What if the local people - who are, after all, supposed to be the raison d'etre of the government - are fundamentally suspicious of the idea of centralized Government? What if they see it as an entity that is at best going to be intrusive and may well be exploitive and abusive? In these circumstances, wouldn't an attempt to impose an unwanted strong central authority only serve to exacerbate insurgency?Originally Posted by Steve the Planner
Governments are like most everything else.
Centralizing is invariably efficient. However, it is rarely as effective a a local or distributed effort...
All politics is local, quoth O'Neill.
Dayuhan:
"What if the local people - who are, after all, supposed to be the raison d'etre of the government - are fundamentally suspicious of the idea of centralized Government? What if they see it as an entity that is at best going to be intrusive and may well be exploitive and abusive? In these circumstances, wouldn't an attempt to impose an unwanted strong central authority only serve to exacerbate insurgency?"
Isn't that the entire conflict? It is not just that Kabul hasn't extended itself down to the local levels, but that, in many instances, the locals are better off to reject it---and they do.
If Kabul has guns, drugs, corruption, and armies, other than that, what does it bring them? Improved services, more crops?
Even the taxes (a flat 10%) are better than the Taliban, and there is nothing under the table. Simple, brutal justice, no services, and no charges. versus?
It is unsurprising the the recently "flipped" Pashtuns did so not because of the central government but because of local conflicts with the local Taliban. They still do not embrace the federal government.
Efficient and effective
I expect that how one looks at this depends upon one's personal political slant, as well as one's experience with governmental organizations. Since I am center-right non-statist, or center-right anti-statist (haven't figured out which one will sound better when I run for officefrom Ken
Centralizing is invariably efficient. However, it is rarely as effective a a local or distributed effort...
All politics is local, quoth O'Neill.), but definitely not a center-right pro-statist, the last two sentences sound pretty good to me.
I do have to question (to some extent) the first: "Centralizing is invariably efficient". As an example, I'll take our tax collection systems that have affected my little world over the last 50 years - local, state and federal.
Point 1 supports the local "distributed effort" concept (more than less). Point 2 deals with "centralization".
------------------------
1. Local (property taxes). The basic setup has not changed - each municipal corporation (cities, villages, townships) has had its own tax assessor, and the county and state have had their own tax equalization units. Michigan's concept of property taxes is that the taxable value of the property shall not exceed 50% of its fair market value (FMV). Obviously, every governmental unit wants its properties to be appraised (the valuation process) and assessed (formal entry of the valuation) at no less than 50% of FMV. Also obviously, the governmental units have not had funding to appraise each piece of property each year.
In the olden days, the assessors relied on their judgment in assessing (generally increasing the formal record valuation) by reference to e.g., improvements (building permits), transfers (deed prices) and drivebys. They would then engage in tugs of war with owners at the annual Boards of Review. The county tax equalization unit would then review the overall assessments of the municipalities for outliers and adjust the aggregate assessed value of each municipality by a factor. The state tax equalization unit would then do the same for each county, adjusting its aggregate assessed value by a factor. The resultant adjustment of the assessed valuations resulted in a State Equalized Valuation (SEV), which was the valuation on which the tax ($X per $1000 of SEV) was based. In theory, your SEV was 1/2 of your FMV (you could challenge that).
In newer times, the basic structure remained the same, but changes occured. Upgrading the qualifications for assessors resulting in certified assessors handling mulitiple municipalities (removing some partisan local politics from the mix). The advent of computers did not end paper records, but (in theory) allowed a better interchange of data between the local, county and state levels. Of course, it took the local assessors, the tax equalization units, the county register of deeds and county treasurer's office, 20 years to agree and implement computer systems that would talk with each other. At present, this "distributed effort" seems to be working.
On the substantive level, two changes in the 90s added some complexity to the picture. Michigan's "Proposal A" legislation added "taxable value" to the equation (in effect, the SEV for 1994). A property's "taxable value" cannot increase over a certain formula-set amount each year (say 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 %), unless there is a "transfer". The "assessed value" and SEV for each year are computed and adjusted as before. If there is a "transfer" (say in 2009), the "taxable value" increases to the SEV for 2010.
Another 90s change was the Land Division Act dealing with splitting of parcels. While more half-assed zoning and land access legislation, it also affects the tax assessing process. The burden to implement Proposal A and the Land Division Act was placed primarily on the local municipalities and the counties. The state legislature, as often it does, imposed that burden as an unfunded mandate.
---------------------------
2. State and Federal.
Much could be said here, but I'll just look at centralization. Back in the olden days, we had a local state tax officer (responsible for assistance, auditing and collection of all state taxes in a small multi-county district). He went the way of the dinosaurs and his duties were shifted to a regional office for the UP (same responsibilities). While these officers had to be generalists (all state taxes), their population base was small enough to allow them to handle the full-spectrum. To the taxpayer, the services offered were far more personal. Now, a bunch of small offices looks bad on a org chart; and wouldn't concentration of all efforts in Lansing, distributed among offices in each subject matter area, be more efficient. Well perhaps, and even as effective - if those offices are adequately staffed !!!
