post (Farmers Don't Use Much Water), I estimate that they "use" about 16 percent of developed water.

Pigouvian Tax Fail? A discussion that policy wonks will love.

Border Issues on the US/MX border.

BEST: Missing the Point -- some people call for education on using less water; I say that higher prices are clear enough.

British Climate Change Skeptics -- perhaps the guys behind the Climategate break-in?

That's not a waterfall!

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:14:00 +0000

This is a waterfall!

(Wangi Falls, Litchfield National Park, Northern Territory, Australia)

Travelblog: Salty Showers

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:25:00 +0000

The showers on Nusa Lembongan (an island to the south of Bali, in Indonesia) are salty. So is the tap water. That's because the "fresh" water comes from wells, and the aquifers that they draw on are being polluted with salt water. This salt water-intrusion is a recent problem in areas of the island where tourism has increased the demand for fresh water. (In non-touristy areas this is not a problem, because the fresh water from rainfall percolates into the ground, keeping salt water at a distance. In fact, there are fresh water springs coming out into the seabed in some places.)

As tourism developed, and developed without concern for the water demand that came with it (tourists in resorts use up to 500 liters/capita/day; it's easy to see how they would use more since, for example, tourists take showers and locals use ladles to splash water on themselves from small basins called \emph{mandis}), supply stayed the same. In the resulting shortage, groundwater extraction outpaced groundwater replenishment, and salt water intrusion became a problem. That's why the shower water is salty, and it's going to get saltier because tourists do not pay for the quantity of water they use, existing hotel owners probably do not (except for the energy they use for pumping), and new hotels are unlikely to be limited (if at all) in accord to sustainable water supplies.

Bottom Line: A beautiful area will only stay that way if demand is limited to sustainable supply.

New comment policy

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:25:00 +0000

Hi folks,

There is just too much spam coming in. That's why I've removed anonymous posting. I hope that this is neither too inconvenient, and I DO want everyone to comment -- just create a fake OPENID if you want to stay anonymous.

I'll see how this works; tell me if I missed something.

Speed blogging

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:20:00 +0000

How to discuss food and ag like an adult.
An Italian-American delivers clean water in Afghanistan, by avoiding the big budgets of aid agencies and working with locals on their scale.
"A project to boost water resources in southern Africa, first announced in 2003, held its first executive meeting last month." Guess they're in a hurry...
Hong Kong's water security is threatened by falling supplies from the mainland and excessive demand from prices that are too low. They need to read this blog.
Economics for Equity and the Environment Network (E3) is a national network of economists developing and applying new economic arguments for environmental protection with a social justice focus... E3 places economics graduate students in internships with environmental organizations during the summer months.
Russ Roberts talks to Clifford Winston about government failure vs market failure.
"David Uhlmann, professor at the University of Michigan School of Law, talks [MP3] with Bloomberg's Tom Keene about the economics of clean drinking water."
"Guatemala’s Lake Atitlán acquired a film of... blue-green algae... the nutrients feeding the bloom in Lake Atitlán come from sewage, agricultural run off, and increased run off as a result of deforestation around the lake basin."

Hattip to DL and JR

Poll Results -- Shoot the politicians!

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:01:00 +0000

Hey! There's a new poll (McFood?) to the right --->

Politicians are...

...part of the solution to water problems

40%

...have nothing to do with water problems

...the reason for water problems

57%

68 votes total

I agree that politicians are involved, and I think that they are part of the problem:

They benefit from prolonging it, due to lobbying for them to intervene.
They do not understand it, because it's too complicated for anyone to understand -- like any complex problem.

Bottom Line: Politicians should delegate more authority to more people, so that they can act in their own interest on water policy issues. The results will be better, and I won't blame the politicians!

Fast Food Nation -- The Review

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:35:00 +0000

Although Eric Schlosser wrote this book in 2001, I just got 'round to reading it. I was familiar with its themes from The Jungle, Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me, The Omnivore's Dilemma, Super Size Me, and other works on food, business, and culture, but this book still taught me quite a few things and made me think about numerous other things. It reinforced my conviction that a vegetarian diet is a good idea in the United States, that regulators -- often "captured" by industry -- do not always serve customers, and that more and cheaper is not always better.

The book has 10 chapters. In the first two, we learn of how fast food and sprawling urban southern California grew hand in hand, as technology and assembly lines fed a population losing touch with the origin and social dimension of food. In chapters 3 and 4, we get a damning view of labor practices and government subsidies. I was displeased to see how (predictably) job training grants and sub-minimum wages were used to decrease costs instead of benefiting teen employees.

