Protectionism at its worst?

My current workplace released an interesting study about the presence of foreign students here in the U.S and the results seem quite dire. An excerpt-

According to the study’s findings, very few foreign students would like to stay in the United States permanently—only 6 percent of Indian, 10 percent of Chinese and 15 percent of Europeans. And fewer foreign students than the historical norm expressed interest in staying in the United States after they graduate. Only 58 percent of Indian, 54 percent of Chinese and 40 percent of European students wish to stay for several years after graduation.

Around the same time that the paper was released, I stumbled upon this story from the NYT that detailed the protectionist effects of Obama’s stimulus package. More specifically, a provision of the bill limits the hiring of foreign workers by any firm receiving financial assistance from the government. One company, Bank of America even had to rescind job offers to foreign MBA students as a result of the bill. Obviously, this is a problem. Business schools generally tend to be more supportive of international students and this inability to find jobs will hamper greatly international recruitment among American institutions. We also don’t want to turn away knowledge and skills, no matter the nationality and citizenship. At the same time, there is something to be said for ensuring that tax payer money primarily benefits American workers. It does seem rather strange to use American funds to pay the wages for foreign workers, while American workers continue losing jobs at alarming rates. Is this just protectionism at its worst or does it make good business sense? Thoughts?

-Indira

The trouble with Davos

My latest IDS column about the World Economic Forum at Davos is up. An excerpt-

For the uninitiated, Davos, a tiny ski resort in Switzerland, plays host to the annual Forum, a gathering of business leaders, politicians, non-governmental agencies and the occasional celebrity. Historically, the five-day conference provides an opportunity for the rich, elite and overwhelmingly white audience to bask in its own greatness, all while lauding the benefits of globalization and the power of free markets.

This year was to be no different – until the gloom and turmoil besetting the global economy cast a pall over the celebrations. It became apparent that praising unfettered capitalism as the key to solving global poverty, or whatever it is that you’re taught in economics classes these days, would surely have been in poor taste.

You can read the whole piece here.

-Indira

The Rise of Global Campuses

A lot of my work as a research assistant focuses on the globalization of higher education and knowledge spaces. It’s quite a fascinating subject and we’ve only begun to note some interesting patterns here- the increasing incidence of cross national research collaboration as well as the notion of a global meritocracy. But, the most interesting (or disturbing, based on where you’re situated) development is that of the global college rankings. You have the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings, also known as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Times Higher Education-QS Rankings and the latest- the US News and World Report’s ranking of the world’s best colleges and universities.

These rankings certainly have flaws in their methodology. For example, collectively, they tend to skew heavily in favor of American universities, specifically larger, research-oriented institutions. Europe has take note of this bias and is attempting to create its own rankings, for what it’s worth.

I’m not really sure what to make of all this. Undoubtedly, colleges and universities will have to resign themselves to the fact that rankings are an inevitable part of the admissions process. After all,  students are consumers and very picky at that. Still, the interesting aspect of global college rankings is the shaping of national higher ed policy based on the results.

The Shanghai list, which first appeared in 2003, was the first globally focused ranking of universities and quickly came to dominate the new field. For Europeans, the Chinese table has driven home the message of just how wilted the continent’s academic laurels have become. Because European universities are still almost entirely subsidized by public money, a higher-education sector that is perceived to be failing to measure up to international competition becomes a political liability. In France and Germany, Shanghai’s focus on research prowess has been a backdrop to discussions about how to better integrate scientific research — historically the preserve of specialized institutes — and higher education.

In other countries like Netherlands, immigration policies are being reformulated in order to give preference to graduates of the “top 100 colleges.”

I’ve never been a big fan of college rankings, largely because it’s unclear how they impact something subjective like the college admissions process. While major publications like US News and World Report tend to rely on very scientific methodologies, at the end of the day, picking the right college is very personal and decidedly non-scientific. At the same time, I understand that particularly when assessing research output, rankings are of some use. But, what about global rankings? It seems extremely difficult to create a ranking methodology that accounts for cross cultural differences (especially language), variations in institution size and complexity as well as differences in national higher ed policy. Perhaps I’m old-fashioned here but I’m not convinced that the global rankings currently in existence serve more good than bad.

-Indira

Embracing the stupid

I was watching the Colbert Report last night and the interview guest was none other than NYT columnist Thomas Friedman. For the record, there are very few people I deeply dislike and Friedman happens to be one of them. Over the summer, I was forced to review some of his writings for work and believe me, nothing is worth it. First off, Friedman is just an awful writer.

The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that’s guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.

