Re: Strings Attached?
David Dollar has served as the World Bank's China Director and is currently the U.S. Treasury Department's Economic and Financial Emissary to China.
Before this assignment, Mr. Dollar worked as Director for the development research department of the World Bank, overseeing the Bank’s research on the investment climate and growth. He co-authored the recent World Bank reports Globalization, Growth, and Poverty and Assessing Aid. His earlier work focused on aid and growth, and the determinants of the success and failure of reform programs supported by structural adjustment lending. He has been a key World Bank spokesperson on investment climate, globalization, and the effectiveness of aid.
He has a PhD in economics from New York University and a B.A. in Chinese history and language from Dartmouth College.
David Dollar: You know I think any big country that's providing assistance has its own national interests. That's true for China. It's true for the United States. It's true for France and other countries. I don't mean to just pick on those. So I think the recipient governments are aware of this. Personally I think it's a little bit patronizing to be worried that African countries cannot manage Chinese assistance. It's like somehow big brother from the United States and Europe has to keep an eye on the Africans. I don't accept that. I think African countries can mange this relationship. I am sure the Chinese will make some mistakes in Africa, but it really depends on African governments, African societies to try to manage that. Now having said that, it is clear the Chinese are trying to establish ties with a number of countries that have oil and gas reserves some of which, from my point of view, have rather poor governance, such as Sudan, Angola. I am not sure Zimbabwe has oil and gas, but certainly it's an important partner for China. And as a friendly observer, I tell my Chinese friends that I don't think trying to lock in oil and gas supplies from some of these countries is a very smart strategy for any country. They all possess rather minor amounts of oil and gas compared to the whole world set of reserves. They're only a few countries that really have major reserves. Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait. Almost everybody else is a small player. So locking in supply from a small player doesn't have any big effect on the equation. And I think the whole notion of locking in supplies is a little bit illusory. If the government changes in any of these countries, then the fact that the Chinese supported the previous government may very well come back to haunt them. So I see China perhaps making some of the mistakes that France, and the United States, and other big powers have made. And my own personal view is you don't get security of supply by trying to lock in a relationship with some of these unstable governments. I think real security of supply comes from well-functioning markets, and it'sin the interest of all the big economic powers to have well functioning markets in oil and gas. That's the best hope for security in world energy markets over the next couple of decades.
Recorded on: 7/3/07
China's foreign aid, Dollar says, is no different from anyone
A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration likely violated the reporter's Fifth Amendment rights when it stripped his press credentials earlier this month.
- Acosta will be allowed to return to the White House on Friday.
- The judge described the ruling as narrow, and didn't rule one way or the other on violations of the First Amendment.
- The case is still open, and the administration may choose to appeal the ruling.
Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.
- America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
- Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
- Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
The definition of a kilogram will now be fixed to Planck's constant, a fundamental part of quantum physics.
- The new definition of a kilogram is based on a physical constant in quantum physics.
- Unlike the current definition of a kilogram, this measurement will never change.
- Scientists also voted to update the definitions of several other measurements in physics.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.