Trust

Culture and values matter

HI Bilijou, thanks for a good post. My wife Judy and I worked in Haiti 18 years, and we often asked, why is Haiti so poor? Why is there something wrong, badly wrong with Haiti.

In 2001, I read CULTURE MATTERS, a collection of essays from Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington. That book became the cement helping me to see the connection between trust, morality, values, and economy. They pointed out that economy is directly related to values. The higher the morality, the higher the values of a people group, the better the economy. And the lower the values, the worse the economy.

To me their reasoning makes sense. Economies are based on trust. A society functions to the degree that members trust in each other. For example, the credit card company is trusting the user to pay his/her bill at the end of the month. Banks make loans, trusting the borrower to pay its monthly charge. Buying and selling is a function of trust. The buyer is trusting that the product he/she purchased will work. The seller is trusting that he/she will make enough sales in a given period of time to keep the bills paid and make a living. Trust encourages people to take risk necessary to invest in an area, in a neighborhood, in developing a skill so that they can live and prosper. Without trust, society does not function, economies cannot function.

Is there a high degree of trust in Haiti? Haitians shared this poignant proverb with me, ?Neg pa gen konfyans nan neg.? ?The Haitian does not trust his fellow Haitian.? (I'll add that Judy and I speak Creole).

So then why does this proverb exists? Values. Trust must be based on a consistent set of righteous values recognized by society as a whole.

If members of a society are honest with each other, trust can be built. When we lived on La Tortue Island, we befriended a boat captain. He was an excellent sailor, and had a good crew. Each time we needed to cross the channel to mainland Haiti, we sailed with him. And we discovered in working with him that he was trustworthy. His rates were fair. He kept a good schedule. He treated us well, and made sure we crossed safely.

Now what enabled us to work with the captain? Trust?we learned to trust him. And for our last eight years on La Tortue, after trying other boats, we used this captain exclusively.

But if a people group is given to dishonesty, their economies will not prosper. Of course, there are short-term exceptions for individuals who extort and get rich doing it, but for every one who succeeds, there are 5000-10000 or more who fail?and economic development is destroyed.

I?ve had a number of Haitians tell me that the reason Haiti is destitute, Haiti is poor, Haiti is hopeless because the majority lack moral values.

One time we went to a market to buy a head a cabbage. We asked the cute little girl running the vegetable stand, "How much does this head of cabbage cost?" Now the going rate was 10 gourds, but we asked anyway since we didn't know her. And she told us 10 gourds.

At that, an older lady came running to her, scolding her, saying, "You fool! You should have told them 25 gourds!"

We didn't buy the cabbage, and we never returned to that market.

And saddest of all, what kind of future do you think that little girl has?

After extensive research CULTURE MATTERS points out that economies from countries with ingraned values from a Judeo-Christian mindset normally perform the best and are the most prosperous, while those from animistic cultures such as Haiti (with voodoo) are the poorest.

Does anyone know of a country that is animistic yet has a good economy? Zaire? Rich in minerals, but very poor. These countries have destroyed their economies through animistic religion because in these kinds of religions, the line between good and evil is eliminated?it?s evil only and only if you get caught?and then if your bribe is large enough, they let you go anyway.

When one thinks of voodoo, one thinks of witchdoctors chanting spells around open fires in the dead of night. One thinks of the erotic dancing, climaxed by frenzied passionate seizures as an evil spirit possesses one of the dancers. One thinks of the incessant pounding of the drum, leading the rythmic chanting and dances. Extraordinary powers the witchdoctors seemingly possess spawn stories sending chills up one's spine, stories of curses, death, and zombies. When voodoo is mentioned, one thinks of Haiti. Voodoo is Haiti; Haiti is voodoo. And because voodoo is part and parcel of Haitian life and folklore, multiculturalism defends voodoo.

But did you ever think that the reason Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere is because of voodoo? The Wall Street Journal does, stating, "Creating stability in a culture long poisoned by voodoo and revenge is equally tricky. . . . It will be difficult to lift the ravaged Caribbean nation out of its chronic poverty (10/21/94)." And they have been right. And it is still in chronic poverty.

