According to the “Dictionary of Foreign Words in the Bulgarian Language” the word “missionary” stands to mean “a spiritual or worldly person, who is being sent to foreign nations with a religious mission… and most of the time, is assigned to do secret political tasks…”.
Does Simeon Dyankov, the Minister of finance off Bulgaria fit to this description?
Pure semantics of the word does not help us much to construct the profile of one newly rising politician, what my task is in the very present commentary. Besides, religious beliefs, as well as theories of conspiracy have never been central themes in my analyses: I do not feel prepared enough to interpret them.
My experience in the politics and sociology gives me enough reasons to believe that individuals who have undisputable professional achievements and shining charismatic characteristics follow a successful career path. Here is why, I consciously distant myself from the abundantly released information by web-sites and specialized paper editions, which focus onto family life, intimate experiences, and spiritual beliefs of the global traveler Dyankov.
I start my comments with the facts of his professional CV. The most important fact is related to his first assignment as a global missionary: devising the methodology of the “Doing Business” Project.
The Failure of the “Doing Business” Project
In 2003 the World Bank started the “Doing Business” Project, where the leading role was assigned to an expert of Bulgarian origin – Simeon Dyankov.
The Project was based on the principle, devised for the “Index of Economic Freedom” and announced in 1990 by the conservative „Heritage Foundation”. The index is aimed to arrange different countries, according to their levels regulation and tax imposition.
The World Bank team expanded the field of application of the inherited methodology and since 2004 it started to publish annual rankings, giving most points to the countries, which have lowest levels of regulation.
The first top-ranked country was Columbia. In later editions of the ranking, such countries as the Marshall Islands, and Georgia, for example, were top-placed. These countries are notorious with their decisions to drop-out their Labor Codes and provide absolute freedom of business to employ and discharge workers; and to either pay, or not pay social security charges; and to either observe, or not observe the labor standards, promoted by the International Labor Organization /ILO/.
On April 27, 2009 the World Bank released a memorandum, which was distributed to the World Bank’s structures. It was stated in the document that the indicator, which stipulates that flexible markets serve as a pre-condition to the countries, which apply for a loan, must be abolished. This was the way the methodology of Dyankov & Co, which is mostly known as the EWI indicator, to demonstrate all administrative weaknesses in employment and discharge of labor force by private businesses. The ranking, based on the EWI indicator, was published for the last time in the fall of 2009. This sounds most like an epilogue of a failed six-year mission.
What is the Core of the Failure?
Firstly, the methodology for evaluation of business environment is biased, as indicators and sources of information are non-transparent and techniques for computing and assigning scores are elementary. One essential disadvantage of the methodology is that only losses are considered, while benefits resulting from regulative policies are dropped-out.
Briefly stated, the tool employed to compare countries, does not fit to methodological standards and, is virtually, useless. And due to this, the methodology produced absurd results. For example, national economies from the Balkans and Eurasia, which are in a state of a deep crisis and institutional chaos, were top-ranked. The ranking classified the true leaders of economic performance, such as the Scandinavian countries, back in the list.
Secondly, the “Doing Business” ranking was initially set to evaluate the progress of economic reforms in an international plan, in order separate economies to be compared. However, this idea failed to materialize. Moreover, in a crisis situation, this economic methodology is totally useless to employ it for international analyses.
At the expense of methodological standards, a very destructive idea has been promoted: the less regulations an economy has, the greater its effectiveness.
It is an anthological truth that competitiveness and economic growth depend much on numerous macroeconomic factors, such as availability of financial resources, quality of infrastructure, professional qualification, corruption, and others.
Thirdly, the “Doing Business” publications triggered sharp critiques of the ILO, international trade union organizations, non-governmental organizations from the US and Europe, and leading world economists.
For a period of six years in a roll, the World Bank was subject to ever-growing pressure in numerous dimensions, which seriously affected its image as an institution, designing global strategies for economic reforms and comparative analyses.
Although late, the answer was firm: the supreme executive body of the World Bank drew a decision to abolish the “Doing Business” project, which action was imperative to all analytical bodies and financial structures of the Bank all over the world.
