Privacy Policy for http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at adataconect@gmail.com.
At http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://goodgovernmentquotes.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Performance Accountability of Jakarta Administration Improves
To implement Good Governance principles starting from 2002 to 2008, the city administration has implemented a performance accountability system by developing a Medium-term Provincial Strategic Plan (Renstra) for 2007 to 2012 period.
The success of Jakarta government in performing its efficient, clear, and accountable administration has resulted in an appreciation from the State Ministry of state Apparatus Empowerment in term of apparatus accountability.
“By this achievement, city administration will keep improving its performance by revitalizing all the existing resources,” told Fauzi Bowo, Jakarta Governor, Thursday (2/11).
Another achievement based on the Performance Accountability of Government is that in 2008 Jakarta Governor stood in the third rank among 27 provinces assessed. It is better than the previous rank, the tenth rank among 25 provinces.
The assessment is based on five major components of performance management such as planning, measurement, reporting, evaluation and performance.
The performance accountability of Jakarta governor in 2008 shows that the vision and mission has been implemented in the development of Jakarta. And Renstra 2007-2012 is a form of development and implementation of an appropriate clear and legitimate accountability system. LAKIP governor in 2008 is a picture of the performance both macro and micro of Jakarta during 2008. In addition, the Jakarta governor`s LAKIP is a form of the his transparency and accountability in various development pograms based on the vision and mission.
During 2008, many successfully of development has been reached by Jakarta Governor was successful in many fields of development, such as flyover and underpass, mass rapid transportation plan integrated with spatial planning, the East Flood Canal (KBT) completion and cooperation in flood control between Central government and Bodetabek local governments.
"Accountability is an increasing public demand where people are getting more critical to the pattern of governance. It has encouraged efforts in improving the performance accountability system of Jakarta Government," explained Fauzi Bowo.
Visualizing the cost of the government’s economic “rescue” plan
The total price tag for federal support stemming from the financial crisis could reach $23.7 trillion in the long run, the government's top bailout watchdog says in a new report to Congress.
Neil Barofsky, the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, plans to deliver his report Tuesday to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The $23.7 trillion figure is admittedly a high-ball number and reflects the total potential gross exposure, but Barofsky in his prepared testimony notes that the TARP -- which started as a $700 billion bailout -- has expanded well beyond that.
[…] In supporting documentation obtained by FOXNews.com, the inspector general's office explains that the $23.7 trillion spans about 50 "initiatives or programs" created by federal agencies in the wake of the economic crisis.
The estimate covers commitments that could come from programs at the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal Housing Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies.
Almost 24 trillion dollars!
Chances are that few of us have had reason to try to get our minds around a number that big, so let’s go through a little visualization exercise.
A stack of 3000 newly-printed one-dollar bills stands about a foot tall*. To get the height of 23.7 trillion one-dollar bills, the math looks like this:
23,700,000,000,000 ÷ 3,000 = 7,900,000,000 feet
7.9 billion feet is about 1,496,212 miles. The moon is about 238,857 miles from earth; this stack of money is 6.26 times that distance.
Viewed another way, a dollar bill is about six inches long*. 23.7 trillion one-dollar bills laid end-to-end would stretch 11.85 trillion feet, or about 2.24 million miles, almost 9400 times the distance from the earth to the moon.
Where is this money coming from, folks? Of course, a lot of it will be created out of thin air, but the rest of it will be sucked out of the economy in the name of saving it.
Michael J. Dillon
Hennepin County Attorney 1943-1955
MICHAEL DILLON became the Hennepin County Attorney in 1943, and while in office earned the Good Government Award from the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. After leaving the County Attorney's Office, Dillon was appointed to the Hennepin County District Court.
Serial Islamic Sharia: Creating "Clean and Good Governance Governmet"
Clean government and good (clean and good government) is ideal. The term is increasingly popular in the last two decades, more and more into a demand, under conditions when the corruption, collusion, nepotism and abuse of authority (abuse of power) as a common in other parts of the world. Disillusionment with the performance of governments in various countries, both in third world countries and in developed countries, has encouraged the development demands presence of good governance and clean.
Clean government generally take place in a country that people respect the law. Such governance is also referred to as good governance (good governance). Good governance can only be built through a clean government (clean government) with its bureaucratic apparatus, which is free from corruption. In order to realize clean government, the government must have the moral and realizing proactive participation, as well as checks and balances. It is impossible to expect the government as a component of the political process to meet the principles of clean government in the absence of participation.
Can a clean and good governance established at this time, when the legal system, moral authorities, the poverty caused by the bankruptcy system and bureaucratic errors in all lines and levels, built? This concise writing, try photographing conditions bureaucracy, Indonesia, in particular, and also initiated the building of bureaucratic solutions, as an effort to create a clean and good governance. Hopefully this simple article could provoke a more intense discussion, in order to find a total solution for such a serious bureaucratic bankruptcy today.
It's time to choose...
Yes, America. It's time to choose. America needs good government and good leadership again. So vote. If you're reading this and you're of voting age, vote. Vote for the candidate you believe in. Regardless of party. But vote. America needs her people to stand up for her. And we, the people, need to reclaim our democracy. So. Vote.
Good Government
Good Government
Elaine Kamarck
8 As I write, John Kerry, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for President, is running even with a Republican incumbent with unprecedented amounts of money. The Congress is very closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, and two key swing states—Michigan and Pennsylvania—are now governed by Democratic governors. (For anyone who has ever been in a presidential campaign, governors—with their grass-roots organizations, their ability to reward and punish, and their ear constantly to the ground—are infinitely more important than senators.) After four years in office and admirable leadership throughout the historic tragedy of September 11, President Bush finds himself right back where he was in the 2000 election: facing a country that is almost exactly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
And yet some Democrats like Rick Perlstein persist in seeing a weak and “hollowed out” party. In 1997 this weak and “hollowed out” party managed to survive the third impeachment of a sitting president in American history; in 1998 it managed to reverse the trend for incumbent presidents by picking up congressional seats; and, were it not for the intervention of the Supreme Court, this party would likely have taken the presidency again in 2000.
Weak? Hardly.
Perlstein, like others, persists in interpreting the Clinton era as an era of small, rightward tactics invented by a pretty unsavory fellow named Dick Morris. No wonder he misses the big successes of that era and the dominant themes that have transformed the party and will guide it into the future.
To illustrate those themes let me begin with two stories from the first term of the Clinton administration. In the midst of the health-care battles, the political scientist James Q. Wilson wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “Mr. Clinton, Meet Mr. Gore.” Wilson, an eminent scholar of government, made a simple point: to enact comprehensive health-care reform the country would have to believe that government could be trusted to get it right; it would have to believe that government had already been “reinvented.” Instead the administration was moving simultaneously on health-care reform and “reinventing government,” and, Wilson warned, the country was not likely to trust the government to reform health care when the government had not yet reformed itself.
The second story was told to many of us by President Clinton. During the health-care debates, he was working a rope line when an old woman came up to him, pressed his hands in hers, and said, “Mr. President, please don’t let the government ruin my Medicare.”
Both stories speak to the same reality. In the early 1990s Americans wanted the security and compassion associated with the New Deal but they did not trust the government to provide it. The Democratic Party had to prove itself competent to manage the apparatus of the government before the people would allow it to fulfill its historic mission of creating a secure safety net. To accomplish this the Clinton administration spent enormous amounts of political capital to pass two major deficit-reduction bills in 1993 and 1997. At the same time the administration’s “reinventing government” efforts, led by Vice President Al Gore (and staffed by the author) helped create a reality within huge portions of the government that would allow them to do more with less.
Slowly and surely, public-opinion polls registered the approval of the voters. Initially, only 17 percent trusted the government to do the right thing; by 1997 that number had risen to 38 percent. Clinton and Gore had begun to make progress on the major policy conundrum of the late 20th century: how do you govern in an era in which people hate the government? What do you do when the public tells people in government, “Fix this now!,” but then says, “Oh, and by the way, don’t let the government do it!”
The massive deficit-reduction efforts of the Clinton years showed Democrats and the country two things. First of all, that low long-term interest rates and strong economic growth could create more jobs than any government program ever dreamed of, and second, that a government that managed its money and resources wisely was a government worthy of being trusted with greater efforts such as preserving Social Security and Medicare.
Reinventing government and balancing budgets barely show up in public-opinion polls. But to read these polls literally is to misunderstand the presidency profoundly. The great tragedy of the Clinton Administration was not that the Democrats looked like the Republicans—anyone who remembers the showdown surrounding the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996 could not possibly think the differences between the two parties were minor. The great tragedy of the Clinton administration was that just when Clinton had begun to get Americans to trust the government again, just when he could have taken on the “superjumbo” issues of Social Security, Medicare and health care, he was involved in a scandal and an impeachment fight over an affair with an intern.
