Human Worth: A Novel Concept

One of the most enjoyable aspects of my graduate work was engaging with the capability approach, a relatively new theory on well-being. The approach grew out of the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum and engages with both issues of international development as well as governance more generally. Most books and articles on the capability approach have been directed to an audience with some familiarity with international development and/or political and social theory. However, Martha Nussbaum's new book, Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, does an excellent job providing an engaging introduction to the capability approach.

Having read much of the detailed work on the capability approach, I was afraid Nussbaum's book would simply rehash ideas from previous works. Happily, I was quite wrong. The book lays out the capability approach in a very clear and concise way. It also provides a good discussion of the growing diversity within the capability approach itself as more people, particularly those with different backgrounds, engage with it and take the capability approach in different theoretical and empirical directions.

Despite it being early in the year, I can certainly say that Creating Capabilities will have a spot on my top ten books of 2011.

Global Democracy: Beginning of a New Era?

As a new decade dawns, many people are asking whether this is all there is. The notion that the world will always progress has been called into question by the latest world economic downturn. Stalled progress on a variety of health, security, and humanitarian measures highlights that our future is far from predetermined. The vacuum of democratic power at the international level has been recognized as a possible reason for this and other problems. National interests dominate at bodies like the United Nations, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. There is little sustained international collaboration, as each country seeks to protect its interests foremost, often at the expense of a global good. Conferences and international meetings can only do so much to highlight current problems. Most governments regard the reports generated by these meetings as merely information. They rarely are implemented into workable public policies.

There are currently efforts to create a more democratic and participatory United Nations. I applaud these efforts, though I fear they lack broad enough appeal to be implemented any time soon. It is certainly hard to imagine that countries would be willing to give up any substantive powers to these bodies. However, a more democratic international community would allow low- to middle-income countries to finally be able to apply the necessary pressure to get high-income countries to sufficiently open their markets to their goods. It would also allow the world to move toward an economic system where environmental, humanitarian, and social well-being can be included in the price of goods. Those goods made under regimes with lax environmental regulations, poor worker protections, and oppression would reflect these social negatives in their price. Only then would places like China be forced to interrupt the "race to the bottom" in terms of workers rights and environmental protections.

While I recognize that such substantive reforms are unlikely, at least in the short term, they are necessary for social justice. A socially just world is only possible when the people of the world can hold nations, international bodies, and corporations accountable for their actions.

You may say I'm a dreamer...

UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

A recent article highlights the stunning and tragic statistics on violence against women in the world. It is something that often goes unreported and is unknown. I am continually amazed at how unaware people are regarding these issues.

Issues of violence are often closely linked with issues of power. This is particularly true for violence against women. Women all over the world face systematic discrimination. This is most exemplified in many middle- and low-income countries where women produce between 60 and 80 percent of the food but only own around 1 percent of the land. This huge power differential creates a situation where women are not represented in society. Their marginal position opens them to violence of all types, much of which comes from a woman's family or acquaintances.

I hear solutions such as education pushed as panaceas to this problem. Even in countries with high education there are still fundamental inequities in pay and power which are experienced by women at all levels of society (e.g., pay disparity gaps, likelihood of experiencing poverty and hunger, etc.). Until women have the opportunity for substantive political representation, their situation will not change. Those countries where women have the largest political power (meaningful inclusion in ruling parties, civil society, and bureaucracies) are those with the lowest levels of violence against women. Some will ask what comes first, respect for women or women in positions of political power? I would say that they reinforce and sustain each other, but must be backed by all who would favor a more just world.

People rejoiced the overthrow of the Taliban, believing that the role of women in society would change in a post-Taliban Afghanistan. Many people falsely believe that women are in a substantively better position than they were under the Taliban. A recent article highlights that this has not been the case. Violence against women continues and under the lawlessness created by this war, it is hard to track. Women leaders in Afghanistan face serious risks of violence against them and their families. The central government is powerless to stop it, even within Kabul. And even if it had the power, it is unclear whether it would expend any of its resources to tackle this problem.

The adoption of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979 was a bold gesture which has not been sufficiently supported. The future is murky on women's rights. While progress has been made in these 30 years, the structures that created such discrimination then have not fundamentally changed. Until we take a serious look at what underlies women's marginalization, we stand to simply repeat the injustices of the past.

Misperception of Intent

When discussing undocumented workers many people on both sides of the argument make the claim that these workers end up in jobs "Americans don't want." However I think this argument places the decision making wrongly in the hands of the average American, who in this fantasy considers themselves too good for farm work or that it is too difficult work. It seems more likely that the reason these jobs are not taken by Americans is because the companies that hire these workers would be completely uncompetitive if they hired Americans (due to their ability to demand better pay and protection). Only through hiring marginalized workers with no formal rights are they able to remain competitive with goods produced much more cheaply elsewhere.

There are many jobs that are much more disgusting and backbreaking than field work but are done by Americans and some are even unionized. This is possible because these industries can remain competitive despite paying reasonable wages due to different competition structures than is present for agricultural work (e.g., copper mines). Many of these companies would have already moved production to another country if possible; but they are unable to, due to the type of product they produce.

While this argument leads some to push for new policies of protectionism, for me it indicates the need to structure trade in a fair way. Protectionism has done little to provide good long-term jobs for Americans. We must come to the point where the lowest cost is not separated from the factors from which the product are produced. Products from countries with substandard quality controls, unethical work practices, and terrible human rights records must be identified as such. By accepting these products despite these problems, we are just serving to reinforce the negative tendencies under which the goods were produced.

A People's Economist

A recent article by Joseph Stiglitz, a noted economist, provides a concise and directed critique of the havoc created by the Bush administration. He details the economic mismanagement and financial audacity that has damaged the U.S. and will require significant effort to redact. He provides a good starting point for a discussion of the steps to be taken to fix this problem.

As far as economists go, I find Stiglitz to be one of the one's I admire most. He doesn't accept many of the "facts" spun out by economists and has worked to increase nuance among economic analysis of the "invisible hand" by identifying informational asymmetries and their role in markets.

While he still represents a more mainstream view than I would ascribe to, I find value in his analysis and his work for social change and justice. His recent involvement in the independent film "The Big Sellout" was excellent. In this film he commented on the commodification of goods and the negative effects that it had on various countries. It was a really good movie and provided some clear examples where the Washington Consensus was failing those it claims to be "developing".

Utterly Appalling

A recent report identifies that the Millennium Development Goals in the area of maternal death are woefully off target. This critical issue is something that is often overlooked when health policies and practices are being implemented in international development. This absence is a a crucial one and one that I can't honestly understand. As has been noted by distinguished authors like Amartya Sen, health costs are much lower in countries that are just implementing health policies. This is because the initial steps taken to set up a clinic or extend the range of health care professionals in most developing countries is much smaller.

Another important aspect that is identified in the article is the estimated twenty million unsafe abortions that go on every year. This is a significant contributing factor to maternal death. Safe, legal, and accessible abortions are something that must exist as the need for them is always there. The article does not identify how many of these unsafe abortions are actually illegal but it can be assumed that many unsafe abortions are the result of nation wide bans on abortions. This forces all women, even those who have life threatening pregnancies, to have a "back-alley" abortion.

The report concludes that one reason for such little progress is that in many societies women are viewed as nothing more than a vessel for reproduction. This extremely disheartening conclusion indicates the importance of positive action on behalf of women all over the world to increase their status. Cultural relativism must have its place in discussion of international development, but it cannot be used as a tool to allow domination of marginalized populations.

False Contrition

Despite China's supposed attempt to reign in bad business practices, a recent report found that some of the merchandise for the upcoming 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing has been produced under such deplorable practices as child labor, forced overtime, and extremely low wages. Along with other recent problems such as lead paint in childrens' toys and poisonous contamination of pet food, it is difficult to argue that a sufficient regulatory industry exists for products made in China.

This sort of behavior is accepted as normal in the global economy and does not bring much outcry. The entire business of hosting the Women's World Cup and then the Olympics in totalitarian state that abuses its people is disheartening at best and a crime against humanity itself at worst. I fail to understand how we can justify such close ties with such a despicable and deplorable regime. If it didn't have as much capital or as large of a consumer base, there is no way we would be as involved with it (see Myanmar, Syria, North Korea). The fact that companies and countries are willing to make condolences and refrain from criticizing Chinese policies is one of the largest failings of public morality of our time. The money we invest in China is used daily to repress and create fear within an already troubled country. While we see photos of the massive amount of development and consumerism in the ports and cities, we don't see the rampant extreme poverty experienced by those in the rural areas. While engagement with all forms of government is important in the international system, such unquestioning patronage to China is dangerous and provides no carrots or sticks (international relations terms for rewards or punishments, respectively) for them to move toward democracy or more adequate worker protections for their wide range of businesses. The brutal repression of democracy movements in China continues and companies like Google continue to uphold the abhorrent "Great Firewall" while still claiming some level of ethical business. It will be interesting to look back and see how these facilitators of oppression are viewed when the history of this time is written.

The Right Side of History

After weeks of positive social action in Myanmar, the military regime has done what many of us expected all along, turned to violence. Monks and their supporters have been marching in solidarity and called for reforms to the country. At a time like this, countries that support democracy need to heed the call to action that these marches represent. These monks have led similar marches in the past and have faced violent crackdowns. Still they march in defiance. The military dictatorship has committed crimes against humanity and even, it has been argued, genocide against some of the ethnic minorities that live in rural areas of the country. The time has come to act. We must move beyond sanctions and simple monetary action. Such petty and deplorable regimes must face a more constant pressure from both regional actors and the international community. This pressure should not include violence, unless it is decided upon in a multilateral way, and in the protection of those who are marching for democracy, or those who continue to face starvation and forced relocation throughout the country. Toppling a military regime with violence only opens a power vacuum that is often filled with another violent regime. In 2001 a U.N. commission published "The Right of Intervention" a document that made the argument that the right to intervene in the affairs of a country must be taken into account when its actions against its own people constitute genocide or other deplorable conditions imposed in a consistent and measured way. The U.S. has failed the test of history many times in the past, it is time we place our actions in line with our rhetoric and not in line with the interests of multi-national corporations.

Development as Opulence

The historical specificity of development is important to keep in mind. The social context of development is still important because it belies much that is taken for granted when discussing issues of development. Development is a misnomer because it depends on the assumption that countries move forward on a trajectory that would eventually lead to a society that is similar to those currently deemed developed. This idea is untenable because the “developed” world is unsustainable and it would require massive change in order for even a portion of the world to reach that level of decadence.

Instead the development paradigm that is put forward by many dominant institutions is not sufficient to allow for actual change. This is particularly reflected in groups such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund that place both responsibility and blame on the countries themselves for not "developing." This blame is not appropriate because these countries exist within a world trade system that is horribly unfair and does not serve their interests.

The contradiction of "development" can be seen clearly in China. As China begins to turn into a consumer society the ecological footprint of many of its citizens is increasing exponentially. This situation will continue to exacerbate the already dangerous trajectory we are on for consumption of resources. By exporting neo-liberal consumerism as the mode and end of development we are selling short a chance at a more just and equitable world.

More Hype Without Details or any Chance of Real Follow Through

The recent G8 meetings have come to a close. As per usual they recognized that they didn't hit the goals set previously but pledged even more money this time around. Now this type of display is disgusting to say the least. These pledges are just that. If it is inconvenient or if one of the donor countries decides something is amiss they can easily (and usually do) pull out in part or entirely. Many in the development sphere are already calling this recent pledge a "farce."

Hypothetically, if the G8 does provide the money promised (60 billion alone for AIDS research, among other pledges) it will not be in the form that many would accept as reasonable. Anyone familiar with the Bush administration's past work on AIDS will know how disastrous and ill-informed the strict rules that come attached to the money. Because the U.S. pledged to donate 30 billion of this sum it is likely that they will have a large say in the contingencies and policies on which the money can be spent.

