International Political Economy Zone: Gender Equality

Showing posts with label Gender Equality. Show all posts

Trump Infests USAID With Right-Wing Ideologues

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Americana,Development,Gender Equality,Religion,United Nations at 6/16/2020 09:53:00 PM

Truth in advertising should be applied to USAID given the similarly bigoted beliefs of Trump's new appointees.

Although foreign aid provision features much lofty rhetoric—giving the rest of humanity a helping hand—its reality is much more mundane. Like a lot of things in life, a mixture of altruistic and self-interested motives drive official development assistance or ODA provided by the likes of the American government through its US Agency for International Development (USAID). Being a practical sort, I do not believe this situation is necessarily wrong. For instance, the George W. Bush administration spearheaded the highly effective HIV/AIDS initiative PEPFAR in Africa, partly out of the conviction that stopping its spread there would benefit the rest of the world—including the US. Who led that effort? None other than one Anthony Fauci.

That’s why I am exasperated when ideologues are put in charge at USAID. Their agendas can be quirky, driven more by loopy thinking than practical ideas about how to improve the well-being of people in poor countries. To begin with, Trump regards aid as a waste of money, and has tried to cut it ever since. After all, there’s no redeeming what he calls “shithole countries,” right? So now Trump has decided that if he cannot singlehandedly stop aid provision—Congress decides that—he might as well put in those harboring—how do I put this—unusual ideas.

Instead of being attuned to evolving understandings about gender and championing democratic principles as USAID traditionally does, Trump has appointed some nutter blathering about "homo empires" and the genius of Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban. I did not make this stuff up:

A new White House staffer appointed by President Donald Trump once suggested America was a “homo-empire” ruled by a “tyrannical LGBT agenda” in a slew of writings that have since come back to haunt her.

Merritt Corrigan, White House deputy liaison at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), wrote that “our homo-empire couldn’t tolerate even one commercial enterprise not in full submission to the tyrannical LGBT agenda” in a tweet posted to her personal account, Politico reported, which has since been made private.

Ms Corrigan, who previously worked at the Hungarian embassy in Washington, has also claimed the country’s leader Viktor Orbán “is the shining champion of Western civilization” in a separate post.

But wait, it get worse. USAID's new appointee on religious freedom is an unapologetic Islamophobe. What a guy to get for reaching out to nearly a quarter of the world's population of Muslim faith:

USAID officials confirmed to me that [acting USAID administrator John] Barsa chose Mark Kevin Lloyd to be USAID’s new “religious freedom adviser.” His first day was Tuesday. In 2016, the Associated Press reported that Lloyd (then the Trump campaign’s Virginia field director) had made and shared several Islamophobic posts on his personal social media accounts. On June 30 of that year, he shared a post on Facebook that called Islam “a barbaric cult,” the AP reported.

Four days after the Orlando terrorist attack that same June, he shared a meme saying potential gun buyers should be forced to eat bacon. In another post, Lloyd wrote that “those who understand Islam for what it is are gearing up for the fight,” the AP reported. Those post are no longer public, but Lloyd’s Facebook account as of Tuesday still shows public posts where he accuses Barack Obama of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and says people who believe Islam is a peaceful religion don’t understand history.

If these very fine people weren't enough, USAID's deputy deputy chief of staff is an anti-transgender activist. Apparently you can't get a job there nowadays without being controversially offensive.

The honest truth is that, inside the Beltway and in much of the rest of the world, serving as a Trump appointee is a stain on your CV akin to being the nightwatchman on the Titanic or the navigator of the Hindenburg. Given this talent pool [sic], Trump is forced to hire assorted right-wing nutters who are oftentimes the only ones desperate enough to serve a madman hellbent on loyalty oaths.

As with most things, USAID's rot starts at the top, with its current head viewing the post as a springboard to some future right-wing career [away from these developing country shitholes, too!] The more outrageously right-wing you are, the more attention you get from Uncle Donnie:

The White House named Barsa acting administrator last month without even consulting the State Department, reaching down to elevate him over more qualified senior officials. In the brief period since his appointment, Barsa has already gotten into hot water by writing a harshly worded letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres demanding the removal of references to “sexual and reproductive health” from a recent U.N. pandemic response plan, and insisting that no funding be allowed to go to abortions.

That brought him rebukes both from Democrats in Congress, who took issue with Barsa’s characterization of the U.N. plan, as well as the Trump administration’s own U.N. ambassador, Kelly Knight Craft, who called Barsa to dress him down for not clearing the letter with top State Department and U.S. Mission to the United Nations officials in advance.

Barsa’s brazenness is fueling suspicion inside the administration that he is auditioning publicly for his next administration job, perhaps in the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, where he worked during the first year of the Trump administration.

Let's see, USAID now prefers hiring those openly hating homosexuals, transgenders, Muslims, the idea of "reproductive health," and so on. Using Trump's language, I think the rest of the world would benefit if he kept these folks in America where they can do their best to f--k s--t up to impress the American president instead of inflicting their radically intolerant views abroad. If you just hate everybody unlike you, why even get into the business of claiming to help improve their well-being?

