Jan 30

The Future for College

College tuition has been a critical issue with students across the United States, especially as costs continue to skyrocket every year.  However, President Obama recently outlined a series of changes that he felt are necessary to help keep college tuition costs from getting any higher.  According to the president, higher education is an extraordinarily important topic to address, and colleges cannot continue to increase their tuition rates.  The president’s speech, which was presented at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, garnered a crowd of thousands of students who applauded President Obama’s college plans.

However, the key question to ask now is what changes the president plans on creating in order to help students pay for higher education.  The general gist of the president’s speech was that Congress has to bring a slew of changes to the federal-aid program.  In order to get colleges to reduce tuition rates, there needs to be an increase of federal grant money for low-interest loans, and this money will be tied to a college’s ability to lower its tuition.  In other words, universities will qualify for more federal aid in the form of Perkins loans, work-study programs, and additional grants if the schools manage to keep their tuition rates from increasing.  If colleges fail to meet lower tuition standards, then they face the risk of losing a certain degree of federal monetary aid.

On the other hand, the president did state that additional funds would be pumped into Perkins loans, increasing the overall loans coffer from $1 billion to $8 billion.  Furthermore, President Obama stated that he wants Congress to create a new program, which would consist of $1 billion, and the money from the program would go to colleges that actively try to keep tuition rates down.  Another $55 million will be given to individual colleges that work towards operating more efficiently.  In essence, the new fund system, not including the Perkins loans, would act as monetary incentive to colleges across the country.  Under the new program, universities will be rewarded for keeping their rates down, but there is a chance that some schools would not receive incentive money if they fail to comply with the rules.

Though the new program seems to be exciting news for students in the United States, there are a lot of issues to tackle before undergraduates, as well as graduates, can leap for joy.  One issue is the fact that the president’s new plans for college are rather pricey, and there is little faith that Congress will want to pass the legislation.  Many people, including university presidents, feel that there is a certain ambiance that has been prevailing in Congress for the past few years.  Since the price tag of the financial changes is so high, individuals like Terry W. Hartle, vice president of the American Council on Education, think that the necessary changes for education reform will not come to fruition.

The issue regarding funding for the increase in Perkins loans, as well as extra incentive money, brings about two other issues.  First, by connecting federal money to tuition, there is a chance that colleges will lower students’ education experience by increasing classroom sizes, cutting down on professors, and decreasing university efficiency.  Second, the slashing of state budgets has caused a serious negative impact on colleges, and has brought up the question of how the president plans on funding the tuition plan.  The decline in state dollars seems to be a sign that the U.S. may not be ready to fund such an extensive program like the one the president outlined.

Overall, it is refreshing to see President Obama address the issues regarding higher education for students in America.  The cost of going to college has been steadily getting more expensive, and it is imperative that it be addressed sooner rather than later.  However, it is clear that there are a lot of questions that must be answered in regards to how universities will be affected by federal aid being tied to lowering tuition rates.  Hopefully, the president will be able to better illustrate how the funding plan will actually work, and address any repercussions that may come about.  Nevertheless, it is wonderful to see the president working on critical issues that have been affecting students.

Share

Jan 27

Food system at peril

Food security is a topic that economists, agronomists and politicians are always concerned about. Since the 1800’s, some economists predicted that we were going to face serious scarcities (Malthus’s theory) causing famines and deaths. Although the theory turned out to be wrong, nowadays it is still important to take seriously Malthus’s prediction since we can learn from it if we interpret it with a new lens. The way we produce our food is fragile and does not have a safety net. It faces three major challenges.

1)Water:

Agriculture accounts for three quarters of all freshwater use.  Even assuming irrigated agriculture is made as efficient as possible humanity will still need at least 17% more fresh water to meet all of its food needs that are currently available. According to the World Water Organization:

The world’s water consumption rate is doubling every 20 years, outpacing by two times the rate of population growth. With persistent regional droughts, shifts of the growing population to urban coastal cities, and the water needed for industrial growth, it is projected that by the year 2025 water demand will exceed supply by 56%.

