Search

Begin New Search Publication Year within 10 Years

6021. U.S.-Russian Relations, 1989-2019: Self-Awareness and History

Author:
Bruce Jackson
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
U.S.-Russian relations, though currently intractable, are nevertheless the most discussed subject in American foreign policy today. In fact, our impressions of how relations with Russia are going are central to how we demarcate our own history. “After the wall fell” and “post-Soviet” are ways of telling historical time. And it is also how the current generation refers to the beginning of modern times, in much the same way as an earlier generation used “post-war” as shorthand for when normal life resumed after the war. The ability to make sense of the recent past should help us understand where we are and where we are going. The meaning of “post-war” seems clear to us today: It connotes the aftermath of sacrifice, accomplishment, and a certainty about the historical role and significance of the World War II generation. “Post-Soviet” does not have the same historical clarity. The words that evoke our present circumstances convey a sense of uncertainty, persistent conflict, political stasis, and historical confusion. The significance of the present remains elusive for those of us living in the first decades of the 21st century. America has spent slightly more than a century worrying about Russia without great success. Relations today between the U.S. and Russia are still as bad as they have ever been. If we look closely at the period 1989 to 2019, what significance do we find in our recent past and what does this tell us about the meaning of the present? Do we find a common history that puts the challenges of the present in the proper perspective? Or does where we come from make where we are now even more baffling? Strictly speaking, U.S.-Russian relations are a cluster of epistemological problems. What do we think we know about the events that occurred between 1989 and 2019? How much confidence should we place in our interpretation? What are the implications of how we see our recent past for how we judge our present circumstances? Why do we currently find our conjectures so unsatisfactory at the personal level and from a policy perspective? Is there another way to look at the last thirty years that connects the events from the pre-history of modern times more closely with what we see in the present? For example, why does post-Soviet Russia look so much like Soviet Russia in 1989 when Western Europe today looks so unlike the confident and self-assured Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall?
Topic:
International Relations, History, and Soviet Union
Political Geography:
Russia, Central Asia, Eurasia, and United States of America

6022. Investment Challenges in Zambia’s Electricity Supply Industry: A Cursory Assessment

Author:
Mwanda Phiri and Francis Ziba
Publication Date:
05-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
During the tide of economic liberalisation in the 1990s, Zambia’s electricity market was liberalised with the aim of stimulating private sector participation. More than 20 years after market liberalisation, the power crisis in 2015 revealed that the industry had failed to attract the envisaged private sector investment required to expand and diversify energy generation sources and meet the increasing demand for electricity over the years. It became apparent that the various reforms taken to liberalise the industry, increase private sector participation and promote competition had fallen short of meeting these objectives. Zambia’s electricity supply industry still remained a semblance of a monopoly dominated by one large vertically integrated state-owned corporation responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity. Given the important role of electricity in driving economic growth, this paper illuminates the barriers to entry in the ESI and the factors limiting competition. Drawing mainly on secondary sources, the study finds that at the very start, limited access to finance for energy projects potentially prevents the commencement of energy projects. Exacerbating the entry barriers are the below-cost electricity tariffs, the monopoly power held by ZESCO and its vertical integration and an inadequate regulatory framework to promote competition and prevent undue political interference. These findings justify the partial unbundling of ZESCO and the provision of legal reforms that support policy consistency, multi-year tariff adjustments and open and nondiscriminatory access to the transmission and distribution grids.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Regulation, Neoliberalism, Tariffs, and Electricity
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6023. Reversing Zambia’s high risk of debt distress

Author:
Florence Banda-Muleya and Shebo Nalishebo
Publication Date:
08-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
A load of unsustainable debt hangs heavy over Zambia. Zambia is part of a list of 25 low income countries considered at high risk of debt distress in 2018. Government’s efforts to reduce the country’s infrastructure gap as well as bring down poverty and inequality have resulted into large spending overruns, a growing subsidy bill and a substantial public sector wage bill over the last five years. Alas, domestic revenues remained low and stagnant. So Government resorted to massive external borrowing to finance arguably unsustainable expenditure. This approach to spending pushed borrowings to about 59% of GDP as at end of 2017, which is in the territory of unsustainable debt levels. In October 2017, the IMF issued a red flag that Zambia was at high risk of debt distress, implying that the country was likely to breach the thresholds for debt and debt service indicators and, should it continue on the same trajectory, it would likely default on its debt service obligations.
Topic:
Debt, Poverty, Economy, and Public Debt
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6024. “Blanket” Fuel and Electricity Subsidies Did Not Offer Much Benefit to Zambia’s Poor

