When Emily and I were living in Maine, I developed a strong degree of respect for the moderate Republicans representing the state in Congress. According to the Washington Post, Susan Collins played a strong role in promoting the stimulus package:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021104078.html?hpid=topnews
This is the kind of republican behavior that I would like to see more of.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Shugart's got a blog...
...which will expose you to the mind of (arguably) the most important
scholar of formal institutions among Political Scientists.
scholar of formal institutions among Political Scientists.
Rock on!(?)
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Cultural Homogenization Continues!
Ladies and gentleman, Taco Bell has entered Mexico--evidently, I'm a
little behind, because it happened back in 2007. But check out the
article in the Chicago Tribune:
little behind, because it happened back in 2007. But check out the
article in the Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-avila-tacofeb07,0,5420344.story
This is awesome for three reasons:
1. Apparently, much of what's sold at T-Bell is so far away from
Mexican cuisine that they needed to invent new words so that the
Mexicans would have some idea of what they were eating. For example,
according to the Tribune, they can't call it a "taco" (tacos are soft),
so they called it a "tacostada."
2. If taco bell can make it to Mexico, why not Peru?
3. Oh man. I could go for a burrito about now. But the only Mexican
place in San Isidro (that I know of) is too swishy for me. That's
okay. I could really go for some pancakes, too.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Stimulus nonsense
Yesterday's news (I'm a little behind): NY Times is reporting that the Repubs. in congress think Obama is being alarmist by telling them to stop pussy-footing around and pass a damn stimulus package already.
Uh... seriously? Alarmist? Have they not been looking at the unemployment figures and/or reading the news? Spending too much time watching old reruns of Seinfeld?
As my old students back in V-Haven would say:
wow.
Uh... seriously? Alarmist? Have they not been looking at the unemployment figures and/or reading the news? Spending too much time watching old reruns of Seinfeld?
As my old students back in V-Haven would say:
wow.
Lima and Social Mobility
Made it to Lima without a hitch, and had something of a dia de comida Estadounidense. Got a burger at McDonald's (although I did, admittedly, get it with ají). And I got an Americano (no surprise there) at the Starbucks across the street. One of these days (possibly tomorrow), I also have plans to try out the San Isidro KFC.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that both Starbucks and McDonald's is better in Peru than in the US. This just goes to support my theory that Latinos make better fast food (maybe better food in general) than we gringos do.
As I was wandering around the city today (the ritzy part of the city, as it turns out), I was struck by three thoughts in quick succession.
1. "Man. It's fantastic how well these guys here are doing economically. Walking around San Isidro is like walking around Yonkers, without all of the terrible taste. These guys really have it made."
2. "I wonder if the prosperity on display here is only a result of old money appearing in a new way, or if there is really some upward mobility going on here, with the generation of a new Peruvian middle class. It probably wouldn't be any good if all these beautifully-designed houses were just new homes for old money."
3. "I don't think I've ever read any political science research that examines social mobility as an independent variable. This could be the missing control variable from Acemoglu and Robinson/Boix's theory on inequality and democratization."
So folks, am I right about that? Have we political scientists totally missed the boat on examining social/economic mobility?
The way I'm thinking about this is as follows:
A and R (and Boix) argue that the implementation of democracy is basically a way for the poor to ensure that they get wealth redistributed to them, over the long term. As such, democratization will tend not to take place at very low levels of inequality (not much to redistribute) or at high levels of inequality (elites will fight like hell to keep their wealth from all getting taken away). But there's no evidence cross-nationally of this.
What if, however, (a) you could find societies with very high levels of inequality, but also high levels of social mobility--lots of very rich and very poor people, and not much of a middle class, but where it's relatively easy to move from one class to the other, and (b) people would be willing to put off democratization because they know that they have a pretty good chance of making it if they try hard.
This might mean that you could have a lot of inequality but not much demand for democratization.
A further extension of this idea might be that, in some places, democratization is particularly desirable not only for economic purposes (redistribution of wealth), but because there is a social stigma placed on things associated with inequality (racial differences, class differences, etc.) These stigma (or whatever) carry a non-economic cost that might hurt more than poverty. Democratization might be a way to get rid of this stigma, or take off some of its edge.
In this theoretical formulation, the presence or absence of race-based or class-based social stigma might also be an important causal variable.
Anyways, somebody should do this (probably not me) because it would be pretty easy to measure:
Q1: Of what social class do you consider yourself a member: (a) lower class, (b) lower-middle class, (c) middle class, (d) upper-middle class, or (e) upper class?
Q2: Would you say that your parents were members of the: (a) lower class, (b) lower-middle class, (c) middle class, (d) upper-middle class, or (e) upper class?
Q3: What kind of chances do you think your children will have to join a different (higher) socioeconomic class from you? (a) no chance, (b) very low chance, (c) low chance, (d) moderate chance, (e) moderately high chance, (f) high chance.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that both Starbucks and McDonald's is better in Peru than in the US. This just goes to support my theory that Latinos make better fast food (maybe better food in general) than we gringos do.