Those are frightening statistics. Without evening taking into consideration the problems that climate change will bring, the population increase will cause more water demand to increase radically. The only problem is that unlike food, water cannot be produced or substituted easily. As long as we don’t become more responsible water consumers, the water problem won’t be solved. The average American individual uses 100 to 176 gallons of water per day; in contrast, the average African family uses 5 gallons of water per day. And as long as we don’t solve the water problem, food security will not be obtained for the whole world. And as history has proven, it will be those in the most desperate situations that will suffer the consequences of scarcity and famines.

2) Rising oil prices:

Our food system is dependent on oil on every stage of the production. We produce our grains and our vegetables using fertilizers and pesticides that derive from oil. Farmers across the world (most importantly in the developed world) have become addicted to fertilizers and pesticides, thus oil. Once the food is grown, the processing and packaging also requires large amounts of energy. We use plastic to package and conserve most of our food. Transportation is dependent on oil.  The rising of oil prices will shift food economics. The economic benefits that large agribusiness bring can be challenged by the oil prices.

3) Climate change:

Last but not least, climate change seems to be the most obvious threat to agriculture. It will significantly change weather patterns, temperatures, and change water cycles. This will cause major changes in the agricultural production. Some places will end up becoming more fertile, other less. But the important question is how will these transitions take place? There will be unpredicted migrations, shifts in production, and shift in prices. The agricultural transition caused by climate change will undoubtedly bring more insecurity to the food production system.

Maybe Malthus was right predicting the scarcity of food. But food scarcity won’t be the consequence of scarce land, population size, or low productivity. Our current food system is a really fragile system because it is dependent on the oil price markets, on the use of scarce resources facing increasing demand (such as oil and water).  And it is a system threatened by changes caused by the increase in weather temperatures.

Food should not be treated as a commodity since it is a basic necessity for life. As citizens of the world, we need to find the ways to improve our food system. We have to decrease our dependence of oil (having fresher and more local food, as well as organic), consume water responsibly and support those affected by the impacts of climate change.

Julia Naime (@julianasah) is a research intern at the SISGI Group. She is a senior at New York University majoring in Economics. During her internship, she is researching rural and international development and environmental policies. To learn more about the SISGI Group, please visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Jan 27

Natural Gas, Not Renewable Resources… At Least Not Yet

Renewable energy, the wave of the future, right? Yes and no. What if I told you that I think we should curb production of renewable resource technology such as wind turbines and solar panels? Most people would think I’m crazy even environmentally irresponsible. However, I have an alternative to the immediate deployment of our current renewables technology.

For anyone interested in the global markets, the low price of natural gas is no shocker. This past week the commodity hit a 10-year low. The basic economic principal of supply and demand is the primary driver of commodity prices. In the case of natural gas, recently, supply has skyrocketed and demand has plummeted. For all those a little rusty in Economics, a drop in demand and an increase in supply results in a decrease in price.

While the mild winter is sustaining a low demand, the recent discovery of abundant shale gas reserves has created a relatively high supply. The incredibly low natural gas prices have actually caused major energy companies such as Chesapeake Energy, ConocoPhillips, Occidental Petroleum, etc. to reduce their natural gas production activity.

How does the low price of natural gas “fuel” my opinion that we should slow down our deployment of renewable resource technology? Natural gas is an efficient and relatively clean source of energy. Natural gas produces 30% less carbon dioxide than petroleum and 45% less than coal. Regardless of the future seasonal changes, the plentiful supply of this commodity will continue to keep the price of producing energy from natural gas relatively low compared to other common energy commodities as well as renewables.

Cheap and relatively clean fuel is exactly what this country needs. Not to mention, natural gas will help curb our dependence on foreign energy commodities. Since natural gas is difficult to transport because of its low density, the market for the commodity is primarily regionalized and domestic.  The only efficient way to transport the commodity overseas is liquefying it into liquefied natural gas (LNG) and therefore most of the gas is utilized where it is produced. The process of liquefying natural gas is relatively expensive, and the specialized containers needed to store the liquefied gas are also costly to construct. Therefore, LNG has quite some time until we see its widespread use. The U.S. estimates that we have enough natural gas to last the country for roughly 100 years.

