''What Becker Calls Bribery, We Call a Scholarship'' (int'l edition)

The subject of Gary Becker's '''Bribe' Third World parents to keep their kids in school'' (Economic Viewpoint, Nov. 22) is delicate and complex. It concerns all nations, rich and poor, since in today's globalized economy, what happens in one country will directly or indirectly affect others.

Here in Brazil, what Becker calls bribery, we call a scholarship. It has been happening in Brazil for the past four or five years. It started in Brasilia, when then-Governor Cristovam Buarque put the scheme into practice. Today, it is used in many states, and even the federal government has its own program. It is widely discussed and approved by all sectors of society and almost everyone in the political spectrum. So this is not news to Brazil.

It's important that we read in your magazine not only about the problems but also the solutions. I hope to read more articles with information about how some people solved their problems.

Bernardo Jurema
Recife, Brazil


At its Mexican facility, my company had a problem similar to the one Becker discusses, but it involved adult absenteeism, not child labor. We found that the head of the household (usually the husband) would fail to come to work for some time just after receiving his paycheck. Offering higher wages to encourage better attendance was tried but failed: The worker could put in fewer hours and still take home the same pay.

We then tried offering the worker's wife a food coupon for free groceries each month if the husband worked a minimum number of days. Attendance jumped dramatically. This simple approach solved the problem. Perhaps the world's less fortunate children will also be able to enjoy such an easy solution to their problems.

Paul McCutcheon
Singapore

Mexico's PRI Rules through a ''Buddy System'' (int'l edition)

''Why Mexicans won't toss out the ruling party'' (International Business, Nov. 22) deserves several readings. With 70 years of Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) rule in evidence, a theory of Mexican political continuity that goes beyond headlines is needed. What might be called a ''split-level theory of the PRI'' would go like this:

PRI refers to two very distinct orders of fact: One corresponds to the levels of local, state, and congressional politics, the other to presidential politics. At the first, lower level, PRI refers to candidates and political organizations that can, and often do, lose elections to opposition parties. At the second, higher level, however, PRI refers to the Mexican form of government, not to a political party. In this view, it is a contradiction in terms to imagine that the PRI could lose a national presidential election. For Mexicans, voting against the PRI would be equivalent to voting against the Mexican flag. It would be the equivalent of voting against the Mexican form of government.

What, then, is the Mexican form of government? You cite a Mexican political scientist who says it is a ''buddy system.'' It's [akin to] a group of buddies that make up the ''100 families'' of Mexico--the consentidos del sistema, or privileged classes. For Mexico's poor and functionally illiterate, who make up more than 50% of the population, what matters is corn tortillas on the table--tortillas that often come, directly or indirectly, through PRI channels. Every six years, Mexico's underclasses are asked to acknowledge the benefits they have received from ''the system'' by voting for the PRI. In effect, voters are looking backward, not forward. They are acknowledging, not choosing.

The uncertain movement toward a market opening, in the energy and other sectors, will be led by officials affiliated with the PRI--like it or not.

George Baker
Houston

Open Standards: A Shield against Monopoly (int'l edition)

A breakup of Microsoft Corp. might be necessary, but real consumer value and long-term protection against monopolies lies in standardization (''Microsoft: Does a breakup make sense?'' Special Report, Nov. 22). ''Innovation'' in software creates a big barrier to entry by protecting the ''first-mover'' advantage: The biggest can outdevelop competitors forever. Users are locked into a roller-coaster ride of upgrades of dubious business value.

Standards are the missing link. Collaborative, not competitive, programmers have created the Internet (and its many protocols) and Linux. Without open standards, there would be no Internet at all. After more than 23 years of personal computing, why am I still not able to transfer seamlessly any sort of document to someone who doesn't have the same software as I do? Under relentless pressure, I recently succumbed and purchased Microsoft applications so I could read other people's documents. Continued innovation, without standards, hurts users. Standards don't have to stifle innovation; they just let everyone innovate together.

Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has the ability to create a better world for computer software consumers if he can create a mechanism to enforce a software-standards process in the long term. How about it, Judge?

Ian R. Cheong
Brisbane, Australia

Don't Pick on India's Nuclear Program (int'l edition)

Your report on nuclear energy in India (''For Lockheed, breaking up is good to do,'' American News, Nov. 15) is one-sided. As anyone familiar with this sector ought to know, ''construction delays, cost overruns, and inefficient performance'' are common not just in India: They happen all over the world.

The recent accident at Tokaimura in Japan, the closure of France's Superphenix site, and Britain's recurrent headaches with its Sellafield facility reveal that rich countries also face problems with their nuclear programs. India is, of course, a tempting target for scrutiny, given the zealously autonomous nature of its program (which operates in the face of 25-year-old international sanctions) as well as its technical advancement in this domain. With seven operating nuclear power plants, three more due onstream next year, a fast breeder reactor, and cutting-edge research and development on alternative nuclear fuels such as thorium, this is one area where India is far ahead of China, and potentially a competitor to Western companies on world markets.

True, more funds and technology could help. But for an energy-starved, oil-importing country, the onus is on the West to lift sanctions, not for India to drop its nuclear-power program.


A. Sheshabalaya
Managing Partner
Ascendex Europe
Brussels