BRIEF NOTE No.1 -By Wimal Kalapuge dated 29 Nov.2010.

The following is a part of an article that appeared in “Economist of 14–2–2009.

Those interested are advised to read the full article.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

JURY THEOREM

Jury Theorem is the idea developed by NICOLAS DE CONDORCET, an eighteenth century French philosopher , who was one of the first to apply mathematics to social sciences. Now it is becoming clear that group decisions are also extremely valuable for the success of social animals, such as ants, bees, birds and dolphins.These animals may have a thing or two to teach people about collective decision making.

Consensus decisions in which group makes a single choice, as when house hunting rock ants decide where to settle.

Combined decisions, such as the allocation of jobs among worker bees.

NICOLAS DE CONDOCERT’s theory describes consensus decisions outlining how democratic decisions tend to outperform dictatorial ones. If each member of a jury has only partial information, the majority decision is more likely to be correct than a decision arrived by an individual juror.Moreover, the probability of a correct decision increases with the size of the jury. But things become more complicated when information is shared before a vote is taken. People then have to evaluate the information before making a collective decision.This is what bees do, and they do it rather well according to Christian List of the London School of Economics, who has studied group decision making in humans and animals along with Larissa Conradt. of the University of Sussex in England. (extracted from page 83 of Economist magazine of 14–2–2009).

BRIEF NOTE No.2 — By Wimal Kalapuge dated. Nov 3rd. 2019.

The following is a verbatim extract of an authoritative article written by Dr. Suren Sumithraarachchi, that appeared in the Daily Mirror of 2 -11–2019’. Having read it and in appreciation of the academic insight of the writer in presenting this subject. so thoroughly well, I am bringing this article to the notice of a wider readership, who may wish to enhance their knowledge on this vital subject.

— — — — - — — — - — — —

THE ORIGIN OF FAMILY RELATIONS written by Dr. Suren Sumithraarachchi.

Family relations are the outcome of the behavior of the members of the family.Therefore, in order to understand family relations, it is necessary to understand. how the members of the family behave in relation to one another and what contributes to such behavior.Being one of the most important facets of life, it is naturally a very topical subject, and many views are available to the reader.This short article attempts to add to these resources by discussing how the behaviors that constitute the family relations are formed, using a sociological concept developed by a leading Sociologist PIERRE BOURDIEU. I will take a few lines to describe how BOURDIEU describes the formation of behavior, before dealing with behavior in family relations. According to BOURDIEU, behavior is an embodied outcome of the dispositions of the individual with his or her CAPITAL, in a given setting. In family relations this setting is the FAMILY as a social institution. BOURDIEU uses the term HABITUS to describe the disposition. He describes CAPITAL as symbolic capital, a notional concept and the field to describe the setting (BOURDIEU 1990) which is the space for interaction.

Dispositions (HABITUS) are formed as both primary HABITUS and secondary HABITUS. Primary HABITUS is formed at the home, through the social interaction of the child with the parents, siblings and the home environment, i.e. the social positions of the family (Bonnewitz, 2005, cited in Walther , 2014). Most lifestyles, mannerism, tastes and different interests that manifest in later life are through strong impressions of this period, and is also called the class HABITUS (BOURDIEU1990).

Examples; dressing patterns, preferences,trends such as attraction to music, art, etc. Exposures in school, university and life experiences add on to the primary HABITUS to form the secondary HABITUS, which is internalized as second nature (BOURDIEU,1990). Accordingly HABITUS is a disposition formed in people based on their past experiences and involuntarily influence their responses in life.

Symbolic CAPITAL is formed through the intertwining of economic CAPITAL, social. CAPITAL and education which he describes as cultural CAPITAL (BOURDIEU,1986). For example, money which is directly related to economic CAPITAL can be used to buy books or spent on education and thus be exchanged with cultural CAPITAL.Cultural CAPITAL is acquired as educational qualifications and qualifications serve as status symbols, thus manifesting as symbolic CAPITAL.

The field is a structured space for objective relations between positions held by agents (STRAND, 2001) that define dominated and dominant positions (WALTHER, 2014). It is a place for struggles for supremacy. and where power relations take place (GOMES and BOUTY, 2011). The field is also governed by rules and traditions. The setting for family relations is the social institution of family. In a family, there are dominant and dominated positions. In some families the Father is the dominant position and in some, it is the Mother. The HABITUS and symbolic CAPITAL that they possess as individuals may influence this. The children are always dominated. Therefore, the objective relations within the family are for the Father to provide for the family, or for the Mother to provide for the family, or both parents jointly provide for the family, where the children become the beneficiaries.

Orderliness will be determined by house rules, which will be determined by the Father, Mother or both. As stated earlier, the HABITUS and symbolic CAPITAL that they possess as individuals may influence who impose them. Traditions will govern the ethical and religious norms of the family. Enforcing traditions and ethical standards of the family are also a function of the HABITUS and symbolicCAPITAL of the parents.