Now, with Michigan's budget problems (which go far back before the current downturn: Dem admin started the problem, Rep admin added to it and present Dem admin holding the bag), reduction in force is the mantra (and probably the only answer). Here's an example of what happens. I had to clear up a problem with terminating a charitable foundation. It should have been easy cuz the lawyers and accountants originally involved had done everything right in setting it up, except for one report which was not submitted. The effect of that was that, to the State of Michigan, $1,000,000 in charitable funding had gone missing. The lawyer at the responsible unit advised that he and his auditor (the staff) had a backlog of over 250 foundations and trusts six months before and had reduced them to 150 - new ones ? In any event, all ended well (since we had a complete papertrail), but a simple report would have taken 1/10th the effort (which would have been quickly reviewed and approved without a papertrail requirement caused by the red flag). Not the fault of the state unit, who actually expedited my request (probably at the cost of not getting to other backlogged files).
Similarly, we used to have a local IRS officer (multi-county), whose functions were shifted to Detroit or Cincinnati (still dealing with known people you can call back). Now, you have an 800 number reaching a person located in ? - probably West Virginia (if Sen. Byrd managed to snag that one).
The example of centralization here is that the office had made a small tax payment (~$850), but we got a deficiency notice for the tax, penalty and interest. That I paid with a protest letter attaching cancelled check to IRS and demand for refund. That, of course, was like baying at the moon. After allowing a reasonable interval with no response, my paralegal got on the phone and called the 800 number.
Now it seems the IRS is organized to respond in very general areas of expertise, where most responders are supposed to be generalists in all aspects of specific facets in the very general area to which they are assigned. The first five phone calls were duds (as also the dozen phone calls chasing leads based on bad advice given). And yes, my paralegal knows to go up the chain to supervisors. The problem was that no one of the first five knew how to trace a check.
Finally, my paralegal got lucky and hit the jackpot - a knowledgable person. Basic problem was that the check was deposited to the wrong year and credited to the wrong account (and the credit fortunately had not been used or withdrawn). So, the IRS guy, who was a real pro on the IRS computer system, reversed the credit and put the funds in my account for the correct year. He also authorized a refund of my protested payment with interest from the IRS - which came about 3 weeks later as he promised. Got to talking with him about our experience. His view was that the system should drill down to his level, but it doesn't.
So, how does a country without much administration to begin with handle even the basic aspects of tax collection ? Unless the government is supported by foreign funding, it would probably find the easier path to be funding by natural resources (oil, narcotics, etc.).
Last edited by jmm99; 01-29-2010 at 07:02 PM.
Mike:
"So, how does a country without much administration to begin with handle even the basic aspects of tax collection ? Unless the government is supported by foreign funding, it would probably find the easier path to be funding by natural resources (oil, narcotics, etc.)."
That's the point. First, is there a publicly acceptable means and structure for local tax collection? Not really.
What other internal fees exist? Usually transit fees (formal or informal shakedowns at checkpoints) What is the salary source for local payroll? (what ever you can shake down).
Either the money would have to come down from the center, or in from foreign aid. Neither is stable or predictable.
When it comes to creating a sub-national government, money is everything, and not just the lack of money but the successful targeting and distribution of money.
One estimate I saw was of 12,000 plus civil servants needed to be recruited, retained, put on permanent payroll, housed, office-ed and supplied. Democracy, and democratic governance is not, after all, the result of a vote. It's body and limbs are the staffing, offices, equipment and services, all of which require stable revenue sources.
So, what would that take????
Who is in charge of that? (Afghans? US DoD? NATO? UN?)
To me, the biggest breakthrough this week is the appointment of Staffan Di Mistura as UN SRSG. From Iraq, if he had a question about Iran, he would address it with Ahmedinajad. With Shias, he would see the Grand Ayatollah. He is "juice" and very effective.
Now, the question is will the UN Mission for Afghanistan allow him to live up to his personal capabilities, or are there structural impediments to the UN's "peace and stabilization" mission that need to be addressed. Most important: Can he wrangle all these civs and foreign aid into something productive?
If anyone is likely to broker a cessation of fighting, and obtain an anti-AQ commitment, he is the man. And it won't take him six months to become effective.
He knows how to work with others to create their own nation.
OK, Mr. District official---go forth and collect taxes....sure.
I'll bow to your semantic distinctions Mike but I do believe
your examples made my poorly stated case...
Two noteworthy items from your informative Post:Steve The Planner has provided a sensible answer -- my nonsensical one is that "Yes, it is easier and that's why there's so much of it out there..."So, how does a country without much administration to begin with handle even the basic aspects of tax collection ? Unless the government is supported by foreign funding, it would probably find the easier path to be funding by natural resources (oil, narcotics, etc.).Almost certainly there is one there, IIRC, there are 14 IRS Call Centers nationwide. The IRS 'puter center is there: LINK.probably West Virginia (if Sen. Byrd managed to snag that one).
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks