| Press Control and Socioeconomic Development: What can Laos learn from the world? By Mana Southichack, PhD October 24, 2005 Full document (PDF, 112 KB) Abstract (PDF, 8 KB) Conclusion only (PDF, 12 KB) Abstract |
Statistical evidence strongly indicates that Press Control Index
(PCI) and per capita Gross National Income (GNI) are inversely
related, with high-income countries having lower PCI and low-
income countries tending towards higher PCI. That is, countries
in which governments exercise strong control of the press tend
to have lower per capita income than those with more moderate
government interference. High PCI reflects government’s desire
to attain high level of control over its citizens by controlling and
restricting the press through economic, legal, and political
means. Continued government strict control of the MIA
industries, which comprised of media industry, intellectual
industry, and art and entertainment industry, can hamper the
economy directly by preventing or hindering private investment in
the industry, thereby retarding income and job growth. It also
penalizes citizens with special talents and abilities in art and
intellect, costing society in the forms of lost talents and human
potentials. The indirect effects, which are more significant in
strength and scope than the direct effects, have various aspects,
some are revealing and, others, hidden. Strong government
control of the press does not limit to the MIA industries, it
depresses other industries through backward and forward
linkage effects, human capital effects, and cross-industry
escalation effects. It also causes institutional rigidity, which
prolongs inefficiencies. Strong government control also
exacerbates inequality in favor of the better-off individuals at the
expense of the poor and disadvantaged citizens.
(PCI) and per capita Gross National Income (GNI) are inversely
related, with high-income countries having lower PCI and low-
income countries tending towards higher PCI. That is, countries
in which governments exercise strong control of the press tend
to have lower per capita income than those with more moderate
government interference. High PCI reflects government’s desire
to attain high level of control over its citizens by controlling and
restricting the press through economic, legal, and political
means. Continued government strict control of the MIA
industries, which comprised of media industry, intellectual
industry, and art and entertainment industry, can hamper the
economy directly by preventing or hindering private investment in
the industry, thereby retarding income and job growth. It also
penalizes citizens with special talents and abilities in art and
intellect, costing society in the forms of lost talents and human
potentials. The indirect effects, which are more significant in
strength and scope than the direct effects, have various aspects,
some are revealing and, others, hidden. Strong government
control of the press does not limit to the MIA industries, it
depresses other industries through backward and forward
linkage effects, human capital effects, and cross-industry
escalation effects. It also causes institutional rigidity, which
prolongs inefficiencies. Strong government control also
exacerbates inequality in favor of the better-off individuals at the
expense of the poor and disadvantaged citizens.
|
Working Papers
| Identifies Problems Advances Knowledge Develops Solutions |
A catalyst for progressive changes
 |