Woman Beater Mayweather, Hublot's Celeb Endorser

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in CSR,Gender Equality,Sports at 5/06/2015 01:30:00 AM

Hublot's adverts featuring Mayweather should feature this background music.

We haven't had a corporate social responsibility (CSR) post for quite some time, so here's one. I am afraid that the only "knockout" I observed during the much-ballyhooed but ultimately dull Pacquiao-Mayweather "Fight of the Century" was me falling asleep sometime during the third round. Believe me, I was out cold. So the fight itself was utterly forgettable, but one thing I did note before being KO'ed were the Hublot-sponsored trunks Mayweather was wearing.

For those of you who don't know Hublot, it's a maker of flashy, bling-bling watches of the sort a chap like Mayweather would like, festooned as they are with gold and jewels. Chintzy trinkets for tawdry people. Watch-collecting cognoscenti in the know tend to disdain the brand for this very reason--it's flash over substance. True, Hublot has tried to remedy this image by making movements in-house for its latest timepieces instead of buying (relatively inexpensive) ones from someone else not on par with the prices they're charging, but the image persists. For an analogy, think of Hublot as the Dre Beats of watchmaking instead of headphones--all marketing hype but little substance that more discerning buyers can observe.

I am afraid that Hublot did itself no favors by selecting perhaps the most hated man in sports as their celebrity endorser. For an undefeated American champion, Mayweather getting lustily booed in his hometown speaks volumes. What kind of feel-good factor do you get from hiring Mayweather as your endorser? Anyway, to the press blurb for the Hublot endorsement:

Today, luxury Swiss watch brand Hublot had the honor of hosting a press gathering with 10-Time World Champion Floyd "Money" Mayweather to announce their sponsorship of the future Hall of Famer for his highly anticipated match-up against Manny Pacquiao on Saturday night in Las Vegas.

To mark the occasion, Hublot CEO Ricardo Guadalupe presented a King Power WBC Full Pave with Emeralds to the undefeated champion, who will also wear the Hublot brand name on his boxing trunks on Saturday night. In line with Hublot's "First, Different, Unique" brand ethos, Mayweather has previously never had a brand adorn his boxing shorts. The Presentation took place minutes before the boxer took the stage for the highly touted Weigh In.

"Everyone knows I am a big fan of luxury watches and Hublot is one of them," said Mayweather. "I am extremely grateful for their support and I look forward to adding the King Power WBC Full Pave with Emeralds to my collection."

Once upon a time, Tiger Woods had a clean-cut image that advertisers desired. (He also used to win major tournaments on a regular basis, but alas, time has moved on.) After details of his salacious personal life began to emerge, though, most left until few remained. It is thus puzzling why anyone would choose a convicted woman beater only released from jail in the past few years as a product endorser. Is he not toxic enough? This controversy was resurrected recently when female reporters who had investigated the domestic abuse were denied press credentials for the yawner of a fight.

Meanwhile, the boxer remains unapologetic:

Questioned by CNN reporter Rachel Nichols last year about his abusive behavior, Mayweather showed little remorse. He noted that there were "no pictures ... just hearsay and allegations." He has previously said he should not be compared to O.J. Simpson or Chris Brown because there are no pictures of the women he has allegedly abused -- as if the lack of video or photographic evidence is equal to exoneration. In fact, Mayweather spent several months in jail in 2012 after pleading guilty to misdemeanor assault charges.

What is astonishing here, however, is that the public is willing to overlook Mayweather's misogynistic, violent behavior outside the ring. Consider how well all the hype over the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight is paying off. The Los Angeles Times reports that gambling on the fight is expected to be heavy, with one MGM Resorts official estimating the total amount of wagers at $80 million. The 16,800-capacity MGM Grand Garden Arena has sold out, generating a record $74 million.

Mayweather, whom Forbes has named the highest-paid sportsman in the world, is set to take home $180 million for the fight.

Such collective indifference by the public of Mayweather's domestic abuse is curious considering other incidents involving football players. After video surfaced of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancée (now wife) in an Atlantic City, New Jersey, elevator, he was temporarily suspended by the NFL and later dropped by the Baltimore Ravens.

Perhaps Mayweather's apparent elusiveness in the ring is also evident outside of it as his well-documented history of beating women up--something which severely tars other athletes--has not really affected him that much commercially-speaking. In any event, Hublot has chosen to open itself up to potentially massive criticism in heaping praise and money on a social pariah. Somehow, being "The Woman Beater's Watch" doesn't strike me as a particularly effective marketing ploy.

What self-respecting woman would wear a Hublot watch knowing all this?

