Russia Upon a Threshold
By Jared Nourse
Vladimir Putin is back in the office he built. Depending upon who you ask, that could mean a
variety of different things. Ask the majority of Russians, and they'll tell you it's a very good
thing. Putin represents stability in Russia - the kind of stability that can bring you out of a
decade of not knowing when you'll get your next paycheck. Stability is a brand in Russia, a
political ideal so high it is unthinkable to challenge, and so Putin found it easy to market himself.
But across the country, there are some remarkable indicators that after 12 years of Putin’s rule,
all is not well. Corruption remains unchecked across the country. A guarantee to the rule of law
depends on who you are. Life expectancy is a mere 66.46 years, lower than every other post-
Soviet country except Tajikistan. Russians die younger than North Koreans. The population
is shrinking and the economy is still all too dependent upon natural resources. The education
system is failing, and opportunities are still largely available only to those with connections or
money.
These problems get a lot of lip service from Putin. But rather than addressing the nation's systemic issues that cause these problems, he prefers to build or exaggerate threats to the Russian people and arrange a decisive response. In fact, Putin’s statism relies on these systemic issues: selective rule of law allowed for control of television and opposition, while corruption gets a wink and a nod for the loyalty of the security services.
The results have had a startling impact on the minds of young Russians. Corruption is
considered a fact of life in Russia; if you get stopped, you pay the bribe. It’s a natural economic
transaction, a friend explained. "Russians expect it. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just the
way it is. Nichevo sdyelat'. There’s nothing to be done."
Schoolchildren beyond a certain age turn to private tutors if their family can afford it. A friend
once described to me her English classes at school: "Usually, we go over the homework and then
we speak in Russian." The other day, her teacher had given a lecture on politics in Russian to
the effect that the only important thing in politics was good looks. Nothing else mattered.
Putin is very handsome, or so it is said.
There are bright spots in schools, of course, but students rely on outstanding individual teachers
because they can't on the system. When it comes to finding a berth for higher education,
students have the option to pay school administrators to change their all-important test results
and improve their chances. It's a discouraging system.
Young Russians have found a way to explain the inequality of Putin’s Russia. Eto Rossiya, they
say. This is Russia, it means, but it also means a lot more. This is Russia, it means, and we have
some big problems. But this is Russia, nichevo sdyelat'. There’s nothing to be done.
Cynicism runs very high among young Russians. The political arena is a dirty place and if
you're honest, you stay out. Our leaders may lie and steal, but so do all of yours, they say. It's
a myth that happens to be particularly convenient for the regime, so it's promoted both directly
and indirectly. When people think everyone steals, they're more likely to roll over for you.
Some Russian teenagers have been turning to suicide to deal with the problems that this structure
causes them, an issue that has been getting more attention of late. But the greater part just wants to leave. I once asked my closest Russian friend how many of her own friends wanted to move to other
countries. "Oh, not that many," she replied. "Maybe fifty percent." And they've done their
research, too. America can be difficult to get into. Chances are better with Australia, Canada, or
a number of Western European countries.
But in the meanwhile, young Russians are also discovering a voice of their own. Finding issues
that they care about, they are surprised to learn that they can be heard. As they do, they see how
the effects ripple out and change their surroundings, not in ways that threaten the stability that
Putin built, but in ways that begin to address the problems he’s failed to address. The actions are
simple: attending a rally to express dissent, getting together with a group of friends every week
to discuss not problems, but possible solutions, even just spending time every week taking care of
street animals. My friends and students did all of these things and more during the time I spent
in Russia, contributing what they could towards the growth of civil society in Russia.
With practice, and despite the odds against them, young Russians are slowly disproving that
great myth, nichevo sdyelat'. With time, what they do in greater numbers every year will give a
new meaning to another phrase, as well. Eto Rossiya, they will say, and it will mean, “This is Russia. Look, this is the Russia we built for ourselves.”
Jared Nourse has worked as an English teacher in Vladimir, Russia, and he is currently exploring other regions of the former Soviet Union. He graduated from Williams College in 2011 with a major in Political Science and a concentration in Leadership Studies. Jared's post is part of an ongoing "Guest Blogger" series. If you're interested in writing, do click the link and be in touch!
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
2012.03.10 Weekly Address: Investing in a Clean Energy Future
Our Ball and Chain
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It is astonishing that President Obama needs to convince us that energy efficiency is an important priority. His argument is clear and basic, and he presses on.
