Jim D. writes:
>does anyone know what the policy orientation of Liberia's new Prez,
>Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, is? She's a Harvard economist, but is she a
>neoliberal?
I think you will find that, in her case, the key is not so much a personal ideological commitment but rather the forces that come to play in the African and Liberian context into which she is fitting.
Despite what the papers say she is not a product of the Harvard Economics Dept. She has a background in accounting and then an MPA from the Kennedy School in the late '60s/early '70s, as an older student. Her personal profile and policy orientation really more fits the now-widespread products of these schools of international "public administration" (Harvard-Kennedy, Columbia-SIPA, Johns Hopkins-Woodrow Wilson, etc).
In the early '70s she returned home to briefly serve as Finance Minister for the last Americo-Liberian to rule (I don't know what sort of connections got her that appointment). President Tolbert was brutal and horribly corrupt. She quickly split with him which enabled her reputation as honest and with political integrity. She has worked for a few private banks and was in a not-senior short role for the World Bank when the head of UNDP (a Reagan nominee) choose her as Regional Director for Africa. She may have gotten along better with his successor (a Clinton nominee).
Regardless, the Liberian context is unrelenting. Internationally, the margin for maneuver is small and domestically her support is narrow, without a real movement. Her background (Americo-Liberian) is also no small thing, even if their utter domination has been broken. She may feel that she can get a bit of a better deal for the country through her international contacts and support from the international donors (along with the usual "better management" hand waving). And she will express a personal interest in primary health care and basic education. But it is hard to see how much she can do (of course a return to peace will do a lot).
As Jim points out, the choices in many third world countries have become very narrow -- no doubt a consequence of how few meaningful options are left open to national level politics. Even Latin America with its long sophisticated political tradition took decades before meaningful parties returned and it is not clear to me how long this will last.
Paul