Reviving Japan: From Abenomics to Womenomics

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Demography,Gender Equality,Japan at 9/10/2014 01:30:00 AM

While Japan is a country which much to be proud of, its record in promoting gender equality may not be one of them--yet. Among OECD countries, the wage disparity among sexes is third greatest in Japan after South Korea and Estonia. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently made a gesture towards rebalancing this disparity by appointing five female cabinet ministers, matching the previous record. Why not more, you may ask? Remember that in a parliamentary system like Japan's, cabinet members are not political appointees but sitting ministers. With admittedly few female Liberal Democratic Party parliamentarians, selection is made more difficult:

Japan's prime minister picked five women for his Cabinet on Wednesday, matching the past record and sending the strongest message yet about his determination to change deep-seated views on gender and revive the economy by getting women on board as workers and leaders.

Japan has a vast pool of talented, well-educated women, but they are far under-represented in positions of power in government and corporations. Women make up 10 percent of parliament and just 3.9 percent of board members of listed Japanese companies, versus 12 percent at U.S. corporations and 18 percent in France. Women here have long complained about the obstacles to getting taken seriously at work, receiving equal pay for equal work and finding child care or helpful spouses.

Equality may be a good in itself, but is there reason for us to believe that females are necessarily better administrators, civil servants, lawmakers or managers? Women may be less prone to groupthink and excessively aggressive behavior, true. Moreover, I do not think that Abe is looking to make the opposite argument that women "outdo" men. Rather, they should have equal opportunities insofar as Japan is wasting a lot of talented people for discriminatory reasons. What's more, they may bring a fresh perspective to issues their country is facing:

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated Wednesday that a key part of his "Abenomics" growth strategy is making greater use of women and promoting them to leadership posts — a campaign dubbed "womenomics," a term he has embraced. Abe has set a goal of having women in 30 percent of leadership positions in both the private and public sectors by 2020. "Realizing a society where women can shine is a challenge our Cabinet has undertaken," he said during a news conference. "I look forward to the wind of change these women will bring."

Perhaps these women will finally begin to promote migration into Japan to revive its moribund demographics and hence its economy?

UPDATE: SCMP has a profile of Yuko Obuchi, Japan's new industry minister charged with reinvigorating her country's moribund industrial base. Aged 40, she is the youngest minister in the postwar era. Her job # 1 is restarting nuclear power plants closed in the wake of Fukushima: I have discussed the urgency of doing so before.

PC Gone Mad: Women Drivers' Car Insurance in EU

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Europe,Gender Equality at 1/04/2013 06:15:00 AM

Contrary to hoary stereotypes about "women drivers," the truth is that they are safer drivers--at least in the EU. So much so that women have been charged commensurately lower premiums in EU nations for years. However, in a dubious case of political correctness, the EU has issued a directive against discriminating against charging premiums differentially based on gender. End result? From December 21, 2012 onwards, profit-minded insurance companies have by and large chosen not to bring down male insurance premiums to those for females, but to bring up female premiums up to those for males. The UK Mirror writes:

Next month Brussels delivers an unwanted early Christmas present to women drivers – a nasty hike in car insurance premiums. Under a new European law known as the EU Gender Directive, insurers will no longer be able to calculate how much a driver pays for their insurance based on their sex. It means that from December 21 women, who are statistically much safer drivers and therefore enjoy lower premiums than men, will see insurance rates rise.

And the amount could be by as much as £300, according to comparison website Gocompare.com. For younger women drivers who have just passed their test, the hike could be in the thousands. As a result, many women may end up being forced off the road. According to research by uSwitch.com, 13 per cent of 1,219 women questioned said they would no longer be able to afford insurance if their premiums rose, while one in 10 said they would be forced to sell their cars.

You call this progress? While I am certainly no Eurosceptic, sometimes the EU is simply misguided in attempting to be politically correct. If women are less prone to fender benders, there is no reason to charge them premiums equivalent to their more reckless male peers.

Catholic Melinda Gates vs Church on Contraception

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Development,Gender Equality,Religion at 5/10/2012 10:27:00 AM

For reasons you are doubtlessly aware of, the emphasis on population control of most in the development mainstream has long attracted criticism from the Roman Catholic Church. What we have here is a new twist on an old story: as cash-strapped Western nations have become warier about providing development aid, other actors have stepped up--especially wealthy private interests alike the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In theory, these foundations combine the best of both worlds by avoiding electoral politics--witness tied aid--and applying a business-like sophistication to social problems.

But some things never change. It was perhaps inevitable that the Gates Foundation would bump up against the Church when it came to matters dealing with contraception. While there has been a change of emphasis on the rationale for it--instead of allaying fears of large Malthusian population increases in the postwar period, it is now on female empowerment concerning reproductive health decisions--the controversy remains.

