|
Community Links
------------------------------
Fofana Education Fund
G.V. Kromah
Limany
MMA
Quardu Gboni-Mandingo
Texas Mandingo
The Bility Family-USA
------------------------
News Links
BushChicken
Daily Observer-News
Front Page Africa
Global News Network
Liberian Forum
Star Radio
The Analyst-News
The Informer
The Inquirer News
The Liberan Journal
The New Democrat-News
The Perspective News
-------------------------
Resources/ Employment
Careerbuilder
JobsInMinnesota
Metro Bus Info
Metropolitan Council/Jobs
Minnesota Works
Monster
-------------------------
Government Sites
MN-Court Record
MN-Drive License/ID
State of MN
-------------------------
Other Links
Daily motions Videos
Driving directions
You tube Videos
-------------------------
|
Economic Analysis of Dual Citizenship: A
social harm or social good?
By: Chorphie Charlie
03 August, 2010
The proponents for dual citizenship insist that traditional Liberians
will gain economic benefit if such a law existed. Thus, this analysis
adopts Ronald Coase's theorem, which remains a foundational premise to
explore LAW as an institutional framework for understanding the
principle of economic efficiency. This analysis does not presupposes
expert knowledge in economics neither does it claim prior familiarity
with the law. This is simply an attempt to engage a profound subject
that troubles Liberia’s national social transformation project.
The Coase theorem, by Ronald Coase, describes the question of economic
efficiency and the allocation of resources, particularly examining the
presence of external factors that produces economic outcomes. Coase
posits that bargaining will lead to an efficient economic outcome
regardless of the initial distribution of resources, if external trade
are possible without transaction costs. In essence, there must be a
level playing field for economic socialization, otherwise, poorly
defined economic distribution channels can prevent Coasian bargaining
from achieveing equality of rights. Coase theorem , although was
“concerned with a technical problem of economic analysis, arose out of
the study of the Political Economy.” This is the same kind of political
economic issue that I am attempting to address, in the context of the
Liberian dual citizenship debate.
The intersection of law and economic offers both analytic and normative
concepts for investigating and understanding economic efficiency. The
analysis of economic conditions demonstrates that the law does not so
much restrict itself to the more fundamental ethical question of JUSTICE
(who is right and what is right or who is wrong and what is wrong) but
the law also focuses on the efficient distribution of resources; that is
everybody should get enough and not just a select few (read the
Enlightenment scholars). Enhancing this thought, the normative concept
provide a communal framework for the law, the proposition that the law
should promote the general efficiency of the people and not just a
select few or special interest. Together, the two views object to the
moral utilitarianism of economic analysis, which advances interpersonal
comparison of social utility, as a criterion for deciding right
conduct. How do we relate this to the dual citizen debate?
Dual citizen’s proponents rank economic contribution to Liberia and
economic support to Liberia as a critical assertion for dual citizenship
legislation. Therefore, in view of the Coasian bargaining, we can
similarly rely on the excellent work of Italian economist Vilfredo
Pareto, from whose work the 80/20 rule of management evolved. Pareto
focused his studies on the economy, the conditions of resource
distribution and its efficiency. Pareto economy attempts to balance the
distribution of resources equally without making some people better off
while others remain in abject poverty. It is about providing economic
opportunity for everyone in society. To proceed further, lets provide
context to understand some basic concepts as used in this analysis:
a. Pareto improvement: is an economic condition in which resources
are equally distributed without making one person better off and the
other person worst off.
b. Pareto optimal: a point of economic equilibrium whereby all people in
society have opportunity to achieve maximum social utility. (same as
Pareto efficient).
c. Pareto superior: when the economy condition are skew towards certain
individuals in society who have access to wealth and power at the
disadvantage of others.
d. Pareto criteria: the economic conditions that compels one kind of
individuals to be better off in society and the other kind of
individuals to be worst off in society.