If the Rick Perlsteins of the world are confused about the meaning and future of the Democratic Party it is partly understandable. The second term of the Clinton administration was wasted because of a scandal that should not have happened and an impeachment that should not have happened either. Before Monica Lewinsky became a household name the second Clinton term—buoyed by shrinking deficits, a great economy, and a sense that this team could manage change—was supposed to be about entitlement reform. It never happened.
The reason to “reinvent government” and work toward balanced budgets was not to follow the advice of one or more political consultants. The reason to do these things was to have the trust and the financial wherewithal to repair and strengthen the social safety net—the most important and most enduring legacy of the Democratic Party. That Clinton missed this opportunity for a dalliance with a young woman is something that he has to live with, but it does not mean that the Democratic Party has lost its soul, or that it is bereft of big ideas.
The social safety net—the Democratic Party’s legacy to America—is more important in a global information age than it was even in the industrial age. But it is fraying badly. The fiscal crisis is real, and four years of reckless spending and irresponsible tax cutting by the Bush Administration have made it fray even more badly and have weakened our nation’s ability to cope with it. John Kerry is talking about the fiscal mess the Bush administration has created. Perlstein’s own data show that this is way down on people’s list of priorities. So why bother? Because preserving and expanding the great social legacy of the Democratic Party in the 21st century requires a citizenry that will trust the government to do it and a fiscal policy that will give the government the wherewithal to do it. This may or may not be good politics. But it is most decidedly good government. <
Elaine Kamarck is a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She was Vice President Al Gore’s senior policy adviser.
Elaine Kamarck
8 As I write, John Kerry, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for President, is running even with a Republican incumbent with unprecedented amounts of money. The Congress is very closely divided between Democrats and Republicans, and two key swing states—Michigan and Pennsylvania—are now governed by Democratic governors. (For anyone who has ever been in a presidential campaign, governors—with their grass-roots organizations, their ability to reward and punish, and their ear constantly to the ground—are infinitely more important than senators.) After four years in office and admirable leadership throughout the historic tragedy of September 11, President Bush finds himself right back where he was in the 2000 election: facing a country that is almost exactly divided between Democrats and Republicans.
And yet some Democrats like Rick Perlstein persist in seeing a weak and “hollowed out” party. In 1997 this weak and “hollowed out” party managed to survive the third impeachment of a sitting president in American history; in 1998 it managed to reverse the trend for incumbent presidents by picking up congressional seats; and, were it not for the intervention of the Supreme Court, this party would likely have taken the presidency again in 2000.
Weak? Hardly.
Perlstein, like others, persists in interpreting the Clinton era as an era of small, rightward tactics invented by a pretty unsavory fellow named Dick Morris. No wonder he misses the big successes of that era and the dominant themes that have transformed the party and will guide it into the future.
To illustrate those themes let me begin with two stories from the first term of the Clinton administration. In the midst of the health-care battles, the political scientist James Q. Wilson wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “Mr. Clinton, Meet Mr. Gore.” Wilson, an eminent scholar of government, made a simple point: to enact comprehensive health-care reform the country would have to believe that government could be trusted to get it right; it would have to believe that government had already been “reinvented.” Instead the administration was moving simultaneously on health-care reform and “reinventing government,” and, Wilson warned, the country was not likely to trust the government to reform health care when the government had not yet reformed itself.
The second story was told to many of us by President Clinton. During the health-care debates, he was working a rope line when an old woman came up to him, pressed his hands in hers, and said, “Mr. President, please don’t let the government ruin my Medicare.”
Both stories speak to the same reality. In the early 1990s Americans wanted the security and compassion associated with the New Deal but they did not trust the government to provide it. The Democratic Party had to prove itself competent to manage the apparatus of the government before the people would allow it to fulfill its historic mission of creating a secure safety net. To accomplish this the Clinton administration spent enormous amounts of political capital to pass two major deficit-reduction bills in 1993 and 1997. At the same time the administration’s “reinventing government” efforts, led by Vice President Al Gore (and staffed by the author) helped create a reality within huge portions of the government that would allow them to do more with less.
Slowly and surely, public-opinion polls registered the approval of the voters. Initially, only 17 percent trusted the government to do the right thing; by 1997 that number had risen to 38 percent. Clinton and Gore had begun to make progress on the major policy conundrum of the late 20th century: how do you govern in an era in which people hate the government? What do you do when the public tells people in government, “Fix this now!,” but then says, “Oh, and by the way, don’t let the government do it!”
The massive deficit-reduction efforts of the Clinton years showed Democrats and the country two things. First of all, that low long-term interest rates and strong economic growth could create more jobs than any government program ever dreamed of, and second, that a government that managed its money and resources wisely was a government worthy of being trusted with greater efforts such as preserving Social Security and Medicare.
Reinventing government and balancing budgets barely show up in public-opinion polls. But to read these polls literally is to misunderstand the presidency profoundly. The great tragedy of the Clinton Administration was not that the Democrats looked like the Republicans—anyone who remembers the showdown surrounding the government shutdown in 1995 and 1996 could not possibly think the differences between the two parties were minor. The great tragedy of the Clinton administration was that just when Clinton had begun to get Americans to trust the government again, just when he could have taken on the “superjumbo” issues of Social Security, Medicare and health care, he was involved in a scandal and an impeachment fight over an affair with an intern.
If the Rick Perlsteins of the world are confused about the meaning and future of the Democratic Party it is partly understandable. The second term of the Clinton administration was wasted because of a scandal that should not have happened and an impeachment that should not have happened either. Before Monica Lewinsky became a household name the second Clinton term—buoyed by shrinking deficits, a great economy, and a sense that this team could manage change—was supposed to be about entitlement reform. It never happened.
The reason to “reinvent government” and work toward balanced budgets was not to follow the advice of one or more political consultants. The reason to do these things was to have the trust and the financial wherewithal to repair and strengthen the social safety net—the most important and most enduring legacy of the Democratic Party. That Clinton missed this opportunity for a dalliance with a young woman is something that he has to live with, but it does not mean that the Democratic Party has lost its soul, or that it is bereft of big ideas.
The social safety net—the Democratic Party’s legacy to America—is more important in a global information age than it was even in the industrial age. But it is fraying badly. The fiscal crisis is real, and four years of reckless spending and irresponsible tax cutting by the Bush Administration have made it fray even more badly and have weakened our nation’s ability to cope with it. John Kerry is talking about the fiscal mess the Bush administration has created. Perlstein’s own data show that this is way down on people’s list of priorities. So why bother? Because preserving and expanding the great social legacy of the Democratic Party in the 21st century requires a citizenry that will trust the government to do it and a fiscal policy that will give the government the wherewithal to do it. This may or may not be good politics. But it is most decidedly good government. <
Elaine Kamarck is a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She was Vice President Al Gore’s senior policy adviser.
GETTING ‘IMPLEMENTATION’ IN PERSPECTIVE
Georgists are strong on implementation. We fashion ways to penetrate and overturn political obstacles lying in the way of the success of our fiscal policies even before they have ever happened.
In fact, there is a plethora of plans. So many were unveiled at a recent meeting, I am told, that newcomers became stunned and confused.
Georgists are ready to implement land value taxation (site revenue), but are they just as prepared to persuade the public that it should be implemented? If it is suggested that there should be some education to go with these plans the reply most often is that education is unnecessary (promoting land tax is education enough); or that education does not work.
A professor of political economy writing in the distant past of the1850s might have an answer to those arguments - that is if you have any regard for what was written in the C19.
Basics Abandoned
John Elliott Cairnes, a confidante of John Stuart Mill, wrote “Many now enrolled themselves as political economists who had never taken the trouble to study the elementary principles of the science ... while even those who had mastered its doctrines, in their anxiety to propitiate a popular audience, were too often led to abandon the true grounds of the science … The discussions of Political Economy have been constantly assuming more of a statistical [mathematical] character; results are now appealed to instead of principles … till the true course of investigation has been well-nigh forgotten …”
This statement quoted at length on pp. 180-181 of The Science of Political Economy by Henry George describing the decay of classical economics may indeed describe the Georgist movement.
(George, we remember, tried to rescue classical economics from its decay. But when several young professors found that classical economics, properly understood, led to Georgism, they reinvented the subject.)
