Category Archives: Philosophy

Know Thy Economist: Adam Smith

 

Adam Smith is our guide to perhaps the most pressing dilemma of our time: how to make a capitalist economy more humane and more meaningful. He was born in Scotland in Kirkcaldy near Edinburgh in 1723. A hardworking student, he became an academic philosopher and wrote a major contribution on the importance of sympathy and logic. But perhaps how we know him today is towards his major contributions in the field of economics.

Smith wanted to understand the money system because his underlying ambition was to make nations and people happier. Smith remains an invaluable guide to four ideas: When one considers the modern world of work, two facts stand out:
– modern economies produce unprecedented amounts of wealth.
– many ordinary people find work rather boring and (a key complaint): meaning-less.

The two phenomena are in fact intimately related, as Adam Smith was the first to understand through his theory of specialisation. He observed that in modern businesses, tasks formerly done by one person in a single day could far more profitably be split into many tasks carried out by multiple people over whole careers. Smith hailed this as a momentous development: he predicted that national economies would become hugely richer the more specialised their workforces became. One sign our world is now so rich, Smith could tell us, is that every time we meet a stranger, we’re unlikely to understand what they do. Continue reading

Jai Venaik

About Jai Venaik

Jai comes from a liberal arts background majoring in Economics, Political Science and International Relations from the Symbiosis International University and the London School. At Samriddhi, he works as a Researcher, chiefly on projects on Constitutional and Legislative Studies.

Published by:

Honking Prohibition: The ineffectiveness behind a popular policy

In addressing the grievance of city dwellers about excessive noise pollution from the traffic in the busy roads, the Department of Transportation Management (DoTM) in association with the Kathmandu Metropolitan City Office is enforcing the regulation to prohibit honking except in the emergency situations. This regulation is scheduled to be enacted in the start of Baisakh, the Nepali New Year. According to the department of transport management, any motorist acting against the regulation will be subject to penalty of NRs. 5000. Meanwhile, ambulance, fire brigade, security vans, government vehicles and tourist vehicles are exempted from this regulation.

This good intention behind the enforcement of this regulation to reduce vehicular sound pollution is quite obvious. However, the enactment of this regulation completely ignores the genuine compulsion or the root cause behind honking for motorists, while jumping into the measure of controlling the consequence (i.e., honking) regardless. Therefore, the effectiveness of this proposed regulation can be doubted as it is also bound to victimize innocent motorists and provoke unintended consequences as discussed below.

First and foremost, the regulation is clearly unconcise and obscure. While it only tolerates honking in situation of high risk of accident and emergency, it does not define the characteristics of high risk and emergency explicitly. It is not clear whether the situation of high risk only refers to the times when the motorists are sure to collide with the passer by, or it also refers to the situations when some motorists are being cautious by signaling stationary pedestrians to not cross streets while they are in considerable speed. While making such criticisms might sound picky and paranoid, a motorist traveling in the busy streets of Kathmandu clearly acknowledges coming across multiple situations that require blowing horns even if it is debatable if the situations fit as being “an emergency situation” after all.

Secondly, it is outright clear that most motorists do not honk simply to disturb the residence or contribute to the noise pollution. While exceptions exist, it is often the haphazard traffic situation in the city that compels motorists to blow horns. We all know that the grave conditions of the roads require pedestrians and vehicles to share the same pathway frequently. Thus, honking is the only method to communicate with the pedestrians to ask them to make way for motorists who are at least traveling 5 times speedier than the walkers. Likewise, lack of traffic management at cross-roads and junction require motorists to honk while passing across as a caution even during light traffics. Besides, there is hardly any other decent way to signal public buses often stopping in the middle of the road at their own ease while mischievously blocking the entire traffic. In saying so, it does not seem quite justifiable to prohibit honking when it currently is the important part of usual driving function.

Government, when identifies a potential problem, often goes for the simplest solution, i.e. to pass policies and laws targeting the end consequences that results more bad than good. The policies restrict the rights of the citizens even on conducting general activities that is not opted to cause harm to anybody. Recently, the government formulated the policy to restrict the sale of cigarettes and liquors on certain times and now it plans to ban honking. Further, it is also preparing to ban Nepalese from visiting the gulf countries. In saying so, this spree of legal bans is unintentionally encroaching on our civil liberties from all direction while it is trying to reduce certain consequences.

In conclusion, haphazard policies and regulations as such that attempts to counter the explicit end-consequences without respecting the root causes and incentives of it can often result in punishing the innocent than the culprit.  Given that it is at least 40% of the time that motorists are honking for genuine purpose in the disorganized streets of Kathmandu despite it not fitting under the general understanding of being emergent, it still means that the regulation carelessly charged 40% of the innocent. Therefore, the better government strategy would be to act upon particular compelling factor for honking that would ultimately relieve motorists from honking in the first place. Enforcing Public buses to only stop at designated spaces, assuring separate commute pathways for pedestrian and traffic, and enforcing effective traffic management at junctions and cross-roads could actually be the decent efforts to organically reduce honking.

Ayushma Maharjan

About Ayushma Maharjan

Ayushma is working as an intern in the research department of Samriddhi Foundation.

Published by: