Oct 20

Culture and Economic Development

Last week I wrote a post about some of the aspects of development besides economic growth that policy makers should take into account when dealing with the developing world, and today I would like to continue in a similar vein.  This time, however, I am going to discuss a different variable: culture.

Over the summer I read a book called The Sex Lives of Cannibals, which sounds racy but is in fact very entertaining (and informative) travelogue by J. Maarten Troost. Troost and his girlfriend move from D.C. to the Tarawa atoll in Kiribati (Kir-ee-bas), a small, impoverished South Pacific nation few have ever heard of.  His girlfriend spends her days working as director of an NGO, while Troost explores the island and documents what he learns about the people and the culture.

One of the things I found particularly interesting about this book was Troost’s description of the Bubuti system.  Under the bubuti system, someone can come up to you and say “I bubuti you for your fishing net,” and you are obliged to hand it over without complaint.  The next day, you can go to the one who took your fishing net and say, “I bubuti you for your shoes,” and he will have to hand them over to you.  It’s a way that the society on the islands remains egalitarian, and it’s also the reason why the I-Kiribati (the people of Kiribati) avoid positions of power.

Troost relates the story of a well-educated young I-Kiribati who was in line to become the manager of the Bank of Kiribati but who begged his superiors not to promote him.  He explained that if he were to be promoted people would come to him and bubuti him for money and jobs, and so the Bank remained in Western hands.  The bubuti system is also the reason why Troost’s girlfriend was able to get a job as director the NGO.  Previous NGO’s had attempted to turn control over to the I-Kiribati, but as soon as they did so bubuti requests ate up their budgets and they were forced to dissolve.  I-Matangs (westerners) are outside the bubuti system, and so are able to have powerful positions without the whole organization crashing down around them.

Now, I find this very interesting, since one of my interests (and focus areas for research) is international economic development.  As a westerner, I tend to focus on job creation and its relationship to economic growth, but clearly there can be contradictory forces at work.  In a place like Kiribati job creation is not necessarily linked to economic development, and giving the local people positions of power within the organizations that were created to help them—usually a positive and sustainable way to encourage development—only causes those organizations to crumble.  Culture is always something that needs to be taken into consideration when trying to foster international economic growth, but I think this example really emphasizes the extent to which culture plays a role.  Obviously it’s an extreme, but surely there are other places where similar systems can be found.  Policy makers and aid organizations need to be sure to take these things into consideration.

Of course it’s nice to say that culture needs to be taken into consideration when dealing with economic development, but how do you do that?  How do you deal with the bubuti system?  It’s certainly an interesting question.  The system seems designed to prevent people from gaining too much wealth, and it deters people from seeking positions of power.  So how to you create a practical, sustainable organization that encourages economic growth and works with (or around) the bubuti system?  Any suggestions?

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

Oct 19

Separated in the Midst of Chaos

In the midst of chaos and uncertainty caused by a natural disaster, many worries cross people’s mind. Will this tornado uproot my house? Will this hurricane flood my business? Will a tsunami displace my family from our hometown? The concerns for safety and security abound, followed by thoughts on the financial impact caused by this unprecedented event.

Most lists of disaster preparedness focus on physical safety and infrastructure, financial impacts and short term needs that should be addressed after the crisis is over. Most families don’t realize that in the aftermath, the priority needs to be to stay together and have everyone accounted for within the unit. Those initial 72 hours are precarious. During those first few hours, children have been known to disappear or have been kidnapped for the purposes of sexual exploitation by individuals who abuse the crisis situation.

Reports have surfaced that during the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, children who were separated from their families where taken away from the nation. A lucky number had been whisked to safety and later reunited with their family. An unfortunate number were taken by traffickers through the border to the Dominican Republic and never heard from again.