As I was wandering around the city today (the ritzy part of the city, as it turns out), I was struck by three thoughts in quick succession.
1. "Man. It's fantastic how well these guys here are doing economically. Walking around San Isidro is like walking around Yonkers, without all of the terrible taste. These guys really have it made."
2. "I wonder if the prosperity on display here is only a result of old money appearing in a new way, or if there is really some upward mobility going on here, with the generation of a new Peruvian middle class. It probably wouldn't be any good if all these beautifully-designed houses were just new homes for old money."
3. "I don't think I've ever read any political science research that examines social mobility as an independent variable. This could be the missing control variable from Acemoglu and Robinson/Boix's theory on inequality and democratization."
So folks, am I right about that? Have we political scientists totally missed the boat on examining social/economic mobility?
The way I'm thinking about this is as follows:
A and R (and Boix) argue that the implementation of democracy is basically a way for the poor to ensure that they get wealth redistributed to them, over the long term. As such, democratization will tend not to take place at very low levels of inequality (not much to redistribute) or at high levels of inequality (elites will fight like hell to keep their wealth from all getting taken away). But there's no evidence cross-nationally of this.
What if, however, (a) you could find societies with very high levels of inequality, but also high levels of social mobility--lots of very rich and very poor people, and not much of a middle class, but where it's relatively easy to move from one class to the other, and (b) people would be willing to put off democratization because they know that they have a pretty good chance of making it if they try hard.
This might mean that you could have a lot of inequality but not much demand for democratization.
A further extension of this idea might be that, in some places, democratization is particularly desirable not only for economic purposes (redistribution of wealth), but because there is a social stigma placed on things associated with inequality (racial differences, class differences, etc.) These stigma (or whatever) carry a non-economic cost that might hurt more than poverty. Democratization might be a way to get rid of this stigma, or take off some of its edge.
In this theoretical formulation, the presence or absence of race-based or class-based social stigma might also be an important causal variable.
Anyways, somebody should do this (probably not me) because it would be pretty easy to measure:
Q1: Of what social class do you consider yourself a member: (a) lower class, (b) lower-middle class, (c) middle class, (d) upper-middle class, or (e) upper class?
Q2: Would you say that your parents were members of the: (a) lower class, (b) lower-middle class, (c) middle class, (d) upper-middle class, or (e) upper class?
Q3: What kind of chances do you think your children will have to join a different (higher) socioeconomic class from you? (a) no chance, (b) very low chance, (c) low chance, (d) moderate chance, (e) moderately high chance, (f) high chance.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
On the Road Again...
...It's good to be back on the road again...
The life I love is getting suits and shoes custom made and then trying to figure out how to get them home...
So, faithful reader, I have been a bit remiss in writing about my complete lack of adventures recently, but I have a couple of things to write about. I've been spending far too much time recoding variables and getting all of these forestry/local gub'mint policies surveys merged together in one rather large dataset. About 200 variables in each survey, eleven surveys, and every variable named different in each of the surveys. A real pain in the asno.
However, for today, I'm getting ready to hit the road (air?) tomorrow. Rather than taking the 24 hour bus ride, I have a plane ticket. I'll be spending enough time on a bus in the near future.
In any event, back to Lima tomorrow, a meeting with the Mysterious Dr. Jaramillo of Peruvian research institute GRADE on Monday, then (hopefully) a meeting with one of the local experts on the arcane, obscure, and bizarre Peruvian local electoral laws.
And a burger. Man, I can go for a burger. A burger and some fried Yucca.
The life I love is getting suits and shoes custom made and then trying to figure out how to get them home...
So, faithful reader, I have been a bit remiss in writing about my complete lack of adventures recently, but I have a couple of things to write about. I've been spending far too much time recoding variables and getting all of these forestry/local gub'mint policies surveys merged together in one rather large dataset. About 200 variables in each survey, eleven surveys, and every variable named different in each of the surveys. A real pain in the asno.
However, for today, I'm getting ready to hit the road (air?) tomorrow. Rather than taking the 24 hour bus ride, I have a plane ticket. I'll be spending enough time on a bus in the near future.
In any event, back to Lima tomorrow, a meeting with the Mysterious Dr. Jaramillo of Peruvian research institute GRADE on Monday, then (hopefully) a meeting with one of the local experts on the arcane, obscure, and bizarre Peruvian local electoral laws.
And a burger. Man, I can go for a burger. A burger and some fried Yucca.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
I'm so happy, 'cause today I found my friends..
..they're in my head...
Apparently, somebody at the New York Times recently looked at a map of
South America and discovered the mysterious country of Bolivia--that's
the only way that I can explain their sudden interest (something like
three long articles in under three weeks!)
Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/03/world/americas/03lithium.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Zane talks about the article here:
http://audacityofhops.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-hope-glenn-sees-this.html
He's right--it's easy to understand Bolivian resource nationalism--oil
and gas companies don't exactly have a history of holding up their end
of the bargain on (a) protecting the environment, or (b) returning
profits to the people to whom these resources belong. And that doesn't
just go for the developing world. One need not look any further than
Alaska (okay, that's pretty far, too, but you get what I mean) to see
how well BP is taking care of _our_ oil infrastructure:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5626067
For what it's worth, the Uyuni Salt flats is one of the dustiest,
dirtiest, poorest places I've ever been, and although it's been
developing something of a tourist infrastructure, it's not hard to
imagine why the locals would view lithium with hope.