So, lets take advantage of this abundance of natural gas. Currently most renewable energy technology is fairly expensive and not very efficient. If we continue to deploy this technology we will have to constantly spend money to update it and maintain the infrastructure. Most likely, as technology progresses most of the current renewable technology will even need to be replaced. My proposal is to stop deploying our current technology. Let’s save the money and use the cheap and comparatively clean commodity – natural gas – that we already possess.

Do not get me wrong, I still strongly believe that renewable resources are the key to our energy problems. However, we need to be patient. Rather than jumping the gun and continuing to switch to renewable resources  let’s make use of our natural gas resources and use our money for accelerating the development of renewable technology. Our current technology will never meet our energy needs. Natural gas will allow our nation to produce relatively cheap energy giving more freedom to research and develop new technology that will make clean-energy more efficient and adequate for meeting our energy demands.

The current deployment of renewable technology is a money pit. We will need to continue to fund these inefficient technologies that will never be sufficient. As a nation, we need to heed to the old saying, “Patience is a virtue.” Let’s not be overanxious. What the U.S. needs is what the energy community refers to as a “black swan” technology. More or less a “black swan” technology is a development that will revolutionize the field of energy. More than likely it is something that we cannot even currently imagine. Something along the lines of incredibly cheap and efficient energy storage, which is currently impossible, but would completely upend our take on energy production. In order to discover such advancements more funding towards research is necessary.

Today, 30 states have Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) in place. These require a certain amount of energy production to come from renewable resources. In keeping with my idea of halting the deployment of renewable technology, I think all RPS should be temporarily eradicated until more efficient technology is developed. Rather than RPSs, the nation should create mandates that require a certain percentage of states’ budgets to go into research and development for renewable technology. Federal funding that is currently used for renewable projects should be rerouted to research laboratories.

Let’s reconsider our current objectives. Thinking that today’s clean-technology is sufficient to meet our carbon dioxide reduction goals is foolish. It’s like trying to use firecrackers to demolish a building, when really what is needed is TNT. Renewable resources are, in my mind, no doubt the future of energy production, but not the near future. We need a solution that will buy us time in order to help develop our renewable technology. This solution is the utilization of natural gas to power our nation. So while we should not forget about the potential of renewable resources, we should put our deployment efforts on hold until the time is right. Natural gas is a fantastic energy source that needs to be fully exploited. When technology has advanced enough to create the means necessary to meet our demands for carbon dioxide reduction, then lets start to aggressively deploy that technology. In the meantime we should accelerate our development of this technology while continuing to make full use of natural gas.

Luke Richner is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on global health issues, energy markets, and economic development. He is a senior at Duke University, completing his final semester.
Share

Jan 27

Doing Business at the Bottom of the Pyramid

Last month, I had the opportunity to travel to Colombia for school to work on a consulting project (see my previous post about Colombia here). We were focusing our work on the bottom of the pyramid (BOP), which typically means the poorest sectors of society. In business schools today, growing attention is being paid to this sector and the influence they are having on economies. Characteristically, this is the segment of the population habitually ignored in traditional business models because they are often thought to be too poor to contribute to the greater economic sector.

I am happy to see that this perspective of doing business is changing. The project I was working on targets poor populations in Colombia, and incorporates the technologies they are already using as a revenue-generating platform. Without being able to discuss it too much, a business model was created to convey information to cellular telephones that not only will help the people who subscribe to the text messages, but also provide a service they are willing to pay for. The positive impact will be had for both the individuals receiving the information, but it will also be a profit-raising endeavor for this company.

Usually this demographic of the BOP lives on less than $2 a day, and have a much more limited capacity to interact in global markets. However, I argue that creating a business that targets the BOP is important for a number of reasons.

First, I think it is important to initially recognize that these people exist and can contribute to a system greater then their immediate community. This provides validation for those individuals because not only does it recognize that they are engaging, but also offering a choice to do so. By offering the option to engage in a market or not is important, as opposed to the greater market making the decision for them.