An interesting twist on this story is that the main proponent of contraception is Catholic. Melinda Gates' religion invites media scrutiny as well as, I am sure, no small amount of introspection on her part about practicing her faith. As with many controversial issues, her plan to fund contraception research and dissemination adopts the "technocratic pose" which goes something like this--we are applying scientific method here, hence we should leave the politics out of this. Here is a key excerpt from the Newsweek article:

Perhaps more importantly, there’s her Catholic faith, which has always informed her work. “From the very beginning, we said that as a foundation we will not support abortion, because we don’t believe in funding it,” she says. She’s long disagreed with the church’s position on contraception, and the Gates Foundation did some family-planning funding early in its history. Still, she went through a lot of soul-searching before she was ready to champion the issue publicly. “I had to wrestle with which pieces of religion do I use and believe in my life, what would I counsel my daughters to do,” she says. Defying church teachings was difficult, she adds, but also came to seem morally necessary. Otherwise, she says, “we’re not serving the other piece of the Catholic mission, which is social justice.”

Gates believes that by focusing on the lives of women and children, and by making it clear that the agenda is neither coercive population control nor abortion, the controversy over international family-planning programs can be defused. Right now, she points out, 100,000 women annually die in childbirth after unintended pregnancies. Six hundred thousand babies born to women who didn’t want to be pregnant die in the first month of life. “She is somebody who really sees this as a public-health necessity,” says Melanne Verveer, the United States ambassador at large for global women’s issues. “I think she believes, and I hope she is right, that people of different political persuasions can come together on this issue.”

Do a quick search on this article and you can see very strong denunciations from church and family groups [e.g. 1, 2]. (If you think I'm snarky, wait till you read these folks' scribblings.) As a Catholic myself, I would like to expand on points for consideration that the Newsweek article does bring up:

(1) For better or worse depending on your point of view, you have to differentiate between the Roman Catholic Church and Catholics at large regarding contraceptive practices. The former sticks to the doctrine that contraception is unacceptable, but the latter have been more open to if not exactly being forthcoming about the use of contraceptive devices. In Catholic teaching, you often come across idealized analogies of the family as reflections of Christ's own. In the real world, Catholics too must deal with single parenthood, forced marriages, abusive spouses and so forth that are not necessarily conducive to such ideals.

Economists speak of first-best conditions where development theories are more likely to deliver. Similarly, Church teaching is often similar to first-best in the social realm, whereas the likes of the Gates Foundation have to deal with more practical, less ideal, situations. Call it the theory of second best applied to social matters. Out there, Catholics are undoubtedly among those who've decided to not follow Church teaching on contraception. While the Church derides this sort of "cafeteria Catholicism"--so we'll avoid abortions but we're OK with contraception--it wouldn't have coined a term for it if it didn't exist.

(2) This matter is unavoidably "political"--especially for Catholics. While there may be a silent majority that tacitly approves of contraception by using it despite not loudly trumpeting the fact, the important adjective is that they are silent. In any political contest, the ability to organize and mobilize count for a lot, and you certainly don't see large groups alike "Catholics 4 Contraception" and so on. There's also the centuries-old tendency to stamp out those unfaithful to Church doctrine, and in this respect it doesn't matter if you're Martin Luther or Melinda Gates.
-------------------

Personally, I am not so heavily involved in these debates for my (empirically verifiable) belief is that population size is mostly a function of economic growth. That is, births generally fall as societies become wealthier. So, while Mrs Gates and her critics engage in a heated debate over the matter, I would focus more on increasing per-capita income as a relatively uncontroversial objective (except for deep greens, perhaps) in achieving similar goals.

That's just me, though. Some folks apparently prefer giving themselves an especially difficult time. Rest assured that Melinda Gates' allusions to promoting contraception being in line with Church teachings on social justice will not go down well with the orthodoxy and its followers. The technocratic pose simply does not work when you are addressing an especially evocative issue.

Though I do not side with Melinda Gates here, I do acknowledge that the Church could explain its case better in terms of "second-best" situations Catholics in poor countries do find themselves in. Moreover, the widespread phenomenon of cafeteria Catholicism when it comes to contraception is a wake-up call to those who believe that fire-and-brimstone rhetoric discourages those with more immediately pressing concerns.

It isn't like that anymore, if it ever was.

Palace Coup? World Bank Vets Pick Okonjo-Iweala

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Africa,Bretton Woods Twins,Development,Gender Equality at 4/06/2012 12:57:00 PM

News is becoming sparser as most of the Christian world slows for the Easter holidays. However, in the run-up to the selection of the next World Bank president which should happen in a fortnight or so, we've had ringing endorsements of Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. (See a previous post for further ruminations.) We begin with an interesting counterblast to the current climate of economist-phobia at development institutions post global financial crisis. While it may be trendy to put non-economists at these institutions, the Economist (surprise!) slams this trend in endorsing her as the best candidate for the job:

Okonjo-Iweala is an orthodox economist, which many will hold against her. But if there is one thing the world has discovered about poverty reduction in the past 15 years, it is that development is not something rich countries do to poor ones. It is something poor countries manage for themselves, mainly by the sort of policies that Ms Okonjo-Iweala has pursued with some success in Nigeria.

While I am nowhere near as partial to economists as a publication dedicated to them in name, I did enjoy the insinuation that the United States which encouraged World Bank lenders to avoid corruption was doing so by choosing its favoured candidate to yet again fill a top (international) job.