Here is how the “Dyankov’s Team” ceased to function, and the personal career path of the already known all over the globe Bulgarian economist got questioned.
This statement and evaluations already made above in the text may be questioned as well, by keen fans of the rising politician – Simeon Dyankov. Here is why, I suggest to unbiased readers and professional economists to get acquainted to the primary sources of my information, before I summarize all this in my evaluation of the failure of this leading macroeconomic comparative model.
I do recommend to interested parties to make themselves familiar to the analysis of the independent evaluation group, which released a special report, addressed to the executive body of the World Bank, where evaluation of the “Doing Business” /2008/ project was presented:
ILO’s expertise for the adequacy of the system of indicators and political implications of the “Doing Business” /2007/ is presented here:
The Overseas Missions
Simeon Dyankov claimed to be an internationally known professional in comparative economics. This is the truth – or, at least, part of it. Let us see what exactly stands behind this popular individual, and at the face of which networks of politicians and experts this truth has been proven.
The first piece of news of the international career of the economist Simeon Dyankov (which starting point was outside Bulgaria) is about his achievement as one of the mostly quoted authors. This statement is supported by two arguments:
- The first argument is a direct result of Dyankov’s participation in the annual rankings and publications of the “Doing Business”, released by the World Bank. These publications turned into a best-seller among institutional experts. Here, however, we have to take in mind, the interest of a part of the business and the experts (market fundamentalists from the countries with emerging markets) towards the rating products of the Bank. In classic rating agencies, to get ranked, you have to pay. In the World Bank annual results, based on the “Doing Business” project, to get ranked, the credit activity is taken into consideration. And hence, credit activity of a country becomes an influential factor as a pre-condition for its next financing. Later on, on the annual ceremonies to announce the top-ranked countries, additional show-elements were added, and the title “Reformer of the Year” was conferred. Here is why, this brings many paradoxes: politicians and experts from countries with dictatorship regiments and tycoon societies, which seriously violate the norms and standards of the ILO, are proclaimed as world champions in deregulation.
- The second argument relates to two questions: who composes the rankings in internet of the most quoted authors in economic literature, and how this rankings are composed.
Recently, a very interesting research onto the scientific value of Dyankov’s publications was released /see “Duma”, a newspaper, as of 23/01/10/. Taking the biting tone out of the analysis, the article and conclusions of its author – G.Georgiev, seem to be enough intriguing:
- Dyankov’s personal rank is on 96th place among the first 100 ranked, and it is according to only one of the all 33 criteria used to compose the ranking;
- The expressed interest to Dyankov’s personality is chiefly due to the publications, where Dyankov and Andrei Shleifer write together. /Shleifer is a famous person with huge mental capacity, but is gifted with a problematic talent to observe the Ethical Code of Employees of the World Bank/;
The next proof for the importance of Simeon Dyankov, as a Missionary of the World Bank, is his numerous overseas appointments and missions. Here, we have to depart from the world of science and to enter another world: this of the expert activism. In this world, famous experts of the globe are expected not to just preach ideas, but to put them into action.
In this revolutionary-transforming activity two special missions are distinctive for Dyankov: the missions in Georgia and in Bulgaria.
Conquests in Georgia
Preparation for the missions has been started in 1997, when Simeon Dyankov was participating in a research of the export potential of Georgian enterprises. Since 2004 he systematically visited the country – not as a researcher, but as an instructor of doing reforms. At this point of time his passion for “creation through destruction” /see below/ started to appear as his personal characteristic.
The first “achievement” of the reforming activities of Dyankov and his local counterparts was liquidation of the Georgian Academy of Sciences /GAS/.
GAS’ institutes were blamed to be “Stalinist” and were shut-down and sent to heavens. The reconstructed mini-“Academy” was destined to evolve as a court-affiliated institution, which is now guided by the President of the country.
Famous scientists in Georgia and abroad tried to prevent the catastrophe. They appealed for sense and gradual evolvement of reforms. They alarmed for the irreversible consequences, if ages-accrued enlightener’s traditions and values are lost. Readiness for constructive dialogue with the Government of Georgia about the modernization of the academic science was expressed by the academic society in a special declaration /sees: 24 saati, as of 22.06.05 – Tamaz Gamkarelidze, an academician, President of the Georgian Academy of Sciences/.