Chapters 5 through 9 go into the production of fast food, and beef in particular. Although these practices (high-speed slaughter by ill-trained workers of unhealthy cattle, producing meat of dubious quality) are revolting, and appalling (especially since we do not appear to have made much improvement since Sinclair wrote The Jungle in 1906!), what really bothered me was the lobbying and deception by industry -- and their support by politicians -- in their attempt to sell burgers mixed with shit to consumers in "McHappyMeal" boxes.

If anything, this book reinforces the conventional wisdom that regulations can provide a useful minimum standard of behavior, preventing a race to the bottom (in quality, safety -- and cost) among firms willing to cost costs or raise profits in places that do not, ultimately, serve consumers. Of particular note was the way in which the USDA was willing (is willing?) to buy the worst quality food from industrial slaughterhouses and feed it to children in schools. Ironically, those kids may be safer eating at fast food restaurants that care more about their reputation (and competition) than school bureaucrats.

The last chapter describes how the American idea of fast food fares in the rest of the world. Although foreigners may consume "McDos" because it's chic, others do not because their traditional food (and bureaucrats) are better.

One thing I didn't expect to read about was the cultural affinity between McDonald's and Disney (clean and orderly), or the ways in which industrial production is so dehumanizing (see Small is Beautiful) and socially-destabilizing (see my review from this morning). Even worse is Schlosser's killer point: all of these costs may come with little benefit: It's possible to eat good food, served by well-paid workers, at low prices. (In 'n' Out, a small-family chain, sells burgers at prices that are competitive with McDonalds.) If that's true, then we have to ask "where's the profit?" in selling that beef, if the production costs are so "cheap." I'd guess that some of it goes to shareholders, some goes to additional advertising, and some of it goes to executives, but I'd guess that a good chunk goes to powerful agribusinesses -- ConAgra, ADM, Switft, Tyson, et al. -- and paying for all the harm, lobbying and mistakes that accompany a system that's being pushed 110 percent. That's a pity, since it seems that we are paying a high cost for food that provides little benefit.

I give this book FIVE stars, despite an occasional lapse into populism.

Bottom Line: Cook for yourself and your family, from scratch. if you can't do that, eat at a restaurant that does that same thing. If you can't afford either, then reconsider how much you spend on food -- on keeping yourself healthy -- compared to big screen TVs, cars, dress shoes, etc. Anyone can eat healthy for less than $5 per day -- start with rice and beans, fruits and vegetables -- but few of us choose to. Take another look at your choices.

Weapons of the Weak -- The Review

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:42:00 +0000

I like reading James C. Scott in the same way that I like reading Bill Easterly, Nassim Taleb or Hernando de Soto. His books contain good ideas, carefully explained, that change the way I see the world; see this post on his masterful Seeing Like a State.

In Weapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance (1985), Scott documents and explains the impact of the Green Revolution on peasants in "Sedaka," a Malaysian village Scott lived in for 18 months.

The major components of the Green Revolution were a move to double-cropping paddy (wet) rice and the adoption of combine harvesters for the harvest and threshing of this rice. Scott pays attention to the impact of these changes on the poor of Sedaka (a pseudonym), their relations with the rich, and how their interactions represent a microcosm of the larger movement towards "dehumanized" capitalism and away from less-efficient, yet more "social" class relations in a small village.

The book begins with sketches of two caricatures: Razak, the lazy and greedy poor man, and Haji Broom, the tricky and greedy rich man. Although these people actually exist, members of the opposite social class use their archetypes to excuse their attitudes and behavior towards the (real) people with whom they struggle.

In Chapter 2, Scott presents his thesis -- that peasants engage in "everyday resistance" against situations that they deem unfair. This resistance (negotiation, gossip, petty theft, reduced effort, and so on) is not only more common but also more realistic. Scott points out that large-scale resistance ("aux armes, citroyens!") is not only rare, but often futile. It's not unusual for new "revolutionary" governments to impose even more restrictions and burdens on peasants. (This is obviously true with communist victories in Russia, China, Cuba and North Korea.) Scott makes the important -- and disheartening -- point that most of the intelligentsia overlook everyday forms of resistance because they (we!) are looking for symbols, outcomes and rhetoric that suit our book learning and theories.

Chapter 3 sets the stage with details on land ownership, farm size, tenure (renting vs leasing; cash vs sharecropping), mechanization, income, equality and institutional access (party and industry affiliations). It's important to note that income inequality increased and that quality of life decreased; not only did the pace of work increase, but the quality of diet decreased -- more rice meant less fish -- they don't like pesticides and fertilizers in the paddy -- and fewer vegetables grown on "fallowed" land.