That was not the first time first-line responders heard such stories. There is anecdotal information regarding the 2004 Tsunami. It is alleged that Indonesia had to close its border to anyone under the age of 16 because traffickers posing as aid workers had taken children who had been separated from their families. Within the United States whispers were murmured that this same situation happened during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

During this time children are at their most vulnerable. A program specialist for UNICEF said that the key to avoiding additional difficulties during such a chaotic time is information. Information and communication are the key to preventing the unfortunate scenarios mentioned above. This is reiterated by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). The agency recommends that families plan ahead and prepare for emergency situations. This includes pre-planning what to do if the family is separated during the disaster.

The list they suggest is the following:

  • Know where your kids are at all times.
  • Stay together.
  • Take photos of your children with you when evacuated.
  • Give children identification information to carry with them, including the child’s name, date of birth, address, phone numbers, etc. If a child is too young or otherwise unable to speak for him- or herself, consider writing his/her name, date of birth, parents’ names, home address, and telephone/cell numbers somewhere on the child’s body in indelible marker.
  • E-mail digital photos of all family members to extended relatives and/or friends.
  • Photocopy important documents and mail to a friend/relative in a safe location.
  • Make a plan with your children, so they know what to do if your family becomes separated during an evacuation.

Organizations worldwide are working to raise awareness on the safety needs of children during and immediately after an emergency situation. ECPAT International published a handbook to teach emergency aid workers about protecting children against sex trafficking and sexual exploitation following a natural disaster. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of each individual to protect not only their children, but all children who are separated from their families due to catastrophic and most times unavoidable circumstances.

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

Oct 19

#OccupyWashington

Chances are, if you haven’t been living under a rock for the past month, you’ve heard about Occupy Wall Street – a burgeoning movement that protests against economic inequality and corporate greed and has spread not only around the country but around the world.

Although the concrete goals of the protestors are not completely clear, the movement has already garnered widespread support. According to a recent poll, 67% of New York residents sympathize with the cause of the protestors. And this fact is not entirely surprising. As the picture of this article demonstrates, the share of income earned by the wealthiest 1% of Americans has increased from 10% of annual US income in 1980 to over 20% currently. As the rich have gotten richer, members of the middle/lower classes have either remained in the same financial situation or gotten worse off. Salaries of many workers in the middle/lower classes have decreased when adjusted for inflation, which has prevented them from being able to pay off their student loans or provide for their families. Others have been laid off and have not been able to find a job following the recent financial crisis.

When economic disparity continues to widen, one should expect civil disorder of some sort. Additionally, now that so many people have access to the internet and social media sources, people can more easily connect with each other and organize demonstrations.

I am very ambivalent towards the current protests. In some ways, I sympathize with many of the demands of the protestors and understand the reasons that they are so upset. I have also been waiting for a grassroots movement by the left that could serve to galvanize its base and counteract the paradigmatic shift to the right that the Tea Party Movement helped cause.

However, in spite of my accordance with many of the causes and demands of the movement, I question the direct targets of the protests. Throughout my internship with the SISGI Group over the past several months, I have been trained to understand that trying to do good is not enough. Rather, we need sustainable solutions that can solve problems. I do not think the current course of action is necessarily the best way to enact change. I believe that the public has often unfairly vilified bankers. I understand it. Many do find loopholes and get around taxes. Many of them were greedy and took advantaged of lax regulations that eventually led to our downfall in 2008. They were bailed out after the crisis, and yes, because of their considerable wealth, they are able to lobby for favorable policies.

But bankers aren’t inherently evil people as the media often tries to tell us (well, at least the mass majority of them). Some may be a bit selfish and greedy, but almost all of us fall under that description. The truth is they do perform a valuable service in our capitalist society, and we can’t really grow businesses without them. They operate within a system of rules that many of them have the influence to create. But many people would do the same thing if they were in the position of the bankers.

If we are unsatisfied with the income disparity in this country, we need policy change. We need to regulate Wall Street closely enough that we don’t have a repeat of the financial crisis. To close tax loopholes for corporations. To raise taxes on the wealthy. To make sure that there is transparency in our government, in that we get to see exactly where monetary contributions to our political leaders are coming from. If we plan on pushing forward the interests of the 99%, we cannot do so just by complaining that the 1% is too fortunate. We must show politicians that we will not stand for corruption or deregulation in Wall Street. If we really want our demands answered, we must ensure that we have a Congress and President more concerned in helping Main Street than helping Wall Street. Change will not come by yelling at those who take advantages of the opportunities given to them. We must occupy Washington, not Wall Street.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Oct 18

China’s Clean City: More Than A One Hit Wonder?