Does this situation remind you the rolled in the recent months conflict with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences /BAS/? The very same stamp; the very similar measures!
However, there is one difference. The Missionary was not ashamed to speak loudly his opinion about the academic scientists, blaming them as “feudal men of senescence”.
His success in Bulgaria, however, seems to be pre-destined, as the most important condition is available: scientists and executives of BAS are already in conflict one with another and professional solidarity has been shifted from individual to group self-dining.
In this way, workable ideas of the younger generation of Bulgarian scientists to integrate research activities of the universities, to expand application of science in real life, to stimulate career path evolvement, and other ideas are left behind.
Total victory over enemies is achieved in another battle-field – the one, which exists between the radical reformers and traditionalists in Georgia. The aims of the conquerors in this offense were: promotion of the private business sector and deregulation of labor markets.
Instructors of the World Bank and newly-born, post-Stalin market fundamentalists formed a united war-line against upholders of the labor-judicial standards and procedures on labor force employment and discharge. Trade Unions were among the most chased heretics.
The slogan: “Destroy All Regulations” has been put into action. Georgia became one of the first countries, which abolished labor acts, and gave reasons to ILO to criticize it for this.
One of the participants in the research contra-missions of the ILO and ETUC onto the country of “absolute economic freedom” shared with the author of these lines the following: “When we met with the Georgian Minister of Labor and asked him why they canceled the Code of Labor – he answered us: “Complying to this Code is a matter of style, not of legality!!!”
As people say: comments are of no use here!
The Bulgarian Challenge
To come back to your Motherland as a Minister of Finances and to be promoted to a Deputy Prime Minister in a pro-reforms government, after a period of a 20-year absence, seems to be a great challenge. Sociologists would say that such an experiment may trigger a cultural shock.
This issue, related to the political experiment with Dyankov, I will discuss later. Before getting to this point of the problem, it is reasonable to recall the chronology of events and follow Dyankov’s trip back to his Motherland.
All this began in February/2009, when the then-Mayor of Sofia and informal leader of the political party GERB – Boyko Borissov, met with Simeon Dyankov in USA, both invited on the gala-dinner with the President Barack Obama. The offer to Dyankov seemed to be lucrative and on time /even overtaking the forthcoming events/.
The job of Simeon Dyankov with the World Bank, related to the “Doing Business” project was about to its end. And the project was to be abolished, due to professional inadequacy, which actually happened at the end of April/2009. The road to Bulgaria, where a chance to do the next reforming revolution, was already open. Team-mates seemed to be strong, as they affiliated to an economic doctrine, which was adopted by Dyankov in the World Bank.
The only problem was that the world entered a period of unprecedented crisis. However, a solution was found here, as well. Dyankov has been announced and presented in Bulgaria, as an internationally dignified professional in anti-crisis strategies. The fact that his personal experience is limited to financial and statistical computations and to ranking of national economies, based on subjective judgments, delivered by certain jurists from the respective countries, does not seem to embarrass either him, or his new mentors.
For a period less than 6 months, the re-qualified expert from Washington transformed himself from an instructor to a leading constructor and executor of reforms. He managed to achieve astonishing results. Here are some of the most important:
- For a period of 50 days he liquidated the inherited deficit in the budget; and since September/2009, when this deficit was about over a half a billion Bulgarian levs, he scores a positive balance/ based on severe austerity measures/. Although there was a sharp decline of the expected proceedings in the budget at the end of the year, he reported to have a balanced budget. He set another superior goal: to make the budget deficit as low as 0,8% in 2010 and make this figure a new world record for 2010, as this will be an extreme achievement in a situation of a global crisis;
- He initiated total attack against corruption and black economy. He committed himself to reach such kind of success, which has never been achieved by previous Ministers of Finance of any country in the world. He aimed at getting back from smugglers, tax evaders, and corrupted politicians all due payments, which account for billions of Bulgarian levs for just a few months; and he planned to inject this money into the Treasury of the State.