Meanwhile, the Financial Times seconded the motion, accentuating the positives of extensive work at the World Bank:

Its new leader should have a command of macroeconomics, the respect of leaders of both the funding and the funded countries, and the management skills to implement his or her vision. These requirements make Ms Okonjo-Iweala the best person for the role.

Having served as managing director under outgoing World Bank president, Robert Zoellick, she also has a unique knowledge of how the institution works. While one risk could be the temptation not to challenge the status quo, she might find it easier than other candidates to gain the respect of staff and build on Mr Zoellick’s legacy.

More importantly for me, however, is that many World Bank veterans have come out in a strong show of support for Okonjo-Iweala. Lest you think that its employees don't matter, remember how the Ameriscum Paul Wolfowitz was eased out as World Bank president even during the Bush administration. From the Vanguard of Nigeria:

As the World Bank gets set to interview the three candidates vying for its presidency from April 9-11 before announcing its decision the following week, a group of former World Bank officials, including one-time chief economist, Francois Bourguignon, said it supported Nigerian Finance Minister, Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s candidacy to become the lender’s president even as Governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi said Nigeria’s nominee was the best candidate for World Bank top job.

The 39 former managers, in a letter to the bank’s members, cited Okonjo-Iweala’s “deep experience in international and national issues of economic management” and said she had the ability to increase the bank’s effectiveness. Okonjo-Iweala, who was a managing director at the bank until last August, “would hit the ground running and get things done from the start,” the letter said.

According to the former World Bank officials, “challenges for the future president range from international fundraising to brokering agreements on global issues and while all the three presidency candidates, including former Colombian Finance Minister Jose Antonio Ocampo, have strong qualifications, Okonjo-Iweala’s skills cover the full spectrum of criteria. Uri Dadush, a former World Bank director of policy and one of the 39 signatories, provided a copy of the letter.

Before concluding I should also point out that an assortment of heterodox economists (including the LSE's own Robert Wade)--many from the Global South besides--signed on to a similar petition for the Colombian candidate Jose Antonio-Ocampo. Although they're both long shots given the history of the institution in question, Okonjo-Iweala is more of an insider to it and Ocampo an outsider.

Still, the IPE Zone comes down in favour of Okonjo-Iweala if previous merit is the criteria. Nevertheless, what's obviously fascinating about the succession race is that it not only pits vested Western interests against rising ones from the Global South but it is also a trial of sorts for mainstream economics' place in development practice. Go ask Jagdish Bhagwati.

Fondly Recalling Thatcher's Handbag of IPE Doom

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Economic Diplomacy,Economic History,Europe,Gender Equality at 7/01/2011 12:03:00 AM

It is one of the most notable incidences in European integration history: Although the exact wording is still being debated to this day, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously went before her European Community colleagues in 1984 demanding that the UK not pay so much into the infamous Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of agricultural subsidies since Britain believed it paid far more than it received in this scheme.

Demanding a rebate, she slammed her handbag into the conference table and exclaimed something to the effect of "I want my money back!" While the CAP's share in the EU budget has gone down from being over three-quarters at its height to less than half today, it remains a big sticking point in WTO negotiations over agricultural market access of LDCs to developed countries, but that's another story for a different post. Here is a brief backgrounder on the UK rebate which exists to this day:

The UK won the rebate in 1984, after the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher threatened to halt payments to the EU budget. "We are not asking the Community or anyone else for money," she said at a summit in Fontainebleau. "We are simply asking to have our own money back".

The UK was then the third poorest member of the Community but was on course to become the biggest net contributor to the EU budget. This was mainly because the UK had relatively few farms, so it got a relatively small share of farm subsidies, which at the time made up 70% of Community expenditure.

The formula for determining how much a country paid into the Community budget was also unfavourable to the UK. It was in effect penalised for raising more revenue from VAT than most other member states and importing more goods from countries outside the Community.

So we now have this splendid story of a charity auction of some famous people's possessions. A finals match ball from England captain Lawrence Dellaglio's 2003 Rugby World Cup winning side went for £13,500. One of "Slowhand" Eric Clapton's Fender Telecasters commanded £16,000. And, apropos for today's story, Mrs Thatcher's now-famous handbag--swung around for emphatic effect in various national and international political arenas in her heyday--highlighted the auction and sold for £25,000:

A handbag belonging to Margaret Thatcher fetched £25,000 when it went under the hammer on Monday, auctioned by Lord Archer. The black glossy leather bag, owned by the former prime minister for more than 30 years, was pictured in a photograph taken as she walked alongside then US president Ronald Reagan during her visit to the United States in 1985.

The lot donated by Lady Thatcher was among a number of highly prized items sold by amateur auctioneer and author Lord Archer for charitable causes. It was bought by an unnamed Cypriot who is understood to have been a student in Britain during Lady Thatcher's tenure as prime minister. The Cypriot, a private buyer, is said to be a "great admirer" of the former Conservative leader.