Of course, funding (and fear of the unknown, but that's another story) is a big part of why the nation isn't rallying around this cause. President Obama is correct that investment in clean energy would pay manifold dividends in the near future. But we must also, for example, mend our archaic system of education, riddled as it is with perverse incentives and slack. As we lag behind other developed nations in science and math, can we afford to ignore this expensive problem? Must we choose, or do we have enough cash on hand to address both challenges?
I might not be asking these silly questions had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003. Because hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to that end, we are left bickering over whether to invest in energy, education, or nothing at all.
However, we must consider that if the United States had not invaded Iraq, we probably would have found another way to spend those few hundred billion dollars. Pressing issues - education and energy efficiency - that pertain directly to the economy and national security would most likely have been neglected anyway. So what is it about our government culture that makes such a dim fate seemingly inevitable?
In an op-ed that President-elect Vladimir Putin wrote prior to the March 4 elections, he accused the United States of being "obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability," and announced that this is "the root of the problem." In fact, this is quite an accurate assessment. Americans are obsessed with "securing absolute invulnerability"; one might argue that this is necessarily the aim of a government, even if it is a distant dream. But because our sphere of influence is so immense and our military so vast, remaining invulnerable gets to be quite expensive and, from President-elect Putin's perspective, intolerably invasive. This would be so even if the United States were to refrain from launching wars of choice based on emotional fervor and pitifully faulty intelligence briefings.
Just as Russia is saddled with more land than any single country could possibly manage well, we have consolidated power to an extent that requires most of our economic might to maintain it. This is why we are in debt, and this is why we don't provide for our citizens at the standards of other developed nations. This is why a commitment to clean energy remains a distant dream.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
It is astonishing that President Obama needs to convince us that energy efficiency is an important priority. His argument is clear and basic, and he presses on.
Of course, funding (and fear of the unknown, but that's another story) is a big part of why the nation isn't rallying around this cause. President Obama is correct that investment in clean energy would pay manifold dividends in the near future. But we must also, for example, mend our archaic system of education, riddled as it is with perverse incentives and slack. As we lag behind other developed nations in science and math, can we afford to ignore this expensive problem? Must we choose, or do we have enough cash on hand to address both challenges?
I might not be asking these silly questions had the United States not invaded Iraq in 2003. Because hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent to that end, we are left bickering over whether to invest in energy, education, or nothing at all.
However, we must consider that if the United States had not invaded Iraq, we probably would have found another way to spend those few hundred billion dollars. Pressing issues - education and energy efficiency - that pertain directly to the economy and national security would most likely have been neglected anyway. So what is it about our government culture that makes such a dim fate seemingly inevitable?
In an op-ed that President-elect Vladimir Putin wrote prior to the March 4 elections, he accused the United States of being "obsessed with the idea of securing absolute invulnerability," and announced that this is "the root of the problem." In fact, this is quite an accurate assessment. Americans are obsessed with "securing absolute invulnerability"; one might argue that this is necessarily the aim of a government, even if it is a distant dream. But because our sphere of influence is so immense and our military so vast, remaining invulnerable gets to be quite expensive and, from President-elect Putin's perspective, intolerably invasive. This would be so even if the United States were to refrain from launching wars of choice based on emotional fervor and pitifully faulty intelligence briefings.
Just as Russia is saddled with more land than any single country could possibly manage well, we have consolidated power to an extent that requires most of our economic might to maintain it. This is why we are in debt, and this is why we don't provide for our citizens at the standards of other developed nations. This is why a commitment to clean energy remains a distant dream.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
2012.03.03 Weekly Address: Taking Control of Our Energy Future
The President-elect's Choices
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the last decade, the Russian government has expanded their web of gas and oil pipelines to such a degree that domestic production will soon be unable to maintain full export capacity. This problem will worsen as western Siberian oil fields, the wellspring of Russian oil since the 1970s, run dry. But instead of investing in new technology to extract oil from other regions, the government will continue to funnel resources into the state-owned pipeline operator, Transneft, and ambitious expansion projects. Though new pipelines will be born, they might well sit underutilized and decrepit.
The muddy economic rationale for these projects caves under the realities of Russia's rising energy needs and finite production capacity. These pipelines are built primarily to allow Russia greater geopolitical leverage and flexibility. The idea is that when a 'transit nation' hosts a Russian pipeline, that nation profits as Russian energy flows. But if Transneft and the government have options of simply doing business elsewhere and rerouting through a different pipeline, the transit nations have much less political leverage. They have a choice of either not dealing with Russia at all, or doing so according to Russia's political, economic, and military conditions.