Second, I argue that it utilizes untapped brain power to empower typically neglected people who may have great insight towards new and innovative ideas. The BOP and the consumer typically know what they need to make life easier, and often will have an idea as to how best to overcome the everyday obstacles. If corporations were to approach communities to seek out products they needed (or ways to improve existing products tailoring them towards this market) then we will see benefits for both parties.

Third, targeting the BOP opens new and expanded market opportunities. If a company can effectively infiltrate an expanding market, one not already saturated then they will have a leg ahead of future competition as potential incomes rise. Many development philosophers would argue that working on the ground to find solutions to aid issues is important before scaling up a project. The same would be true for the BOP market, once you can target this demographic, you can spread outwards and upwards with an idea.

A great book on this topic is C. K. Prahalad’s The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid. In it, he argues that we can eradicate poverty through profits.

This seems like a far-fetched idea to those typically involved in non-profit organizations working to eradicate poverty through foreign donation and volunteer work. Instead Parhalad argues for redesigning the conventional models of business to attack the 4 billion poorest people in the world because they represent a significant portion of the market. I don’t know if I agree that this approach will eradicate poverty singlehandedly only because I will imagine that the first companies to undertake this will be consumer goods previously targeting more expendable incomes. However, I agree it will be a significant step.

I read this quote about the BOP philosophy and how it relates back to our traditional version of helping the poor.

The market creation approach aims to go beyond just exploiting BOP markets. It is acknowledged that markets do not initially exist for safe water, sanitation, reforestation and mosquito nets. These markets must be created by public investments: the private sector can not invest in public health or other development domains such as hygiene awareness, malaria prevention or organizing small farmers into viable production units. As the purchasing power of poor people is indeed very limited, smart subsidies may be needed to reach the poorest and most vulnerable groups.

While yes I agree that we will still need as much aid and outside help to continue the work of eradicating poverty, I argue that this is another important philosophy to begin employing as we move forward. Offering purchasing power is a luxury that we experience every day, now its time to make this opportunity accessible to 4 million more people.

–Katherine Peterson is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group focused on theories of development, globalization, and political ramifications of development work.

 

Share

Jan 26

Aid Work: Among the World’s Most Dangerous Job

Last night, U.S. Special Forces conducted a rescue mission in Somalia. Their mission? Rescue American Jessica Buchanan and Danish citizen, Poul Thisted. The aid workers were employed by Denmark’s Refugee Council’s de-mining unit. Jessica a regional education adviser on landmine clearing and Poul, a community safety manager, were kidnapped on October 25th of last year. The military unit, which is part of the same unit that was responsible for last year’s operation involving Osama bin Laden, successfully rescued the two aid workers and transported them to safety.

This story had a happy ending. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) which provides medical assistance to some of this globe’s most impoverished areas, just lost two of its workers in Somalia. Philippe Havet and Dr Karel Keiluhu were killed in Mogadishu, the country’s capital. As a result, the organization has had to scale down their operation to ensure the safety of its workers in this Northeastern African nation.

While to the American public these stories might appear as an interesting headline, this is the reality that aid workers around the world face on a daily basis. Unfortunately, studies are finding that the kidnapping of these humanitarian groups member has been rising in the last decade. In some nations like Pakistan incidents have been increasing at an alarming rate.

Aid workers are trying hard to provide assistance to the world’s neediest populations and at the most dire times. They are the first ones to respond to outbreaks of diseases, natural disasters and in restoring human rights to those denied. These men and women choose this work knowing that they will do so in difficult conditions where conveniences are scarce and obstacles abound. They also face many challenges including the lack of clean water, the abundant number of illnesses, the scarcity of resources and of course, security issues.

Usually humanitarian organizations employ international staff from around the globe and individuals from the host country to form a national team. This week a Kenyan aid worker employed by Care International in Pakistan and his local driver were reported missing and assumed to have been kidnapped by local vandals. This would bring the total number of kidnapped victims in the area to four. The others include a British doctor who worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross and two humanitarian workers from Welthungerhilfe. Aid workers are particularly vulnerable because of their association with developed nations in Europe and the United States. Most are held for economic reasons particularly ransom, while a rare few as part of militant’s political propaganda against the West.