Last year I spent some time backpacking through China, and I came away with some great memories from the trip. Apart from just memories, I also came home with a bag full of incredibly dirty clothes. Being in an urban city, I could not figure out why my shirts were always so dark by the end of the day. It took me a few days to realize that it was the air pollution as I walked through the streets of Shanghai that was turning my clothes and skin brown, and not the constantly grey sun overhead.

From that experience, I couldn’t help but get a little excited when I read Christina Larson’s article about a Chinese city taking steps to fight pollution. In the northeast of China, the city of Shenyang has shown great successes in cleaning up their air and water. Taking a multi-angle approach, the city government made strides in cleaning the water supply and demolishing factories to rebuild them with improved technologies outside the urban central. Additionally the city has replaced personal coal stoves with natural gas as well as made investments in developing the mass transit systems. If this has shown to be possible in one city, can this be scaled up to more around China?

Shenyang’s success has been a combination of savvy business leaders and a bit of luck. The proximity to Beijing helped political leaders reach out for government money earmarked towards large-scale infrastructure projects. Politicians were able to bring together the leadership from government departments to push projects forward. They also recognized that downtown could benefit from a larger real estate market and retail spaces so the government decided to move rundown warehouses and factories to other locations. The initial investment in changing the area has been extremely profitable. This has solidified the idea that going green makes economic sense.

Despite having the right combination of business, politics, and forethought, why can we not expand this project elsewhere? Or are there lessons to be learned for other cities to work from? After all, every developed nation has gone through a phase of industrialization and heavy pollution. Most have emerged more or less with a retrospective awareness and China can do this too.

Unfortunately, there have been more examples of failed sustainability projects than successful ones in China. For example the “worlds first eco friendly city” Dongtan was commissioned for building outside of Shanghai in 2005. But it fell though due to lack of funding as well as a misunderstanding of cultural needs. While this project has quietly been swept under the rug, it is disappointing to see such a positive and grand investment fall wayside. One thing has become evident in the line of environmental preservation: “enforceable green building codes, with the designers’ and planners’ willingness to follow them, is very important…Such grand eco-city plans themselves are not eco-friendly,” as observed by Wen Bo, a Beijing-based environmentalist.

So, what can the take away lesson be from Shenyang’s successes? When comparing it to this single example of failure, I believe there are two. First, Shenyang’s improvements were successfully instituted through the local government, without foreign involvement. The politicians found a successful way to get the citizens on board by making smart economic and political decisions. The second success the politicians had in initiating eco-friendly decisions was to frame them within economic incentives. Just as Shenyang realized, the revenues from condos and retail space far outweighed pollution emitting factories. If China can begin heavily promoting economic policies favoring green decisions, I think they we will see substantial improvements in a number of environmental indicators. Shenyang shows that it is possible to motivate existing companies to abandon old technologies for improved and cleaner facilities. Similarly, with the rate of growth that China is seeing, the country can hold newly established companies accountable to adopt green policies, and avoid the learning curves of the old establishment.

China and the developing world are growing at an exorbitant pace. With these growth rates, we are going to have to find ways to keep our world sustainable for the future. Hopefully, countries will get onboard with projects promoting environmental regulations, and if Shenyang can maintain these policies, then they stand as a beacon of hope for the rest of China to follow.

–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

Oct 18

Inspirational Woman: Rigoberta Menchú

Last week I wrote about Wangari Maathai, the first African Woman to have won the Nobel Peace Prize. This post is in turn dedicated to Rigoberta Menchú. Rigoberta Menchú is the first Latin American woman to have won the Nobel Peace prize.  She received it for her work advocating indigenous rights and human rights protection.