For this analysis, dual citizenship is represented as D and traditional
Liberian is represented as T. Traditional Liberians are those who do not
posses or demand “Dual citizenship.” Thus. the D's argument declares a
kind of Pareto criteria that suggest the following:
1st Argument: One group of Liberians, D, is Pareto superior to another
group, T, if and only if T has less economic opportunity then D, and
that T are worst off and live in poor economic conditions than D.
The first argument posits a kind of intuitive binomial probability that
assumes: the relative welfare of D depends on a special privilege status
to survive in Liberia. That is D cannot live in Liberia unless they are
given dual citizenship which will afford them to get political power.
Seriously, when one examine this whole dual citizenship debate, it is
simply about political power that the proponents are seeking: political
jobs. Because, according to them, they are more educated, economically
able, and better qualified to rule the nation. Otherwise, what is the
purpose of this argument? Non Liberian citizens under our laws have the
right to work and own property in Liberia, except political portfolio.
Thus, their second argument.
2nd Argument: T is superior to D if and only if no special privilege
is given to T and at least D is rewarded with special privilege.
The second argument obviates a problem concerning the utilitarianism of
interpersonal comparability; it ignores the efficiency of distribution
and posits a foxhole mentality that results to a Pareto criteria state,
in which making one group of Liberians better off leads to the other
group of Liberians being worst off. But most interestingly, D's Pareto
criteria veer into a sequence that eventually produces a Pareto superior
state in which D achieve their 1st argument. That is giving them
political portfolios because they claim to be more educated and
economically better off: a very false argument. Thus, D’s Pareto optimal
is a kind of reasoning that attempt to cast aspersion on T as an
obstacle to the progress of the nation: that is T is not educated, T is
poor, and T lacks economic means to improve the nation. Therefore, T
does not deserve top political portfolios as Liberian citizens, no
special privilege for T; only D should get special privilege because D
would be holding dual citizenship. We have not addressed the issue of
which kind of dual citizenship: whether Western of African. We will
leave that for elsewhere.
Pareto criteria, although a complex proposition to understand, deals
with the efficiency of economic transaction and the efficiency of legal
decisions: rules and/or policies on economic conditions. Thus, to argue
for dual citizenship in the context of economic analysis validates a
bonded rationality of Pareto criteria, to move from one state to another
without maximizing the efficiency of net utility for all Liberians.
After all, traditional Liberians could also make the same argument that
Liberia will gain better economic benefit from their education, less
economic burden to pay back student loans, mortgage in America, car note
in America ect. T can argue successfully, that denying D dual
citizenship will reduce capital flight and keep the Liberian economy
stimulated. Money will not transfer aboard while the nation struggles
with development. More so, T can argue successfully that the massive
looting and raping of public resources: rampant corruption will be
reduce from the compelling needs for D to meet external or diaspora
financial obligations.
For example, if there was only one social path for economic progress in
Liberia, government jobs; and 20 positions are available; two groups of
Liberians D and T prefer the government jobs. Let consider the
distribution of resources between D and T.
Scenario I: T has 20 government jobs; D has 0 government jobs.
Scenario II: T has 0 government jobs; D has 20 government jobs.
Both scenarios demonstrate the shift from T to D or vice-versa, and
advantages the well-being of one kind of Liberians by diminishing the
well-being of the other. The change-mechanism secures a Pareto criteria
outcome, which leads to a Pareto superior effect, either making T worst
off for the Pareto improvement of D or vice versa. The scenarios do not
provide opportunity for all Liberians to benefit from public resources;
in our specific case of dual citizenship, it is the traditional
Liberians who will suffer. Dual citizenship proponents should develop a
more innovative and Pareto optimal reasoning than their weak and lazy
argument that they are economically better off, more educated and better
qualified to contribute to Liberia development needs.
Now here is the question: Is Dual Citizenship a monkey work baboon draw
argument?
(Watch out for Part II: Examining the Education Claim for Dual
Citizenship)
The author is a social and political commentator who resides in
Pennsylvania. He can be reached at gbanapekin@hotmail.com.
|