In the latest Aid Worker Security Report, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia and Pakistan were listed as the most volatile regions for humanitarian workers. The report mentions that the number of violent humanitarian worker deaths has declined. However, it highlights that there could be many factors involved. The major one is the fact that there is less humanitarian staff available in those countries mentioned above. Because of the instability, major international non-governmental organizations place the minimum number of staff possible in those locations and have skeleton teams helping on the ground. Most of these are made up of national workers. This means that there is little security to protect those who remain on the field.

The sad truth is that those indirectly affected by this situation are the local people who need those organizations to survive. MSF, which was mentioned above, closed two clinics which had assisted over 80,000 children in the last year. Somalia’s increasing decent into lawlessness has made it too difficult to continue providing comprehensive services in parts of the capital.

While the local governments need to do their part to stop the violence and crimes against humanitarian workers, there are other ways to help. The Aid Worker Security Report states that we can also help by funding organizations like MSF, the International Rescue Committee and the International Committee of the Red Cross to fund additional aid worker security. Usually, individuals like to fund programs that will directly help those most vulnerable. However, if we don’t provide additional security to those on the ground, the aid will never make it into their hands.

Regina Bernadin is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University focusing on Conflict Analysis and Resolution. As a SISGI intern, her primary areas of interest are conflict resolution, human rights and Latin American political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Her interest in the development of human rights abroad has taken her to several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Ecuador and Suriname.

Share

Jan 26

Female Genital Mutilation: A Growing Problem in Western Countries

Culture, customs, and traditions are what make the world a uniquely diverse place. As time has progressed, societies and their rules and values have changed due to the receiving of new information, innovative technology, and an increased awareness. Some traditions that are now known to be harmful and discriminatory, however, still persist in the world today.

Female Genital Mutilation is a procedure that entails injury to or the removal of part or all of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. Instead, social, cultural, and religious factors are what lead to 140 girls and women around the world being affected by FGM annually.

A parent’s reasoning for having their daughter circumcised can vary greatly. Making sure that their daughter is a virgin before marriage, preparing her for adulthood, following cultural tradition, or making sure that she is “clean” are all examples of what lead parents to this decision. As girls are born into and grow up in societies that practice FGM, they are taught that the procedure is necessary. It is engrained in their minds that if they are not circumcised, they will not get married; they will not have a life.

Anesthetics are not typically administered to infants, youth, or teenage girls when knives, scissors, scalpels, pieces of glass, or razor blades are used to mutilate their genitals. What’s more, the procedure is sometimes done to groups of girls, often using the same tool with no sanitation methods. It is no surprise that a plethora of health conflicts often arise from inflicting FGM. Bleeding to death, infection, emotional trauma, risk of HIV, infertility, and cysts are only a handful of the lifelong problems that millions of young girls are forced to endure.

Although FGM is mainly practiced in African and Middle Eastern countries, in recent years, it has made a presence in Western countries as well. Immigrants, still holding deep ties to their culture, have brought the practice of female genital mutilation with them to the United States, The United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries in Europe, to name a few.  Sometimes, girls are taken back to their home country for the procedure, and other times someone is brought in to perform the circumcision in the family’s home.

A severe problem with bringing FGM into Western countries, despite the physical health issues, is the fact that girls who grow up in these countries do not have the same mindset that their parents and grandparents did. These new generations are exposed to Western cultures and traditions, where boys and girls date freely, and having sex before marriage is not a punishable crime. The girls who undergo FGM outside of their home countries have a high risk of coming out of the ordeal burdened with depression and post-traumatic stress. They have little chance of continuing on with their normal, everyday life.

Teachers, neighbors, friends, family, and mentors should all be aware of what FGM is and what the signs of it are.  You might find it shocking that huge numbers of people in Western countries have never heard of FGM. Without knowledge of the problem, there can never be a solution. FGM should be talked about in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools.  If FGM was put in the spotlight, I truly believe that the issue would become less severe in Western countries.