Plans
George himself was not given to plans. Lecturing in England in 1884 he answered someone who asked him about placing the national debt upon the shoulders of landlords by saying “I am not here to advocate plans”. His task he explained was to talk instead about “the eternal principle [that] is the same all the world over”.
In only one instance have I found George advocating a plan (about how much of the ‘single tax’ it might be practicable to collect). He prefaced his remarks by making an admission: “This is a point on which I have never been clear”. And after giving an answer he added that the question was for now theoretical. However, circumstances in the future might enable a better answer.
“That road stretches before us for a long distance clear and plain”, he reminded his readers. The general direction was certain: it was to ‘abolish all taxation save that upon land values’ – an aspect of “the eternal principle”. However imperfect any plan might be, he said, the benefits of the ‘single tax’ would still exist (The Standard, August, 1889).
In any article or speech George never left the end, the ‘single tax’, without its beginning, its fundamental rationale of natural rights. That way “the true grounds of the science” never got lost.
And as for that favourite Georgist plan George asked his audience “Let every man who thinks the landlords ought to be compensated, put his hand in his pocket”.
Historical Development
Movements that move develop naturally in historical phases: from a master teacher to discussion groups, from discussion groups to a social movement (which is but more discussion groups), to the historical coincidence of a talented political leader and a political crisis that provides an opportunity for large change. That is how movements move. Anyone who knows any history will see examples all over the place.
Once you appreciate this perspective you appreciate why George was not given to plans. He was intent upon his own function. Gone now are the days when a sect could get the ear of the king. There are no kings; there are elections. Politicians are like those who jump in front of a demonstration waving a flag. They are no leaders; they are captives of public opinion.
In fact, there is a plethora of plans. So many were unveiled at a recent meeting, I am told, that newcomers became stunned and confused.
Georgists are ready to implement land value taxation (site revenue), but are they just as prepared to persuade the public that it should be implemented? If it is suggested that there should be some education to go with these plans the reply most often is that education is unnecessary (promoting land tax is education enough); or that education does not work.
A professor of political economy writing in the distant past of the1850s might have an answer to those arguments - that is if you have any regard for what was written in the C19.
Basics Abandoned
John Elliott Cairnes, a confidante of John Stuart Mill, wrote “Many now enrolled themselves as political economists who had never taken the trouble to study the elementary principles of the science ... while even those who had mastered its doctrines, in their anxiety to propitiate a popular audience, were too often led to abandon the true grounds of the science … The discussions of Political Economy have been constantly assuming more of a statistical [mathematical] character; results are now appealed to instead of principles … till the true course of investigation has been well-nigh forgotten …”
This statement quoted at length on pp. 180-181 of The Science of Political Economy by Henry George describing the decay of classical economics may indeed describe the Georgist movement.
(George, we remember, tried to rescue classical economics from its decay. But when several young professors found that classical economics, properly understood, led to Georgism, they reinvented the subject.)
Plans
George himself was not given to plans. Lecturing in England in 1884 he answered someone who asked him about placing the national debt upon the shoulders of landlords by saying “I am not here to advocate plans”. His task he explained was to talk instead about “the eternal principle [that] is the same all the world over”.
In only one instance have I found George advocating a plan (about how much of the ‘single tax’ it might be practicable to collect). He prefaced his remarks by making an admission: “This is a point on which I have never been clear”. And after giving an answer he added that the question was for now theoretical. However, circumstances in the future might enable a better answer.
“That road stretches before us for a long distance clear and plain”, he reminded his readers. The general direction was certain: it was to ‘abolish all taxation save that upon land values’ – an aspect of “the eternal principle”. However imperfect any plan might be, he said, the benefits of the ‘single tax’ would still exist (The Standard, August, 1889).
In any article or speech George never left the end, the ‘single tax’, without its beginning, its fundamental rationale of natural rights. That way “the true grounds of the science” never got lost.
And as for that favourite Georgist plan George asked his audience “Let every man who thinks the landlords ought to be compensated, put his hand in his pocket”.
Historical Development
Movements that move develop naturally in historical phases: from a master teacher to discussion groups, from discussion groups to a social movement (which is but more discussion groups), to the historical coincidence of a talented political leader and a political crisis that provides an opportunity for large change. That is how movements move. Anyone who knows any history will see examples all over the place.
Once you appreciate this perspective you appreciate why George was not given to plans. He was intent upon his own function. Gone now are the days when a sect could get the ear of the king. There are no kings; there are elections. Politicians are like those who jump in front of a demonstration waving a flag. They are no leaders; they are captives of public opinion.
The Goals
Voters are often so confused by what their party is selling, they vote for people who do them more harm than good. So, we thought we'd compile a list of objectives we expect a good government to strive to achieve. Use it to rate your leaders and your future leaders.
- A government that makes policies beneficial to all, instead of just a few already rich elite.
- A government that works to protect its citizens by promoting safer and healthier workplaces, a living wage, and accountability from CEOs who use their companies for greedy and nefarious purposes.
- A government that is open to scrutiny and expects its actions to be monitored by its citizens.
- A government that assists the needy, without question, at home and abroad.
- A government that wants a cleaner environment, promotes renewable and efficient energy sources, and punishes companies that pollute the environment.
- A government that reduces spending on programs to kill people (defense) and increases spending on programs to save people's lives (social programs).
- A government of representatives that vote for their constituent's needs first.
- A government and its representatives who uphold the rule of law, and strive to protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
- A president who is democratically elected by the majority of Americans.
It's really not too much to ask for, so ask for it. Expect your representatives to live by it. If they don't, throw them out of office.
We want . . .
- A government that promotes peace, instead of war.- A government that makes policies beneficial to all, instead of just a few already rich elite.
- A government that works to protect its citizens by promoting safer and healthier workplaces, a living wage, and accountability from CEOs who use their companies for greedy and nefarious purposes.
- A government that is open to scrutiny and expects its actions to be monitored by its citizens.
- A government that assists the needy, without question, at home and abroad.
- A government that wants a cleaner environment, promotes renewable and efficient energy sources, and punishes companies that pollute the environment.
- A government that reduces spending on programs to kill people (defense) and increases spending on programs to save people's lives (social programs).
- A government of representatives that vote for their constituent's needs first.
- A government and its representatives who uphold the rule of law, and strive to protect our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
- A president who is democratically elected by the majority of Americans.
It's really not too much to ask for, so ask for it. Expect your representatives to live by it. If they don't, throw them out of office.
American Government Offering Free Federal Grants to Citizens to Help Pay Off Their Debt
These days, due to the economic recession, the average U.S. citizens are going through a very tough time. Companies and large organizations are laying off the workforce in the name of downsizing and cost- control in order to improve their bottom lines. This has resulted in a financial crisis of catastrophic proportions last seen in the 1930s, and to save the situation, the Obama administration has come out with a unique scheme of offering free government grant money to all citizens.
However, there are some terms and conditions laid down by the administration as to how you should spend your grant money. If you do not violate these laid down conditions you will get the grant money for renovating your house or for making payments for your bills. You can also avoid foreclosure of your home and start and promote a business venture, so you can start earning on your own.
There are hundreds of types of grants that are being distributed by the state for which you need to do some fact finding yourself. There are government websites where information is provided to you free of any charges, where you can find the most relevant grant applicable to you. You need to just fill up the appropriate application form and there is no limit on the number of grants you can apply for.
The free grant money provided by the government can help you in getting rid of the painful procedures which the banks follow before extending a loan and these grants do not require any collateral and checks on your credit worthiness. You just have to be an American citizen and you need to be above 18 years of age.
However, there are some terms and conditions laid down by the administration as to how you should spend your grant money. If you do not violate these laid down conditions you will get the grant money for renovating your house or for making payments for your bills. You can also avoid foreclosure of your home and start and promote a business venture, so you can start earning on your own.
There are hundreds of types of grants that are being distributed by the state for which you need to do some fact finding yourself. There are government websites where information is provided to you free of any charges, where you can find the most relevant grant applicable to you. You need to just fill up the appropriate application form and there is no limit on the number of grants you can apply for.
The free grant money provided by the government can help you in getting rid of the painful procedures which the banks follow before extending a loan and these grants do not require any collateral and checks on your credit worthiness. You just have to be an American citizen and you need to be above 18 years of age.
Obama's Financial Stimulus Prices - Using Government Aid to Consolidate Your Debt
President Barrack Obama in an interview to CNBC remarked that he planned "a substantial overhaul" of financial markets in the upcoming months, which include a major restructuring of regulatory agencies. Obama is the opinion that they will have a closer look at this agencies and then get together to function effectively. Obama has also set aside $775 billion economic stimulus plan but added that the amount would rise once it gets taken up by Congress.
