Relax, it's Christmas. Or it was.

On a lighter note, News of the Weird, by the Washington Post.

Another bad good news: debt relief

Too bad I don't have the time to comment on this: IMF Approves $3.3 Billion in Debt Relief for Poorest Countries, New York Times, December 22, 2005.

I'm not a fan of debt relief. The mere fact that Bush is backing the idea should provide a hint...

Is Wikipedia any good? Ask a referee

I've been using and promoting Wikipedia for more than a year now. I was unsettled by the recent attacks on the website and was reconsidering my trust in the instrument. And now comes exactly what we need to really assess Wikipedia's quality: a scientific approach.

Nature has compared the accuracy of Wikipedia and Britannica. Their finding: "Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries". Is that enough to trust Wikipedia blindly? Sure not, but it's a good time to lower the guns against it.

It is sure untimely that Wikipedia's founder put his foot on his keyboard... Seriously: violating one of Wikipedia's fundamental rule. That's poor.

My Wikipedia tip: Use the "Discussion" section of each Wikipedia article. You can find there heated debates that will tell you as much on a topic that the entry itself.

World Bank Shocks the Free Trade Community

Because of the recent Hong Kong Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization, the most significant news on trade released this month may go unnoticed:

"In a recently released book, the World Bank says that the potential
benefits for the world's poor of a far-reaching trade deal "are significantly
lower" than it had previously thought."
(World Bank Reconsiders Trade's Benefits to Poor, Paul Blustein Saturday, December 17, 2005, Page D01)

As a development persons who believes in free trade mainly on the basis that it will benefit the poor in developing countries, that's a bummer. It comes at a moment where papers have surfaced questioning the capacity of developing countries to even benefit from access to rich markets, give their lack of infrastructure.

Sometimes, I think it's a good thing nobody's reading this blog...

The thing is: development is complicated. No really, don't laugh at the simplicity of the argument: development is complicated. No wonder it has barely happened in the last 60 years and that, when it happened, people can't agree on what caused it. Trade is just one factor of development, but think of the issues at stake:

• What markets could a country really access if given the opportunity: does it have the infrastructure (means of transportation, relatively large-scale production, quality control, etc.)
• Will transportation on longer distances create more pollution?
• Who will lose their job if a country national industry can't compete with importations? More important: how to help those losers of free trade?
• How much will be lost in trade tariffs? The budget of some developing countries rest on those revenues in proportions up to 50%.
• Who will gain? Will it only be large corporations with the capacity to export - which means dealing with multiple tax codes, large administrations, health and environmental regulations, etc - or will small entrepreneurs also be able to export in open markets?

And that's only from the top of my head. All of these points are debatable. Even if you win a point, you haven't proven that trade is beneficial or harmful.

All this complexity leads to oversimplification, something most serious minds are uncomfortable with. You are either with or against freer trade. Its effect are positive or negative. Why? Again, you need to simplify: because it opens markets to the poor. Because it brings cheaper goods, increasing productivity, freeing resources for other products. But in truth, who knows? Being against of in favour of free trade remains an act of faith.

This article also mentions a reason why I don't like regional trade agreements:

"Moreover, some developing countries already enjoy virtually unrestricted
access to U.S. and European markets under special trading arrangements. One
example is Mexico, which ships goods duty-free to the United States under NAFTA. The lower Washington drops its barriers to all WTO member countries, the more Mexico's competitors could gain sales in the U.S. market at Mexico's
expense."

Now, Mexico will be one more force against increased access to the US market for developing countries. Indeed, regional trade agreements create new vested interests who will resist change.

The Real Price of Oil

Those who think that oil is too expensive in America should think of the price producing countries are paying for such a cursed resource. On that topic, the New York Times has an excellent article today:

"The harms suffered by these countries (and many others) are symptoms of
what is known as the resource curse. Though it seems counterintuitive -
countries with a lot of oil are lucky and rich, right? - a succession of
studies, the most notable of which was conducted by the economists Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner, show that countries dependent on natural-resource exports
experience lower growth rates than countries that have nonresource economies,
and they suffer greater amounts of repression and conflict too" (The Price of Oil, Peter Maas, 18 December 2005)

The 90% snapshot

Google is to the Internet what Photoshop is to graphic design: a neverending parallel universe, a vast domain in itself. A fantastic way to procrastinate. So, faithful to my bad habit, I made an experiment today: I typed "90 percent" in Google News and here's what I found.

LED lights can cut holiday lighting costs by 90 percent
90 percent of top firms invest in China
Pacifier Use Could Cut Crib Deaths by 90 Percent
Construction of new fire station in Beverly 90 percent complete
Mobile penetration in Australia is 90 percent

I don't know what is it I have with LED, but my favourite story is the first one.

The big story, starting next week: trade

Trade is about to be the main issue in the news: this month, trade ministers from member countries of the WTO will meet in Hong Kong to discuss the future of international trade. A search on Technorati makes me think that the blogosphere hasn't quite caught up with that fact yet.

So, let's get ahead of the curve and freshen up our facts on trade. As usual, the BBC has an outstanding coverage. I especially like this feature showing some statistics on poor countries and trade.

On a lighter note, after Brad Pitt, another star gets into the fair trade bandwagon: Chris Martin, from Coldplay (and the blogging has begun). I'm glad to hear this, although I have to disagree with one of his comments: "The debt cancellation agreed at the Gleneagles gathering was “tremendous”, he said." Maybe at first glance, but some countries have cut back their aid budget in other sectors to make up for the cost of this debt cancellation. Careful what you ask for: you got debt cancellation, not an increase in aid...