It literally carries considerable British history, and surpassing prissy stuff like mace, pepper spray and stun guns, made "handbagging" a true weapon worthy of IPE Mortal Kombat:

As the auction at Christie's headquarters in central London concluded, Lord Archer said: "The handbag makes you automatically think of Margaret Thatcher. Someone has captured this and will have, frankly, a historic document for the rest of their lives."

Lady Thatcher's daughter Carol, who joined bidders in the packed sale room, said her mother was "longing to know" how much the bag had raised for her "carefully chosen" charities. "I hope that the highest bidder knows that if he's into handbagging, he's got a weapon with quite a track record. After all, my mother invented the verb 'to handbag'," she said.

Talk about girl power before that hackneyed term was developed:

Edwina Currie, a former minister in Baroness Thatcher's government, said: "It wasn't a shield, it was a weapon. "It said, 'I am Margaret Thatcher, I'm the boss, I'm in charge. I have all this power and I have control'. "That was why the handbag was always so neat and tidy and black and shiny and dominant. It would go on the Cabinet table.

Make no mistake: the Iron Lady had bigger balls than nearly everyone else while maintaining a distinctly feminine touch. WHOMP! Former US Secretary of State George Schultz is said to have enrolled her into the Grand Order of the Handbag:

In 1988 Mrs Thatcher received a handbag as a gift from George Shultz, Ronald Reagan’s secretary of state. He told her it was ‘to mark your ability to produce from within the right form of words to end a tedious discussion. You are the first and only recipient of the Grand Order of the Handbag’.

Those were some days.

The UN Should Be Anywhere But New York

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Americana,Gender Equality,Hegemony,United Nations at 3/28/2011 12:03:00 AM

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home - so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world - Eleanor Roosevelt

There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States...The Secretariat Building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost ten stories today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference - John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations

Given that his campaigning self promised a more internationalist outlook, it is striking how Barack Obama hews more closely to the John Bolton School of International Relations (now there's a thought for you) than that of Eleanor Roosevelt. In addition to keeping that shining example of American justice Guantanamo Bay alive and strong, the Obama administration has done little in terms of Roosevelt's "concerted citizen action" at home. As Eleanor Roosevelt suggested, a likely reason why we often "look in vain for progress in the larger world" is because of unyielding negativity about the UN from the country it is headquartered in. Home ain't where the heart is.

As I will enumerate, the US routinely flouts conventions people from other parts in the world consider valuable--especially in terms of advancing rights. Given the plenitude of such examples, it is best to consider the US a delinquent parent of the organization. Unfortunately, John Bolton's flippant suggestion that nothing much would be lost if ten floors of the UN were blown off is not far from actual US policy. Indeed, the Obama administration is next to no improvement seen in this light -

"The United States is concerned about children's rights and welfare."

Americans blather on and on about human rights. Call it the white man's harangue. So much so that you'd expect it to have ratified the well-meaning UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), right? If you read my lengthy post on why the shameless publicity seeker Amy Chua is more American than Chinese, then you would know that it isn't. How embarrassing is this? Well, aside from a failed state (Somalia), the US is the only other country that hasn't ratified it. Alike Guantanamo, it appears Obama has not been more talk than action in behaving in an internationally acceptable manner.

For all its human rights happy talk, the truth, dear readers, is this: the United States is a miserable place to be a kid. But don't take my word for it. The OECD recently compared the well-being of children across developed countries and found that the US ranked second worst next to the UK--and by quite some margin. Perhaps you and I should be concerned about this American failing that is only reinforced by its failure to ratify this convention. Child misery, thy name is America:

"The United States wishes that women have equal rights to men."

While the US does somewhat better on measures of gender equality such as the pay gap, it has yet to achieve several milestones others have alike having a female head of state. Most plausibly, America's chauvinistic tendencies are behind it not inking the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In another shameful display, the US is noted by commentators to be the only developed nation not to ratify CEDAW. A shining beacon of gender equality for the world to follow? I think not.

"The United States condemns crimes against humanity."

The Bush administration was famously hostile to pursuing the ratification of US membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague. While the Obama administration has stopped its predecessor's outright hostility to the body, it still remains aloof to the idea of ratifying participation. Then again, given the United States' continuing penchant for extrajudicial imprisonment, I guess membership in the ICC is not on the game plan for the immediate future despite more internationalist voices calling for it.

"The United States cares about the welfare of migrants."

It is well-known that virtually all signatories to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families are migrant-sending nations. Despite calling itself the land of opportunity, a melting pot, and so forth, the truth is that the US is just as reluctant as other developed nations to sign on to something which concerns guaranteeing the welfare of migrants. In trade terms, it is unsurprising a country that has so far been unwilling to implement WTO provisions concerning temporary migration is also unwilling to extend them substantive international rights.

"The United States does not want to deploy land mines indiscriminately."