Obama added that "It ranges from $800 (billion) to $1.3 trillion, "and will evaluate how it develops. Obama has all his hopes pinned that the US economy will be growing again.Obama has set his sights on curbing the budget deficit instead of waiting for the crisis to get over.
As a part of the Obama's financial stimulus plan he plans to propose $310 billion in tax cuts for the middle class and businesses as part of the $775 billion stimulus plan. U.S. governors and economists are trying around $1 trillion in both spending and tax cuts. Republicans want a bill in the range of $500 billion.
Obama remarked that he needs to pay heed to the needs of the people as there is a loss of trust both in the marketplace and in government. Restoring that trust is vital. There are funds available to consolidate your debt which is not known to Americans. The grant is not only for low income groups but also for single mothers who also tricked in letting their money go and who have lost their jobs.
Using government aid to consolidate your debt is Debt relief grants help. People get the financial aid and there is no need to file for bankruptcy.Dealing with a debt collector is unpleasant and can also prevent you from getting any credit in the future because the records remain that you sought professional help to avoid the bills. To help you there is government aid.The governmental aid is granted to help you in need. There are private institutions also who are willing to give free grant money. All you have to do is ask for the free grant money.
Debt settlement companies are widely available in just about every state however some are just flat out more experienced than others in debt negotiation. That's why it's so important for consumers to use debt relief networks. These networks qualify and only accept the best performing debt settlement companies.
Obama added that "It ranges from $800 (billion) to $1.3 trillion, "and will evaluate how it develops. Obama has all his hopes pinned that the US economy will be growing again.Obama has set his sights on curbing the budget deficit instead of waiting for the crisis to get over.
As a part of the Obama's financial stimulus plan he plans to propose $310 billion in tax cuts for the middle class and businesses as part of the $775 billion stimulus plan. U.S. governors and economists are trying around $1 trillion in both spending and tax cuts. Republicans want a bill in the range of $500 billion.
Obama remarked that he needs to pay heed to the needs of the people as there is a loss of trust both in the marketplace and in government. Restoring that trust is vital. There are funds available to consolidate your debt which is not known to Americans. The grant is not only for low income groups but also for single mothers who also tricked in letting their money go and who have lost their jobs.
Using government aid to consolidate your debt is Debt relief grants help. People get the financial aid and there is no need to file for bankruptcy.Dealing with a debt collector is unpleasant and can also prevent you from getting any credit in the future because the records remain that you sought professional help to avoid the bills. To help you there is government aid.The governmental aid is granted to help you in need. There are private institutions also who are willing to give free grant money. All you have to do is ask for the free grant money.
The Economic Curse of Good Government
As one who has made a career out of criticizing government and exposing the various predations of government, one would think I would be intelligent and wise enough not to expect that entity we know as "good government." In fact, given that I am quite familiar with the entire socialist calculation debate and have assigned numerous papers covering that subject to my MBA students, it should have dawned upon me by now that "good government" is an oxymoron at best and a delusional term at worst.
Yet I must admit that whenever I see government doing something that is outrageous or even wasteful or seemingly stupid, my "good government" ideals seem to kick in and I find myself thinking that the powers that be could learn how to do things correctly. At that point, it never occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, the mechanism of action we know as government cannot be operated in a "proper" way at all, because no intellectual device exists that permits us to properly determine just what is "good" or "bad" government.
Not that there is a dearth of true believers. Last year, Paul Krugman waxed eloquent about the goodness of the state (as long as it is run by "good" people), writing,
Before Mr. Obama can make government cool, however, he has to make it good. Indeed, he has to be a goo-goo.
Goo-goo, in case you're wondering, is a century-old term for "good government" types, reformers opposed to corruption and patronage. Franklin Roosevelt was a goo-goo extraordinaire. He simultaneously made government much bigger and much cleaner. Mr. Obama needs to do the same thing.
However, before one can be a true goo-goo, one must believe in the state. Witness Krugman's description of the failures of the Bush administration:
Needless to say, the Bush administration offers a spectacular example of non-goo-gooism. But the Bushies didn't have to worry about governing well and honestly. Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can't do anything right.
This is a curious way to describe the failures of government, blaming those malfunctions on the notion that those carrying out their powers really did not believe that their powers were legitimate, and so they failed. I recall many things that Bush and his minions did while they were in office, but I cannot recall any time that anyone in that administration was reluctant to use their powers. Indeed, the Bush administration was extremely abusive during its eight years in power, and I don't believe that the administration engaged in such behavior because its principals were laissez-faire libertarians, and I do not recall Bush blaming the failures of the government's pathetic and ill-advised response to disasters like Hurricane Katrina on the illegitimacy of government.
(Granted, I am using logic here, something that generally is missing from Krugman's column. Instead, we see partisanship and personal invective, combined with the religion of statism, something that really should be beneath a man who has received the academic honors he has garnered in his career. While Krugman has viciously attacked the Austrians in his writings, I cannot recall reading anything by an Austrian, dead or living, that makes the same kind of politically partisan comments that regularly appear in Krugman's articles and columns.)
Unfortunately, Krugman goes on to claim that FDR created a governing apparatus via the New Deal that wisely and honestly dealt with the economic calamity in a positive way:
F.D.R. managed to navigate treacherous political waters safely, greatly improving government's reputation even as he vastly expanded it. As a study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it, "Before 1932, the administration of public relief was widely regarded as politically corrupt," and the New Deal's huge relief programs "offered an opportunity for corruption unique in the nation's history." Yet "by 1940, charges of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably."
The historical record says something else. James F. Couch and William Shughart in their book, The Political Economy of the New Deal, lay out example after example of the political calculus that was used in determining where New Deal relief money would be spent. They concluded, after examining the spending patterns, that political considerations determined what projects would be funded and how much money would go into them.
In reviewing the book 10 years ago, I noted how the authors pointed out the Works Progress Administration (WPA) pay differentials in different states:
One example [Couch and Shughart] give is the dispersal of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects. Given the supposed "compassionate" nature of the Roosevelt administration, one would think that those in the most dire need would receive the most help. Under the leadership of Roosevelt deputy Harry Hopkins, however, the WPA discriminated among states according to the political needs of the Democratic party, as government dollars were distributed according to their marginal political benefit.
Compensation was tied to area incomes. For example, an "intermediate" WPA worker in Tennessee would earn 23 cents per hour, while his counterpart in New York received $1.57. Skilled laborers working on WPA projects made 31 cents an hour in Tennessee and Alabama and $2.25 in New York. Professional pay was 34 cents per hour in Alabama and $3.03 in Pennsylvania.
Compare the Couch-Shughart study to Krugman's praise of the WPA:
The Works Progress Administration, in particular, had a powerful, independent "division of progress investigation" devoted to investigating complaints of fraud. This division was so diligent that in 1940, when a Congressional subcommittee investigated the W.P.A., it couldn't find a single serious irregularity that the division had missed.
F.D.R. also made sure that Congress didn't stuff stimulus legislation with pork: there were no earmarks in the legislation that provided funding for the W.P.A. and other emergency measures.
According to the very partisan Krugman, government under FDR acted with compassion and worked to meet needs as they existed. According to Couch and Shughart, government acted, well, like government. New Deal money was used to buy votes and to spread political influence.
Krugman also fails to point out that in many cases, WPA workers were forced to register as Democrats and some projects required workers to make financial contributions to the Democratic Party. But since he is a partisan Democrat, I suspect he believes that such a requirement was part of enforcing "good government."
In other words, any accurate reading of the historical record demonstrates that the New Deal was not the epitome of "goo-gooism," or whatever Krugman wants to call it. Instead, we find that people in government operated according to the political calculus that both Austrians and public-choice economists have been pointing out for years.
What can be done? To be honest, nothing. There is no way that we can create a government that taxes and spends according to some imaginary formula that "maximizes" the "public good." These are merely terms created to hide the fact that the only calculus politicians can call upon is based upon political costs and benefits.
Obviously, pointing out that politicians make politically based choices is a no-brainer; even people like Krugman are not oblivious to political corruption. However, so-called progressives believe they have a way to create and maintain "good government": place more power in the hands of the executive branch of the US government. The executive branch, which would be dominated by "selfless" bureaucrats and "experts," would allow resources to be directed "properly" by taking the decision-making power from the hands of elected politicians who are prone to corruption and let the people with the best intentions make the important decisions.
However, if there is one thing we have learned from this country's century-old experiment in giving "independent" bureaucrats more power, it is that the bureaucracies created their own political fiefdoms and the problems and economic dislocations they have forced upon our society are worse than anything even the most corrupt politicians have done.
