Once more unto the paddock
Apparently a salary schedule for the Afghan security forces was in the Wikileaks dump, meaning that once more, the "Taliban pay more than NATO" idea is getting a canter out. (See discussion here (comments) and here (comments).)
At least this time there's recognition that you can't compare the salaries like for like (I'd also note that as far as I can tell from their reputation, the job-related income of an Afghan policeman is a lot bigger than his salary). But the basic problem is that the Taliban aren't like an army, they don't pay like an army and in general the economic relationship is not one that's sensibly analysed by comparison to a monthly wage. The idea that you can bid up the wage of casual labour so that the Taliban can't afford it just isn't going to work.
Edit: "Afghan", not "Afghani", see comments. I got this right once and wrong once, showing that I just wasn't paying attention.
Not to mention that it's quite possible for people to be working for both sides at once.
ReplyDelete'the job-related income of an Afghani policeman...'
ReplyDeleteThe people and society of Afghanistan are *not* 'Afghani'. They are Afghan, and they refer to themselves as Afghans in all the languages that they speak and when speaking English too. An 'Afghani' is a unit of currency, and nothing else. Applying the word to the people who live in Afghanistan is at least as bad as - oh, I dunno- talking about 'the Sudan' or 'the Ukraine', something which greatly exercises our host.
Otherwise, yes, the model we thrashed out on the discussion threads here is far better than any 'analysis' I've seen in the newspapers.
thanks Dan - correction made.
ReplyDeleteI'd also note that as far as I can tell from their reputation, the job-related income of an Afghan policeman is a lot bigger than his salary
ReplyDeleteThat's another good point, and I seem to remember reading in fact that promotions in the Afghan police worked informally on a purchase system, because being a senior police officer was so amazingly lucrative. Can't find a reference though, so may be nonsense.
Incidentally, while we're on the subject, this:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files/16165_86_2king.pdf
is extremely interesting reading.
I seem to remember reading in fact that promotions in the Afghan police worked informally on a purchase system, because being a senior police officer was so amazingly lucrative
ReplyDeletethis is not at all unusual for a developing world police force.
Taking the longer view, a purchase system for governmental posts (formal or otherwise) is generally the norm, and for it to be otherwise is a very recent, and still imperfectly applied, innovation.
ReplyDeleteI've been working in Ukraine for two months now, with a number of English people, some of whom call the country Ukraine and some of whom call it 'the Ukraine'. I've always understood that the former is correct and the latter isn't, but asking out of genuine curiosity, and maybe stupidity, why? I'm really not meaning to be offensive or controversial, I'm just unsure.
ReplyDeleteSimple reason: the country's official name (short form) is Ukraine, not "the Ukraine". Just like it's not "the France".
ReplyDeleteThis has been discussed here previously:
http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html, "The Imperialist Definite Article" - a lot of places were "the X" as colonies and became just "X" on independence. The Congo, The Ukraine, The Sudan etc.
Just like it's not "the France"
ReplyDeletebut it is (in some contexts) "la France", just to confuse matters further!