What makes the writing even more painful is the ideas expressed. Friedman’s simple views on globalization, economics and the environment are an embarrassment to his profession. People often forget, however, that Friedman’s biggest ideological failure was his unabashed cheerleading of the Iraqi invasion. All the pre-invasion predictions made by him about creating a democracy in the Middle East have, well…we know how that turned out. Yet, Friedman in all his profound stupidity, is embraced by the media establishment, academia and college students. Why? What exactly about Americans makes us so eager to embrace the simple and the intellectually bankrupt? Moreover, what makes us so willing to forget Friedman’s big blunders, blunders that killed and maimed thousands of Iraqis? Are we so blind to not notice that Friedman is morally culpable for the deaths caused by the invasion insofar as he prominently advocated for the Bush doctrine while attacking anyone who dared disagree with him?

What intellectual hacks like Friedman don’t get is that their views are not created in some vacuum, independent of public policy. Politicians often use the “seriousness” and “nonpartisan” nature of political commentators, Friedman included, to legitimize policy proposals and make them more appealing to the skeptical public. Friedman misused his power as the foremost “foreign policy expert” in the country and advocated for policies that have turned out to produce the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. Yet, he hasn’t paid a price for this.

Friedman’s pathetic track record speaks for itself- he continues to write for a prominent newspaper, secure book deals, appear on TV, speak at colleges and receive fancy commendations. What gives?

-Indira

The Economist endorses Obama

Not a huge surprise, really. After all, In 2004, the magazine endorsed John Kerry, albeit with less enthusiasm. An excerpt-

The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

I think that about sums up the attitude among some voters right now. It’s not that we’re suddenly entering a new liberal age or even that voters believe Democrats will be able to fix the screw ups of the last 8 years. It’s that the other side is infinitely worse. One issue I have with the endorsement, though, is the magazine’s summation of Obama’s economic record-

Our main doubts about Mr Obama have to do with the damage a muddle-headed Democratic Congress might try to do to the economy…Worryingly, he has a poor record of defying his party’s baronies, especially the unions. His advisers insist that Mr Obama is too clever to usher in a new age of over-regulation, that he will stop such nonsense getting out of Congress, that he is a political chameleon who would move to the centre in Washington. But the risk remains that on economic matters the centre that Mr Obama moves to would be that of his party, not that of the country as a whole.

Ha! I am genuinely amused by this notion that Obama is too liberal on the economic front. Are we talking about the same guy? Make no mistake, Obama supports free trade and his economic stance isn’t all that different from many Republicans (and Democrats). That’s not to say that his policies will be more beneficial to a majority of Americans but to depict the Democrats as a group of runaway leftists isn’t accurate. As long as we’re led by the Democrats and Republicans, sadly, the debate around globalization and free trade will remain stagnant.

-Indira

Honoring Milton Friedman

I have a piece in the IDS about the University of Chicago’s Milton Friedman Institute and what this means for intellectual thought and free speech. Read it all here.

I only get around 500 words to make a compelling point and I readily admit I often don’t do a good job. Particularly with this column, I wanted to point out two things, but couldn’t due to lack of space. First, Friedman’s ideology really highlighted the deep relationship between free market policies and poor human rights. Capitalism, as conceptualized by libertarians, relies on a societal order that routinely degrades and devalues human beings. This plays itself out in very ugly ways, particularly in developing countries, where we often see this weird nexus of colonialism, racism and capitalism. One of the more prominent examples that comes to mind is that of Puerto Rico. From around the early 20th Century, American corporations and other cartels moved their operations to the island. This created various job opportunities, especially for women. However, rising expenses forced many of these corporations to move their operations to even cheaper locales. So, now P.R. had this sizeable population that was unemployed. Coinciding with rising unemployment was Government propaganda (sanctioned by the U.S.) about “overpopulation” and “population control.” Between the 1930s and the 1970s, approximately 1/3rd of Puerto Rico’s women had been sterilized, the highest rate in the world. P.R. is one of those rare instances where we can witness the effect that capitalism has on developing areas. I recommend watching, La Operacion, if you’re interested in learning more about this topic.

My second point is that in many ways, Iraq was supposed to be the second coming of the Chilean “miracle.” Libertarians like Friedman supported the invasion because they saw it as a laboratory for laissez faire economics. Not surprisingly, the country’s attempts at embracing Friedman’s theories have been disastrous, leaving us to question the validity of free-market theories. In light of this and the financial bailout- which was caused by deregulation, Friedman’s pet cause- it seems ridiculous to honor a man whose writings formed the very basis for the mess we’re in.

-Indira