Another aspect of the problem is being able to reach all people who practice FGM in Western countries. Around the United States, for example, small pockets of cultures thrive within larger cities. Inside these enclaves live families who might never have any contact outside of their neighbors, friends, and relatives who live in the same community. With this being the case, old traditions are extremely hard to break. The possibility for a group to somewhat seclude themselves from Western customs can be fairly simple in these areas.

A feasible way to approach this problem is to have community outreach programs in areas where FGM occurs. Churches, after-school programs, and other public staples would be targeted by outreach groups as effective areas in which to educate people about the consequences of FGM. The outreach services would be conducted by individuals who come from the same culture as the ones whom they are reaching out to. By doing this, the outreach recipients will not feel threatened; they will have a stronger connection and deeper understanding of the person trying to help them and the issue they are addressing.

Overall, I believe that education will be the most important step in ending FGM in Western countries. People within cultures who practice FGM and people who have never heard of the procedure both need to be aware of why the issue is so severe. Informing the public and specifically reaching out to culturally distinct communities is a promising start to ending FGM.

Will you talk to your friends about FGM? Will you raise awareness at your school or your job in order to help countless young girls? What else could you do to end this problem in Western countries?

Share

Jan 26

Closing the Gender Gap: A step in the right direction

Women have their own unique qualities which they bring to leadership and through their global leadership; they lend those qualities to the world as a whole.  The fact is that women lead differently than men.  Not better mind you, just different.  Women are more empathic and consider an element of empathy when making political or business decisions which suggests a different thought process in ideology than a more male perspective which is to just deal with a decision solely based on logic and without the empathic element.  The male perspective has its quality and value too.  However, there is a time for both and when the situation requires an empathetic or emotional quotient; women have the unique ability to quickly remedy the issue.

Coming into the 21st century globally we are realizing that women are good for business.  Beyond having empathy they also tend to be firm in their decision making processes and good with people.     There are many positive traits women bring to business and leadership but the most commonly mentioned are that women are good listeners, empathic, collaborative, multitaskers, good with people, stand firm in decisions, resilient, creative, and are overall strong leaders.    Women leadership in the business and corporate world promotes stability and economic profit.  Women who increase their own earning power also empower their families as those families have more to spend, and thus encourage consumer growth which is good for business.  When women become entrepreneurs and gain access to financial credit businesses flourish and the economy thrives.

Equally involving women in the political leadership process is just as crucial. A couple of months ago President Obama announced to leaders of the General Assembly at the United Nations that “no country can realize its potential if half its population cannot Continue reading

Share

Jan 26

Business in Bhutan?

Several months ago I wrote a post about the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, which, to refresh your memory, operates on the basis of gross national happiness, or GNH.  GNH replaced GDP and GNP (gross domestic product and gross national product) as the measure of development for the country in 1972 when then King Jigme Singye Wangchuck was looking for a way to modernize his kingdom while retaining Bhutan’s unique culture and Buddhist values.  As you may recall from my post, this policy has certainly had success, but has its fair share of downsides, too.  For example, while many Bhutanese declare themselves extremely happy, the country’s strict policies on dress, language, religion, etc, have marginalized and angered (and in some cases even forced out) a small, but significant, portion of the population.

Many other countries are considering adopting a “de-Bhutanized” GNH policy (that is, one that does not include strict adherence to Buddhist philosophy and traditional Bhutanese culture) of their own,  as they feel that economic growth should not be the only measure of development.  As people in the Philippines, Taiwan, the UN, and elsewhere seek to find ways to implement GNH, however, Bhutan is eager to experience some GDP growth instead of GNH growth.

Bhutan, as you will hear in the video below, is a developing nation and is highly dependent on foreign aid.  It has one of the world’s smallest economies, based mostly around agriculture and forestry, and India finances nearly three-fifths of Bhutan’s budget expenditures.  After decades of isolation and dependency, the country is seeking to develop economically—though the government will not allow economic growth to get in the way of GNH.  Still, the country is starting to open up and allow foreign and local businesses to develop, a significant step for a country that did not allow roads until the 60s or televisions until 1999.  Daniel Spitzer owns the first ever fully foreign-owned business in Bhutan, a hazelnut farm that he, the government, and Bhutanese citizens, hopes will be quite lucrative.  The project will, hopefully, employ 15% of the population and benefit about 10,000 households, and give many impoverished farmers the chance to actually make a profit.  Further opportunities for foreign investment are in education and tourism, according to the government, as long as business doesn’t disrupt GNH and the preservation of traditional culture.