Voodoo erases the line between good and evil. One witchdoctor told the author of THE BEST NIGHTMARE ON EARTH, ?Good and evil are one.? (page 6).

Yet one day Judy returned home from the market (not the one referred to earlier.) Since the market was a mile down the road, Judy walked to it. She had bought potatoes and was putting them in our basket at home when we heard a knock at the gate.

I went out and discovered that it was one of the cute little girls of our neighbor. And she had a potato in her hand. And she said, "This potato dropped out of Judy's sack and my mom saw it. Mom told me to return it to you." I looked over at our neighbor's and saw her mom. I waived, smiled, and thanked her.

And I later thought, "What kind of future will my neighbors have?" I dare say, that despite the difficulties they are encountering, my former neighbors' kids have a much brighter future because they are being taught values.

Thanks for reading this post, Bob

I need to mention a few things:

You mentioned: "After a 20th century, where everything was tried in terms of economic and political policies to fix the problems in the Third World, we?re at zero. The free trade policies don?t work, protectionism didn?t work, communism didn?t work, democracy isn?t working? Latin America is still the same as it always was. Scholars, like Robert Putnam, are starting to look rather into how the institutions are functioning but rather deeper into how we interact with each other."

1. Latin America is not the same as it always was.

2. The concept of the "Third World" is a concept that arose during the Cold War, afterwards the term has stuck but its meaning has shifted a little to be more in accordance with our modern global situation.

3. Free Trade policies are working, democracy is working... it's just that they are working in the way they were intended to work, not in the way they were sold to the world.

I will further expand a little into this. The majority of the countries in the so-called "Third World" gained their independence after World War 2. Countries like India gained their independence in the 1940s, many African countries gained their independence in the 1960s, etc. Of all the countries in the "Third World", the one's that are the oldest are almost all Latin American having gained their independence in the early to mid-1800s. There also were a few rare countries such as Siam (modern Thailand) and Ethiopia which were never fully conquered by the Europeans. Having said that, Siam and Ethiopia were not state in the european sense of the word.

Prior to post the World Wars period, most of what became known as the Third World was owned and controlled by a select group of European powers. Each European country controlled their colonies through various tactics, including divide and conquer. This lead to various forms of administering different colonies. For example, Great Britain treated its "white" colonies such as Australia or Canada in a very different, more "equal" and progressive fashion than they treated their colonies in the Caribbean such as Jamaica. Tiny Belgium controlled its massive Congo colony with a mere 40 Dutch administrators! Portugal controlled its colonies in Southern Africa (among them was modern Zambia which was controlled by hundreds of thousands of Portuguese settles and colonial administrators).

Now, the question is what was the purpose of having colonies? Well, if we look into the religious aspect, it was all about bringing the "truth" to the "savages". If we look at this politically, it was about the modern, rich, westerners fulfilling their moral duty to "lift" the backwards people of the world from their backwardness into modernity and western lifestyle. If we look at it economically, the purpose of a colony was to eliminate and/or alleviate the depressions that were inevitable in the typical capitalistic economic cycle.

Very interesting the economic reason (which was true in conjunction with the other reasons). A colony was needed in order for Western industries to have large markets for export, in order for local economic cycles can be tamed in severity, in order to increase employment and wealth at home. For that, colonies were needed because colonies had several things among them:

1. Raw materials
2. Potential surplus labor
3. Potential export markets for the finished goods from the West

The way in which a group of "savages" can be used for the economic benefit of Western countries was by first taking control of the land and resources of the savages. Then, convince the "savages" that the best lifestyle is the modern Western lifestyle, and finally use the savages to extract resources and become dependent on the imports from the mother country.

Let's now come into modern time period. What is the role of Third World countries? They very much act as former colonies. Most Third World countries conduct more trade and have more contact with their former colonial mother country that they do with their neighbors. They import more than they export with their mother country and most of their trade is conducted with the mother country. The exception is in Latin America where Spain was supplanted by the U.S. as the de facto "mother country" when it comes to trade and cultural influence and aspirations.

