It's frustrating to hear of immigration abuses like this. Right here in Boulder. Even legal immigrants on temporary work visas often have no recourse when mistreated by employers, because losing their job means losing their visa.
Our immigration laws need reform, no matter what side of the aisle you happen to sit on.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
What does globalization do for individuals?
The title is a little bit misleading, but several of my students have expressed ideas in opposition to globalization that seem to sound like neo-dependency theory--ideas that globalization and world trade tends to disadvantage poor people in poor countries.
If you're one of these folks, you might be interested in this post from Chris Blattman (a world-class development economist) on Mexican export-processing factories. He cites two studies examining the effects of participating in this labor market on individuals.
Effects are mixed. The key passage:
There is a longstanding debate about these issues--the effects of globalization on the poor--and we will talk about the environmental piece of this debate in PSCI 3206 later in the semester. Scholars generally agree nowadays that globalization can be either harmful or helpful to individuals, though it probably does more good than bad, economically.
Of course, we don't just value economic outcomes, and there are good reasons to be concerned about the effects of globalization on particular groups of individuals.
If you're one of these folks, you might be interested in this post from Chris Blattman (a world-class development economist) on Mexican export-processing factories. He cites two studies examining the effects of participating in this labor market on individuals.
Effects are mixed. The key passage:
- Workers earn better wages than in non-export oriented industries;
- Women who get jobs have taller children;
- But youth drop out of school earlier to take the jobs; and
- For those that drop out, their wages in the long term are lower than if they had stayed in school and gone to work for the factories later.
There is a longstanding debate about these issues--the effects of globalization on the poor--and we will talk about the environmental piece of this debate in PSCI 3206 later in the semester. Scholars generally agree nowadays that globalization can be either harmful or helpful to individuals, though it probably does more good than bad, economically.
Of course, we don't just value economic outcomes, and there are good reasons to be concerned about the effects of globalization on particular groups of individuals.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
China releases environmental census
From the NY Times:
China’s government on Tuesday unveiled its most detailed survey ever of the pollution plaguing the country, revealing that water pollution in 2007 was more than twice as severe as was shown in official figures that had long omitted agricultural waste.
A few of you have been discussing how measurement isn't science. Which is, of course, true. But measurement is important to all scientific endeavors, as well as policy analysis. This environmental census may be a step in the right direction for China. Or it might not. China, as we well know, lacks the domestic mechanisms for downward accountability (like elections) that often make pressures for environmental reforms possible.
When dealing with policy issues, we are often tempted to just "do something," but without good data, often, the best we can do at knowing what the appropriate course of action is is just guesswork.
For the whole story, see here.
China’s government on Tuesday unveiled its most detailed survey ever of the pollution plaguing the country, revealing that water pollution in 2007 was more than twice as severe as was shown in official figures that had long omitted agricultural waste.
A few of you have been discussing how measurement isn't science. Which is, of course, true. But measurement is important to all scientific endeavors, as well as policy analysis. This environmental census may be a step in the right direction for China. Or it might not. China, as we well know, lacks the domestic mechanisms for downward accountability (like elections) that often make pressures for environmental reforms possible.
When dealing with policy issues, we are often tempted to just "do something," but without good data, often, the best we can do at knowing what the appropriate course of action is is just guesswork.
For the whole story, see here.
Pucallpa, Peru mayor acquitted of ordering political assassination
Pucallpa is one of the case studies from my dissertation research--a small city on the banks of the Ucayali river, a tributary of the Amazon.
One of the noisiest places I've ever been--more 2-stroke motorcycle taxis on the road than cars. But it quiets down nicely after about 9PM.
The mayor was accused of corruption by a commentator on a local radio show. He isaccused of subsequently ordering the murder of the commentator. Not sure if I buy the court's story on this one--"contradictory" evidence by the prosecution. The Peruvian judicial system works better than a lot of Latin American court systems, but it isn't exactly a shining example of transparency and the rule of law.
The full story (in English) is here.
One of the noisiest places I've ever been--more 2-stroke motorcycle taxis on the road than cars. But it quiets down nicely after about 9PM.
The mayor was accused of corruption by a commentator on a local radio show. He isaccused of subsequently ordering the murder of the commentator. Not sure if I buy the court's story on this one--"contradictory" evidence by the prosecution. The Peruvian judicial system works better than a lot of Latin American court systems, but it isn't exactly a shining example of transparency and the rule of law.