We are dealing with human nature, and putting on the robes of a selfless bureaucrat does not increase one's qualifications to run the affairs of others. Furthermore, the notion that experts placed in government are going to run things properly is delusional at best and dangerous at worst.
Take the Federal Reserve, for example. The Fed is a Progressive Era creation, with its vaunted "independence" from whims of politicians. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is a really intelligent person who has operated in the highest academic circles. He was valedictorian of his high-school class, went to Harvard, and received his doctorate from MIT. Bernanke is the epitome of Progressivism and "good government," and if there is a "goo-goo" in Washington, it is Bernanke.
However, this really intelligent person almost has single-handedly run the US economy into the ground. Granted, it takes a very special person to have this kind of influence, but Bernanke has been up to the task. Now, it would seem to me that Bernanke is exactly the kind of expert we would want working in the temples of government. I don't detect his taking money on the sly or engaging in the bottom-dwelling quid pro quo actions of many people in government.
In other words, I believe that Bernanke truly believes that he has been doing the right thing. However, the man has been a disaster. He has had the power to act on his belief that the Great Depression came about because Herbert Hoover's government did not print enough money. The notion that inflation is a positive economic force should be verboten to anyone with a doctorate in economics, but here we see Bernanke as the apostle of inflation, being cheered by other "good government" elites who are either stupid or craven enough to demand the destruction of the US dollar.
The response of the elites has been predictable. The Atlantic magazine, in a recent issue praising Bernanke and other "Brave Thinkers," sniffed that Bernanke "somehow found time to bear the made-for-TV harangues of financially illiterate members of Congress." Bernanke's quote for the article tells the story of the "expert" who is just plain wrong.
There were many people who said, "Let them fail. It's not a problem. The markets will take care of it." And I think I knew better than that.
However, it is utterly clear that Bernanke did not know better than the markets. And what were the brilliant things that he did in order to confound those ignorant markets that wanted to liquidate the failing firms? According to the Atlantic,
He dropped target interest rates to near-zero for the first time in history; made trillions of dollars in government cash available to financial institutions; expanded the Fed's lending and relaxed its collateral requirements; bought up billions of dollars in securities backed by consumer debt and mortgages; prevented the collapse of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac…
This is not brilliance; this is cranking up the printing presses, something that governments have done in Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia, not to mention Weimar Germany, with predictable results. The problem was that none of the things that Bernanke did addressed any of the real damage done to the structure of production in our economy. He just showered the markets with paper money, and his adoring chorus in the media and academe sang his praises.
I suspect that Bernanke has set an example of "good government" for these elites. First, he "saved" the economy; second, he has had to put up with "non-goo-goos" like Ron Paul, who clearly do not worship the state nor the characters that statism produces.
Those of us who understand that the mechanism of economic calculation is not something that "goo-gooism" can successfully reproduce via simple brilliance certainly won't be declared heroes by the apostles of statism. Indeed, we are placed in the category of the "financially illiterate" because we understand that sound money is not a hindrance to economic growth or even to economic fairness.
Unfortunately, the "good government" advocates don't see it that way. Instead, "good government" seems to involve reckless spending by Washington, endless printing at the Fed, and bailout after bailout. After all, the "goo-goos" know best.
Yet I must admit that whenever I see government doing something that is outrageous or even wasteful or seemingly stupid, my "good government" ideals seem to kick in and I find myself thinking that the powers that be could learn how to do things correctly. At that point, it never occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, the mechanism of action we know as government cannot be operated in a "proper" way at all, because no intellectual device exists that permits us to properly determine just what is "good" or "bad" government.
Not that there is a dearth of true believers. Last year, Paul Krugman waxed eloquent about the goodness of the state (as long as it is run by "good" people), writing,
Before Mr. Obama can make government cool, however, he has to make it good. Indeed, he has to be a goo-goo.
Goo-goo, in case you're wondering, is a century-old term for "good government" types, reformers opposed to corruption and patronage. Franklin Roosevelt was a goo-goo extraordinaire. He simultaneously made government much bigger and much cleaner. Mr. Obama needs to do the same thing.
However, before one can be a true goo-goo, one must believe in the state. Witness Krugman's description of the failures of the Bush administration:
Needless to say, the Bush administration offers a spectacular example of non-goo-gooism. But the Bushies didn't have to worry about governing well and honestly. Even when they failed on the job (as they so often did), they could claim that very failure as vindication of their anti-government ideology, a demonstration that the public sector can't do anything right.
This is a curious way to describe the failures of government, blaming those malfunctions on the notion that those carrying out their powers really did not believe that their powers were legitimate, and so they failed. I recall many things that Bush and his minions did while they were in office, but I cannot recall any time that anyone in that administration was reluctant to use their powers. Indeed, the Bush administration was extremely abusive during its eight years in power, and I don't believe that the administration engaged in such behavior because its principals were laissez-faire libertarians, and I do not recall Bush blaming the failures of the government's pathetic and ill-advised response to disasters like Hurricane Katrina on the illegitimacy of government.
(Granted, I am using logic here, something that generally is missing from Krugman's column. Instead, we see partisanship and personal invective, combined with the religion of statism, something that really should be beneath a man who has received the academic honors he has garnered in his career. While Krugman has viciously attacked the Austrians in his writings, I cannot recall reading anything by an Austrian, dead or living, that makes the same kind of politically partisan comments that regularly appear in Krugman's articles and columns.)
Unfortunately, Krugman goes on to claim that FDR created a governing apparatus via the New Deal that wisely and honestly dealt with the economic calamity in a positive way:
F.D.R. managed to navigate treacherous political waters safely, greatly improving government's reputation even as he vastly expanded it. As a study recently published by the National Bureau of Economic Research puts it, "Before 1932, the administration of public relief was widely regarded as politically corrupt," and the New Deal's huge relief programs "offered an opportunity for corruption unique in the nation's history." Yet "by 1940, charges of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably."
The historical record says something else. James F. Couch and William Shughart in their book, The Political Economy of the New Deal, lay out example after example of the political calculus that was used in determining where New Deal relief money would be spent. They concluded, after examining the spending patterns, that political considerations determined what projects would be funded and how much money would go into them.
In reviewing the book 10 years ago, I noted how the authors pointed out the Works Progress Administration (WPA) pay differentials in different states:
One example [Couch and Shughart] give is the dispersal of Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects. Given the supposed "compassionate" nature of the Roosevelt administration, one would think that those in the most dire need would receive the most help. Under the leadership of Roosevelt deputy Harry Hopkins, however, the WPA discriminated among states according to the political needs of the Democratic party, as government dollars were distributed according to their marginal political benefit.
Compensation was tied to area incomes. For example, an "intermediate" WPA worker in Tennessee would earn 23 cents per hour, while his counterpart in New York received $1.57. Skilled laborers working on WPA projects made 31 cents an hour in Tennessee and Alabama and $2.25 in New York. Professional pay was 34 cents per hour in Alabama and $3.03 in Pennsylvania.
Compare the Couch-Shughart study to Krugman's praise of the WPA:
The Works Progress Administration, in particular, had a powerful, independent "division of progress investigation" devoted to investigating complaints of fraud. This division was so diligent that in 1940, when a Congressional subcommittee investigated the W.P.A., it couldn't find a single serious irregularity that the division had missed.
F.D.R. also made sure that Congress didn't stuff stimulus legislation with pork: there were no earmarks in the legislation that provided funding for the W.P.A. and other emergency measures.
According to the very partisan Krugman, government under FDR acted with compassion and worked to meet needs as they existed. According to Couch and Shughart, government acted, well, like government. New Deal money was used to buy votes and to spread political influence.
Krugman also fails to point out that in many cases, WPA workers were forced to register as Democrats and some projects required workers to make financial contributions to the Democratic Party. But since he is a partisan Democrat, I suspect he believes that such a requirement was part of enforcing "good government."
In other words, any accurate reading of the historical record demonstrates that the New Deal was not the epitome of "goo-gooism," or whatever Krugman wants to call it. Instead, we find that people in government operated according to the political calculus that both Austrians and public-choice economists have been pointing out for years.
What can be done? To be honest, nothing. There is no way that we can create a government that taxes and spends according to some imaginary formula that "maximizes" the "public good." These are merely terms created to hide the fact that the only calculus politicians can call upon is based upon political costs and benefits.