Surpluses in production of agricultural products in the first world (surpluses so large they would depress food prices worldwide if they were released into the market) are used as "aid" to Third World countries which find themselves devastated by famine, a natural catastrophe, etc. Such aid is used by first world governments to gain agency in getting such government to be friendly to their policies, among them the notion of free trade and democracy, etc.

I'm rushing through all of this because I want to make it clear that the problems of the Third World is not something that is based on mere trust. For certain, that is part of the story, but the Third World's problems are much more complexed. Most Third World countries outcomes are influenced, and in some cases, controlled not by their own governments, but by organizations and governments which are far away from their national borders. The global economic nodes such as New York, London, and Tokyo; the global political power houses such as Washington have more power over the entire Third World than does the Third World countries themselves.

Also, in many cases, some Third World countries were doomed the moment they gained their independence. For example, when Namibia became independent in the 1960s, over 95% of the Portuguese colonizers left Namibia and moved back to Portugal. That 95% of Portuguese were the one's with the education, the one's who knew how to run the new socio-economic structure they had created in Namibia. They were the intelligentsia, the colonial administrators. The moment they left (and most of them left within a period of 3 years) they left a social vaccum which was filled by local Namibians without education, without the know how of how to run what was essentially a foreign form of government or organization. No surprise, Namibia went to hell in a hand bag and so too did most former colonies.

Their former mother countries did not had the obligation to directly maintain their former colonies, because they were not official colonies anymore. What former colonial powers began to say was that these new independent states needed development help.

What was the way to accomplish such? This is where the IMF and World Bank came in.

I can further explain and analyse into great detail all the points I have presented here, but I hope my message has come through which is this:

Trust is a major fundamental part of success, BUT there is more to the story than meets the eye.

-NALs

Jeeeeezzzz! Deep stuff here.
Bilijou, your analysis is stirling UNTIL you talk about skin color.
Stay with epistemology, ethics and politics (ethics at the group level).
There's more than enough grist for your mill in language and culture than you need to make the point and to discover remedies.
I love your references to Hobbes and Toqueville. Throw in Locke, Jefferson and Montaigne. Are there any to add from the Spanish world????
If not, maybe THAT's the problem -- epistemological, cultural imperatives -- all correctable with education of just one generation of young.
But skin? save it for erotica.

Interesting read

Bob and bilijou,
Excellent thoughts. In trust lies the crux of successful interpersonal relationships --- group relationships --- societal relationships, cultural, political etc. The reasons given for why this doesn't work very well for the DR and Haiti are enlightening to me. Thanks. Great food for thought.
NALS, the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, something de Tocqeville understood. There is an argument that americans trust their government too much. And as for the DR, mabey a benevolent dictator is what they need?
Sollie

sollie said:

NALS, the US is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, something de Tocqeville understood. There is an argument that americans trust their government too much. And as for the DR, mabey a benevolent dictator is what they need?
Sollie

Click to expand...

The only "good" thing a benevolent dictator can bring is enforced modernization upon the country without the people having the ability to express their dissatisfaction via elections, etc.

Under a dictatorship, the country can be subjected to various aspects which would modernize every sector of the country, but the effects of modernization in general are not pleasant on the population. This is why democracy could perhaps be hindering progress in the DR, the moment undesired effects of modernization (ie. increase sharp disparities which also leads to increase in crime of opportunity, etc) the population will want such unpleasant aspects to be diminished as severely and quickly as possible. Under democracy, all they have to do is vote into power a political leader who promises to tackle those problems by undoing what the administration in power had been implenting.

This could lead towards the country's trayectory towards development to be a sort of zig zag, where jolts towards progress are followed by backward steps in attempt to alleviate the effects of increased prosperity and, consequently increased inequality/crime, etc.

Under a dictatorship, the population will not have a choice. Steps towards development are enforced, effects of progress are dealt in a repressive manner, and the population is forced into modernity. A perfect example of this would be Pinochet's Chile. Today, it's the wealthiest country in Latin America, but the Chileans have gone through hell and then some in order to gain the material wealth they possess and despite that, they still have quite a trayectory to follow.