The full story (in English) is here.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Christmas as development
Another (possibly) interesting way of looking at the Christmas story is through the lens of economic development. Christmas may be viewed as the story of some very poor people who managed to live through very challenging times, surviving a number of threats to their lives created by the underdeveloped conditions in which they lived.
It is difficult to imagine that life expectancy, infant mortality, or education levels were much better (and were probably much worse) than they are today in much of the developing world. Most children did not live to adulthood, and it is remarkable that a child born under the presumably unsanitary conditions that reigned in the barn of the local inn (itself probably just someone's home, with some rooms rented out to earn some income) after a long pre-natal journey by mule-back would survive.
Perhaps Jesus' birth was miraculous in a more conventional sense.
Indeed, it is unsurprising that so much of the new testament is devoted to accounts of the miraculous healings that Jesus performed--presumably because illness, under extremely unsanitary conditions and with poor medical treatment--would be rife.
Under conditions like this, and where the state was relatively weak and there was no social safety net provided by government, informal social institutions within communities and ethnic groups would take on great importance as the only places to turn when people encountered misfortune and needed a hand. Religious orders, community and family groups, and local power-brokers would be the only places people could turn for help if they were sick or needed money. Small wonder that Jesus' attempts to craft a new social order were frightening to local elites!
It is difficult to imagine that life expectancy, infant mortality, or education levels were much better (and were probably much worse) than they are today in much of the developing world. Most children did not live to adulthood, and it is remarkable that a child born under the presumably unsanitary conditions that reigned in the barn of the local inn (itself probably just someone's home, with some rooms rented out to earn some income) after a long pre-natal journey by mule-back would survive.
Perhaps Jesus' birth was miraculous in a more conventional sense.
Indeed, it is unsurprising that so much of the new testament is devoted to accounts of the miraculous healings that Jesus performed--presumably because illness, under extremely unsanitary conditions and with poor medical treatment--would be rife.
Under conditions like this, and where the state was relatively weak and there was no social safety net provided by government, informal social institutions within communities and ethnic groups would take on great importance as the only places to turn when people encountered misfortune and needed a hand. Religious orders, community and family groups, and local power-brokers would be the only places people could turn for help if they were sick or needed money. Small wonder that Jesus' attempts to craft a new social order were frightening to local elites!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Christmas: An Institutional Story
As the semester has come to a close, I've been thinking about the Christmas holidays a bit. Looking forward to being with family and old friends for a little while, and also have been thinking about the Christmas story writ large.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
The Christmas story, it seems to me, has rather a lot to do with the things we study in Political Science. I don't know a lot about biblical scholarship, so my interpretation of the story could be all wrong. However, here are my thoughts:
For one thing, the story of Christmas, and the story of Christ, is the story of a political entrepreneur. That is, Christ was, if we are to believe the story the way it has traditionally been told, a person who wanted to change many rules in society. In particular, he took issue with many of the rules (we would call them institutions) that held Jewish society together at about the year 0, apparently hoping to build a more egalitarian order.
Of course, Jewish elites were (unsurprisingly) vested rather strongly in the existing order. They were, in a sense, caught between pressures from below--pressures from masses for an independent Jewish state--and pressures from above--pressures from the Roman empire and its client kings, who above all hoped to maintain the region as a piece of the empire. These elites had carved out a place for themselves in between radical masses and conservative Roman rulers, and they knew that they (and the whole Jewish population in the Middle East) faced powerful threats to their survival that they were unlikely to overcome if they challenged the Roman order too strongly. To hold their own place in society, and to hold their own society back from demanding freedoms too strongly, they relied on a fairly rigid system of religious rules that allowed them to keep the local population under control from within.
Understandably, perhaps, they felt that killing Jesus (and many like him) was the only way to keep themselves from being annihilated.
The success of the existing social order also helps to explain why Christian rhetoric was less successful with other Jews than it was with non-Jewish peoples, and with the outcasts of Jewish society (tax collectors, prostitutes, etc.)
