Why We Need a New Welfare State by Gøsta Esping-Andersen

This one is more of a report on European welfare states. By comparing the welfare policies of Scandinavian nations with those of the Southern European nations, the authors wish to portray the ideal welfare state.

The authors tackle four major issues that concern our social economy: child-centered social investment, new gender conflict, quality of working life and elderly welfare. Wealth distribution and social welfare have - to some degree - been compromised due to capitalization and globalization. It is convenient to think that the adherence to market comes at the expense of income equality. However, despite this conventional belief, the authors argue that it is possible to establish a welfare state which still promotes innovation and incentivizes private firms. And this is a certified statement.

The book is very factual and informative, and a lot of the facts are summarized in tables - which are not exactly easy to interpret. Highly recommended for those who are interested in health care/public policy.

Grace and Grit by Ken Wilber

Plato once said, "Men and women were once whole but were torn in two, and the pursuit and desire of that whole is called love." There can't be a more accurate description of the love that Ken and Treya Wilber shared over the short five years of their marriage. The two fell in love "at first touch" and despite the shortness of the time they spent together, Ken and Treya shared the strongest spiritual and emotional bond than any that I've ever seen in either literature or in real life.

However, that does not mean that one should expect a heartbreaking, tear-jerking, tragic love story in this book. The book is in fact on spirituality and psychotherapy more than anything else. The author Ken Wilber is a renowned American philosopher and a spiritualist, whose wife is diagnosed with stage 2 breast cancer only a few days after their wedding. Ken temporarily suspends his regular writing jobs in order to fully devote himself to his new role as a "support person" for Treya. Although Treya encounters multiple recurrences and metastasis cancer all over her body (brain, chest etc), not to mention complications with diabetes and chest cold, neither Ken nor Treya gives up hope: the human mind is an incredible force.

It's not because Ken and Treya are some kind of enlightened philosophers that they were able to endure the series of treatments and countless trials of orthodox and alternative therapies over the course of five years. They too, like many other cancer patients, encountered self-hatred and naturally questioned "Why me?" The couple's marriage was jeopardized at one stage because of the emotional duress both of them were under. Nevertheless, their "religion" (or their openness to all religious teachings) and the strength of their characters allowed for the Wilbers' innder strength and endurance. For example, one of the most enlightening moments for Treya is when she finally internalizes Plato's philosophy, which ascribes the characteristic of "doing" to male and that of "being" to female. It gives Treya an opportunity to objectively review her past and design an ideal lifestyle and personality for her remaining days, no matter how short a lifetime she has left. She strives to balance the masculine and feminine sides in herself, and an interesting concept which she calls "passionate equanimity" becomes her goal. Even when she is given a few months to live, she never ceases to help others suffering from cancer and constantly seeks ways to train both her body and soul to fight cancer.

The effects of Treya's illness on her spirituality are incredible, but so are its effects on Ken's spirituality. Ken regains his daemon (it means 'fate') and becomes more committed to his daemon without having to worry about displaying daemon to others through publishing books. He learns to accept his new role as a support person for Treya, and demonstrates selflessness and devotion that can only come from a genuine heart.

The Wilbers' religious affiliation is also extremely fascinating. They are not "Buddhists" in the conventional sense - although they would be classified as Buddhists. They don't follow the Buddhist lifestyle but use the Buddhist method to arrive at spiritual tranquility and achieve profound understanding of the Self. This, Ken Wilber explains, is the difference between exoteric and esoteric religions. Exoteric religion focuses on seeking salvation through belief in some form of a Creator figure, and requires one to adhere to specific customs and moral codes. Those who engage in Esoteric religious practices on the other hand, aspire to transcend the common myths and realize what is ultimate "Self" or "Witness." Ken and Treya hope to arrive at this "enlightenment" and search for their spirit through meditating - to conclude that when you realize that you cannot find your spirit, then you have already found it.