I think it’s very interesting that the first country to adopt a measure of development other than GDP/GNP is starting to move away from that model just as others are starting to take the idea seriously.  For example, I read an opinion piece just a few days ago suggesting that Japan should take a cue from countries like Bhutan and Cuba, which have much lower GDPs but significantly higher happiness levels, and focus less on the pursuit of material gain, which the author believes is making Japanese citizens literally sick.  A phenomenon known as hikikomori is sweeping Japan and the author attributes this issue to the wealth of the nation, arguing that to indulge in misery you need money.  Countries like Bhutan and Cuba do not have nearly as much wealth as Japan, and so their citizens cannot afford to be depressed.  It’s a very interesting idea, this suggestion that the relentless pursuit of economic growth not only prevents happiness, but encourages people to withdraw from society (hikikomori).

I, on the other hand, have always believed that economic growth and development play a significant role in happiness and overall human development, though clearly there are plenty of supporters out there for the opposing viewpoint, and their argument does make a good deal of sense. So what do you think?  Will Bhutan be happier with economic development, or should the Kingdom remain focused on GNH and tradition, lest the pursuit of business and material gain lead to unhappiness and even illness?  Let me know in the comment box!  And watch this short video about how Bhutan is blending business and tradition.

Michelle Bovée is a SISGI Group Program and Research Intern focused on international affairs, economic development, and responsible tourism. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org

Share

Jan 25

Is Access to the Internet a Human Right?

Two-thousand eleven changed the status of the virtual world. It went from being a privilege of a few to being declared a human right. Traditionally, human rights were defined as those essentials that every individual in this globe should be able to access.  This list included clean water, food, clothing, housing and shelter and others such as liberty, freedom of speech and education. Late last summer, the United Nations declared the internet a universal human right and a basic need for all.  So how did the internet make the list?

Over the last two decades the World Wide Web has risen to hold a prominent place. The latest technological strides and fast developing advances have made it so that we have become dependent on its use for our daily interactions.  Whether it is use to stay connected, for business transactions or facilitate everyday functions, the internet has become indispensable.

It is understandable how we would feel that it is a need. But can we compare it to a necessity as important as food, shelter and water?

This new elevated status has not come without debate. While all do agree that there is a relationship between the internet and human rights, there is a clear divide between those who agree with the role of technology as a right and those who do not.  Some argue that technology was the key to success to the Arab Spring in the Middle East and that it helped expose human rights violations.  They also contend that it helped give people their due rights in an oppressive region led by restrictive regimes.  However, they express that technology served as instrument for change not as the end goal.

In an op-ed in the New York Times by Vinton Cerf, a vice president and chief Internet evangelist for Google, he makes an argument that it isn’t a human or civil right. He uses the analogy that at “one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse.” By this he means that technology is more of a tool in the fight for universal human rights, not a right in itself.

Others, like the United Nations (UN) have publicly declared that it is as basic right for all. The argument stems over the fact that regimes thwart people’s rights of speech, freedoms and movement and that they have done the same over the use of the internet and in so restricting a right.  Some specific examples are China and Cuba where the government curbs its citizens’ right to access certain sites and monitors the users’ virtual movements.

The UN also believes that the internet’s role in combating inequality, aiding in development and unifying the world during a time of globalization makes it essential. The internet has been called revolutionary because unlike television, printed publications and radio it invites communication between two or more people.  It also allows for it to be done quickly, cheaply and at times anonymously. While the UN promotes the universal use of the internet, it understands that over 4 billion people around the world still have limited to no access to this technology. They do encourage all member states to make this as important a priority as the freedom of speech and communication.