Among the most insulting of the ludicrous ties that AIDS money to Africa has endured in the past is the focus on abstinence. Much of the money was earmarked for groups that only push abstinence as a method of stopping the spread of AIDS. When the money goes through a recipient government there are strict "abstinence only" financing rules that must be followed for the money to keep coming in. This despite the fact that abstinence does not make sense when used alone as a method to prevent AIDS. Studies have continually found this to be true worldwide. I will acknowledge that it can play a minor role in an overall sexual health and well-being program. Use of only abstinence has been shown in many instances to not decrease the rate of transmission but has actually increased the rate of transmission by decreasing funding to other services. When abstinence becomes the focus of a government targeting teen and pre-teen boys and girls, other important issues like birth control methods, safe-sex practices and use of condoms falls aside.

These AIDS grants are also incomplete because one of the best ways to mitigate the devastating effects of AIDS is to drop the price of drugs that serve to decrease the effects of the actual virus. Also drugs that when taken by a child born to an HIV positive mother can severely decrease the chance of contracting AIDS. These steps are blocked at every turn by pharmaceutical companies that cite the cost of research of the drugs as the reason for the high prices. When these companies are having record breaking profits and at the same time receiving much of their R&D at highly subsidized rates from public universities and grants, they could at least take a "loss" (though the idea that they would take a loss is severely suspect) on these necessary drugs.

Exploring the Digital Divide

While I don't typically comment on issues of technology, this article really struck me as interesting. I was amazed to see the estimate of 750 million people accessing the internet in 2007. While this number itself is not particularly interesting, when compared to the world population of six billion, it represents an extreme disparity of access to a revolutionary technology that consumes much of our daily lives in the Global North. It is hard to make the argument that the internet is democratizing public discussion when less than eleven percent of the world has accessed it in the past year. It is hard to imagine what perspectives we are missing out on and what analysis could be brought to bare that would inform world opinion in a fundamentally different way. It could be argued that those who are in the most need of having their voice heard are silenced by this extreme digital divide.

Arguably more important than having your voice heard is the access to information that the internet allows. The ability to find information and analysis on an infinite range of issues is what keeps most of us logged on as we go about our daily lives. An overwhelming majority of the world lacks access to the wealth of informational resources that the internet provides.

One promising intervention to close this gap comes from the One Laptop per Child movement. By creating a rugged laptop that costs about one hundred dollars to create, MIT and other groups are working to close this significant disparity. While one hundred dollars is prohibitively expensive for individuals all over the world (over one billion of which make less than one dollar a day), donors have been spurned into action to buy these laptops for distribution around the world. While this in no way addresses the structural and social forces that created this inequality, it can be seen as a step in the right direction.

Extreme Callousness as Foreign Policy

It is difficult to understand why Bush would choose to tour Latin America at a time when his approval rating is so low both here and abroad. He has little to no political capital to draw on for this visit. While many have cited the reason as an attempt to undermine the rise to power of Chavez, this seems ludicrous. A visit by one of the least popular presidents in history, whose administration has all but ignored Latin America except on issues of bi-lateral trade, seems like a poor public relations move. Bi-lateral trade deals place individual countries up against the U.S. These countries have little to no chance to bring measures to the table they want addressed. While the breakdown of the current trade round was celebrated by many(myself included), these bi-lateral trade regimes are an extremely negative consequence of this show of solidarity by the Global South.

Bush's claim that the U.S. is planning on helping out the poor in Latin America seem particularly hollow. He has continually demonstrated contempt for those measures instituted by Latin American countries that have actually improved the position of the poor. The Bush administration has berated countries that have implemented pro-poor policies. Steps such as nationalization of companies and redistribution of land ownership monopolies that have often been successful in raising the standard of living for the poor. While measures such as nationalization of companies are controversial, it is often forgotten that many of these industries, particularly those such as natural resources, were initially privatized without the consent of the people. The profits that used to go into budgets of Latin American countries instead began to flow out of the country through multi-national corporations that had no invested interest in sustainable development or stewardship.