I highly recommend this book to those who are either agnostic or atheist, and to those who rarely engage in spiritual contemplation - like myself. Although I can't say that this book has completely changed my religious viewpoint (I remain agnostic), it taught me that there is more to religions than just "God, please listen to my prayers." A religion does not only try to explain the relationship between self and the absolute, but also within one's multiples egos, as well as between one and others. The book is powerful, not because it celebrates some supernatural occurrence and attributes it to a religious belief. Rather, it is powerful because it explicates the ongoing process of enhancing quality of life through open-minded spirituality.

TED talk by Michael Sandel

I read a couple of very interesting books over the past week, but I have been a little lazy with the posting.

In The Age of the Unthinkable, Ramo presents a very intuitive argument on how we must prepare for and adapt to the quickly-changing, very unstable world that we live in. His main point is that we need to see the bigger picture (the forest) instead of focusing on the problem at hand (the tree) - though he phrases it much more eloquently than I did. Throughout the book, I felt that his way of thinking was very Oriental, and then I realized that he has actually studied (and is studying) China in great depth and very affected by the Eastern way of thinking. I never really thought about it, but after reading this book, I felt very fortunate that I have been exposed to both Eastern and Western ways of thinking. There will be times in my life when my exposure to both cultures will come in handy.

Communism: A History is just a very concise historical account of how communism spread and the conditions that allowed for countries to accept communism or communist rulers. The book is very straight-forward and leaves not much room for questions. The author concludes by stating that communism is inherently a flawed philosophy and it can never be realized.

I came across a TED Talk given by Michael Sandel. He is a professor at Harvard and he recently published a book called, Justice: What's the right thing to do? He gives a very interesting talk on what a democratic debate is. Check it out: http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html

The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen

This is the latest (2009) book written by Amartya Sen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen), the 1998 Nobel laureate in Economics. Although written by a distinguished welfare economist, it is a book of political philosophy and ethics, much like John Rawls's 'A Theory of Justice.' Through this work, Sen explores the idea of 'justice' from multiple philosophical and political perspectives, and he introduces and criticizes many theories on justice along the way. The book encompasses numerous ethical concepts and theories, such as Transcendentalism and Contractarianism just to name a couple, which are a bit arcane. Nevertheless, Sen uses simple anecdotes and examples to assist readers' understanding and at the same time, provokes some seriously philosophical thoughts.

Sen's signature contribution is his concept of "capability." When we talk of "equality," we never bother to question, "equality of what?" To answer this, he distinguishes between "capability" and "opportunity." If a child who wants to stay inside the house today is restrained from leaving the house, his "opportunity" is unchanged in that he is still staying inside the house whether there is a restriction or not. However his "capability" has been limited because he can no longer exercise his right to stay in the house voluntarily. Therefore, Sen argues that with every right must come "capabilities" that allow citizens to execute their rights.

I was really surprised by how often the theme of justice was linked to epistemology. In fact, a couple of my high school Theory of Knowledge topics were discussed in this book! For example, in his discussion of rationality, he raises the question, "Is altruism rational?," which is very similar to my presentation topic for the course. To tackle this, he first talks about rationality: an act is deemed "rational" when it abides with the social norm. However, a social norm is not always "objective," for the (geographical) location, ethnicity or culture of a particular society affect what is called a "rational" behavior. According to the Rational Choice Theory, an ordinary person makes decisions that will maximize her benefits, in which case she will neglect to make a monetary donation to help her starving neighbor. However, if the person derived utility from an altruistic act, she would sacrifice a little portion of her income, a decision that does not comply with the social norm. In this case, is the person acting rationally?

Towards the end of the book, the focus shifts to democracy and human rights. One thing that struck me (because I couldn't believe that I had never thought about this) was perceptibility of human rights. Who declares that humans have certain rights? How do we know if we are born with them or society mandates them? To paraphrase the question: is human rights a child of law or parents of law? Sen asserts the latter because some legislation was caused by the legislators' belief in human rights. I think otherwise. According to Sen, some legislators believe in human rights; legislators make legislation; therefore human rights affect law. This would be saying that some people who believe in God go to church; God affects people and makes them go to Church; therefore God exists, which is clearly a flawed logic.