For these strategic reasons, Russia has, and will continue to have, more pipelines than are economically viable. However, it is still possible for Russia, the world's leading oil producer, to have it both ways.
The Russian economy is quite energy intensive compared to other European nations, and its rapidly expanding auto market is a major contributing factor. Regulation of Russian auto industry standards are lax and, as a result, the potential to fill the new pipelines with oil exports is lost to domestic consumers driving inefficient vehicles. If President-elect Putin sees to fruition President Medvedev's modernization program, the Russian market might be able to function on significantly less oil and gas, thereby freeing up Russian reserves to be strategically exported.
President Obama notes that American fuel efficiency standards are tighter than ever, and the Big Three auto makers are building vehicles that produce many more miles to the gallon. This may bode well for American efforts to develop energy independence while investing in alternatives to fossil fuels. But if President-elect Putin is serious about growing the Russian economy while maintaining a sophisticated network of energy security, he will make a case to his people that the push for energy efficiency is not a Western plot connected with a global warming hoax, but rather a vital component of national security and geopolitical influence.
~
For a full analysis of Russia's energy choices, refer to Adnan Vatansever's Russia's Oil Exports (or the abstract), published in 2010 by the Energy and Climate Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
In the last decade, the Russian government has expanded their web of gas and oil pipelines to such a degree that domestic production will soon be unable to maintain full export capacity. This problem will worsen as western Siberian oil fields, the wellspring of Russian oil since the 1970s, run dry. But instead of investing in new technology to extract oil from other regions, the government will continue to funnel resources into the state-owned pipeline operator, Transneft, and ambitious expansion projects. Though new pipelines will be born, they might well sit underutilized and decrepit.
The muddy economic rationale for these projects caves under the realities of Russia's rising energy needs and finite production capacity. These pipelines are built primarily to allow Russia greater geopolitical leverage and flexibility. The idea is that when a 'transit nation' hosts a Russian pipeline, that nation profits as Russian energy flows. But if Transneft and the government have options of simply doing business elsewhere and rerouting through a different pipeline, the transit nations have much less political leverage. They have a choice of either not dealing with Russia at all, or doing so according to Russia's political, economic, and military conditions.
For these strategic reasons, Russia has, and will continue to have, more pipelines than are economically viable. However, it is still possible for Russia, the world's leading oil producer, to have it both ways.
The Russian economy is quite energy intensive compared to other European nations, and its rapidly expanding auto market is a major contributing factor. Regulation of Russian auto industry standards are lax and, as a result, the potential to fill the new pipelines with oil exports is lost to domestic consumers driving inefficient vehicles. If President-elect Putin sees to fruition President Medvedev's modernization program, the Russian market might be able to function on significantly less oil and gas, thereby freeing up Russian reserves to be strategically exported.
President Obama notes that American fuel efficiency standards are tighter than ever, and the Big Three auto makers are building vehicles that produce many more miles to the gallon. This may bode well for American efforts to develop energy independence while investing in alternatives to fossil fuels. But if President-elect Putin is serious about growing the Russian economy while maintaining a sophisticated network of energy security, he will make a case to his people that the push for energy efficiency is not a Western plot connected with a global warming hoax, but rather a vital component of national security and geopolitical influence.
~
For a full analysis of Russia's energy choices, refer to Adnan Vatansever's Russia's Oil Exports (or the abstract), published in 2010 by the Energy and Climate Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Monday, January 23, 2012
2012.01.21 Weekly Address: America is Open for Business
Luring the Russians
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
By Leo Brown
[President Obama's Weekly Address]
As Brazil, China, and India develop their middle classes, the United States might benefit from an influx of curious, newly mobile tourists. President Obama speaks this week about the importance of the tourist industry and what he is doing to support it.
Led by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Congress and the President have already passed the Travel Promotion Act of 2009. This act imposes a $10 fee on international tourists, money which is then used to support Brand USA, an entity charged with promoting the United States as a vacation spot. Now, President Obama is pushing for an easier visa application process, further development of Brand USA, and an expansion of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board to include a new group of CEOs in the industry.
This all will help. But if you ask a Russian (yes, Russia's middle class is growing, too) why they haven't visited America, two common responses are:
"It's too expensive to get there," or
"It's too expensive to get around once you're there."
