Adhoc Rescues, Global Coordination, and the Superclass

I just finished Superclass and while it initially sounded like exactly the kind of book I don’t like to read, after hearing Rothkopf in person and seeing Chris Blattman recommend it (in a hilarious post titled ‘Midway Down the Intellectual Food Chain) I decided to get the audio book. It was definitely entertaining and pretty interesting at times but definitely not a must-read. I was, however, struck by a conversation Rothkopf  had with Timothy Geithner (remember him?) on how he helped resolve a crisis in the derivatives market (the book doesn’t give any further information) that I think really captures the way many complicated (and extremely urgent) problems are addressed in our increasingly complex world:

What we did is, we got the fourteen major firms in a room down the hall here with their primary supervisors [..] and we said to them “You guys have got to fix this problem, tell us how you are going to fix it and we will work out some basic regime to work out there are no free riders to give you comfort so you know that if you move individually, everybody else will move with you” and there is nothing written, no guidance, no regulation, no formal process, [...]

These fourteen firms he continued, accounted for something like 90% of the all the activity in this market. The Fed, the SEC, the FSA, the Swiss and the Germans were there, and hose were the principals, each firm brought three people, they had an executive committee of four firms that had almost weekly a conference call among the four firms. And the best thing about the process was that it was efficient, there was nothing written except letters from the firm laying out their commitments, there’s no formal mechanism we could have used to force this on anybody so we had to invent it.

You have to have a borderless collaborative process, it does not mean it has to be universal every jurisdiction or every institution it just needs a critical mass of the right players it is a much more concentrated world, if you focus on the limited number of the ten to twenty large institutions that have some global reach, then you can do a lot.

Geithner is right, the world is becoming increasingly international but there are very few effective (and quick acting) international governing bodies and these adhoc meetings work very well. You don’t need to be a believer in World Government to realize that closer international coordination on finance and the economy (if nothing else) will be important in the future. The problem with doing things on an adhoc basis by getting the most powerful people and organizations in one room is that the concerns of the wider populace will be underrepresented (or not represented at all). The hurried actions of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve during the failure/bailout of Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman Brothers showed that personal contacts and informal meetings can help ensure quick action in an unforeseen crisis but they also show the dangers and resulting unfairness of the outcomes reached in such meetings. In the years ahead we will have to figure out how to build more effective coordinating (and potentially regulating) bodies on both the national and international scale. That should be a fun challenge.

Let in the Smart Masses

I generally tend to be pretty skeptical of Tom Friedman’s writing, hoping that he would think about some of the things he says a bit more critically before putting them out to the public as fact, and I don’t agree with much of the (admittedly partially satirical) tone of his last column, but he is 100% right on the core conclusion:

We live in a technological age where every study shows that the more knowledge you have as a worker and the more knowledge workers you have as an economy, the faster your incomes will rise. Therefore, the centerpiece of our stimulus, the core driving principle, should be to stimulate everything that makes us smarter and attracts more smart people to our shores. That is the best way to create good jobs. 

A government-funded venture capital fund might not be the right solution (that’s a longer question I don’t want to get into now) but he’s right – this is also the time to get smarter, more agile, and more productive.

We don’t want to come out of this crisis with just inflation, a mountain of debt and more shovel-ready jobs. We want to — we have to — come out of it with a new Intel, Google, Microsoft and Apple. I would have loved to have seen the stimulus package include a government-funded venture capital bank to help finance all the start-ups that are clearly not starting up today — in the clean-energy space they’re dying like flies — because of a lack of liquidity from traditional lending sources. 

Newsweek had an essay this week that began: “Could Silicon Valley become another Detroit?” Well, yes, it could. When the best brains in the world are on sale, you don’t shut them out. You open your doors wider.

National Governments, the IMF, and Blame

I was just reading a little bit about the Greek Economy and wanted to highlight the following observation about the IMF that ends up giving it a bad name for government’s mistakes:

One key feature in all this woe has to be a political process that is extremely ineffective, and driven by the fact that no one likes to hear bad news, and that the last thing a politician is able to say is tighten-up your belts now lads and lasses, we are in for a rough ride. But isn’t this just how the IMF gets such a bad name for itself, since the IMF doctors get called in just where the domestic political process breaks down, and where local politicians haven’t the ability to stand up in front of their citizens and say, it’s going to have to be like this, I’m afraid. Isn’t this what just happened in Ukraine, Hungary and Latvia? And then people say, those “nasty folk” at the IMF, they cut pensions everywhere they go, and wages are down 8% in Hungary, and 15% in Latvia once the IMF get to run the show. That is the IMF make for a convenient scapegoat, but people seldom ask themselves why wages needed reducing, or why there is no money to pay the pensions.

Granted, there are other ways to reduce a deficit and the IMF might be biased on how it wants to cut deficits but the general point stands.