'The Idea of Justice' raises so many puzzling inquiries and I could go on forever pondering about them. The ideas of justice, fairness, right, rationality and reasoning are frequently spoken of, but I have been using them without a profound understanding of what they actually mean. In fact, I'm not sure if I'll ever learn to define these concepts accurately. It seems that our current policies and laws are built upon concepts that are fundamentally abstruse and open to multiple interpretations.

Wharton Global Alumni Forum - Day 2

The second day of the Forum opened with a keynote address by Choongsoo Kim, the Governor of the Bank of Korea. He briefly described the state of the Korean economy during and after the financial crisis, and the monetary and fiscal policies that were enacted to induce quick recovery of the economy.

The next keynote speech was by Yungro Yun, Chairman and CEO of Industrial Bank of Korea. I always thought that Industrial Bank was government-owned and operated, and was not aware of the fact that IBK manages finances for mostly small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Yun said that the rapid recovery of the Korean economy can be attributed to the fact that SMEs were given priority when it came to government assistance during the financial crisis. (SMEs are approximately 85% of businesses in Korea)

The keynote speeches were followed by another panel discussion, and this time, I attended 'New Economic Leadership of Asia.' The panelists were Taesik Ahn, the dean of SNU's Business School, Junichi Endo, Snr VP of Nissan, Charles Tseng, President of Korn/Ferry Int'l Asia Pacific, and Ken Yun, CEO of Samjong KPMG. This was, by far, the best discussion, and numerous topics ranging from social responsibility to education were discussed. Dr Ahn focussed on business education reform, which aims to nurture more ethical and socially responsible businesspeople. Although his philosophy is true and justified, a lot of what he said was very abstract and he neglected to provide specific directions for the future. For example, he argued that 'greed' is largely responsible for the recent financial crisis, and that the way to distinguish 'self-interest' from 'greed' needs to be taught not only at business schools but also at home. Throughout his speech, the same question kept popping into my head: 'HOW?' Most students and parents wish to be compensated for the fortunes they paid on expensive business school education with high income upon graduation. I, for one, feel this way, although I resent the popular stereotype of avaricious and competitive business school students.

Endo's proposed technological improvement, innovation and free trade as important factors that will allow Asia to rise as a new economic leader of the world. On the other hand, Tseng talked about financial reforms. The last speaker was Ken Yun, who stressed the importance of social responsibility. I really appreciated his choice of topic and was very impressed with the way he incentivizes his employees to focus on vision as opposed to compensation. One particular statement he made was so effective and it has not left my head since. It goes: "You cannot succeed in a society that fails." Yun emphasized the need to seek collective welfare and amend socially irresponsible actions. If Asia wants to become the next leader of the global economy, we must think of a way to educate such values and to reform our financial, educational and technological systems.

The final event of the Forum was Master Class teachings by Wharton Faculty. I decided to attend a class called 'Is Africa Good for Asia?' I was looking forward to learning about political and economic exchanges between Africa and Asia, but was disappointed because too much time was spent discussing and justifying corruption. Nevertheless, it was a great opportunity for me to experience how a master class is taught and run, and Prof Nichol's stories of his expeditions in Africa were fascinating.

Wharton Global Alumni Forum - Day 1

When I received the e-mail about Wharton GAF, I was excited because this year's Forum was being held in my hometown - Seoul! The ticket to the Forum costs $750 for alumni and general audience but as a current student, I was able to receive a free ticket which included entry to the Forum as well as four meals over the duration of the forum. Without hesitation, I decided to take advantage of this perk and attend the Forum as an observer.

The fact that the Forum was held in Seoul this year was significant yet somewhat amusing because last time Seoul hosted this conference was in 1999, just after the Asian financial crisis. Since the event was held upon the world's (well, at least most part of its) exit from one of the gravest financial crises in recent history, the Forum was titled "Where do we go from here?"