Chapter 4 gets into the meat of change: how the revolution improved the lot of the rich and harmed the poor. Although double-cropping initially improved the lot of the poor -- by giving them more wage-labor -- that improvement was reversed by the arrival of combines, which were more profitable because they were used twice per year and because they displaced "expensive" labor. Smaller wage income combined with reduced access to paddy for farming; combines made it possible for a land-rich, but labor-poor, farmer to farm, instead of rent, his land. Scott gets into the political and class dynamics of the village, underscoring the many ways in which political and economic power reinforced each other (a la North et al.'s "Natural State"). We also learn the sad truth: that the rich who are able to substitute capital for labor are able to ignore labor both economically and socially, leaving them to their poverty, with little choice but penury or migration to the city. Although economists have recognized this dynamic of "creative destruction" as a good thing, they often under emphasize the disruption that accompanies it. Workers cannot just "retrain" for their new roles in the capitalist system. Even ignoring time and effort, this re-purposing has dramatic, negative impacts on psyche, family and social harmony.

Chapter 5 goes into the details of how mutual insurance among the villagers broke down (also see this post), how combines displaced labor, how rents turned into leases, how share-rents turned into cash rents, etc. It details how the poor villagers bled to death through a thousand cuts. It also discusses how the rich and poor talked past each other in their attempts to rationalize the new normal or hearken back to an imagined past.

Chapter 6 delves into the breakdown in income redistribution and the social habits that had supported it for years. As the rich farmers decreased their dependence on the poor laborers, they began holding fewer village feasts, reduced their seasonal gifts, and so on. They no longer had to acknowledge the poor to assure their availability at harvest, and the poor felt this in their bellies.

This chapter also goes into the crude and cruel ways that the rich removed work (and money and honor) from the poor and stole state aid directed to "the poor." On the first instance was the replacement of (poor) men on bikes with (rich) men on motorcycles for moving paddy from the fields to the road. In the second instance, there was the outright theft of materials for home improvements. Instead of going to the poor, they went to members of the ruling party, and the rich party members often got more than the poor. It's sad to read the transparent-lies of rich people seeking to justify these thefts.

[I was having a drink with a Dutch guy who noted that "the Indonesians cannot manage their lives; that's why they are poor and we are rich." Although this non-PC comment is slightly rude, it's also true: Indonesians are poor because they suffer from poor governance (corruption), illiterate citizens, and weak institutions. What the Dutch guy failed to mention (through oversight or ignorance) is the role that the Dutch colonial government played in creating this situation. Poor and ignorant coolies are much easier to exploit. Although some developing countries have never been colonized and/or have been independent for a long time, many were and have not yet had time to evolve useful institutions such as the Magna Carta, which came out in 1215 but didn't deliver results to peasants for centuries...]

Scott also goes into the difficulties in organizing collective action against exploitation (or progress) when competition for labor or capital can come from the village next door. Those who are losing cannot coordinate to oppose the loss of livelihoods; those who are winning cannot coordinate to reduce competition. As a result, the cheapest production process is adopted and the lowest price results. In a way, BOTH the rich and the poor lose -- their way of life, their social harmony -- and the government wins, with cheaper rice to feed urban migrants and industrialization.

Scott's last chapters detail the mostly futile efforts at resistance and how peasant revolutionary conscienceless evolves. Scott takes some time here to take apart the Marxist (?) views on false-consciousness and proto-proletarian thought. In my mind, he is attacking a strawman (holding that peasants really CAN imagine changes that serve their needs), but perhaps I underestimate social theorists ability to tie themselves in elitist deconstructions of post-industrial thought :)

Bottom Line: This book is important for people interested in economic progress and development, class relations and political economy. It puts paid to the "smooth" process of development and Pareto improvements -- showing how the Kaldor-Hicks Criterion (a change is good if it increase social welfare, even if there are losers, since they can be compensated in THEORY) is really bullshit. It reminds me of the social breakdowns and LACK of progress in "progress," and gives more reason for me to think that Schumpeter had the right idea in general but Schumacher got the details right. I give it FOUR stars only because it's a lot of reading for a powerful message.

The Corporate State

dzetland@gmail.com (David Zetland) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:21:00 +0000

JWT writes:

The U.S. Supreme Court removed all limitations and restrictions on campaign contributions. The U.S. Congress has now been turned over to any one with deep pockets, not just corporations. Individuals have no restrictions so people like Warren Buffet can buy any Congress person he wishes. The Arab Prince who owns most of Citibank can spend any amount he wishes to get the laws he likes, and he doesn't even have to be a citizen.

We no longer have the best government money can buy. We now just have a government that anyone can buy -- anyone with money.

I totally agree. And, even worse, the return of Leviathan -- big government -- means that the rich will be able to buy even more power. Woe is me.

Bottom Line: When politics and money mix, the resulting toxic cocktail doesn't serve the average citizen.