So, I am not too sure if a dictatorship would be the best thing for the Dominican people. It will surely be the best thing, if and only if, the dictatorship is focused on bringing development to the DR. In the long term, the DR will economically benefit. However, how much are we willing to take for the desire of seeing, at the very least, the next generation live in greater comforts than the current one?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing I am certain is that the only way the DR can increase its national wealth is by having its local companies expand. As they expand, they create more jobs, greater concentration of wealth flows into the country via those companies, etc.

In other for Dominican companies to expand beyond what the Dominican market would allow (and consequently increase the wealth of the country beyond what the current economy would allow) will have to be via increasing exports and expanding abroad. In order for this to be done effectively, the Dominican government needs to engage in creating its own trade agreements with various countries worldwide. Such agreements should be a secure guarantee that the Dominican economy and Dominican firms will be in a win-win situation, even if some modifications are made to make the other end of the agreement more acceptable to the other party.

This will entail the Dominican authorities going to other countries (whether in the Caribbean or elsewhere) and try to improve the image local business leaders and politicians in such countries have towards the DR. Encourage them to trade more with the DR, encourage them to allow Dominican firms to expand into their countries, etc.

Only through such way can the Dominican economy grow while concentrating wealth within the DR. As such increases in firms and wealth occurs, more jobs will be created in the DR. Also, if this becomes extensive enough, the DR's economy could shift from being an export-lead economy to an economy that may be the primary export partner of several countries.

I'm not saying anything I have not posted on this thread already. My basic message is this:

If we want to see the DR become a first world country, we must do what the first world countries did; not what they say they did in order to achieve their development.

All these other discussions about trust, race relations, etc are certainly a part towards having a stable and growing economy/country. However, nothing will happen towards achieving a better country unless we, as a people, begin to focus and do things which will bring us closer to that dream of a developed DR.

And, there is only one way towards development and that way has already been travelled by the countries that today are rich! It doesn't take much to realize that we have to do what they did if we want what they have.

And for that to occur, we need to move beyond discussions of trust, race, etc and more into discussions of what are we going to plan, how are we going to execute, and how are we going to acheive the goals and dreams we wish for our country.

-NALs

NALs said:

Also, in many cases, some Third World countries were doomed the moment they gained their independence. For example, when Namibia became independent in the 1960s, over 95% of the Portuguese colonizers left Namibia and moved back to Portugal. That 95% of Portuguese were the one's with the education, the one's who knew how to run the new socio-economic structure they had created in Namibia. They were the intelligentsia, the colonial administrators. The moment they left (and most of them left within a period of 3 years) they left a social vaccum which was filled by local Namibians without education, without the know how of how to run what was essentially a foreign form of government or organization. No surprise, Namibia went to hell in a hand bag and so too did most former colonies.

-NALs

Click to expand...

Nals, your facts are so wrong ... Namibia was never a Portugese Colony. The closest Portugese to Namibia was the cafe owner on the corner somewhere. Namibia was de facto under German control until South Africa occupied it during World War I and administered it as a mandate until after World War II, when it annexed the territory. In 1988 South Africa ended its administration under a UN peace plan for the region. Namibia became fully independent in 1990 only.

If I look at your facts, and try to fit an African country to it, the closest I get is Mozambique who received independence from Portugal in 1975. After a bitter civil war, the first real election that meant anything was around 2004. So, the facts don't really fit either and I have no idea which African country you are talking about.

Now, that we have some facts straightened out, the DR is classified as a SIDS - A Small Island Developing State. Right close to us and in our area is Antigua and Barbuda. These islands are doing well and they are doing something right. I happened to be in the US embassy there, and the inhabitants of these islands easily receive US Visas ... because they return to their islands. They have work, business and a viable future right in their own islands.

Perhaps the DR should work on the trust thing, figure out what is possible for them as a SIDS and go from there. Development lessons from the wrong country in the wrong landmass are not going to help much.