The first day opened with the Prime Minister Chung (정운찬)'s address. As one of the most influential political leaders of Korea, his speech mostly revolved around Korea's economic development since the post-Korean War era. He spoke eloquently of the dramatic progress Korea made economically and socially over the past half a century. There are a few things that I recall more clearly from his speech. One of them is a newspaper headline that PM Chung read which went, 'Gold Collecting KOREA vs. Stone Pitching GREECE,' which succinctly summarizes the contrasting reactions of Koreans and Greeks upon their countries' bankruptcy. Another memorable thing was the three factors that made such quick growth possible in Korea, which are: 1) Economic assistance from our friends and allies; 2) Korean's zeal for education; 3) The "Can-Do" spirit

I'm not quite sure if his speech was appropriate for the occasion, but nevertheless, he left many native Koreans including myself feeling very patriotic.

I then attended a panel discussion which was titled, 'Creating A New World - Greenomics.' The discussion was rather disappointing and the panelists from Korea seemed neither knowledgeable nor passionate about Greenomics. The second panel I observed was called 'The Future of Finance,' and this was equally unhelpful for me because the discussions were overflowing with financial jargons and theories that I am not yet familiar with.

The first day of the Forum was jam-packed with some very heavy technical discussions, and I wished I was more prepared for them. The Forum served as an intersection between the academia and the business world, whereby the two communities were brought together through discussions about the recent financial crisis.

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

Last summer, I read another book by Friedman called Free to Choose, and was rather unconvinced by his ultra-liberal economic and political viewpoint. I was left with the impression that he deemed almost all government intervention unnecessary and even disruptive of the market, which he thinks is perfectly capable of readjusting itself. I felt that the recent crisis demonstrated the disastrous implications that the lack of government moderation can have on the global economy, and thus Friedman's argument seemed problematic to me.

Capitalism and Freedom differs from the previous book in that it summarizes Friedman's economic and political philosophy in a more logical manner. His argument is still extremely liberal and even though I consider myself both fiscally and politically liberal, I could not help but disagree with some of his ideas. For example, he lists some of the activities/role of government that most liberals consider unacceptable that he feels are unjustified:

1. Parity price support programs for agriculture

2. Tariffs on imports or restrictions on exports

3. Government control of output such as through the farm program

4. Rent, price and wage control (such as during and after WW2)

5. Legal minimum wage rates

6. Detailed regulation of industries such as transportation

7. Control of radio and television

8. Social Security programs

9. Licensure provisions

10. "Public housing" and other subsidy programs that foster residential construction

11. Military conscription

12. National parks

13. The legal prohibition on the carrying of mail for profit

14. Publicly owned and operated toll roads

His list includes a handful of public goods and social welfare policies, except for maybe, education. In the subsequent chapter, he argues against such practices undertaken by the current US government. The overarching premise for his argument is that "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin." In other words, men's freedom can conflict and that one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's. Is he trying to suggest that increased authority bestowed upon government will always limit people's freedom? It seems like he is forgetting one key role of government: income distribution.

He then goes onto argue that government should have less control over foreign exchange, monetary and fiscal policies. He supports free trade unhampered by any type of trade barrier, even exchange rate adjustments; argues that inflation control gives individuals "an incentive to misuse and misdirect resources and distort the investment of new savings"; he claims that Keynesian multiplier effect is an erroneous concept.

On the issues of education and income distribution, Friedman comments that government administration creates more harm than benefit. He believes that income inequality itself is a product of imperfections of the market (i.e. monopoly power of government).

I find a lot of his arguments a bit too far-fetched and overly optimistic about market forces. Not all economies are identical in terms of the natural resources, demographics and fiscal history. Each one has different economic goals and therefore must implement different methods in order to achieve those goals. The role of government is crucial in that it directs, not controls, the allocation of certain resources and implements policies which facilitate such process. What kind of government deliberately makes its citizens and economy worse-off? More often than not, government intervention expedites an economy's growth, and does its best to arrive at equitable income distribution.