Friday, March 04, 2011
Jasmine demos in China and their meaning
Reading the International Herald Tribune this morning, I have the feeling that the press is so ashamed to have been taken by surprise by street-led revolutions in Northern Africa and the Middle-East that they are now being pre-emptive and a tad early for China... One does not compensate for the other, and self-fulfilling prophecies always trigger a feeling of defiance in me. I could add that diplomats, at least the ones who are quoted, seem to be in the same state of bewilderment!
Friday, February 18, 2011
Shoe-throwing in China: What Are the Odds?
Atirar sapatos na China: quais são as possibilidades?
Já conhecíamos o “Índice Big Mac”, que parte da teoria da paridade do poder de compra, mas a Economist desenvolveu agora uma nova forma de medição da reforma política à qual dá o nome de “Índice do Atirador de Sapatos”, supostamente capaz de “prever onde se vai espalhar o cheiro do jasmim” [numa alusão ao nome que recebeu a recente revolução tunisina], nas palavras da revista semanal britânica. É dada particular atenção ao Norte de África e aos países do Médio Oriente, onde a ondulação da vox populi que derruba antigas autocracias paternalistas parece alastrar a cada dia.
http://pontofinalmacau.wordpress.com/editoriais-e-opiniao/
Shoe-throwing in China: What Are the Odds?
(Published in Portuguese in Ponto Final, Macao, February 18th 2011)
By Eric Sautede
We knew about its Big Mac Index probing into the theory of purchasing-power parity, but The Economist has now come up with a new form of political change measurement dubbed “The Shoe Thrower’s Index” which is supposed to “predict where the scent of jasmine may spread next”, in the words of the British weekly. A particular attention is given to Northern African and Middle Eastern countries where the rippling effects of the vox populi overthrowing age-old paternalistic autocracies seem to be widening by the day.
The interest of the index lies in its attempt to take into account societal and political factors, and thus ascribes a relative weight to the share of the population that is under 25, the number of years the government has been in power, the corruption and lack of democracy, the censorship, and the GDP per capita. Unfortunately, as for any index, both the criteria and the weighting are debatable: with the usual free-marketer bias, demographic numbers—basically being young!—account for far too much (40% of the index) and make up for the whole social challenges, politics is minimally made of longevity of regimes, freedom (lack of…) and corruption, and the economy, strangely enough for such a publication, strictly equates to the wealth of individuals, and weights a mere 5%…
Já conhecíamos o “Índice Big Mac”, que parte da teoria da paridade do poder de compra, mas a Economist desenvolveu agora uma nova forma de medição da reforma política à qual dá o nome de “Índice do Atirador de Sapatos”, supostamente capaz de “prever onde se vai espalhar o cheiro do jasmim” [numa alusão ao nome que recebeu a recente revolução tunisina], nas palavras da revista semanal britânica. É dada particular atenção ao Norte de África e aos países do Médio Oriente, onde a ondulação da vox populi que derruba antigas autocracias paternalistas parece alastrar a cada dia.
http://pontofinalmacau.wordpress.com/editoriais-e-opiniao/
Shoe-throwing in China: What Are the Odds?
(Published in Portuguese in Ponto Final, Macao, February 18th 2011)
By Eric Sautede
We knew about its Big Mac Index probing into the theory of purchasing-power parity, but The Economist has now come up with a new form of political change measurement dubbed “The Shoe Thrower’s Index” which is supposed to “predict where the scent of jasmine may spread next”, in the words of the British weekly. A particular attention is given to Northern African and Middle Eastern countries where the rippling effects of the vox populi overthrowing age-old paternalistic autocracies seem to be widening by the day.
The interest of the index lies in its attempt to take into account societal and political factors, and thus ascribes a relative weight to the share of the population that is under 25, the number of years the government has been in power, the corruption and lack of democracy, the censorship, and the GDP per capita. Unfortunately, as for any index, both the criteria and the weighting are debatable: with the usual free-marketer bias, demographic numbers—basically being young!—account for far too much (40% of the index) and make up for the whole social challenges, politics is minimally made of longevity of regimes, freedom (lack of…) and corruption, and the economy, strangely enough for such a publication, strictly equates to the wealth of individuals, and weights a mere 5%…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)