Obviously, pointing out that politicians make politically based choices is a no-brainer; even people like Krugman are not oblivious to political corruption. However, so-called progressives believe they have a way to create and maintain "good government": place more power in the hands of the executive branch of the US government. The executive branch, which would be dominated by "selfless" bureaucrats and "experts," would allow resources to be directed "properly" by taking the decision-making power from the hands of elected politicians who are prone to corruption and let the people with the best intentions make the important decisions.
However, if there is one thing we have learned from this country's century-old experiment in giving "independent" bureaucrats more power, it is that the bureaucracies created their own political fiefdoms and the problems and economic dislocations they have forced upon our society are worse than anything even the most corrupt politicians have done.
We are dealing with human nature, and putting on the robes of a selfless bureaucrat does not increase one's qualifications to run the affairs of others. Furthermore, the notion that experts placed in government are going to run things properly is delusional at best and dangerous at worst.
Take the Federal Reserve, for example. The Fed is a Progressive Era creation, with its vaunted "independence" from whims of politicians. Its chairman, Ben Bernanke, is a really intelligent person who has operated in the highest academic circles. He was valedictorian of his high-school class, went to Harvard, and received his doctorate from MIT. Bernanke is the epitome of Progressivism and "good government," and if there is a "goo-goo" in Washington, it is Bernanke.
However, this really intelligent person almost has single-handedly run the US economy into the ground. Granted, it takes a very special person to have this kind of influence, but Bernanke has been up to the task. Now, it would seem to me that Bernanke is exactly the kind of expert we would want working in the temples of government. I don't detect his taking money on the sly or engaging in the bottom-dwelling quid pro quo actions of many people in government.
In other words, I believe that Bernanke truly believes that he has been doing the right thing. However, the man has been a disaster. He has had the power to act on his belief that the Great Depression came about because Herbert Hoover's government did not print enough money. The notion that inflation is a positive economic force should be verboten to anyone with a doctorate in economics, but here we see Bernanke as the apostle of inflation, being cheered by other "good government" elites who are either stupid or craven enough to demand the destruction of the US dollar.
The response of the elites has been predictable. The Atlantic magazine, in a recent issue praising Bernanke and other "Brave Thinkers," sniffed that Bernanke "somehow found time to bear the made-for-TV harangues of financially illiterate members of Congress." Bernanke's quote for the article tells the story of the "expert" who is just plain wrong.
There were many people who said, "Let them fail. It's not a problem. The markets will take care of it." And I think I knew better than that.
However, it is utterly clear that Bernanke did not know better than the markets. And what were the brilliant things that he did in order to confound those ignorant markets that wanted to liquidate the failing firms? According to the Atlantic,
He dropped target interest rates to near-zero for the first time in history; made trillions of dollars in government cash available to financial institutions; expanded the Fed's lending and relaxed its collateral requirements; bought up billions of dollars in securities backed by consumer debt and mortgages; prevented the collapse of AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac…
This is not brilliance; this is cranking up the printing presses, something that governments have done in Argentina, Zimbabwe, and Bolivia, not to mention Weimar Germany, with predictable results. The problem was that none of the things that Bernanke did addressed any of the real damage done to the structure of production in our economy. He just showered the markets with paper money, and his adoring chorus in the media and academe sang his praises.
I suspect that Bernanke has set an example of "good government" for these elites. First, he "saved" the economy; second, he has had to put up with "non-goo-goos" like Ron Paul, who clearly do not worship the state nor the characters that statism produces.
Those of us who understand that the mechanism of economic calculation is not something that "goo-gooism" can successfully reproduce via simple brilliance certainly won't be declared heroes by the apostles of statism. Indeed, we are placed in the category of the "financially illiterate" because we understand that sound money is not a hindrance to economic growth or even to economic fairness.
Unfortunately, the "good government" advocates don't see it that way. Instead, "good government" seems to involve reckless spending by Washington, endless printing at the Fed, and bailout after bailout. After all, the "goo-goos" know best.
Overview
Good Economic and Financial Governance (GEFG)
Against the background of higher aid flows, debt relief, and increasing revenues from natural resources in Africa, good economic and financial governance is receiving increasing attention. Competent, transparent and accountable public financial management is considered a central element of a functioning democracy, while weaknesses in this field, hampers sustainable development, investment, and economic growth. Transparency, participation, and accountability that come from an empowered citizenry are the strongest antidotes to corruption. In addition to other governance issues, GEFG is therefore of particular importance as it is connected to to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Many African countries have already made important progress in public financial management. In recent years, public expenditure management in several countries has improved, regulatory and supervisory bodies have been strengthened, and tax systems have been reformed towards internationally recognized standards of good fiscal practice. As a result, Africa is, today, performing much better than a decade ago and African economies continue to sustain the economic growth momentum which has been built up in recent years.
However, the progress is still insufficient (measured against international comparators) and uneven with limited institutional and human capacity proven to be major obstacles. Reforming public institutions is about establishing new binding rules and constraints; the task is to establish those incentives and accountability systems, which lead people to adhere to these rules. Successfully advancing public sector reforms therefore depend on sustained political commitment and respective communication.
As the African Union (AU) has stressed in its New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) programme, African countries accept that responsibility for peace, development, good governance and transparent, sustainable financing of the public sector lies with them. In order to assume this responsibility at both the national and regional levels, they need the required capacity and institutions. The Bank Group is promoting and supporting the establishment and strengthening of these institutions. In this context, African finance ministers endorsed the Abuja Commitment to Action in 2006 and called for long term predictable financing as part of efforts by African countries for transparent and reliable budget management.
With its Strategic Directions and Action Plan, the African Development Bank has made “Good financial governance” an imperative in its lending and non-lending operations. The Bank provides support to regional members to implement economic and financial reforms through policy-based operations as well as through institutional support projects. Budget support is primarily used to strengthen financial governance and budgetary systems, in particular government auditing and public procurement.
The Bank approaches include:
- Strengthening African Tax Systems
African tax systems are generally characterised by low tax/GDP ratios. Despite intensive efforts so far undertaken by our partner countries with the help of bilateral and multilateral institutions, there is still room for reforms in tax policy and more pressingly in tax administrations. In 2002, most African countries committed themselves to the Monterrey Consensus to take steps to mobilise their own revenues, since appropriate participation by citizens in the financing of the development process is a key element in achieving autonomy. In the long term, development policy transfers are no substitute for a partner country’s own effort to finance its development.
In this context, the AfDB will support efforts by RMCs to reform their tax policies and tax administration. The Bank encourages African countries to make use of regional networks and international knowledge on tax policy and administration in order to bolster domestic expertise. - Establishing Transparent and Comprehensive Budgeting Procedures
Positive economic developments in Africa are also based on national budgets that reflect a government’s political priorities. The Bank supports African countries in their efforts to develop concepts for transparent and reliable budget management, as stated in the Abuja Commitment to Action. One of the approaches to strengthen capacities and “peer learning” for budgeting procedures in Africa is the Bank’s support to the Collaborative Africa Budget Reform Initiative (CABRI).
- Promoting Accountability, Transparency and Enhancing Budgetary Control
The credibility and reliability of governments of partner countries in managing their public finances depend upon regular auditing to ensure both the legality and efficiency of public expenditure. This requires an effective and independent system of financial control. Under the umbrella of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), African supreme audit institutions have set up the African Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (AFROSAI) which the Bank supports in many ways. - Increasing Accountability for Revenues from Extractive Industries
African countries that are rich in oil, gas and minerals generate a vital proportion of their revenues from the sale of these resources. The call for transparency in the management of public revenues from extractive industries is a vital contribution to the establishment of good governance and enabling citizens enjoy a share of their country’s potential wealth.
The Bank is committed to increasing transparency and accountability in the management of extractive industries resources. It follows a two-pronged approach in its engagement in the EITI: advocacy to create the political will among resource-rich regional members that have not endorsed the initiative; and technical and financial assistance to regional member countries that have demonstrated the political will by endorsing the EITI, but lack the implementation capacity. - Supporting Fiscal Decentralisation
Effective use of public funds can only be effective if the central government and sub-national levels of government charged with providing public services are both able to perform their tasks properly. The Kigali Conference in 2006 emphasised the need for strengthened capacity, transparency and accountability of local governments, and mechanisms for coordination between central and local governments. The AfDB supports African countries in their efforts to establish legally concise and sustainable intra-governmental fiscal transfer and tax-sharing systems that adhere to principles of fairness and accountability. - Enhancing Capacities for Governance in Fragile States and Situations
In many partner countries, statehood has suffered temporary or long-term damage as a result of political crises, conflicts or natural disasters. In fragile states, democratic legitimacy is often limited and government structures at all levels are fragmented and lack sufficient capacity to plan, manage and implement policies. These are particular demands on governance, but modest capacity development can be achieved even in states and situations with acute governance challenges. In such a situation, it is often necessary to restore basic functions of government in order to provide basic services and security for the population.
