Why?

A couple of weeks in the US  were, besides a very fun vacation time with family and dear friends, a great opportunity to notice the big differences between that country and mine, Argentina.

While there, a phony primary election took place in Argentina. Good thing I wasn't here, but really bad to have my vacations disturbed by two sad circumstances: 1) the passing of a very closed and dear uncle of mine, and  2) the passing of all the hope I could have had of seeing Cristina Kirchner defeated in the national elections coming October.

By an overwhelming 50% she was the winner of the "primary", and -according to La Nacion newspaper- her acollytes are already plotting a Constitutional reform, hosted by Supreme Court (and "friend") Raul Zaffaroni,  which would have no other goal than to shape all necessary legalities to allow her to remain in power for good, or at least untill the income from the high price of our exported soya beans commodities keep pouring in.

 Long ago an American client said to me  "Miami is the closest to the US you could get". It was an obvious joke, but not that far from the truth. Having spent a week in Orlando before going to Miami makes me agree 100% with my client. Things are different there, from how they're in Latin America, in Argentina.

So the question is unavoidable... why? Why are we so negatively different? Why can't we behave in a more civilized, proper manner? Why  is it so difficult for us -"Argies"- to behave in a decent, considerate manner? I'd go with this guess: INCENTIVES.

In Argentina, if you go to a Burger King or a McDonald's, be prepared to clean up the mess left behind in the table you'd want to use. In the US, everybody cleans up their mess when they're done.

In the photo, August 24th, 2011 - Miami International Airport, Gate J18, right after the last call to board Aerolineas Argentinas, Flight 1303 to Buenos Aires. Guess where the majority of the crowd sitted in the area came from...



In the US, the "refill" of sodas is a normal, regular commercial custom. Were such a system exist in Argentina, it may well happen that someone would go to one of the restaurants stocked with a bunch of empty bottles, buy one soda just to have the right to refill the glass, and would load the bottles abusing of the "refill right".

In Argentina, major traffic jam could take place at any given intersection, since the one-first-then-the other habit doesn't exist. Instead of  having one car from the left side come, and then another one from the right side do it, in Argentina everybody would have the cars stucked to the one before, so the others would never be able to pass. Hope you've got what I mean...

In Argentina, "getting on line" is a gladiator's task. People stands so close to each other that they eventually touch the person before or behind, since there's virtually no room between them. This -of course- has a reason. Weren't they doing this, and were the people on line leaving some room between them... a wise-guy slippery may find his or her place on line... way beyond what it would have been his or her place on line.

So... why? Why all these happens? Why things in the US works, and in Argentina everything is so chaotic and complicated to deal with? I would say "It's the incentives, stupid!". But this statement leads me to wonder what kind of incentives am I thinking of?

Is it the criminal law system? Maybe. The threat of going to jail or pay a fine could well be understood as a powerful persuasive tool not to break the rules.Would such threat (kept in time) become an incentive, would originate a regular, common social behavior? Probably. In any event, what such threat would eventually cause is the belief in the rules. But for this to happen, two things would have to occur: first,  consequences of chosen behavior must be effective and sustained in time. For instance, many traffic signals in the US includes not only the order, but also the information of applied fines in case of disobedience. I've found this really interesting for two reasons: 1) rules are clear and apply to every one who meets the requirement: disobedience has consequences, and 2) it acknowledges the fact that the individual is free to choose between being a law binding citizen or a lawbreaker. 

Second, the rules must be logical, rational and benefitial for the whole. Rules must become a reflection of "institutions", in the understanding of the noun as applied by Douglas North. Institutions, for this author, are the behaviors conducted by individuals above and beyond any coercion, for the mere reason that such conducts were proved more efficient over others.

Or, in a nutshell, in the US one can witness the every day practice of the "Rule of Law".

In Argentina, there's no such thing as the "Rule of Law". Laws and rules are deemed -in generally accepted terms- to be broken. A no parking sign is just a suggestion. It's outrageous to see the several many cars parked just next to the sign. The consequences? None.Unless it's parked in a highly controlled area, such as downtown, where the towing system is runned by a private company, which collects a percentage of all towed cars, payed by the local government. A private company whit plenty of incentives to tow away cars.

It's highly unlikely that a car would stop in a corner to let the pedestrians cross. Streets are filled with dog's poo, since there are no consequences for the owner of the dog who leaves the poo there (although I must say that this has been seriously improved since my younger years, and most of dog owners clean up after the doggie went). In the subway (or other public transportation) is amazing to see the epidemy of narcolepsy affecting men sitting when a pregnant woman, an elder or a handicap person gets in...

Even further, politicians with enough power and money (which is the same) may well ammend (or at least try very hard to do so) the Constitution, so they adapt it at their best interest. Constitution, as well as most of the rules in Argentina, is also another "suggestion". 


So, is it just the criminal law system? I would say that it has a great deal of impact (although criminal lawyers whom are known here as garantistas -such as Justice Zaffaroni- for their understanding of criminals as victims of society rather than victimazers, would certainly and emphatically disagree), but even more than the criminal law system itself, it's its the ENFORCEMENT of the rules what makes a huge difference between one country and the other.

In Argentina, incentives to break the law are most of the times larger than those of binding it, since it's highly unlikely that such conducts were punished. Hence, do the maths... crime -in Argentina- pays.

In my opinion, corruption is so widely accepted because it´s just another step -at a higher level- of the misconducts daily performed by regular, common citizens, whom -had the chance- would do exactly as the corrupts does.

In a wider social scope, consequences for this complete lack of respect of the rules it's what keeps us so far away from the civilized USA. The Rule of Law is, in my opinion, the definition in two words of what David Hume so brightly putted almost 200 years ago: "There are three fundamental laws of justice: 1. stability of possession 2. transference by consent 3. performance of promises"

If breaking these three laws had no consequences at all, then there would be no incentives whatsoever not to break any other law. Rules, hence, would be mere representations of whatever could be understood as "good" intentions at any given historical time. But they wouldn't be -at all- useful tools to channel conducts and behaviors within the moral frame of freedom and liberty.  And that's exactly what's happening in Argentina, currently in jeopardy to suffer a regulatory OD (overdose).

For the US, in my opinion, the major challenge is not to let the government keep growing, and to continue the tradition of freedom and liberty which made them grand.

For Argentina, the major challenge is to understand the benefits of going along with the Rule of Law. In the short run, perhaps is more inconvenient to go on rounds looking for a parking space, instead of just leaving the car in a no parking area. But in the long run, it'll for certainly mean a huge advancement in political, economical and social improvements, for a much larger portion of the population that now.

So, in my opinion, the answer to why? is no other answer but because of the Rule of Law.