Therefore, in good family relations the parents will provide for the children and determine the house rules and traditions to be. followed. As said in BOURDIEU, there is opportunity for struggles for supremacy within any social. institution, and this holds good for the family. These struggles may manifest as an overbearing Father or an overbearing Mother. Implementing discipline is another area to family relations, manifested as the will or lack of will on the part of parents to carry on family traditions. Therefore, how objective relations within the family are fulfilled, family house rules are implemented and the respect for traditions, will determine the quality of family relations.

Another important aspect of family relations is the functioning of power relations within it. Power relations have a transformational capacity and are used in family relations for their transformational power. Power relations manifest as hard and soft power relations. Hard power relations are coercive and are used to get things done even against the will of the doer. (Cartwright, 1995). Soft power relations are on the other hand take a more persuasive and collaborative form (Dugan, 2003).

Family relations will reflect how the parents use their power relations. to impose house rules or enforce traditions and will be the embodied outcome of their HABITUS and symbolic CAPITAL. Power relations are also used by children. The use their HABITUS and symbolic CAPITAL to manipulate parents to get concessions for themselves. These concessions take the form of money for their entertainment, private phones, extended times for returning home after evening outings, following friends in dress and approval for some of their friends.This is mostly seen in older children. Smaller children mostly use power relations to avoid home-work, and in today’s world to obtain TV time and video games etc. In sum, family relations are influenced positively or negatively based on the behavior of parents of which are formed as the embodied outcome of their. HABITUS and symbolic CAPITAL. These manifest mainly in the manner in which the parents use their power relations in family matters and dealing with the children, and the manner in which they respond to the power relations of their children

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. — ( BRIEF NOTE No3. by Wimal Kalapuge dated (5–12–2019 ).

ON 4–12–2019 there appeared an article by Ha-Joon Chang in Daily Mirror on the above important subject. As an introduction to that article, a short note is made as follows, while advising those interested to read the full article.The writer, Ha-Joon Chang is a University reader in Political Economy of Development, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. UK.

— — — — — — — - — — — — — -

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

The concept of COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE was first developed by the 19th. Century British economist David Riardo. It is actually a very counter-intuitive idea. Before Ricardo, everyone believed that a country should trade with another only when it can produce something more cheaply than the other. This is known as the idea of ‘absolute advantage’.

Ricardo however argued that even a country without an absolute cost advantage in any industry could benefit provided it is specialised in industries in which it is least bad at and traded with other nations. Conversely, it is better to support another country having particular specialised capabilities to proceed rather than engage in a competition with that country.

All countries, however inefficient they may be. compared to other countries, do have a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE in something.

It is argued that free trade will naturally make countries specialise in industries in which they have COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE, thus making them better off. But it is not sufficient to suggest that COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE is the best development strategy available.

The theory of Comparative Advantage is absolutely correct provided that all assumptions that underlie that theory are met, but seldom does it happen so.

The theory assumes the following;

there is perfect competition in a real-world economic environment dominated by monopolies and oligopolies,

no slack in economies but in reality there is underutilized resources and unemployment,

Capital and labor can be redeployed easily dependent upon market behavior, this however is not possible as the machinery and labor involved are of specialty selection.

Any theory for that matter is constructed on the basis of some assumptions which may or may not be realized for success or otherwise.

The core issues of economic development are

(1) the nature of technology and

(2) the development of technological capabilities.

The currently dominant version of the THEORY OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE, known as the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson model ( after Eli Heckscher, Bertil Ohilin and Paul Samuelson, who constructed the Theory in the mid-20th. century) assumes that there is only one best technology for producing a particular product and more importantly, that all countries have the same ability to use that technology. The only difference between countries in this model is the relative amounts of capital and labor they have- richer countries have more capital than labor and poorer countries have more labor than capital. So, according to HOS model poor countries should concentrate more on low capital intensive ventures.

It is time that developing countries realize that the theory of COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE is not a THEORY about Economic development.

The main problem with the theory of COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE is that it is not a theory that is useful in understanding the process of economic development.

However, in the longer run, a country’s development success depends on how it finds a way to defy its. COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE and get into industries with

dynamic demand growth,

faster technological progress and

greater impacts on other sectors of the economy.

HOW JAPAN DEFIED THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE.

Today Japaneses cars are popular and of world-wide recognition, but two generations ago most people including Japanese, thought the Japanese car industry simply should not exist indeed. Japanese car industry was, to put it bluntly, a joke. In 1955, all the Japaneses companies combined ( there were around. a dozen of them ) produced 70,000 cars with Toyota, the biggest company), producing half of that ( 35,000 ), compared to 3.5 million cars that was produced by General Motors alone and 7 million cars by the U.S. Automobile industry as a whole.

However, in 1958 Japan, then a developing country, exported its passenger car TOYOPET. to U.S., and unfortunately it was a total flop.This failure prompted many to suggest that the car industry in Japan has no future, despite the incentives given by the Japanese government by way of; -

(1) 25 years of high tariff protection since 1933

.(2) total ban of foreign direct investment for. 20 years

(3).kicked out General Motors and Ford from Japan in 1939,

thus not allowing any foreign company to engage in automobile industry in Japan. The critics argued that the country should forget about industries like automobiles,shipbuilding and steel, which its government had been promoting.These industries were too capital-intensive for a country with very little capital and a lot of labor.The country should instead concentrate on industries that intensively use its abundant labor force. Silk was suggested as the most suitable export commodity for the country at that time.This complies with the most widely accepted economic theory of COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE, which tells us that given its resource endowment the country should specialise in labor intensive products in which it has the COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE rather than on capital-intensive products.