Rigoberta and Wangari share many things in common, and there is no wonder why they won the Nobel Peace Prize. Their fight to protect human rights meant the threat of their own lives, but fear never stopped them. They were both smart and clever in finding ways in which to bring international attention to their struggle and therefore facilitate their resolution. In order to protect what they believed in,  both women faced discrimination, violence, and human rights abuses. It is probably those experiences that really empowered them to keep fighting and gave them even more determination.

Rigoberta’s life trajectory and her achievements are quite exemplary. She was born in 1959 in Guatemala and grew up in a poor Quiché Indian family. Her activism started during the Guatemalan civil war. Rigoberta received little education but at an early age was involved in social movements, fighting for political reform and social justice. She became one of the leaders and a symbol of her country’s struggle for peace and stability.

Rigoberta became a political and human rights activist at the peak of the Guatemala civil war. She became involved in her father’s movement, the United Peasant Committee. She was wanted by the Guatemalan government, but after her mother’s death, she fled to Mexico. While in Mexico, she dictated her autobiography, I…Rigoberta Menchu (1984), telling the world not only her own story, but also about the lives of her fellow Indians. In 1988 she returned to Guatemala and was detained. She  was eventually liberated because of international support.

In 1992, Rigoberta Menchú was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. She used the $1.2 million cash prize to set up a foundation in her father’s name to continue the fight for human rights for indigenous people even after the end of the civil war. The organization now runs with her name. The goals of the organization represent the personal struggles of Menchú. She had no access to a good education, she grew up in an environment were her rights were not respected and surrounded by government oppression. That is why The Foundation serves many diverse causes ranging from those that seek justice for the victims of genocide committed in Guatemala to coming to the defense of victims who have suffered discrimination and racism. It also provides support for education.

The foundation’s code of ethics is:

There is no peace without justice,

There is no justice without equality,

There is no equality without development,

There is no development without democracy,

There is no democracy without respect for the identity and dignity of all cultures and people.

Those lines summarize the life struggle of Rigoberta Menchú. Her fight for peace is a fight to protect cultural diversity and mutual respect through democracy and development. The code of ethics represents what Rigoberta experienced in her life. Growing up in a country in war, her main concern was to find peace and social stability, only achievable through democracy and the protection of people’s rights.

Rigoberta’s vision of democracy is really interesting. She knew that peace and stability would only be possible through real democracy, that is, through the respect of identity and dignity of all peoples. For her, there is only peace were there is democracy. However, to obtain democracy it is necessary to have justice, equality and development. That is what her foundation struggles for; they fight for the means in which to achieve democracy and respect of human rights, not human rights in itself. I think that this approach gives her organization a stronger voice, and it allows them to have an important short and long-term impact. For example, one of her main projects is education. Education is a requisite for human rights because it is the only way in which people are empowered. Another initiative of the organization is promote Guatemalan laws that promote equality of opportunities and non-discrimination (laws that give voice to different ethnic groups, to different working groups or unions). Through those intiatives, the organization is engaging in short term and long-term change.

Her example is exemplary for the fight against human rights violation. By promoting issues such as development, education and justice, she approaches human rights problems in a holistic manner, therefore making it more sustainable. It is her holistic approach to the human rights issues that have given her the international recognition and popularity.

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

Oct 14

Critiques of Fair Trade

In my last post I discussed Green Mountain Coffee and their use of Fair Trade products in their mission towards sustainability. While only mentioning it in passing, I grew curious about what Fair Trade truly means. I imagined that any organization with such lofty goals and altruistic means must inevitably have a controversial side as well. Similarly this being Fair Trade month, I thought I would present the debates surrounding the movement.

In the mission statement of Fair Trade USA, they claim the desire to foster a trade model that promotes empowerment, sustainability, and equity from the ground to the consumer. They state:

We envision Fair Trade as a new global business model that helps industry secure its own profitability and competitiveness while it protects the environment and ensures a fair return to farmers and workers. We help industry forge long-term partnerships throughout the supply chain so companies can both obtain the highest quality products and support disadvantaged producer communities.