In order to support governance in partner countries with limited state capacity, the AfDB is seeking to strengthen key governmental functions, so that countries may initiate, coordinate and implement their own development policies. - Governance throughout the Bank
Governance is an issue that affects many Bank activities and nearly every department or unit within the Bank does some work on this critical issue.
Water Sector Governance Project
The Bank’s Water Department (OWAS) is responsible for managing the Bank engagements on the important issue of water. In order to assess the current state of water sector governance, develop indicators and targets for improvement, and provide guidelines for Bank sector staff to use when developing programmes and projects throughout the project cycle, OWAS has undertaken a study whose objectives include:
- Providing decision-makers - task managers, project teams and others - from the Bank and its Regional Members Countries with an in-depth understanding of the concepts, opportunities, and challenges for improving governance in the water sector;
- Providing an in-depth analysis of the social, institutional and legal aspects of sector governance and subsequent development of a method to allow Bank staff to rapidly characterize the state of governance within the sector;
- Preparing guidelines and a list of targets and indicators for improved governance that can be integrated into the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Initiative (RWSSI) and other programmes and projects to ensure long-term sustainability of investments based on an analysis of success or failure of governance in different countries.
GAO: Working for Good Government Since 1921
Chapter 8, David M. Walker: Supporting Congress and Making GAO a Model Organization for the Government, 1998 to Present
During 1999, Walker's first full year in office, GAO worked to improve government performance and accountability and to assist Congress in carrying out its oversight responsibilities. The Office conducted a broad range of reviews, in areas such as health care, national defense readiness, transportation safety, and the government's ability to fight crime and threats from terrorists.
In Fiscal Year 2000, GAO's reviews looked at Social Security reform, defense acquisitions, military peacekeeping operations, tax policy, computer policy, managing human capital and security breaches at federal agencies. During the past fiscal year, GAO's officials testified before 104 different Congressional committees and subcommittees. In all, 263 testimonies were given before the Congress. The topics included arms control, health care, Social Security, human capital, nuclear waste cleanup, wildfires, computer security, aviation safety and security, international trade, budget issues and financial management reform.
In Fiscal Year 1999, GAO's work resulted in over $20 billion in direct financial benefits. In Fiscal Year 2000, GAO realized more than $23 billion in direct financial benefits through its work. The Office achieves its financial benefits when its recommendations are implemented to make government services more efficient, to improve federal budgeting and spending, and to strengthen management of resources.
In addition to conducting a wide array of audits, evaluations, and investigations, GAO issues comprehensive series of Government Performance and Accountability reports. It also provides updates to its series of High Risk reports. GAO has developed guidance on techniques and best practices that have government-wide applications. Its Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual is widely used to evaluate system security controls.
GAO engages in a strategic and annual planning process aimed at improving services to Congress, organizing resources to meet work priorities, and serving as a model organization within the government. The goals of GAO's strategic plan are to:
Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal Government to Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of the American People;
Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal Government to Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global Interdependence;
Support the Transition to a More Results-Oriented and Accountable Federal Government;
Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Organization for the Federal Government.
During Fiscal Year 2000, GAO undertook an organizational realignment in order to better meet its goals and objectives. It developed a performance plan for the year 2001 that links its strategic goals to the daily work of managers and staff.
Comptroller General Walker has pledged, "GAO's employees and their predecessors have earned GAO its reputation as one of the best agencies in the federal government. As Congress takes on the challenges of a new century, GAO will be there to help it make a positive and lasting difference for all Americans."
Here are some suggestions for further reading on GAO's history.
For readers interested in an in-depth look at GAO's evolution between 1921 and 1966, the author recommends:
Defender of the Public Interest: The General Accounting Office, 1921-1966 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1996), by Roger R. Trask, former GAO Chief Historian. The product of meticulous research in a number of primary sources, this scholarly work provides a detailed examination of GAO's history.
For a shorter summary, see Dr. Trask's GAO History: 1921-1991 (Washington: U.S. General Accounting Office, 991), which provides a 1brief history of the agency through 1991.
For an older work that provides a perspective on GAO from a scholar of public administration, see Frede
 |
| Today, under the leadership of Comptroller General David M. Walker, GAO is committed to helping Congress address issues that will define the 21st century. Walker has extensive expertise in managing private and public sector organizations. Before taking charge of GAO on November 9, 1998, he served as a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen LLP's human capital services practice. At Arthur Andersen, he worked with varied audit, tax, legal, and consulting matters. His areas of responsibility included strategic planning as well as leadership in the area of human capital services. Prior to joining Arthur Andersen, Walker served as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Pension and Welfare Benefit Programs from 1987 to 1989. He also served as a public trustee for the U.S. Social Security and Medicare trust funds from 1990 to 1995. Walker is the author of Retirement Security: Understanding and Planning Your Financial Future (1996) and co-author of Delivering on the Promise: How to Attract, Manage and Retain Human Capital (1998). Under Walker, GAO conducts a wide range of financial and performance audits and program evaluations. The Office's reviews take a professional and objective look at the business of government and the missions of government. They cover everything from the challenges of an aging population and the demands of the information age to emerging national security threats and the complexities of globalization. GAO also is committed to government reform--to helping government agencies become organizations that are results oriented and accountable to the public. GAO's core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability reflect its dedication to good government. By examining federal programs and operations, GAO helps ensure that the government is answerable to the American people. The agency's work reflects integrity because it is professional, objective, fact-based, non-partisan, and non-ideological. GAO strives for reliability by providing high-quality information that is timely, accurate, useful, clear, and candid. GAO relies on a workforce of highly trained professionals who hold degrees in many academic disciplines, such as accounting, law, engineering, public and business administration, economics, and the social and physical sciences. |
The modern GAO uses strategic planning, updated job processes, and matrix management, which crosses traditional organizational boundaries to assemble teams to look at complex, crosscutting issues. Under Comptroller General Walker, GAO works to provide timely, quality service to the Congress and to become a model organization for the federal government. As Walker noted recently, "the long term credibility of government rests on its ability to provide the nation's citizens the services they desire." Recognizing the increased complexity of the government's responsibilities and obligations, GAO's work centers on helping the Congress make government better and more credible.
In Fiscal Year 2000, GAO's reviews looked at Social Security reform, defense acquisitions, military peacekeeping operations, tax policy, computer policy, managing human capital and security breaches at federal agencies. During the past fiscal year, GAO's officials testified before 104 different Congressional committees and subcommittees. In all, 263 testimonies were given before the Congress. The topics included arms control, health care, Social Security, human capital, nuclear waste cleanup, wildfires, computer security, aviation safety and security, international trade, budget issues and financial management reform.
In addition to conducting a wide array of audits, evaluations, and investigations, GAO issues comprehensive series of Government Performance and Accountability reports. It also provides updates to its series of High Risk reports. GAO has developed guidance on techniques and best practices that have government-wide applications. Its Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual is widely used to evaluate system security controls.
GAO engages in a strategic and annual planning process aimed at improving services to Congress, organizing resources to meet work priorities, and serving as a model organization within the government. The goals of GAO's strategic plan are to:
Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal Government to Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial Security of the American People;
Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the Federal Government to Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global Interdependence;
Support the Transition to a More Results-Oriented and Accountable Federal Government;
Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Organization for the Federal Government.
During Fiscal Year 2000, GAO undertook an organizational realignment in order to better meet its goals and objectives. It developed a performance plan for the year 2001 that links its strategic goals to the daily work of managers and staff.
Here are some suggestions for further reading on GAO's history.
For readers interested in an in-depth look at GAO's evolution between 1921 and 1966, the author recommends:
Defender of the Public Interest: The General Accounting Office, 1921-1966 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1996), by Roger R. Trask, former GAO Chief Historian. The product of meticulous research in a number of primary sources, this scholarly work provides a detailed examination of GAO's history.
For a shorter summary, see Dr. Trask's GAO History: 1921-1991 (Washington: U.S. General Accounting Office, 991), which provides a 1brief history of the agency through 1991.
For an older work that provides a perspective on GAO from a scholar of public administration, see Frede
WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?
WHAT IS GOOD GOVERNANCE?
Recently the terms "governance" and "good governance" are being increasingly used in development literature. Bad governance is being increasingly regarded as one of the root causes of all evil within our societies. Major donors and international financial institutions are increasingly basing their aid and loans on the condition that reforms that ensure "good governance" are undertaken.