There you have it: Jesus, the institutional entrepreneur.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I'm back
Not sure how many of my regular readers (read: family and office-mates) I've retained through the last semester, but just as a heads-up, I'll be writing these posts again myself for a while now. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Social Groups
by: Ally Kranz
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Have you ever noticed how the culture surrounding certain sports shapes the people who are involved? For instance, rock climbers and I apologize to any climber who does not fit this category. My roommate is a climber, so I’ve met a good number of them, and I always get the feeling that they don’t want to talk to me because I’m not a climber, and therefore, could never possibly add anything important to their life. I’ve even overheard one saying something similar! I think what it boils down to is that some climbers are so immersed in the climbing world that climbers make up the majority of their friends, and they don’t feel that they have anything in common with people who don’t know the joys of climbing.
But I have to admit it’s not just climbers (they just make it so obvious). This attitude can be applied to anyone who is heavily immersed in any group. People who have different tastes in music may have a harder time getting along. For instance, the number one indicator of whether two roommates will get along is musical tastes. If their music tastes are similar, there is a better chance they will get along. This also goes for deeply religious people, people of different political parties and any group that someone is heavily involved in.
I usually get upset with people who are stuck in a small closed community and are not open to new ideas or people, but I’m beginning to realize that it would be hard to think any differently when you are only surrounded by like-minded people.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Greenhouse Gases a Danger to Human Health!
by: Tim Garaffa
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
I know it seems like this has been known for years, but it was not until yesterday, December 7, that the United States Environmental Protection Agency declared that greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons pose a health risk to human life and the environment.
Although the announcement does not bring with it any legislation for the regulation of these emissions, it does pave the way for legislation to be introduced. Legislation is being introduced that will limit the greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, and legislation looking to tackle powerplants, oil refineries and chemical plant.
The announcement comes as the United Nations Climate Change Conference begins in Copenhagen, Denmark. This is expected to bring worldwide reform aimed at reducing global warming.
Skeptics warn that if regulations are put in place it can serious harm the economic redevelopment of the country. According to the National Association of Manufacturers, “It is doubtful that this endangerment finding will achieve its stated goal, but it is certain to come at a huge cost to the economy.”
I am hopeful that with a government agency finally acknowledging that greenhouse gases are harmful to the health of the planet and its inhabitants, emissions will be reduced, helping to stop the warming of our planet.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Cape Hatteras National Seashore Dispute:
by: Peter Benton- Sullivan
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
The Cape Hatteras National Seashore is located on North Carolinas Outer Banks. The Outer Banks is a set of barrier islands that stretch out from the land toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Cape Hatteras area was first established under the Cape Hatteras lighthouse, which is located right on the beach. The area was authorized to become a national seashore in 1937, but was not actually established until 1953. It was the first National Seashore created under the relatively new National Park Service. The area stretches over 70miles from Bodie Island to Ocraoke Island. The area was once filled with small beach towns that catered to the ocean lifestyle including a heavy fishing industry.
This all began to change however in the latter part of the 20th century when the Outer Banks and in particular the Cape Hatteras National Seashore became a large tourist pull due to its exceptional fishing, beaches, and surfing. The area grew incredibly fast and began attracting people from all over the eastern seaboard. My family in particular still vacations here and relatives come from states as far away as Illinois.
As mentioned above, one of the greatest parts of the National Seashore is its beaches. They attract fishermen, families, water sport enthusiasts, birdwatchers, and international tourists. However, within the past two years, an issue has arisen in terms of park management and National Park Service policies.
The National Park Service, under a bill passed by Congress in the 1970s, is supposed to implement plans and policies regarding keeping their beaches environmentally and publicly friendly. This means creating smart plans to deal with off road vehicle (ORV) use. However, they never did. In the summer of 2008, the North Carolina Audubon society along with several other local environmental groups sued the National Park Service (NPS) for not having put in place policy regarding ORV use. They won their battle in a North Carolina court, and a federal judge forced the NPS to close all of the beaches along the National Seashore to ORV use and in some cases even pedestrian use. The reason the environmental groups did this was to protect natural and in some cases endangered bird species that live and breed on the beaches. The environmental groups contended that the use of ORV on the beaches destroyed the birds natural habitat, and in some cases prevented the piper species to reproduce because they nest on the actual beach.
The beach closures immediately created tension on the Seashore because many locals believed that this would diminish tourism, and therefore revenue for the area greatly. With beach closures to ORVs and in some cases even to pedestrians, many people would not want to come because they could not be on the beaches as they planned.
The dilemma for the National Park Service is creating policy and rules that will be satisfactory to both sides of the issue. They need to meet the environmental requirements that protect the native bird species, while at the same time allowing for tourism to continue with as little interruption to people’s vacations as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)