These goals seem ideal for any socially responsible business to promote. Where can people possibly stand to criticize? Well, apparently the arguments fall into a few categories: price distortion and mainstreaming.

When examining price distortion, the argument goes that this business model only works on a small scale. This means that although Fair Trade seems to be everywhere, it only encompasses a small percent of total global agriculture. If Fair Trade grew to work with more farmers, these farmers will expect the higher wages that will eventually raise the price of the commodity. This is troubling for two reasons. First, it encourages other regional farmers to plant that crop thinking they too will get a good price. This eventually oversupplies the market as well as limits the staple crops being produced for the region. The second trouble behind expected higher wages is non-Fair Trade farmers are being hurt by the prices increase. In risking a price collapse, these farmers will be in an even worse position than before Fair Trade came to the market. Price distortion is a strong case against Fair Trade. However they have countered this reaction by promoting crop diversification into less crowded sectors, which means they are still promoting responsible agriculture but not risking flooding the markets with a single good.

The criticism of mainstreaming is based on the fear that the farmers on the ground are not the ones necessarily receiving the better prices for their better practices. In 2006, French Economist Christian Jacquiau reported  “There are only 54 inspectors around the world, working on a part-time freelance basis to check and control a million producers. These checks do not take place on the ground but in offices, hotel rooms or even by fax.” Examinations show that there is little monitoring or follow up studies after partnerships are started. Therefore there is little evidence that impacts are even being seen.

Mainstreaming more directly refers to the criticism that Fair Trade is working within current economic frameworks, as opposed to creating a new system. I can best explain this through the response that is being taken to recognize this. CLAC (The Latin American and Caribbean Network of Small Fair Trade Producers) is working to unite small farming organizations for facing the international arena. While this was Fair Trade’s initial mission, it has since become a promoter for plantations, no longer working with small individual farms. The global risk of this is it leaves behind individual farmers because they have no competitive chance against large-scale plantations. CLAC essentially wishes to create an alternative trade system, one outside the current unregulated system that is in place today. They believe, as Fair Trade once did, that empowering the individual farmer with a voice does the greatest good for strengthening the farming communities.

Essentially these arguments show that the small-scale market that Fair Trade has cornered has been successful in placating the Western concern for equality and development. However, this business plan will not be the panacea for the future that many consumers believe they are purchasing towards. I think that our first step towards a solution is to buy locally and scale down our consumerist tendencies; but I recognize that this is already a lot to ask.

Also, notice that the labels “organic” have not been discussed once. I hope that consumers do not mistake the label of Fair Trade with “organic”. Where organic products are sometimes Fair Trade, not all products with Fair Trade stamps are necessarily organic. I fear that well-intentioned consumers are potentially blindsided in trying to remember what environmentally-sustainably produced-fair priced-products are available and best to buy. I must confess, that I read more into this topic because I was one of these consumers.

I don’t wish to criticize this movement in an attempt to deter consumers from purchasing these products. I do however, wish to bring to light that where intentions are often good, we must continually seek accountability and proof that our actions and funds are going where they claim.

–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

Oct 14

Creating a Fair Society

We’re often taught in various fields of academia that we live in a dog eat dog world. That we are all driven by our desire to survive and excel, even if such success comes at the expense of those around us. This mindset certainly has its advantages. Often, this cutthroat competitiveness allows people to succeed when they enter their respective careers. Whether corporate executives try to get a leg up on others in their boardroom meetings, scientists rush to publish findings before anyone else publishes similar ideas, or even hunter-gatherers many millennia ago hurry to find food before others could take it, it seemingly almost always helps to have a selfish mentality.

Although such a mindset may be logical, it never sat well with me. I have always felt that being selfish not only seems “wrong” but also might prevent society from running smoothly. Thus, I was pleased to read about a study claiming that children can be altruistic when they are as young as 15 months old. According to the study, some children already have developed a sense of egalitarianism by then. When researchers split up portions of food among people and divided the food unequally, many children were surprised. Their general expectation was for everyone to receive the same amount of food. Those who held this concept of egalitarianism were often willing to share their toys, even the ones they liked the most, with those who asked.