Activists have, for a long time, been championing the reduction in the use of land mines for the simple reason that they tend to kill and maim civilians--often long after conflicts that resulted in them being deployed have ended. However, the US has once again not ratified the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention. For a country that is already malodorous in so many parts of the world due to its militaristic excursions, this shameful omission only reinforces America's negative image.

"The United States cares about the environment."

Kyoto Protocol. Nuff said.

"The United States has a national interest in respecting international maritime law."

Of all the conventions left unsigned by the US at the UN, the Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is perhaps the most interesting one in terms of geopolitical implications. In fact, Hillary Clinton alluded to it last year during the non-controversy over the South China Sea the US fomented at the ASEAN Regional Forum. As I have explained, the utterly hypocritical point is that the US has not ratified UNCLOS but claims that its stipulations should be followed when it comes to resolving others' disputes. Hypocrisy aside, meddling in others' disputes without a discernible legal basis to do so takes a lot of nerve.
-----------------------------

All in all, here is the bottom line when it comes to the US and the UN: If you don't bother with much of anything people of the world devote their valuable time and effort to, then you might as well not host the United Nations. Let's face it: Americans tend to be very parochial in outlook. This negative kind of American exceptionalism poisons international relations through thinking that what goes on in the UN is not in US interests in so many instances. Alike with the IMF which really ought to be in Beijing, the time has come to move the UN elsewhere. The world has moved on. I won't even get into the US offering the sole veto over discouraging continued Israeli settlement of the occupied territories.

There's a saying that you shouldn't stick around where you're not wanted. I guess now is as good as time as any for the UN to move from a country of the past that doesn't care much for it (by brushing off any number of conventions) to a country of the future that at least embraces its core belief in the value of multilateralism. There is no point remaining in a location which undermines it at almost every turn like the United States does. A reason why the UN is often ineffective is because of America's delinquent parenting as its host nation. Think of a child continuously being belittled, insulted and threatened by its parents and modern US treatment of the UN comes to mind. (Not that actual American parenting is much better--see above.) That it even functions at all is a wonder.

When the United States is such an all-around bad example for core UN principles alike human rights, justice, opportunity, and non-discrimination, it's best to skip town. That's something John Bolton and I can probably agree on. Does modern America do Eleanor Roosevelt proud? As I said, the UN should be anywhere but New York.

Three Cheers for UK Women Drivers, Shame on EU

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Europe,Gender Equality at 3/02/2011 12:08:00 AM

My life fades, my vision dims. All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos, ruined dreams; this wasted land. Most of all, I remember the man we called Max, the Road Warrior. To understand who he was we have to go back to the other time...

While I am generally among the most pro-Europe of IPE commentators, I must admit that my patience is being tried here. While I usually roll my eyes at notions that supranational EU institutions are replacing UK policymaking efficacy--an idea so beloved by Euroskeptics--I may grudgingly make an exception here. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself (I am large, I contain multitudes).

In essence, insurance premiums for female drivers in the UK--especially younger women--were lower because they are more careful when driving as opposed to shambolic displays of carmaggedon or carpocalypse now-style vehicular displays young males tend to exhibit. Too much Top Gear, methinks. Having been a driver in that age range, I regrettably understand all too well. However, the European Court of Justice has now ruled against the use of gender in determining insurance premiums, in effect ordering insurance firms to charge the same (read: higher) amount male drivers are usually asked to pay. Not very progressive, I believe:

Young women drivers buying car insurance and any man considering retirement will get a worse deal from the end of next year, following a ruling prohibiting the use of gender in insurance underwriting. The ruling, by the European Court of justice, means insurers will no longer be able to use sex as a factor to determine whether someone represents a bigger risk in insurance terms, even though historical evidence shows that being male or female has a bearing on frequency and size of claims.

Maggie Craig, acting director general for the Association of British Insurers, said: "This gender ban is disappointing news for UK consumers and something the UK insurance industry has fought against for the last decade. The judgment ignores the fact that taking a person's gender into account, where relevant to the risk, enables men and women alike to get a more accurate price for their insurance..."

Insurers have until now charged young men significantly more to reflect the fact they are more likely to have serious accidents: a male driver under 21 is twice as likely to have an accident than a woman under 21. But the insurance industry will now have to rip up its current pricing model, and young men under the age of 25 are now likely to see premiums decrease by an average of 10%, and in some cases 25%.

Adrian Webb of [online insurer] esure said the prohibitively high cost of car insurance for young men has previously helped discourage them from buying high performance vehicles, thus reducing the risk to themselves and others. "If young men's premiums are artificially reduced, this could lead to more opting to choose more powerful vehicles," he said. "It is particularly alarming given that the head of the Association of Police Officers in the UK in 2005 noted that the biggest killer of young women in Britain is their boyfriend's and male friends' driving" [!!!--and you thought the Road Warrior references were over the top.]