Chris, Nals, Et Al;

When you boil it all down, it really comes down to National Integrity andthe view that the World has about that phenomenon in the nation being viewed.

Dominicans have a tremendous National Pride (spelled VANITY) in their country. Almost all citizens of all countries have this "pride" in their countries.

However, if they don't have "pride" in each other, what is the basis for that "pride" in country? It becomes "vanity" at this point.

When one studies the history of the DR, we see a country that has had no real goals to accomplish with relation to their "community" obligations.

The only "leader" who has been able to accomplish stability here has been that hated "dictator" Trujillo. When the people of the DR express a desire for
an "iron fist", they are asking for a person who will be emulating Trujillo, but without the "iron fisted" tactics he used and the violations of basic human rights exemplified by his rule.

The main problem, as I see it, is that since it's original colonization by Columbus, the DR has been ruled by people who have had no substantial goals for society to accomplish except to enrich those in power. The population has been kept in subjegation through denial of basic subsistance, individual rights and outright fear for authority and the consequences of going against that authority. The people have laid back and allowed themselves to be exploited because they don't know any other way of getting by. Their education system has reinforced this attitude by denying complete knowledge to the subjects. It is a "once over lightly" approach that is totally insufficient for a well founded education, thereby denying the subjects the benefits normally derived from a "good" education.
Nals, until the young Dominicans, just coming to "age of reason" learn ow to use their minds and extrapolate their future, no amount of theory is going to be of any use unless acted upon by the "knowledgeble" members of Society.
As an example, I have yet to hear a Dominican say, "Damn, I'm wrong". Every one who has made a mistake, always blames something else, or has a very lame excuse as to why they didn't act-out their problem logically and with honor and integrity. It is something the "Church" should concentrate on very vigorously and reinforce from the pulpit.
The best example of this propencity is the manner in which your beloved politicians have "spun" all the problems facing them over the past few hundred years
"Trust". Yes, it's all about "trust". Trust in your fellow man to do what he says he will do. Whether it's a campaign promise, a contractual obligation, or just plain, "I'll do that for you". It's still trust. If a man tells you he will do a thing and doesn't do it, he has lied to you and therefore has lost his honor. And what else does a man have, in the final analysis, but his honor and his good name?

Until Dominicans learn to trust their fellow Dominicans, this nation will always be "sucking hind teat" in the eyes of the World at large. That applies to ANY country, First World, or 2nd, or 3rd. It makes no difference. Honorable is as Honorable does.
What does the DR need? A Benevolent Dictator who stays Benevolent and focuses on doing the "Right Thing" for his people. If this can come about, then the DR will be in "tall cotten" and well on it's way to becoming 1st World.

Texas Bill

Chris said:

Nals, your facts are so wrong ... Namibia was never a Portugese Colony. The closest Portugese to Namibia was the cafe owner on the corner somewhere. Namibia was de facto under German control until South Africa occupied it during World War I and administered it as a mandate until after World War II, when it annexed the territory. In 1988 South Africa ended its administration under a UN peace plan for the region. Namibia became fully independent in 1990 only.

If I look at your facts, and try to fit an African country to it, the closest I get is Mozambique who received independence from Portugal in 1975. After a bitter civil war, the first real election that meant anything was around 2004. So, the facts don't really fit either and I have no idea which African country you are talking about.

Now, that we have some facts straightened out, the DR is classified as a SIDS - A Small Island Developing State. Right close to us and in our area is Antigua and Barbuda. These islands are doing well and they are doing something right. I happened to be in the US embassy there, and the inhabitants of these islands easily receive US Visas ... because they return to their islands. They have work, business and a viable future right in their own islands.

Perhaps the DR should work on the trust thing, figure out what is possible for them as a SIDS and go from there. Development lessons from the wrong country in the wrong landmass are not going to help much.

Click to expand...

If it's not Namibia, then it's Angola. I always confuse which is which since both are in the same southwestern part of Africa and sort of look the same geographically.

For some reason, I think you knew which country I was referring to.