Both parties have valid points.  Also, they both recognize the importance of this technology and its usefulness. It’s the degree of its significance that varies. I believed that research would help me clearly pick a side; instead, I find that each side has compelling reasons and justifications to support their case. So what do you think? Should we redefine human rights to include the internet? Is it as important as some of the other things considered a human right? Could it be a right in the developed world but not as much as a necessity in the developing one? Please share your thoughts.

Regina Bernadin is a doctoral student at Nova Southeastern University focusing on Conflict Analysis and Resolution. As a SISGI intern, her primary areas of interest are conflict resolution, human rights and Latin American political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Her interest in the development of human rights abroad has taken her to several Latin American countries, including Colombia, Ecuador and Suriname.
Share

Jan 25

Who’s Leading on LEED?

According to a recent article in the Daily Journal of Commerce, Oregon has been knocked from its top ranking position as leader in green design projects.  Surely this loss comes as a mighty blow to the state known for its environmental friendliness.  Apparently granola eating and tree hugging are no longer viable qualifications to “count” as a leader in green advancements.  Now, filling out the right forms, checking the right boxes, and providing the right funds guarantees you a top spot on the environmental rankings.  It’s no surprise with this type of bureaucracy then that Washington, D.C. has shimmied its way to the number one spot.  With all this red tape for green causes, it seems like you have to pass through a sea of Christmas decorations to see your state’s name on that leader board.

In actuality, Oregon is quite an environmentally friendly state, and as the article points out, LEED projects are not the only way a state is making green decisions.  However, the fear of being perceived as dropping from the top spot has important implications.  In the green revolution, did we lose sight of the real goal at hand, or has the battle to have the shiny gold star made states and other entities alike sacrifice the value of green innovation in order to surrender to the specific qualifications that will put them on top?

Competition has always been a source of ingenuity, creativity, and entrepreneurship in the U.S., and when we are able to translate this American ideology to important issues such as environmental sustainability, a lot can be accomplished.  In the last decade, new measures for recognizing green design have been introduced.  In 2000 the U.S. Green Buildings Council created the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification program (LEED).  LEED provides an innovative way to recognize building owners and operators for their excellence in green design.  LEED provides a checklist of design elements that strive to achieve sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality.  The checklist offers flexibility in which design elements builders want to gain points in, allowing them to sacrifice environmentally sustainable elements in others.  A LEED certification can be granted to a variety of buildings including new building projects, commercial interiors, schools, homes, and more, and these projects can be awarded a certified, silver, gold, or platinum label in accordance to the number of points the “scored” on their checklist.

The ranking system referred to at the beginning of the article is based off of the number of LEED certified building projects in each state or district.  With the ranking system, a new competitive framework surrounds the way state governments and private companies think about green design.  With constituents and consumers beginning to demand environmentally sustainable spaces, pressure builds to gain the most and the highest LEED certifications.  Problems can arise from this competition, however, when the builders and consumers are so focused on the score they fail to do what is best for the space.

As an anecdote; when I was given a tour of the new LEED approved dormitory on the George Washington campus I was shown all the spiffy bamboo wallpaper and recycled cork floors, but when I began to look around, a lot of efficient, common-sense design elements were not in place.  For example, three bright new shining elevators greeted you at the entranceway, but there were no stairs in sight.  In order to take the stairs, you would have to walk around the entire floor.  While I’m certainly not an electricity expert, it would appear to me to be more economically and environmentally efficient to have easy access to climb two, three, or four sets of stairs rather than take an elevator?  But, alas, average elevator rides are not a LEED checklist item, so common sense (at least common sense to me) did not come into the design.

From states to universities to hotels to homes, everyone seems to want the advantage as a recognized, certified, or classified environmentally friendly space.  Although I welcome this form of competition, I would also advise both consumers and builders to look past the initial labeling.  Explore what the space is really doing to mitigate environmental degradation and ask if it could be doing more.  Challenge yourself to step outside the checkbox on the paperwork and decide to be your own judge for green building and progress.

Tracey Shipman is a senior at the George Washington University studying public policy, economics, and peace studies. As a Program and Research Intern for the SISGI Group, she researches environmental sustainability, education, and economic development.
Share