Although I highlighted advantages of acting selfishly, I think acting selflessly can be even more beneficial. By acting selflessly, children will not alienate themselves from their classmates and peers. Thus, they will not sacrifice social development for short-term gain. They will also realize that cooperation is often a more effective and efficient way of getting things done than competitiveness. According to mathematician John Nash’s Nash Equilibrium, if a player coordinates with his “opponent,” everyone can maximize his or her outcomes. This solution has many real world applications, from traffic control to a nuclear arms race.  And if all people can act selflessly, they will be more capable of coordinating with others. Perhaps most importantly, they will view everyone as an equal. With so much racial, economic, and gender prejudices in the world, an altruistic mindset can help people overcome these barriers to equality.

As I stated earlier, according to research, children are more likely to share if they have developed a sense of egalitarianism. Thus, if they are used to people being given equal shares, they are also more likely to share what they have. Children are impressionable, and if they view life as unfair from birth, they will probably act on these beliefs and be unlikely to share with and help others. Thus, I ask parents to instill this sense of equality among their children. Show them that life should be fair, and that people should be treated equally. If they do these things, perhaps they can help raise a generation of children just as concerned with making this world a better place than with surviving and excelling.

Shaunak Varma is a Program and Research Intern with the SISGI Group. To learn more about the SISGI Group visit www.sisgigroup.org.
Share

Oct 13

How Many Slaves Do You Employ?

Do you know where your clothes were made? Whose hands picked the tomatoes you eat? How the items you use on a daily basis are manufactured? Your answer is probably no and the truth is that most of us don’t really take the time to find out. We might read the label stitched to our shirt or look at the tiny sticker placed on our shiny apple advertising where it was grown; but quickly shift our focus to something else.

So why is this important?

One more question. Do you love and crave chocolate? Did you know that tens of thousands of boys and girls work on cocoa farms in West Africa where they are abused, exploited and imprisoned? This is important because half of the chocolate we consume comes from this region, and a lot of it is being made by child slaves.

If we think that the goods we consume are not made by slave labor, then we are sadly mistaken. The truth is that a large percentage of the goods we use and consume daily are made by slave labor. The Department of Labor estimates that twelve million people in fifty-eight countries around the world are forced to work in inhumane conditions, where their will and freedom is restricted or completely taken away, and hope for freedom has waned. These twelve million individuals around the world are responsible for making many of the clothing we wear, growing a large percentage of the food we eat and creating the goods we use every day.

There is a thin line between cheap labor and the exploitation and trafficking of human being for labor purposes. While we might think items made abroad are made inexpensively because of a cheap labor force, many times it is actually due to slave labor or people who are forced into indentured servitude.

Even if something is manufactured in the United States, it is not free of these violations. In 2011, the largest human trafficking case in the country was discovered where it is alleged that coffee, pineapple, and fresh produce companies were enslaving men and women to work in their farms. In my home state of Florida, there have been 7 cases of slavery in the past decade in the agricultural fields. This is staggering considering during the winter months, Florida provides the majority of the produce for the Eastern United States.

According to a Department of Labor study, Americans don’t want to use products that were made using forced labor. The problem lies in that the U.S population is not well informed on the process of where their goods are acquired; therefore, they do not make smart choices in their purchases .

To begin to address this issue, United States government, specifically, the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons partnered with Fair Trade Fund, a California-based non-governmental organization, to create and launch an initiative to raise awareness on this issue. It is called the Slavery Footprint, and it also allows the general public to generate a calculation of their slavery footprint. This number tells the person the number of slaves that contributed to the creation of the products and goods that person uses.

Each person can take the survey which asks questions on their choice on food, and housing, if they own their home, how big it is, how many children they have, how many cars they have, and what goods they’ve purchased. On average the score is 55; however, in developed countries it can be much higher. Here is an example. If you’re a 20 year-old individual, who rents their home, owns a computer, a bike and several pairs of shoes your slavery footprint is probably 100.  There is also an app that helps consumers find out the slavery calculation as they are out shopping. Try the survey!