-NALs

Chris said:

Now, that we have some facts straightened out, the DR is classified as a SIDS - A Small Island Developing State. Right close to us and in our area is Antigua and Barbuda. These islands are doing well and they are doing something right. I happened to be in the US embassy there, and the inhabitants of these islands easily receive US Visas ... because they return to their islands. They have work, business and a viable future right in their own islands.

Perhaps the DR should work on the trust thing, figure out what is possible for them as a SIDS and go from there. Development lessons from the wrong country in the wrong landmass are not going to help much.

Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

You are comparing Antigua and Barbuda, who are members of the British Commonwealth and have a population that is barely the size of San Pedro de Macoris with the DR, an independent country, no commonwealth of anywhere and with a population that is many times bigger?

Antigua and Barbuda's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II for goodness sakes!

And thank you from bringing up the "lessons from wrong landmass" comment. I thought since Bilijou grouped all Third World country in the same basket, it would only be appropriate to do the same. Silly me.

-NALs

bilijou said:

There are two sides to this trust issue, and you just mentioned the other one. There is an ongoing debate about this, where everybody is divided between Cultural theories and Institutional theories.

Cultural theories ? as I?ve stated before, emphasizes that the road to democracy and economic development has to do with basic character traits learned at an early age. Trust has to do with cultural norms and affected by national history. Since it is tied to history, the solutions must be path dependent.


Institutional theories ? emphasizes that humans are always rational. The road to democracy and economic development has to do with government political and economic performance, and such performance is determined by a rational choice of Institutional design. Trust in your government is a rational response from individuals to the government?s performance and nothing more. The solution, since it is based on a rational choice of government design, must be path independent.

Click to expand...

Yes Bilijou,

I'm aware of the differences. In fact, that is the main reason why my arguments usually don't mix well the arguments presented by others here.

Not too long ago I had a mini-debate with Macocael about wages on another thread, all along I knew the difference between what he was saying and what I was saying and, more specifically, why we both will never come to the same agreement.

But, I usually don't debate to either agree or disagree with people. I debate to present the other side, because sometimes presenting both sides makes an argument much more complete, balanced, and even entertaining to read.

Sure, if I was to let the other know that I know what they are talking about... well, that will cut my debates in half. For a person like myself who loves to debate.... that sux.:classic:

Besides all of that, debating does makes me realize if I truly believe in something or whether I have enough to proof to justify my belief in something.

Well, I'm going on a tangent.... again....

-NALs

NALs said:

If it's not Namibia, then it's Angola. I always confuse which is which since both are in the same southwestern part of Africa and sort of look the same geographically.

For some reason, I think you knew which country I was referring to.

-NALs

Click to expand...

I hardly have an idea now even. Angola received independence in 1975. Your fictional country you state received independence in the 1960s. Excuse me for being completely confused. I cannot figure out what we're comparing, if we do not know which countries we are comparing. But now I know, your comparison is with Angola with some of the dates a little off.

And no, I am not kidding. We are a SIDS and in my thinking all developing countries cannot be dropped into the same basket - for the reasons that are being discussed on this thread. The two islands that I mentioned is making progress working themselves out of the usual problems that are endemic for island nations. If their head of state has something to do with this, perhaps we should learn some lessons and more power to them.

Culturally ? the basic character traits are in place and live and dynamic within these two islands. National History, as well as the population's view of themselves, emphasize trustworthy characteristics. What I observed there in terms of national pride and strong emphasis on education, was quite different from other SIDS

Institutionally ? the positive cultural traits are supported with education, government, and the basis of law and order.

Again, if one understand where you are, and can define where you want to be, it is easier to build a plan and go into execution mode. For me, the Dominican Republic perhaps still does not understand where they are. The national pride is perhaps misplaced somewhat. It is a pride in 'Dominicanism', regardless what it entails. And I think there are strong influences to keep it as such. Even with many many Dominicans from the US coming to visit, it seems to me that they somehow want to visit what was near and dear to them once upon a time. There is no strong emphasis on change .. at least as far as I've observed. They want to see the campo, and basically want to see their old lives continue, with little change.

