two articles

There have lately been two better-than-usual articles on Mongolia from the German press. One is from the Berliner Zeitung and deals with artisan miners at the Altan Dornod Gold mine, the other one is about traders in Ereen. I really like the second one, even though I think it contains some small errors. Or maybe I'm just ignorant about Korean beer brands other than cass and Hite.

On the book front, I am currently reading Morris Rossabi's somewhat hyped work Modern Mongolia. Being about 60% through, I have to say that I am not terribly impressed so far. Maybe it is because I don't belong to the target audience, but so far, the book has added little to my understanding of Mongolia.

On the stylistic side, I found his account is remarkably dry and lifeless. Of course there is something to be said for favouring accuracy over style, but then I found Rossabis descriptions of the political processes rather unconvincing as well. Most of the first part of the book reads like "Ganbold, Elbegdorj and other proponents of free market economy, as well as the representatives of the world bank, wanted [insert policy here], hoping for increased economic output. The democratic reformers , like Hulan and Zorig, and the guy from Save the Children UK, opposed this move, fearing it would lead to higher poverty. Despite their objections, the Hural approved of [insert law here] on [insert date here]." There seem to be no personal attitudes, no dynamic political situation, no pressing issues of the day.

Regarding the content, Rossabi is highly critical of how foreign aid for Mongolia has been used in the past, and quite in favour of a stronger state sector and apparently higher taxes and tariffs. That foreign aid has been - and continues to be - less effective than it could have been is probably a given, even though IMO Rossabis comparision of nominal percentages of foreign transfers in Mongolia's GDP pre- and post- 1990s leaves something to be deserved: in the socialist era, highly-trained specialists earned a lot less money than they would earn today, and the terms of trade were probably also more favourable. Today, a lot of money seems to go to counselors and surveys. So, any good critique on the way money is spent should be welcome. Unfortunately, Rossabi comes across inconsistent at times, and some statements seem outright strange. He, rightly, says that people in the countryside lack market access, but warns against spending money on large infrastructure projects because they give more opportunity for graft. To demonstrate that privatization of herds has led to poverty, he gives livestock-per-family counts for 2002. Why not for 1998, when the total livestock count was 30% or so higher? Why doesn't he give a breakdown for different kinds of lifestock - probably a family owning 30 horses would be considered better off of than one owning 120 sheep? Why does he seem to think that the informal sector of the economy is useless just because it doesn't generate income for the state? And where did he get the idea that the madness that Ulaanbaatar's traffic has become is mainly because of those cars owned by foreigners and the newly rich?

I am also missing some deeper discussion of the role of extended families. From what I know, they are one institution that has played the greatest role in poverty alleviation since the fall of socialism. Rossabi discusses the need for programs, but apparently not the current status. Or maybe the role of extended families is just too self-evident for him, but then for a general audience used to the idea of a nuclear family such a discussion might have been informative. Other things that don't seem to be, but might have worth being, included in the book are the role of Mongolians working abroad and sending money home, and what countries like Japan, South Korea or Germany spent development aid on.

That said, I have never written a book, and even get a bad mood from reading my old blog entries. I have read some books, though. C.R. Bawden's Modern History, for example, makes a really good and informative read, even if it is 40 years old now and the 20th century stuff - inevitably, at the time of writing - contains a lot of speculation.