- He launched serious legal reforms and tax checks, which were targeted to affect the interests of numerous tycoons, show-men, illegal business doers, who had not been embarrassed by previous officials on power.
- He initiated such institutional reforms in Bulgaria, which were never seen before. He suggested restructuring of BAS, according to the model, applied in Georgia. He closed hundreds of hospitals. He imposed decentralized control on the customs.
- He demonstrated, in practices, unknown fiscal innovations, cutting unilaterally all social and public payments in 2009. He transferred certain payments for the next year, without taking into account all legal procedures. He rejected and delayed contracted bonus schemes for the top executive officials of the state. He cancelled numerous subsidy payments for the poor, unemployed and disadvantaged individuals; and so on, and so forth.
And all this is done by him with energy and revolutionary flame, which are incomparable in their scale.
We have to admit that Simeon Dyankov demonstrates courage in executing his Bulgarian mission, no matter if the public opinion is pro him /as it is the case with the gambling or tax cheating practices/ or against him /as it is the case with BAS, and the attacks against the President of the Republic/. These facts prove that this man, who returned back to Bulgaria, is neither a mediocre man, nor a coward official of an International Financial Institution, nor psychically unbalanced individual, as many of his foes and analysts believe this to be true.
Here, we have a case with a person, who is a phenomenal product of strictly pre-defined in a professional and cultural manner entourage. It is widely known that only enlightened people become missionaries – they have to firmly believe in what they do, they have to have fanatic faith, and be initiated into the religion they confess.
How may that happen to a provincial boy from the small town of Lovetch? He transited the University of Sofia, in order to get in the USA and then- an executive position in the World Bank; now he enjoys his dividends from having a rising political career. This question needs a special biographical and in details sociological research. And we need more facts to analyze this, as the up-going march of Simeon Dyankov through global space is a matter of time to accrue more real-life and cosmopolitan experience.
My ambition here is modest: to analyze how does Dyankov’s personality fit to a totally different cultural environments /the US, and the Bulgarian/ and whether this plays some role onto his public appearance.
Cultural Transformations
According to explanatory theories in cultural anthropology a man is a product of his bio-social origin, and of factors of the environment he evolves within /professional, institutional, informal environment/ in a mature age. This is exactly the case with Simeon Dyankov – a Bulgarian by origin, and a Yankee-boy by behavior.
During the socialist period of development of Bulgaria /and even today in some micro-societies/, the most valuable human asset was modesty. For example, if an individual had great achievements at school, or had undisputable talent, or if he was a genius, the general public expected that this man would not boast.
However, today’s world does not favor the modest. Simeon Dyankov adopted the way of being non-modest, thankfully to his long stay in USA, living through all key phases of the life cycle there. He graduated there; he found his job there; he created his family there; he did his career there. To him, it is natural to state: “I am the best” – in his capacity of a quoted author, of an expert in comparative economics, of a counselor of Prime Ministers and Presidents, of a Minister of Finances. This is simply the way of an every ambitious American lad to answer the question: Who are you?
However, to be a committed follower of a certain political or scientific idea in Bulgaria is considered to be anachronism. Today’s values of Bulgarians favor change of share-holders and friends, and even religion, if these changes bring them material advantages.
Dyankov, as a migrant to the US, does not change his friends every day, and seemingly does not fear of his enemies. He knows that the first will uphold him totally /a fundamental principle of the American comprehension of citizenship/, and the second will punish him, if they have the chance to do so.
Simeon Dyankov incorporated himself very early to another foreign economic doctrine – the doctrine of the market fundamentalism /this was totally unknown in Bulgaria two decades ago/. He is totally affiliated to this doctrine by heart and mind, exactly as it is requested by the classical religious orders. There is an important fact here – Dyankov, as an expert and experimenter, affiliates to the most conservative order – this of the Teacher Milton Friedman. Dyankov’s idols are also Friedrich Hayek and Joseph Schumpeter.
Dyankov seemingly borrowed from Hayek his views of what economic freedom is. However, Daynkov underestimated the warning of this genial representative of liberalism that every attempt to impose evolvement of economies in transition by a centrally-administered way or by a certain external force is doomed to failure. By definition, economic transformations /they are a certain kind of social engineering/, are a safe-way to slavery, according to Hayek.
As far as the theory of “creation through destruction” is concerned, as it was the case in Dyankov’s Georgian period, it shall be stated that the already started duties in Bulgaria would add to Dyankov’s “global” CV another position – a reformer. This may serve as a proof that Schumpeter has a hard-line historical follower. But Schumpeter’s idea about destruction and innovation was totally different…
To destroy the legacy /to demolish all institutions, to clear the path for the new, which will evolve from the ruins of the old/ is an ultra-neo-liberal revolution, which is conducted primarily in the countries of the ex-socialist panel of countries. A notorious ideologist and man of action of this revolution is Dyankov, who turned into the keenest advocate of the Washington Consensus.
The very idea of this revolution seems to be grandiose. Dyankov’s efforts are impressive, as organization of work and communications of modern technologies overcome Bulgarian political and administrative standards. For instance, Dyankov’s blog, his CV and publications in Wikipedia and in the world leading internet-sites, demanded comments in the flagman of the conservative movement “The Wall Street Journal”, surpass all PR-actions of all members of the Bulgarian Government, including the Prime Minister’s PR.
All this makes me think that Americanization /in the very positive sense of the word/ of Simeon Dyankov is completed. In political /public/ and professional /expert/ plan he plays and will keep playing the role of a representative of elite university and financial institutions from the US, and of a representative of the global capital centers. He has high personal self-esteem, strong ideas’ affiliation, confidence in what he does, and what he is devoted to.
And what is the most important thing: he has an imputed social sensitivity…
The professional problem with Simeon Dyankov is immense. He must prove, in practice that what he does, is right, and must report that the mission he does, is successful; and this has to happen in a period of unseen and unknown to today’s generation economic crisis.
The crisis started in the US /the country, which made his dreams come true/; then it affected the developed economies /with predominant private sector, which conforms to the doctrine of the free and perfect markets, managed by the “invisible hand”/; then it devastated the territories of the newly emerged market economies /where Dyankov & Co have committed themselves to grandiose experiments/.
The crisis entered in Bulgaria, too, contrary to the statements of the Stanishev’s Government, which must bear the prime responsibility for the failure of the national economy and finances. And to protect its own people from this devastation of the crisis, Simeon Dyankov injected an over-dose of optimism.
Dyankov’s assured the people that after April-May/2010 they will be able to get out of the swamp and will start living better. However, he knows for himself that this is a lie.
He must have known the forecasts of prominent world political leaders and economists about the danger of the forthcoming depression, uncontrolled unemployment and even of repetition of the financial collapse.
Why, then, he does not say the truth? Probably, he relies on the inertial mentality of generations of Bulgarians, which always expect the Messiah to come! However, he does not take into account, that here, in his Motherland- Bulgaria, these beliefs in the Messiah may get a very quick shift to active pessimism, which, on its turn, brings hate. And, this hate will be directed, firstly, to all, who consciously misled its own people. Recall the case with the returned King, who transformed himself into Prime Minister – Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
And if this scenario happens to repeat, then my diagnosis will get confirmed – namely, that Simeon Dyankov suffers from deeply rooted cultural and cognitive dissonance.
Born in Bulgaria, he does not recognize and accept in a natural way his own nation. This does not mean he is an evil man by nature, or an evil-minded economist by actions. Simply, history, teachings, and the missions have centered him to affiliate with another, non-Bulgarian /and n0n-European/ system of values, beliefs, and norms of behavior.
Time, especially time of global revolutionists and experimenters, is ticking away unbelievably quickly.
In less than a year, we will get to know, whether my analysis on Dyankov – The Phenomenon, is objective, and whether my foretelling that Dyankov has devoted himself to complete an “Impossible Mission”, will materialize.
The recent attempt to appoint a new, senior Deputy Prime Minister, as an interlocutor and controller of Dyankov, is an indicator that the Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has already some doubts on the exit strategy of the reforming mission.
***
October/2009 – January/2010
Brussels – Sofia