Author:
Caesar Cheelo and Rabecca Haatongo-Masenke
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
For a long time the Zambian Government ran a number of consumption and production subsidy programmes. These programmes1 came under considerable strain in 2015 when Zambia experienced a significant economic downturn. In that year, the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate fell to 2.9%, from an impressive 7.7% over the ten years before (2005-2014). By the time the 2015 downturn had fully set in, the country was running a budget deficit of nearly 10% of GDP and had raked up a public debt stock of over 50% of GDP (IMF, 2016). With the combined cost of debt service interest payments and arrear payments rising from 17% of the National Budget in 2016 to 23% in 2017 (Cheelo, 2017), the Government was readily hemorrhaging money in the aftermath of the minicrisis. Zambia could no longer afford the multiplicity of subsidies it had been maintaining and seriously contemplated abolishing some of them. The policy intentions of the Government were met with strong anti-abolition sentiments with some stakeholders asserting that the removal of subsidies on fuel and electricity would cause pump-price and electricity tariff escalations. The worry was that these price hikes would hurt Zambia’s poor and vulnerable groups most of all. Generally, these sentiments were not backed by analysis and empirical evidence; they were subjective and had the potential to misinform public policy. This paper offers an alternative perspective to the above motion on anti-abolition of subsidies. We argue that during their existence, the fuel and electricity subsidies had benefitted the poor far less than they had done any other social groups in Zambia. Likewise, the abolition of the subsidies affected the poor less than it did other social groups.
Topic:
Energy Policy, Electricity, Fossil Fuels, and Subsidies
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6025. Rental Taxation: Curbing Non-Compliance and Improving Administration

Author:
Florence B. Muleya, Shebo Nalishebo, Malindi Msoni, Mukuka Mulenga, Evaristo Mwale, and Yenda Shamabobo
Publication Date:
10-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)
Abstract:
Since 2013, the Zambian economy has grappled with a high fiscal deficit. Many stakeholders continue to implore the Government to take measures to ensure that the tax base is broadened, voluntary compliance improved and domestic resource mobilisation enhanced to reduce the deficit. Consequently, there has been a call on the tax administration authority to rethink its tax collection strategies and bring more individuals and firms into the tax net. Recently, the Government reiterated its commitment to enhance resource mobilisation in the 2019 Budget Speech. Improved administration of taxation in the housing sector, particularly rental properties, offers a promise as one of the options to increase tax revenues especially if more tax payers are captured under this tax net. However, the administration of individual rental income tax faces many challenges.
Topic:
Economy, Tax Systems, and Rent
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6026. Financing the Economic Stabilization and Growth Programme (Zambia Plus) in the Shadow of the IMF

Author:
Caesar Cheelo
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
In February 2018, the IMF reaffirmed its August 2017 formal withdrawal from negotiations with Zambia over a package of financial support. The strong position to hold negotiations came in the IMF’s Article IV Consultations report of 2017, which concluded that Zambia was at high risk of debt distress, and that whilst financial management and fiscal discipline were improving, the extent of the improvement was not sufficient to mitigate the growing public debt and fiscal deficit. Whilst the IMF deal may be off the table for the time being, the many of problems that drove Zambia to engage the IMF most assuredly remain unresolved. Two to three years after the economic minicrisis of 2015, Zambia continued to accrue sizable new debts, to utilize the proceeds poorly (to fund consumption spending) and to run persistent fiscal deficits – albeit a smaller and seemingly better managed deficit in 2017 compared to 2015 and 2016. These issues remain problematic despite the partial economic rebound, with high copper prices, good rains (leading to good harvests and more reliable power supply), and a stable Kwacha providing a strong platform for improvement. Nonetheless, fiscal performance is lagging behind and Zambia may be missing a window to reestablish prudent public financial management.
Topic:
Infrastructure, Governance, Reform, Macroeconomics, IMF, and Public Debt
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6027. Are Interest Payments on Debt Derailing Fiscal Consolidation?

