Regulatory capture is a familiar concept, but "Country capture" in the sense that I mean it doesn't seem to be. State capture exists, but as a different concept. Country capture is when the govt has acquired the people. I'm prompted by the Economist's Tuvalu plans for its own disappearance (arch), where Tuvalu is (nominally), as the headline says, planning to keep going even if it physically disappears. Why would you do that? Obviously, if you're the leader of a country and would like to stay in power, you might do that. And yet no (democratic) leader is likely to stay in power for long enough for it to matter. Another possibility is that this is just PR wank, as a means to draw-attention-to-your-sad-plight kinda gumpf. As TE says, part of the plan is The government is especially keen to make explicit that it would expect to retain its claim on the waters surrounding present-day Tuvalu, but this isn't obviously a good idea either: why would Tuvalu manage them any better than those who might inherit them?
Instead, think of it from the point of view of the people of the country, which the govt is at least supposed to pretend to be serving. If the country vanishes, the people will be best served by moving somewhere else. Rather obviously. "preserve cultural traditions online" as Tuvalu pretends to be considering is drivel, founded upon the idea that natioanlism is a good idea, which it isn't. Think people, not countries.
The other obvious example of this is the poor benighted Palestinians, captured by Hamas and Fatah. Who would be far better off if they were just Human Beings, whereupon they could go to some other country and lead productive and useful and fulfilling lives, instead of locking themselves into their forebears stupid conflicts.
My pic shows a few days walking around Vallouise. Full write-up to follow.
Refs
* My Book List by Bryan Caplan. You'll love it. Or The Identity of Shame.
Are you intimating that the treaty of Westphalia has passed its sell-by date? Maybe a Global Jubilee should be planned where everyone everywhere can choose their preferred destination. I vote for Spain, myself. Where would you go?
ReplyDeleteI would choose the French Alps, probably Vallouise.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I want to write off nations entirely, though I do think they are waaay over-rated. OTOH, I have to admit that Darwinistically they've triumphed over e.g. city-state organisation. But I think they should be much easier to break up (e.g. Catalonia) or adjust borders or dissolve entirely when no-longer useful (Gaza). But really I'd like it to matter much less which nation you lived in (which was why the EU reaction to Catalonia was so disappointing).
"As TE says, part of the plan is The government is especially keen to make explicit that it would expect to retain its claim on the waters surrounding present-day Tuvalu,"
ReplyDeleteWhatever became of the Maldivian Head of State who convened an underwater cabinet meeting to address the question of sea level rise?
We're actually moving to Spain next March, though not in Catalonia. I was going to write an homage to it, but... next lifetime.
ReplyDeleteMy wife is French and she vetoed anywhere in France do to rising Trumpism. Of course it has a French flavour but she doesn't even want to visit her relatives there. So we're going to be renting a bigger apartment than we need in order to host friends and relatives.
Do drop by.
Choosing Spain over France for the politics seems a bit odd to me; but then again given "The Struggle" I think I could just happily ignore a country's politics; I largely ignore our own. But if ever in your bit of Spain I will remember your kind offer.
ReplyDelete