I've always thought a very strong leader would be OK for the DR. Let's not call him a benevolent dictator as even the word is abhorrent to some people. But a strong leader with a somewhat dictatorial style.

And lastly, I do wonder where we will find another country with similar demographics and characteristics that has done something to develop in some way or another. I find most comparisons a little off the mark.

First let me say that I understand what the OP is trying to debate & I strongly support his thoughts/arguments. However, I do not believe for one moment that lack of TRUST between Dominicans as being the main aspect keeping the DR from progressing as quickly as it's potential.

Is Bilijou taking forgranted "Communication"? The ability of 2 or more people to sit down & discuss various thoughts to arrive at a combined & logical plan to proceed along? Sitting in a room with 5 or so people I TRUST, RESPECT, ADMIRE etc is all very well, but unless we all communicate, we are not going to get anything achieved!!

Trust is NOT something that is a given - it has to be EARNED. Not too many Dominican 'leaders' have portrayed the characteristics needed to gain the respect, admiration &/or trust of the Dominican populace - fear WAS the modus operandi & we are now coming out of that era Thank God. Too many politicians will say something to the electorate & then backtrack once they are 'in power'. Hence - no trust, no respect, no motivation, NO PROGRESS!

The DR is in need of a LEADER whom the electorate can respect & TRUST to do the right thing. To earn that trust, the leader will have to show he/she has good MORAL VALUES, an ability to LISTEN, an ability to COMPREHEND, the forcefulness of character to get people in power behind him/her even when hardships have to be experienced.

The ONLY way such a leader can put into place is when He or She can communicate effectively with a (75% plus) majority of the country vociferous enough to DEMAND his/her leadership.

I look forward to more interesting & insightful discussion on this topic.

(Nals. Don't be worried about seeing the other persons point of view & acknowledging same - some of us would prefer you that way :cheeky: ........ AND the [promised] shorter posts! !) ~ Grahame

My 2 cents. The wealth of a country is the sum of the individual wealth of it?s inhabitants. The reason why western European countries were so successful in the past, and thus gained an advantage over the rest of the world, is based on a religion that promotes hard working and saving. This was/is the igniting point for development. If on a personal level citizens start to create work/markets they create wealth. I?m always startled at the business-opportunities in the DR that are untouched and the lack of pro-active behaviour towards problems (eg power cuts). There are opportunities to promote on a personal level and by creating an income you create richness for the country.

Greetings

Johan

NALs said:

You're kidding, right?

You are comparing Antigua and Barbuda, who are members of the British Commonwealth and have a population that is barely the size of San Pedro de Macoris with the DR, an independent country, no commonwealth of anywhere and with a population that is many times bigger?

Antigua and Barbuda's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II for goodness sakes!

Click to expand...

The fact that countries like A&B are Commonwealth members and that QEII is their head of state is completely irrelevant. Apart from getting to print her mug on their money, they do not receive that many special benefits from the UK, like subsidies or budget allocations, social security or whatever. They even have to apply for visas to visit the UK. Plenty of Commonwealth countries are poor, third world countries. They are not colonies, dependent territories or overseas regions of the colonial power, unlike the French Caribbean possessions like Martinique and Guadeloupe.

Being a small island with a small population is a problem in itself, and on that count I agree there is less grounds for comparison.

I'll just add Namibia to the list of classic Nals moments.

I found this study on assessing Small Island State vulnerability. In the sources, there are a few that perhaps would be worth while reading.

This study looks to identify scenarios by which economic vulnerability can either make the specific State weaker, or if countered by good policy, can create dynamic growth opportunity.

http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/docs/CIFP_SIDS_chapter 7_feb06.pdf

Echoing several comments in regard this thread, my sister, who teaches this stuff would probably add Habermas' theory on communication leading to action and rationality. This entails the redemption of four validity claims:

1. comprehension (must speak the same language or have a good interpretor/translator)
2. shared trust
3. shared knowlege
4. shared values

If these four claims are met, there can be successful action- a basis for carrying out work.

Everett