Author:
Shebo Nalishebo and Florence Banda-Muleya
Publication Date:
06-2018
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR)
Abstract:
This policy brief provides a review of the performance of the first quarter of the 2018 National Budget. The paper provides context by looking at both the revenue and expenditure trends during the last three years when Government instituted some fiscal adjustment measures to bring the country back to a path of fiscal fitness. In analysing the 2018 Budget, the first quarter preliminary outturns are compared to the approved Budget for 2018, the projected performance for the first quarter as well as the first quarter of 2017. We assess fiscal fitness over the last three years and determine that fiscal consolidation had begun. While fiscal performance was generally high, budget credibility and sustainability were low. In the first quarter of 2018, revenues were higher than planned and most expenditures were within the projected amounts. Nonetheless, interest payments were much higher than expected and are likely to be a major source of spending overruns in 2018.
Topic:
Debt, Government, Budget, Public Debt, and Revenue Management
Political Geography:
Africa and Zambia

6028. The Marketization of Citizenship in an Age of Restrictionism

Author:
Ayelet Shachar
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Tough action and rhetoric are the stamp of U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policy. The decision in September 2017 to revoke the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—a program that shields young undocumented immigrants (“Dreamers”) from removal, granting them an opportunity to complete school, enroll in college, volunteer for the armed services, or join the workforce—proved to be the most contentious in a groundswell of executive orders, directives, memos, and wide-ranging enforcement efforts to curtail unauthorized presence.1 Critics describe such sweeping measures as amounting to an anti-immigrant crusade. Supporters, meanwhile, applaud them as taking the handcuffs off immigration enforcement officers and border patrol agents. With the rising tide of restrictionism and the government’s tough-on-immigration approach under the rubric of a “nation of laws,” it is easy to lose sight of the only immigration program that has been renewed and extended under the Trump administration: the EB-5 program, or the “golden visa.”2 The contrast between the DACA “Dreamers” and the EB-5 “Parachuters” reveals the sharp edge, and deep injustices, of current policies. In 2017 the president signed into law and renewed the extension of the EB-5 program, which offers the world’s wealthy a coveted path to securing lawful permanent residence (LPR) status, jumping the queue and gaining an easy pass through the otherwise increasingly bolted gates of admission. The price tag for securing a green card via the EB-5 program ranges from $1 million to a “discounted” rate of $500,000 if funds are for specially designated rural areas or areas of high unemployment.3 The American golden visa, like comparable schemes in other desirable destination countries, caters to the global 1 percent. It treats money transfers—in large quantities—as a currency for acquiring entry visas, residence permits, and, ultimately, citizenship itself. Unlike the Dreamers, who now face the risk of deportation from the only country they have ever known as home, these visa applicants have no prior “bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”4 Instead, they gain a privileged route to enter the United States and remain lawfully in the country based on their ability to transfer capital across borders. The contrast between the DACA “Dreamers” and the EB-5 “Parachuters” reveals the sharp edge, and deep injustices, of current policies. The former have already become part of the fabric of the United States—including its society and economy—through their ongoing, peaceful, and productive presence, yet the sword of deportation continues to hang over their heads. On the other hand, the latter benefit from expedited and simplified pathways to obtain full-fledged legal membership, even if they fail to establish any tangible connections to their new home country. The intrusion of market logic into the sovereign act of defining “who belongs” raises significant justice and equality concerns that require closer scrutiny. The United States is not alone in testing, blurring, and eroding the state-market boundary regulating access to membership. A growing number of countries are putting their visas and passports up for sale. The proliferation of these programs is one of the most significant developments in citizenship and immigration practice in the past few decades, yet it has received scant attention in the literature. In the following pages, I begin to address this lacuna by identifying the core legal and normative puzzles associated with this new trend, which I will refer to as the marketization of citizenship to highlight a dual transformation: the commodifying of access to membership and the hollowing out of the “status, rights, and identity” components of citizenship.5 Marketization is never merely an economic process; it is also deeply political, as it reshapes and reengineers the boundaries of and interactions between states and markets, voice and power, the inviolable and the mercantile. The intrusion of market logic into the sovereign act of defining “who belongs” raises significant justice and equality concerns that require closer scrutiny, both empirical and normative—the remit of this essay. I treat these new developments as a productive site to explore foundational questions about the character of citizenship and its transformation in today’s world. I begin by tracing the global surge in the marketization of citizenship, providing illustrative examples, before turning to explore the official rationales for the EB-5 and exposing their shortcomings. Moving from the positive to the normative, I develop several lines of critique that seek to show that this new trend is uniquely threatening to notions of citizenship reflecting the horizon of equality and participation, regardless of which theories of state and society—liberal, civic republican, or democratic—inform them.
Topic:
Migration, Immigration, Citizenship, and Borders
Political Geography:
United States and North America

6029. The Case for Foreign Electoral Subversion

Author:
Cecile Fabre
Publication Date:
09-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
Most foreign policy is not implemented through war. Yet, with a few recent exceptions—like James Pattison’s 2018 monograph The Alternatives to War—political and moral philosophers have yet to explore all options between war and doing nothing.1 Here I consider one such option: subversive interference in a democracy’s nationwide elections. In that regard, the years 2016–2017 have proved rich in controversies. In France, Russian banks with close ties to the Kremlin provided cash loans to the National Front in the run-up to the 2017 presidential elections. In December 2017, the Australian premier announced a tightening of restrictions on foreign funding of political parties out of concern with alleged and undue Chinese influence on some Australian politicians. Last, but far from least, in the United States the Office of the Director of National Intelligence along with the CIA, FBI, and NSA all take the strong view, backed in part by social media data, that Russian authorities actively sought to undermine Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and to bolster Donald Trump’s.2 Interestingly, however, some of President Putin’s critics are vulnerable to the charge of hypocrisy. To give but two examples, the United States has a long history of interfering in the institutions and elections of its Latin American neighbors and, indeed, at the height of the Cold War, of its European allies. More recently, many believe that, absent U.S.-driven assistance, the Democratic Opposition of Serbia would have lost the 2000 Yugoslavian presidential election to Slobodan Milošević.3 Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war and, indeed, other forms of coercive diplomacy. Perhaps this is because, to many people, the rights of democratic participation have primacy over all other rights; or because most often electoral subversion takes place covertly. Either way, given how destructive those other modes of interference are, this is puzzling. I frame my inquiry as follows. I focus on the state-sponsored, nonviolent, nonkinetic subversion of nationwide elections (for short, subversion). Moreover, because I am interested in exploring whether there are any situations in which subversion may be justified, I consider cases in which subversion is used as a means to prevent or end large-scale human rights violations, though my argument also has implications for subversion as a tool of foreign policy in general. In addition, my aim is not to evaluate subversion as an alternative to war or, for that matter, to other measures, such as economic sanctions. Due to space constraints, I simply wish to show that, under certain conditions and subject to certain constraints, subversion is pro tanto justified. Whether it is justified all things considered—and, in particular, once one has taken into account other options—is another matter and one that I cannot settle here. Finally, although subversion affects election candidates, it above all undermines a citizen’s right to vote. Accordingly, in what follows I focus on the latter and not the former. Attempting to subvert the democratic elections of a putatively sovereign country is a time-honored way of bending the latter’s domestic and foreign policy to one’s will. However, it seems to elicit far more condemnation than war. Before I begin, let me outline the overall normative framework on which my arguments rely. I take it for granted that all individuals, wherever they reside in the world, have rights to the freedoms and the resources they need to lead a minimally flourishing life—in other words, human rights. Moreover, they hold those rights against all human beings and their respective governments. Put differently, on this cosmopolitan view, all of us, wherever we reside in the world, are under duties to all other individuals, wherever they reside, to respect their human rights. How precisely we discharge those duties partly depends on the institutional structures under which we live. Be that as it may, I am not under a stronger duty to respect my compatriots’ human rights—for example, not to be killed or to be given means of subsistence—than I am to respect those same rights of noncompatriots, and vice versa
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sovereignty, Elections, and Election Interference
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6030. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights at Seventy: Progress and Challenges

Author:
Ş. İlgü Özler
Publication Date:
12-2018
Content Type:
Journal Article
Institution:
Carnegie Council
Abstract:
On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the most significant statement from the global community regarding what constitutes the ideal human life in any society and the rights to which all people are entitled. On the basis of the principles laid out in the UDHR, the international community has since negotiated a large number of human rights treaties and conventions and has developed plans of action in relation to all aspects of living a dignified life. The UDHR is arguably one of the most important documents in the history of human civilization; and to the extent that words on paper can change the world, the impact of the UDHR has been profound. However, despite providing a solid foundation for our collective understanding of the rights to which human beings are endowed, today we are still far from realizing these goals, and threats to the very principles enshrined in the UDHR continue to emerge. The declaration has now endured for seventy years, roughly the global average human life span. Thus, this occasion presents a good opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved, what has yet to be accomplished, and to consider the future longevity of this seminal declaration. As with any interpretation of something as complex as the impact of a document on the world, assessments of the UDHR and its ongoing role are mixed. Many in the field of human rights see a glass half full, characterizing the UDHR as a powerful tool that has dramatically shaped political and economic development throughout the world.1 Others focus on the space that remains empty, emphasizing the flaws that inhibit the realization of the document’s goals.2 Indeed, it must be admitted that, even given the indisputable progress that has been made over seven decades, there are today growing threats to human rights. These threats are the consequence of a number of global developments, including shifting geopolitical balances, extreme economic and social inequality, climate change, and a weakening of democratic institutions. These threats are very real, and it is important that human rights proponents monitor and respond to them. But here I argue that the threat to human rights is ever present. And thus, rather than focus on the advances and setbacks of this particular moment, this anniversary is an opportunity to consider the overall historical progression toward human rights as embodied in the UDHR and the obstacles that stand in the way of its full realization. Taking this broader view, there are two issues in particular that stand out as barriers to be overcome. The first is tied to the Westphalian state system, which has come to dominate human political organization. State sovereignty presents a fundamental challenge to any effort to establish universal norms. Implementing universal human rights will always be tremendously difficult in a system that affords final authority to state leaders who lack the necessary incentives. This is nothing new or surprising, of course, and it is not unique to human rights. But it nonetheless requires a careful consideration of how international declarations make their way from ideas on paper to practice. A declaration is only significant to the extent to which it is adhered. As a document with universal endorsement, the UDHR does indeed have power, and it can shape the behavior of actors who otherwise risk appearing to stand against history and human civilization. It can also be used as a normative weapon, both by citizens and by the international community, to shame hypocrites who violate the principles to which they and every nation in the world have agreed. But it is, nonetheless, just a document, and without correspondingly strong global institutional mechanisms to ensure implementation and compliance, its impact is limited. The second major issue is the way in which human rights ideals have been segmented. The separation of rights into social/economic and civil/political has enabled states to focus on some rights to the neglect of others. Global power shifts, especially under the hegemony of the post–Cold War United States, have led to exaggerated selective emphasis on just some of the rights embedded in the UDHR, when in fact none can be fully realized without a comprehensive approach. Political rights cannot be effectively exercised by those lacking access to basic economic necessities. And those meeting their economic needs may find that their voices as citizens are meaningless in a system characterized by vast inequality or in which national institutions are infected by mechanisms that leave them politically marginalized. Rights must be recognized as interconnected and they must be advanced in tandem. Emphasis on some principles to the exclusion of others undermines the comprehensive advancement of human rights. Thus, the current state of affairs is a product of the collective failure to address human rights holistically and to implement real monitoring and accountability measures for states, which are directly charged with upholding them within their borders.
Topic:
Human Rights, United Nations, Hegemony, and State Formation
Political Geography:
Global Focus