So how many slaves work for you?

To learn more on the topic of consumer responsibility, please read fellow SISGI blogger, Julia Naime’s article Information and Consumption.

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

Oct 13

Do We Need A New Measure of Development?

When it comes to development, is GDP the only thing that matters?  The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) says no.  The OECD released a new report that looks at a variety of statistics with the hope of finding new measures for assessing well-being that go beyond Gross Domestic Product.  The authors of the report believe that in this day and age statistics like GDP are not enough for policy-makers to go on, but that we need to look at the broader picture beyond level of income, such as how to improve citizens’ well being, ensure access to opportunities, and preserve our social and natural environment.

What they found was rather interesting.  The report looked at 11 aspects of life, including income, jobs, housing, health, education, and the environment, and found that while income is important, many of the other factors mattered more.  (For a full list of the factors and to play around with an interactive chart, visit the OECD Better Life Initiative website)  The report also found that well-being has generally increased over the last 15 years, with more people getting an education, getting jobs, getting richer, living longer, and living in better houses—though this improvement has not occurred evenly.  There are still large differences among countries and among citizens, and less educated and low-income people tend to do worse in all of the aspects.

However, people in the richest countries are not necessarily the happiest.  This is because, as the report found, money alone does not create happiness.  The happiest populations were the ones who had high levels of social contact, trust in others, and personal safety.  The report also found that, contrary to popular belief, income inequality is not one of the factors that seems to have a strong relationship with unhappiness.  While the unhappiest Dane is jollier than the unhappiest Chinese, the unhappiest Brazilian, Mexican, and South African was also happier than the unhappiest Chinese, and all of those countries have higher gini coefficients (a measure of income inequality with 1 being perfect inequality and 0 being perfect equality) than China.  Similarly, the happiest Dutchman was not as cheerful as the happiest Brazilian, even though Brazil’s gini coefficient is almost double that of the Netherlands.

So let’s put all this information together.  What does it mean for economic development and growth in less developed countries?  To put it simply, it shows that economics are not the only measure of growth.  Income and GDP are not all that people are worried about, but it is what policy makers seem to focus on the most.  After all, it’s a lot easier to try to help a country grow economically or to reduce income inequalities than it is to try to build social contact or trust, even if those are the things that this study found mattered more.  Still, it does shed some insight into what kind of things are most important to people, and it encourages policy makers to focus on levels of happiness as well as more objective statistics like GDP.  This is not to say that GDP and economic growth is not important, but simply that it shouldn’t be the only factor considered when it comes to development.  A well-rounded approach is necessary, one that includes measures of well-being as well as well as measures of income.  So what do you think?  Is that an achievable goal, or should development policy continue to focus on GDP and income, which are easier to build than social factors?

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

Oct 13

Mujeres Admirables: Wangari Maathai

El 25 de Septiembre falleció en Kenya Wangari Maathai, la ambientalista, política y activista de derechos humanos. Ganadora del premio Nobel en 2004, murió a los 71 años dejando un legado detrás de ella. Es conocida por haber fundado la organización no-gubernamental Green Belt Movement (Movimiento del Cinturón Verde).

Green Belt Movement (GBM) aboga por los derechos humanos y apoya a los gobiernos democráticos y paz a través de la protección del medio ambiente. Los triunfos de la organización para reducir la pobreza y mejorar el ambiente han dado a la organización un reconocimiento internacional.

GBM es diferente de otras organizaciones ambientales porque jugó un papel esencial en la política de Kenya. Participó en el cambio democrático que hubo en el país. Wangari Maathai fue alguien que siempre tuvo opiniones firmes y comprometedoras sobre la política en su país. Fue suficientemente astuta para usar el poder y reconocimiento que GBM tenía en los medios nacionales e internacional para movilizar a ciudadanos y ver el cambio político que quería ver en Kenya.

