Don't know much about "Prof". Julius Bitok. My first encounter of his thoughts is a commentary he published in the Standard on Saturday (April 26, 2014) on the Draft CBK Bill 2014. He may well be a Professor of Finance, but obviously not at a prominent address (from the by-line in the commentary, that address is Cooperative University/ JKUAT - wherever that is).
It is not that the address matters if the arguments are solid, but my reading of the commentary confirms the pedestrian nature of not just the address but the views. There is no sense of the history of successful monetary policy conduct; the basic grasp of monetary economics is not evident.
Oh, I understand: "monetary economics" - where monetary policy is thought in great depth - and "finance" are grossly different.
My own views on the same subject are published by the Centre for Research on Financial Markets and Policy. You can be the judge as to who is more persuasive; but I fear for "Prof" Bitok's students, if they are unfortunate enough to have him teach monetary economics, or at the very least monetary policy conduct!
Monday 28 April 2014
Monday 7 April 2014
We Now Have a "Debate" - Or Do We?
I have a simple measure of knowing when one has been effective in passing a message that may be compelling but which needs to be delivered in a provocative manner so as to have the intended impact. That measure is seen in the manner of response what tells you that somebody has really gone under somebody's skin!
A case in point is the "debate" that economist David Ndii's essay on the so-called "wage bill crisis" has ignited. The response from the Ann Waiguru, Cabinet Secretary for Devolution and Planning, depicts just that; its tone is almost one of desperation.
May be I expect more from a rebuttal. It cannot simply be a case of trying to prove that somebody didn't get the numbers right - even then that is not the case here because I am more inclined to Ndii's intuition than Wauguru's ranting.
To me it is more of the context that you bring out on the numbers. While in Ndii's essay one could see an invitation to engage on the subject of the economics of fairness, in Wauguru's "rebuttal" (I am still looking for the right word, for the response doesn't actually fit the rebuttal bill) one could see an invitation to perpetuate the linear thinking underlying the "thrust-us-for-we mean-well" attitude.
Let me start with the latter, which has been evident from the "self-audit" that was displayed in the ineloquent account of the first year in office of the Jubilee government.
If you are the one to believe the everything that the government tells you, and therefore not in demand for accountability, then the performance of the Jubilee government, one year down the line was at best mixed - some things accomplished, and others - perhaps many - not. If I was to be extremely generous, that is how I will assess this year's State of the Nation Address.
Unfortunately, I am more sympathetic to the views of those who saw the address as a squandered opportunity, my generous comportment notwithstanding.
That is why it is almost laughable that we have a mixed performance at the very top and a stellar performance at the cabinet level.
Now to the former. I argue that those in denial that wage disparity in the civil service is an issue are simply turning a blind eye to the reality that our society has always been home to an entrenched crony capitalism where - in the words of Raghuram Rajan - the current Governor of the Reserve Bank of India “too many people have got too rich based on their proximity to the government”.
Unless we are willing to confront that reality, we will continue having a society where instead of the government pledging to perform and be ready to be accountable, it will seek the drive expectations in the direction of confusing accountability with trust.
That is why it is tempting to imagine that Wauguru is debating Ndii while that is far from the case!
A case in point is the "debate" that economist David Ndii's essay on the so-called "wage bill crisis" has ignited. The response from the Ann Waiguru, Cabinet Secretary for Devolution and Planning, depicts just that; its tone is almost one of desperation.
May be I expect more from a rebuttal. It cannot simply be a case of trying to prove that somebody didn't get the numbers right - even then that is not the case here because I am more inclined to Ndii's intuition than Wauguru's ranting.
To me it is more of the context that you bring out on the numbers. While in Ndii's essay one could see an invitation to engage on the subject of the economics of fairness, in Wauguru's "rebuttal" (I am still looking for the right word, for the response doesn't actually fit the rebuttal bill) one could see an invitation to perpetuate the linear thinking underlying the "thrust-us-for-we mean-well" attitude.
Let me start with the latter, which has been evident from the "self-audit" that was displayed in the ineloquent account of the first year in office of the Jubilee government.
If you are the one to believe the everything that the government tells you, and therefore not in demand for accountability, then the performance of the Jubilee government, one year down the line was at best mixed - some things accomplished, and others - perhaps many - not. If I was to be extremely generous, that is how I will assess this year's State of the Nation Address.
Unfortunately, I am more sympathetic to the views of those who saw the address as a squandered opportunity, my generous comportment notwithstanding.
That is why it is almost laughable that we have a mixed performance at the very top and a stellar performance at the cabinet level.
Now to the former. I argue that those in denial that wage disparity in the civil service is an issue are simply turning a blind eye to the reality that our society has always been home to an entrenched crony capitalism where - in the words of Raghuram Rajan - the current Governor of the Reserve Bank of India “too many people have got too rich based on their proximity to the government”.
Unless we are willing to confront that reality, we will continue having a society where instead of the government pledging to perform and be ready to be accountable, it will seek the drive expectations in the direction of confusing accountability with trust.
That is why it is tempting to imagine that Wauguru is debating Ndii while that is far from the case!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)