Beginning from this stark reality and going against one of the best economic theories i.e. THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE. Japan persisted with the promotion of the automobile industries. By the late 1970, Japan conquered the smaller car market, prompting the U.S. and European countries to impose quotas on Japanese car imports, in the name of “voluntary export restraints”.

In late 1980 Japanese companies announced that they are going to enter the luxury car segment of the industry with Toyota Lexus, Nissan’s Infiniti, and Honda Acura.

By 2008, Toyota became the biggest car making company in the world.

The car industry is not alone.Japan developed its other key industries — such as steel, shipbuilding, electronics and so on — by using similar mixtures of

(1) tariff protection

(2) ban on foreign direct investment,

(3) subsidized loans from government regulated banks,

(4) subsidies for R&D,

(5) special treatment. for domestic firms in government procurement programmed (specially for mainframe computer industry)

(6) any many other interventional measures.

Moreover, Japan is not alone in this. Countries like Korea, Taiwan, and more recently China have used similar policies to industrial and develop their economies.

Virtually all other presently rich countries too have adapted similar measures to gain economic development at some stage in the past;

(1) U.K.( in 18th. & early 19th. century)

(2) the U.S. (throughout the 19th. century and early 29th. century)

(3) Germany and Sweden ( in the late 19th. and early 20th. century )

In view of the experience of Japan and also almost all of the world’s rich countries

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE THEORY is not a forbidding or a deterrent factor to be reckoned seriously in the scope of economic development.

— — - — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — —

BRIEF NOTE No.4 — By Wimal Kalapuge dated 10th Dec 2019

The following is a complete extract from an essay written by the American author James Thurber ( 1894–1961 ) titled “ Look out for the THING”

I was so fascinated by reading this essay some 50 years back, I took the trouble to copy it manually for posterity’s sake, The subject matter of this essay as I understood has no physical form as it is not solid, liquid or for that matter, neither gaseous in form. But it is about the THING, a notional concept of mind which virtually, sums up to being noTHING, yet full of pondering substance though masked, keeps our captivated attention enthusiastically alive throughout, in reading a script of nearly 600 words. Using the available modern easy communications facility , this essay is reproduced, with the hope that. James Thurber style of writing is. widely known and appreciated by those who would like to read this.

— — — — — — — — - — — — — — - — — / — /////

LOOK OUT FOR THE THING By James Thurber

Yes Virginia, there is a THING older than the Questing Beast, uglier than the Loch Ness monster. It speaks in many tongues and sleeps in many minds. It invades the world and minds of men, inhabits headlines, feeds on limelight and attacks its prey in the dark. It can’t tell black from white, since it sees only red, and it tires quickly when digging for facts because they often lie deep in the roots of truth, and the THING has learnt to nourish itself on suspicions, guesses, and old accusations that it finds wherever it looks. It likes to trumpet defiance from a high peak of immunity, but when its prey challenges it to stand forth and fight, it quietly disappears.

The THING has great power and vast ingenuity, for it can make guilt out of many things, out of whatever comes to hand, in fact association, accusation, appearance, aspect, attitude and even ability, dedication devotion, duty and even a man’s courageous determination to speak his mind in the interest of the welfare of his country. The THING can blacken a man at a distance of ten thousand miles by using one or another of its many strings, the thundering charge, the sweeping generalisation, the bold assumption, the mysterious record, the secret testimony, the overheard insinuation, the patriot gesture, the enormous lie, the fearful warning. The THING can jump a mile to conclusions, crying as it passes the microphones “Look, Mom, I am denouncing”.

The THING’s worst effect is upon the rational mind of Man. It enlarges his credulity by magnifying peril, exaggerating fear, and inventing danger. Busy as a bowerbird, it will build for man, free of charge, a new wing for his skepticism, a left wing or right wing, so poorly lighted and so full of shadows that Man cannot tell mouse from monster, friend from foe, or truth from tommyrot, and is likely to fire wildly in the dark when the THING cries, “There he goes.”

One of the THINGS most brilliant achievements, however, was to make Man lose his faith in the practice. and precept of innocence by exoneration. Now a Man may be considered guilty even after he has been proven innocent. Now the scarlet letter A may stand for the awful word “Acquitted” and now Man, in his abject confusion, is likely to point exonerated patriots on the street and whisper

“There goes the assumed”. The THING can make Man do even worse than that. It can persuade him to protect free speech by keeping it securely bottled up, so that it cannot be dangerously used by such dubious citizens as the Accused, the Exonerated and the Acquitted. The THING teaches that the Defendant cannot be trusted, for he has been indelibly stained by subpoena, process and probe. It suggests that anything he may say or write in his own defense. is questionable and should be used against him. -End -