The Value of Connections to Dick Cheney

David Fisman, Ray Fisman, Julia Galef, and Rakesh Khurana have a fascinating (I know I overuse this word but it’s really deserved here) working paper that tries to estimate the value to a company of a connection to Vice President Dick Cheney. They look at the market reaction (i.e. stock price) of companies connected to Cheney to Cheney’s heart attacks, his selection as Vice President, the likelihood war in Iraq at certain points in time, and the probability of a Bush victory in 2000 to see if these events cause the companies to significantly over- or underperform their respective sectors. They find that the value of such ties is zero.They think that this is to some degree generally applicable to individual politicians in the US:

While prior evidence suggests that business-government relations are an important part of U.S. commerce, our results suggest that these connections are more institutional than personal. That is, there are well-organized institutions (such as political action committees and other lobbying entities) for facilitating these relations that differ from the deeply personalized favor exchange that characterize business-politics relations in so much of the world.

I think that this result needs much further study but the implication that the value to a company of a personal connection to a politician is relatively unimportant compared to more formal and broad lobbying and PACs is going to be hugely important in figuring how to best fight corruption and the influence of special interests.

Update: Here’s another similar paper Estimating the Value of Political Connections by Ray Fisman on how news about former Indonesian President Suharto’s impacted companies with connections to him. I remember reading this about two years ago but don’t remember for which class…

Factors in the Surge’s Success

After my initial (somewhat hastily written) piece on the Surge and the followup I wanted to present some thoughts from someone who was actually on the ground in Iraq before and after the Surge. Lieutenant Colonel Dale Kuehl has a paper in Small Wars Journal that you should read in full but I will present his key points here and then delve into the case of a certain Abu Abed (summary is quoted from the article):

• The factors that led to the drop in violence are extremely complex. It is an oversimplification to say that the surge itself led to the drop in violence. However, on the other hand it is a gross oversimplification that it was a result of paying off Sunni militia.
• The surge in troops was invaluable to help us defeat al-Qaeda and stop the advance of JAM in northwest Baghdad.
• The surge was only as good as the operational design that went along with it. The change in focus from transitioning security to the Iraqi Security Forces to protecting the populace was also a major part of the success last year.
• While units before us were conducting COIN operations we did make fundamental changes in how we conducted COIN based upon the change in operational design. These included changes in tactics at the patrol level, but probably more important a concerted effort at battalion and brigade levels to increase our engagements with the populace and leadership within the communities. Some of these changes we implemented early, some we made as we adapted to the changing situation.

One particularly interesting point is the initial goal of the battalion in training the Iraqi army instead of directly focusing on the security situation:

When we arrived in Iraq in October 2006, the focus of the operational concept was transition to the Iraqi Security Forces. Gen Casey briefed us at the COIN Academy in Taji that we would be transitioning the lead for security in Baghdad to the ISF by summer 2007 while our forces would provide tactical overwatch over these security forces. [...]

We soon shifted our focus from transition to protecting the populace. While I am sure units were doing what they could to protect the populace, the focus upon our arrival was on transition. [...] By [doing this] we made a distinct change in our understanding of the center of gravity of this fight. With this understanding we came to one quick conclusion: we were doing a poor job in protecting the populace. The shift in focus led to a subsequent shift in our tactics, techniques and procedures that placed greater emphasis on getting into the community and engaging the populace to a greater degree at all levels.

Additionally, a big part of the success of the Surge was gaining the support of Sunni groups that had previously been fighting together with al-Qaeda and I think that understanding how exactly this was accomplished is important. Kuehl spends some time discussing this and its implications:

As for why Abu Abed and his men came forward when they did…I don’t know for sure, but do have some thoughts based upon my conversations with him and community leaders. First, these guys did not just spontaneously erupt. I believe there was a group of people who were willing to work with us against al-Qaeda, a minority against the cause of the AQI led insurgency. This minority was getting organized and looking for an opportunity. Among this minority were the imams that Col Gentile introduced me to. Not all were on board at first. I think this group was looking for the right time

A story in the Guardian from last year gives a more in-depth account of Abu Abed in his group, agreeing with their reasons for joining the US efforts but cautioning of the dangers of giving so much power to these warlords that might come back to haunt the US and Iraq military later down the line.

Finally, while there are many important lessons in the paper I wanted to point out one that everyone can relate to but that is also difficult to write about. As someone unaffected by this violence it is very easy for me to say this but I have incredible respect for those who can do the right thing when faced with this circumstance. Violence breeds violence: when we are attacked by someone it is easy to lash out and blame everyone in their group/country/religion/etc. but in a situation like Iraq a carefully measured and targeted response will not only help to make sure that the right people will be found and brought to justice but also that future killing will be prevented:

During this time we also put in a COP in northwest Ameriyah. While putting in this outpost a deep buried IED exploded killing an entire Bradley crew of six Soldiers and one interpreter. I believe that our response to this catastrophic event was also one of the reasons the Sons of Iraq came forward when they did. One of the imams told me later that the whole neighborhood expected us to tear the place apart after this event. We had been going through a tough month with six other Soldiers killed in the previous two weeks. The restraint and discipline of our Soldiers was noted and cited by the locals themselves as one of the reasons they chose to work with us.