If nothing else, they would get to sing that awesome Nirvana song a lot...
"I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you."
That said, the Uyuni Salt flats and the surrounding areas are also the
most surreal and strikingly beautiful places I've ever been. I would
hate to see them get torn up for mining, at least before I get to go
back a couple more times. On the other hand, on a global scale,
strip-mining the high-altitude dessert of Uyuni would probably be a lot
less damaging than, say, cutting down the Brazilian rain forest to grow
cane sugar for ethanol. So I suppose one could make a case for it on an
environmental dimension.
In terms of a natural resource curse-type angle, this could presumably
be undesirable. However, because Bolivia's other major export (other
than cocaine, of course) is natural gas (and there are a lot of other
mineral exports as well), as natural resource extractive economies go,
this might not be such a bad idea, economically. Petroleum-based
exports might be a good complement to a mineral that's used in batteries
for electric cars. One goes up, the other goes down. Maybe.
But I guess the endshot of this all is, if you haven't made it down to
Uyuni yet, go this year. Because, in the words of the venerable Warren
Miller, "If you don't, you'll just be one year older when you do."
Also, because the salt flats may be an industrial wasteland. And they
might not be making that Salvietti papaya soda anymore.
So, you should really go. And bring me back some Salvietti.
And check out the Salvietti web page at:
http://www.salvietti.com/en/4.htm
Monday, February 2, 2009
MMMmmm...
This guy was playful and fuzzy until about 35 minutes before he became dinner. Sumaq mijuna. That is, good eatin'.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Lynchings and Community Justice
The L.A. Times has an interesting article about the "community" or "indigenous" justice provisions of the recently-passed constitution. You can get the article here.
They point out that "community justice" often takes the form of "mob justice" (not like The Sopranos, the other type of mob). And what is sometimes called "community justice" by some people is called "lynching" by others.
The article is very balanced, however, in pointing out that, in the face of an ineffective justice system and corrupt police force, sometimes, even the questionable practices that pass for "justice" may be superior to the absence of any justice at all, which is sometimes the only other alternative in these places.
I understand that there's a pretty good literature in Sociology that looks at this stuff (which I can't cite because I haven't read), but if I understand correctly, one of the reasons for lynchings is a pervasive feeling of insecurity in society, often because of an absence of the rule of law. In these circumstances, lynchings are bad, and having a well-functioning justice system may be the only cure.
In other cases, though, community or indigenous justice is very well developed, consistent, and fair--not only may it be the only option for "justice" in many poor rural places, but it may, in fact, be superior to the centralized "justice" of even a well-developed country like the US, in some ways. And indeed, we in the United States might be said to have a system of "community justice," as many of our legal encounters take place with municipal, county, or state courts which are not centrally controlled, even to the extent that their ruling are often not based on a simple, codified system of rules, but on precedent. There may be some interesting parallels with the informal justice systems of many indigenous communities.
One example might be this community landholding system, in which individuals who break community rules are not granted land to farm the following year, if they fail to make good their debt to the community in the form of paying a fine. This, linked with the social pressures that come along with rule-breaking and rule-obeying in small, rural places where everybody is related may do a better job at preventing crime and promoting rehabilitation than other alternatives.
They point out that "community justice" often takes the form of "mob justice" (not like The Sopranos, the other type of mob). And what is sometimes called "community justice" by some people is called "lynching" by others.
The article is very balanced, however, in pointing out that, in the face of an ineffective justice system and corrupt police force, sometimes, even the questionable practices that pass for "justice" may be superior to the absence of any justice at all, which is sometimes the only other alternative in these places.
I understand that there's a pretty good literature in Sociology that looks at this stuff (which I can't cite because I haven't read), but if I understand correctly, one of the reasons for lynchings is a pervasive feeling of insecurity in society, often because of an absence of the rule of law. In these circumstances, lynchings are bad, and having a well-functioning justice system may be the only cure.
In other cases, though, community or indigenous justice is very well developed, consistent, and fair--not only may it be the only option for "justice" in many poor rural places, but it may, in fact, be superior to the centralized "justice" of even a well-developed country like the US, in some ways. And indeed, we in the United States might be said to have a system of "community justice," as many of our legal encounters take place with municipal, county, or state courts which are not centrally controlled, even to the extent that their ruling are often not based on a simple, codified system of rules, but on precedent. There may be some interesting parallels with the informal justice systems of many indigenous communities.
One example might be this community landholding system, in which individuals who break community rules are not granted land to farm the following year, if they fail to make good their debt to the community in the form of paying a fine. This, linked with the social pressures that come along with rule-breaking and rule-obeying in small, rural places where everybody is related may do a better job at preventing crime and promoting rehabilitation than other alternatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)