Maathai fue líder del movimiento en contra del presidente Daniel arap Moi en Kenya. El movimiento pro-democrático al que pertenecía era el Fórum por la Restauración de la Democracia (FORD). En Enero de 1992, Maathai fue arrestada ya que se le acusaba de conspiración. Fue liberada poco después debido a la atención internacional que recibió. Si no hubiera sido por la presencia internacional y el éxito del Green Belt Movement su nombre probablemente no hubiera sido conocido y su liberación hubiera sido menos probable. Su organización jugó un papel esencial en su lucha por el cambio político en Kenya.

Otro gran ejemplo de como el Green Belt Movement se volvió un movimiento clave de la reforma democrática en Kenya ocurrió en 1993. En ese año, conflictos étnicos surgieron. Maathai creía que el gobierno los había incitado, ya que previamente había amenazado malas consecuencias en caso de multi-partidismo.

Maathai viajó por su país para evitar que la gente peleara y usara violencia. Con el GBM plantó “arboles de paz”, pero no pasó mucho tiempo antes de que el gobierno se opusiera a sus acciones. Plantar “árboles de paz” fue verdaderamente una estrategia innovadora para promover la expresión política y la reducción de violencia. Este es un activismo único del cuál Maathai debería de ser recordada.

Ella y su organización continuaron luchando por ideas democracia y la sustentabilidad ambiental. Su militancia en contra de la expropiación de tierra y degradación ambiental fueron persistentes. En 1999, Maathai y el Green Belt Movement seguían haciendo los que le venía naturalmente: plantar árboles. Pero las actividades de Maathai preocupaban a las autoridades ya que el Green Belt Movement y Maathai desafiaban las políticas de desarrollo que el gobierno imponía. Impedían que compañías de bienes raíces se implantaran en propiedad pública. Los reprimieron con violencia. A pesar de estos ataques, Green Belt Movement y Maathai siguieron con políticas de no-violencia.

Finalmente, en diciembre 2002, la Coalición del Arco Iris venció al partido que estaba en poder en Kenya. Una vez que el ambiente político de Kenya cambió, Maathai fue capaz de cambiar políticas en medio ambiente y derechos humanos. Fue nombrada Asistente Ministra de Recursos Naturales, Medio Ambiente y Biodiversidad en el novena parlamento de Kenya. Por ese entonces, el Green Belt Mouvement estaba menos involucrado en política. El papel que su líder quería que cumpliera había terminado.

La vida de Wangari Maathai es importante no solamente por lo que logró como ambientalista y activista. Es también importante por la manera en que lo logró, actuando en una ONG y también en el gobierno. Sabía que para obtener la atención política, primero debía obtener un serio compromiso de los ciudadanos. A través de su organización, Maathai fue capaz de tener un impacto político en su país. Luchó por democracia de una manera creative. Después de todo, quien más que ella y el Green Belt Movement hubieran pensado en plantar “árboles para la paz”? Está es una gran lección para presentes y futuros líderes políticos.

Sus logros en medio ambiente y derechos humanos hicieron que se volviera la primera mujer Africana en obtener el premio Nobel. Su activismo no fue puramente ambiental ya que su enfoque era integral: su lucha ambiental era también una lucha social.

Ya que el los Premios Nobel de Paz fueron anunciados a tres mujeres, me gustaría conmemorar en los siguientes artículos a dos mujeres ganadoras del Nobel de la Paz que han tenido impactos permanentes en nuestra sociedad. Wangari Maathai era una de ellas. La otra es Rigoberta Menchú (Nobel de Paz en 1992). Ambas mujeres fueron activistas, ambas representan por primera vez una región diferente del mundo (África y Latinoamérica). Tuvieron experiencias con la represión, la violencia pero ambas lucharon determinadamente para proteger lo que creían. Son una inspiración. Regresa la próxima semana para leer el artículo de Rigoberta Menchú.

Julia Naime (@julianasah) es Asistente a la Investigación y Programas del SISGI Group. Es estudiante de Economía en New York University. Durante su pasantía en el SISGI Group, investigará sobre Desarollo rural, Problemas ambientales y Economía internacional 
Share