It is also interesting to see how the rhetoric output by Bush doesn't match the aid that has been made available to those in Latin America. Venezuela has pledged nearly three times the amount of aid that has been given by the U.S. to the region. Also, important issues that would fundamentally increase the standard of living for Latin Americans, such as access to U.S. markets for agricultural products, have not even been addressed by Bush. The continued disconnect between the discussion of free trade and the lack implementation of policy based on it is apparent. Though fair trade is a better way of organizing the international marketplace, while free trade is hegemonic, the central players could at least learn to play by its rules.

A Decent Start

An interesting new plan has been developed that would increase the likelihood of creation of vaccines for diseases that largely affect countries in the developing world. While this is a step in the right direction, it misses some of the large issues that surround the pharmaceutical companies. These companies constantly bemoan the difficulties that they face in creating medicine, while at the same time recording higher profit margins than most other sectors. Confounding this situation is the fact that pharmaceutical companies receive significant subsidization from the U.S. government, both directly and indirectly. Directly through government grants for research and indirectly through funding of public universities that cooperate with pharmaceutical companies to create new products. If the company is genuinely concerned with financial solvency, perhaps it is time to reduce CEO pay and put some of those millions into developing new drugs.

Also important to recognize is why developing countries are unable to represent a suitable market to pharmaceutical companies. Many of the billions of people that would benefit from drugs for preventable diseases live on less than $1 a day, and nearly all that would benefit live on less than $2 a day. When basic sustenance is difficult to achieve, it is hardly likely that there will be sufficient out-of-pocket funds for vaccinations.

Also significant is that measures such as this fail to get at some of the core issues that create the problem in the first place. Issues such as for-profit medicine, which bring about the terrifying 10:90 divide: where 90% of investment in pharmaceuticals is directed toward diseases that affect only 10% of people in the world. Of course, this 10% are the wealthiest. This frightening discrepancy between those who need and those who have only shows further the moral bankruptcy under which we exist. This is an industry where the majority of products released are knock-off drugs that are about to lose their patent or drugs that closely emulate products put out by their competitors. A more democratic form of research and development of pharmaceuticals would be extremely beneficial worldwide. It seems the only people that are benefitting from the increasing concentration of pharmaceutical companies are those companies themselves. When large parts of the research are carried out in public universities, it makes it difficult to identify what role these pharmaceutical companies are really playing in facilitating a more healthy world.

*If anyone is unable to access the article linked above, let me know and I can provide a copy over email.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

I am currently finishing up a paper that discusses the issues and approach put forth by Amartya Sen in "Development As Freedom." The approach discussed in the book has been developed by Sen throughout his academic career. With the publication of the book, the capability approach gained significantly more recognition. Particularly interesting is the fact that it has sparked significant interdisciplinary debate, as well as a questioning of the development orthodoxy. The capability approach, in my estimation, represents a significant shift in terms of conceptualizing, as well as operationalizing development. This opinion is clearly shared by many others as the capability approach has spawned nearly 150 academic articles, as well as over 20 books in only the past two years. I would recommend the book to anyone as it represents an attempt by Sen to make the capability approach accessible generally, and in this pursuit, I think he succeeds admirably.

World Trade Talks

World trade talks are set to begin in an attempt to resuscitate the current Doha round. As most will remember, the talks previously fell apart when the G-8 refused to bring their agricultural and other unfair subsidies onto the table. Many countries in the developed world were tired of the unfair burden that these subsidies placed on their populations. Farmers that are heavily subsidized in the G-8 are able to effectively dump their undervalued crops on the world market, destroying the possibilities of local farmers to compete. While on the surface, lower prices may seem like a positive fact for developing countries, the ramifications are actually quite negative. In most developing countries, rural areas are the most impoverished and these subsidies only serve to further decrease the ability of rural farmers to earn enough to support themselves.

While the bastions of neoliberalism continue to preach that free trade is the panacea to world problems, it is important to note that their actions indicate that this is just rhetoric. The most important thing for groups such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is making the investors that rely on their recommendations happy. In large part this is due to the revolving door of companies and supranational instutions. Many of those hired by these international bodies come from the large corporations that benefit from neoliberalism and after serving in their positions, move back to the private sphere and profit from the decisions they made while at the IMF and WB.