This article tries to explain, as simply as possible, what "governance" and "good governance" means.
GOVERNANCE
The concept of "governance" is not new. It is as old as human civilization. Simply put "governance" means: the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented). Governance can be used in several contexts such as corporate governance, international governance, national governance and local governance.
Since governance is the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented, an analysis of governance focuses on the formal and informal actors involved in decision-making and implementing the decisions made and the formal and informal structures that have been set in place to arrive at and implement the decision.
Government is one of the actors in governance. Other actors involved in governance vary depending on the level of government that is under discussion. In rural areas, for example, other actors may include influential land lords, associations of peasant farmers, cooperatives, NGOs, research institutes, religious leaders, finance institutions political parties, the military etc. The situation in urban areas is much more complex. Figure 1 provides the interconnections between actors involved in urban governance. At the national level, in addition to the above actors, media, lobbyists, international donors, multi-national corporations, etc. may play a role in decision-making or in influencing the decision-making process.
All actors other than government and the military are grouped together as part of the "civil society." In some countries in addition to the civil society, organized crime syndicates also influence decision-making, particularly in urban areas and at the national level.
Similarly formal government structures are one means by which decisions are arrived at and implemented. At the national level, informal decision-making structures, such as "kitchen cabinets" or informal advisors may exist. In urban areas, organized crime syndicates such as the "land Mafia" may influence decision-making. In some rural areas locally powerful families may make or influence decision-making. Such, informal decision-making is often the result of corrupt practices or leads to corrupt practices.
Figure 1: Urban actors
Good governance has 8 major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.
Figure 2: Characteristics of good governance
Participation
Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand.
Rule of law
Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force.
Transparency
Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media.
Responsiveness
Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe.
Consensus oriented
There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community.
Equity and inclusiveness
A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being.
Effectiveness and efficiency
Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment.
Accountability
Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law.
CONCLUSIONFrom the above discussion it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality. Very few countries and societies have come close to achieving good governance in its totality. However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality.
Good Governance & Institutions Improve Access to Finance in Emerging Countries
A World Bank Finance Research Feature, May 23, 2006
At a recent conference on the Financing of Corporations in Emerging Countries (organized by the World Bank, the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, and the Journal of Financial Economics), researchers highlighted the importance of good governance and institutions in improving access to finance in emerging countries.
New evidence presented at this March 2006 gathering at the World Bank’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. showed that financial development, stronger creditor and shareholder rights, and greater disclosure and transparency of financial data improved access to both debt and equity financing.
“The World Bank is interested in and concerned about emerging market finance for many reasons,” said World Bank economist Leora Klapper, a co-organizer of the conference. “Financial access can stimulate real economic activity, promote long-term growth, and reduce poverty and income inequality.”
The research presented at the conference focused on the importance of growth-promoting financial policies, which are a critical part of the investment climate facing firms and households.
Policies should enforce full disclosure of financial and ownership information
Research findings showed the importance of financial disclosure and transparency to improve access to credit. These findings highlighted the role of public policy in enforcing full disclosure of financial and ownership information to market participants.
However, researchers also emphasized the importance of private contracting and enforcement and found no evidence that strong government regulators promote market development.
Djankov, La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes and Shleifer showed that equity market performance is related to better shareholder protection laws at the country level, including private enforcement mechanisms such as greater disclosure requirements and litigation options.
Using a comprehensive firm-level database of US overseas investment, Leuz, Lins and Warnock showed that firms with weaker governance and ownership structures are less likely to receive institutional investment.
Bertrand, Johnson, Samphantharak and Schoar collected detailed ownership data and constructed family trees for the 100 largest family-owned firms in Thailand. They showed that following the founder’s death, families with more sons have lower firm-level performance. This might be explained by dilution of ownership, the struggle for control among sons, and the incentive to tunnel resources before other family members do.
"An important outcome of the conference was that several researchers highlighted the importance of good country-level laws and firm-level governance decisions for the development of financial markets and private sector growth," said Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Senior Research Manager (Finance) at the World Bank.
Political patronage and corruption can distort access to finance
The World Bank is already engaged in efforts to improve government transparency and reduce government ownership in the financial sector. This was supported by research findings presented at the conference that showed how political patronage and corruption can have a distortionary effect on access to finance.
For instance, Claessens, Feijen and Laeven presented evidence that political donations in Brazil are associated with future preferential access to financing. Also, Chari and Gupta found that in India, state-owned firms and large firms in concentrated industries are more likely to prevent the entry of foreign competitors.
These two papers suggest that political influence might distort financing and entry decisions.
Being cross-listed on a foreign exchange can help local firms raise more capital
Does cross-listing on a foreign exchange hurt local exchanges by moving trading overseas or improve them by greater visibility and possible improvement in governance of cross-listed firms?
Evidence presented at the conference showed that internationalization might help the development of local exchanges and can help local firms raise more capital.
Gozzi, Levine, and Schmukler showed that cross-listing provides additional financing, but did not find evidence that internationalization improved the governance of local firms.
However, Ferreira and Matos showed that cross-listing increased foreign ownership of both American Depositary Receipts (ADR) shares traded in the U.S. as well as foreign ownership of shares traded on the local exchange.
Their finding that in some instances cross-listings might not be harmful to local exchanges is important for the policy debate over the effect of ADRs and overseas listings on the future of local exchanges.
At a recent conference on the Financing of Corporations in Emerging Countries (organized by the World Bank, the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, and the Journal of Financial Economics), researchers highlighted the importance of good governance and institutions in improving access to finance in emerging countries.
New evidence presented at this March 2006 gathering at the World Bank’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. showed that financial development, stronger creditor and shareholder rights, and greater disclosure and transparency of financial data improved access to both debt and equity financing.
“The World Bank is interested in and concerned about emerging market finance for many reasons,” said World Bank economist Leora Klapper, a co-organizer of the conference. “Financial access can stimulate real economic activity, promote long-term growth, and reduce poverty and income inequality.”
The research presented at the conference focused on the importance of growth-promoting financial policies, which are a critical part of the investment climate facing firms and households.
Policies should enforce full disclosure of financial and ownership information
Research findings showed the importance of financial disclosure and transparency to improve access to credit. These findings highlighted the role of public policy in enforcing full disclosure of financial and ownership information to market participants.
However, researchers also emphasized the importance of private contracting and enforcement and found no evidence that strong government regulators promote market development.
Djankov, La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes and Shleifer showed that equity market performance is related to better shareholder protection laws at the country level, including private enforcement mechanisms such as greater disclosure requirements and litigation options.
Using a comprehensive firm-level database of US overseas investment, Leuz, Lins and Warnock showed that firms with weaker governance and ownership structures are less likely to receive institutional investment.
Bertrand, Johnson, Samphantharak and Schoar collected detailed ownership data and constructed family trees for the 100 largest family-owned firms in Thailand. They showed that following the founder’s death, families with more sons have lower firm-level performance. This might be explained by dilution of ownership, the struggle for control among sons, and the incentive to tunnel resources before other family members do.
"An important outcome of the conference was that several researchers highlighted the importance of good country-level laws and firm-level governance decisions for the development of financial markets and private sector growth," said Asli Demirguc-Kunt, Senior Research Manager (Finance) at the World Bank.
Political patronage and corruption can distort access to finance
The World Bank is already engaged in efforts to improve government transparency and reduce government ownership in the financial sector. This was supported by research findings presented at the conference that showed how political patronage and corruption can have a distortionary effect on access to finance.
For instance, Claessens, Feijen and Laeven presented evidence that political donations in Brazil are associated with future preferential access to financing. Also, Chari and Gupta found that in India, state-owned firms and large firms in concentrated industries are more likely to prevent the entry of foreign competitors.
These two papers suggest that political influence might distort financing and entry decisions.
Being cross-listed on a foreign exchange can help local firms raise more capital
Does cross-listing on a foreign exchange hurt local exchanges by moving trading overseas or improve them by greater visibility and possible improvement in governance of cross-listed firms?
Evidence presented at the conference showed that internationalization might help the development of local exchanges and can help local firms raise more capital.
Gozzi, Levine, and Schmukler showed that cross-listing provides additional financing, but did not find evidence that internationalization improved the governance of local firms.
However, Ferreira and Matos showed that cross-listing increased foreign ownership of both American Depositary Receipts (ADR) shares traded in the U.S. as well as foreign ownership of shares traded on the local exchange.
Their finding that in some instances cross-listings might not be harmful to local exchanges is important for the policy debate over the effect of ADRs and overseas listings on the future of local exchanges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)