This second issue is huge. Even if Russians could get to America for free, it would still be a better deal to visit Europe, simply because everything there is closer together. Many Russians consider a trip to America silly, but not because they don't want to come here. Their concern is that all of the best-known and most enticing places in America - New York, Miami, Las Vegas, to name a few - are so far apart. For the price of a flight from Washington to Hollywood, a Russian could fly to Paris twice or Thailand thrice. A trip to the States is not cost-effective.
It's safe to assume that Congress will not pass a bill subsidizing flights for Russians tourists who want to hit up Vegas for the weekend. But surely, we could convince Russians that it's worthwhile to visit a section of America rather than the whole thing. As for the northeast, we could capture their imaginations with glossy advertisements for Berkshire leaves while handing out spoonfuls of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. While everyone knows that one can rage on the beaches of Miami, international tourists might not realize that they can drive for an hour in one direction to the Florida Keys or in another to the Everglades. And no tour of central California would be complete without a visit to Fort Ross, the southernmost outpost of the Russian Empire, situated less than an hour from San Francisco. Brand USA is promoting travel to America, but in order to make a realistic and enticing impression, they need to showcase specific regions, rather than the Top Ten Most Famous Spots of Americana, which are undeniably scattered every which way.
Needless to say, our more serious problem with international tourism is the result of American hostility to language learning and non-Americans in general. We could start by translating signage in major cities to Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish. But while we tackle the endemic malfunctions of our education system and national superiority complex, we might also buy some billboard space near Red Square, or perhaps simply produce some welcoming YouTube videos trumpeting all that specific regions of our country have to offer. No need to keep it a secret.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
An Immigration Thought Experiment
Most Russians I encounter hold some strong views about illegal immigration. As Mexicans pick our tomatoes, Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other Central Asians work their construction sites and supply other low-wage labor. One interpretation of this situation is that they do a mediocre job for cheap, thus degrading the quality of Russian life and taking jobs away from citizens.
Our situation in America is rather different, regardless of editorial spin. The government does not hire Mexican farm workers, and few would argue that their work is inferior. Disgruntled Americans focus on the notion that they are keeping wages low and unemployment up.
As I discussed in my last post, this interpretation has been complicated by evidence that unemployed Americans do not accept farm labor when it is available. It is more profitable, and more reliable, to simply collect unemployment insurance. This does not seem quite right.
So I've been thinking about what the economy would look like without undocumented immigrants. For the sake of simplicity, I'll focus on agricultural labor. Here is my take: an intuitive, thought-experiment economic analysis.
*Farm wages rise. Compensation needs to be more attractive than unemployment insurance.
*Without government assistance, many farms are unable to afford the new cost of labor and go out of business. Alternatively, the government provides subsidies to aid this transition.
*American food prices rise, reflecting the high cost of labor and scarcity of domestic farms.
*Cheap food from abroad fills American markets. Food "Made in America" is now a luxury.
*Most Americans end up eating food grown in Mexico, picked by the same Mexicans who used to work here.
The demand for domestic food will never go away, but in such a scenario, it would shift to the rich and the xenophobic. Because of undocumented immigrant labor, most Americans can afford food that is grown on our soil. Without Mexican workers, some more Americans might have jobs, but they wouldn't be able to afford a tomato picked north of the border.
Our situation in America is rather different, regardless of editorial spin. The government does not hire Mexican farm workers, and few would argue that their work is inferior. Disgruntled Americans focus on the notion that they are keeping wages low and unemployment up.
As I discussed in my last post, this interpretation has been complicated by evidence that unemployed Americans do not accept farm labor when it is available. It is more profitable, and more reliable, to simply collect unemployment insurance. This does not seem quite right.
So I've been thinking about what the economy would look like without undocumented immigrants. For the sake of simplicity, I'll focus on agricultural labor. Here is my take: an intuitive, thought-experiment economic analysis.
*Farm wages rise. Compensation needs to be more attractive than unemployment insurance.
*Without government assistance, many farms are unable to afford the new cost of labor and go out of business. Alternatively, the government provides subsidies to aid this transition.
*American food prices rise, reflecting the high cost of labor and scarcity of domestic farms.
*Cheap food from abroad fills American markets. Food "Made in America" is now a luxury.
*Most Americans end up eating food grown in Mexico, picked by the same Mexicans who used to work here.
The demand for domestic food will never go away, but in such a scenario, it would shift to the rich and the xenophobic. Because of undocumented immigrant labor, most Americans can afford food that is grown on our soil. Without Mexican workers, some more Americans might have jobs, but they wouldn't be able to afford a tomato picked north of the border.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)