At the same time, car insurance premiums for women under the age of 25 are expected to rise by an average of 25% by the end of 2012, but by up to 60% for the youngest drivers, which could translate into an extra £500-£1,000 a year for some. Biba, the British Insurance Brokers' Association, said: "Effectively, females will now pay a cross-subsidy for males on their insurance premiums." The AA warned that many insurers will find the young driver market "too risky" and pull out altogether, thereby reducing competition and pushing up prices...

In my humble opinion, this misdirect attempt at political correctness violates principles of good social science: why would you choose to do away with a significant predictor variable in gender? It's mind boggling, to say the least, to penalize women for not driving like, well, a drunk Mel Gibson. Ah, the foibles of the European Union. It's great, but sometimes quite absurd as well. Perhaps the two go together in the mystery called European integration.

And the Road Warrior? That was the last we ever saw of him. He lives now only in my memories.

Egypt Not Alone in Having Demographics of Doom

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Gender Equality,Labor,Middle East at 2/14/2011 12:02:00 AM

Back in elementary school, I remember learning how to interpret charts. For today's feature, I'll extend this fond reminisce and explain with a few handy images why Egypt is not alone in having demographic woes in the Middle East and North Africa. Woes that, in certain circumstances as Tunisia and Egypt demonstrate, can result in regime-toppling popular unrest. Many self-absorbed Westerners, particularly those of the neoconservative persuasion, will naturally ascribe these events to downtrodden people yearning for freedom and democracy (nevermind that their leaders helped propped up these tyrants for decades like Mubarak). My explanation is simpler: growing populations of unemployed young people are a hazard to authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, recent events suggest states unable to buy them off with proceeds from energy revenues are particularly vulnerable.

First, while it is true that youth unemployment rates are quite high around the world, such rates are obviously more pernicious in countries with large proportions of young people. Consider the population pyramid of Egypt based on International Data Base figures:

The Egyptian population is very young, indeed, with a median age estimated at 24. Next, have a look at the youth unemployment figures from slide 19 of a recent IMF regional presentation on what it calls "Middle East North Africa Oil Importers" (link c/o Real Time Economics):

Aside from being oil importers, what Egypt and Tunisia share are the highest levels of youth unemployment in this group of countries, being well above the Middle East / North Africa average on the right hand side of the chart above. Coincidence? I'll leave that up to the area studies folks to sort out.

Let's now move to the regional situation. Fortuitously, the International Labour Organization (ILO) recently released the most recent biennial Global Employment Trends for Youth report for 2010. Especially given the backdrop of the global financial crisis, conditions are quite difficult for young folks seeking world not only in these regions but around the world. First, the good folks at the ILO have prepared a youth employment-to-population ratio chart for various world regions from 1991 to 2011. At the foot of the table are North Africa (which Egypt and Tunisia are classified under) and the Middle East with well under 30% of the young being at work:

As a proudly gender-aware blogger, I must point out that exceedingly low employment of young working women contributes quite a lot to the poor showing of the Middle East and North African groupings. From p. 15 of the ILO report:

The portrait of youth employment in the latter two regions is quite similar; while four out of ten male youth were working in 2008 (39.5 and 40.7 per cent in the Middle East and North Africa, respectively), less than two of ten young women engaged in work (14.9 and 15.9 per cent, respectively). There is clear segmentation in youth labour market opportunities in these regions with the result being severe underdevelopment in the productive potential of the economies. Employment opportunities are clearly low for young men in the region and nearly non-existent for young women.

Finally, I will give no prizes for those who've correctly guessed which regions of the world have the highest youth unemployment rates:

Someone with little experience at reading charts (hopefully not you) may complain: "Well, even if the Middle East and North Africa top the youth unemployment tables, rates have been going down even there in recent years. So, some countries should have revolted years ago instead of now." As above, you need to consider (1) the relative share of youth to the overall population in the respective countries and (2) the outright size of the young population. Moreover, unique to the world's regions, the Middle East and North Africa are expected to have rises in this rate in 2010 and 2011.

If you look at the overall macroeconomic picture of Egypt, it isn't too shabby. It has a high growth rate and its foreign debt is decreasing as a percentage of GDP. However, the demographics tell another tale. While I can't say that I could've predicted these events, they make more sense in retrospect given the information present above in chart form. Watch the kids, I tell you, watch the kids.

Of Sexy Russian Spies and 'Erotic Capital'

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Gender Equality,Russia at 1/28/2011 12:03:00 AM

Lest you think I've become an econodullard obsessed with discount rates and multiplier effects--it's easy enough to find plenty enough of those without looking hard--here's funner stuff that showcases the diversity which the best IPE encompasses. Freakonomics-style dweebery doesn't count by the way; let's just say I don't prattle endlessly about the veracity of being described as "concave-chested." Anyway, to today's post. A few months ago, the headlines were littered with headlines of American authorities arresting and sending away the Russian spy Anna Chapman. The gaffer here at LSE IDEAS, Professor Michael Cox, was inordinately proud to have a feature in The Sun on her alleged spying escapades. He further exclaimed that unlike el cheapo academic publications, this Rupert Murdoch news outlet paid its contributors--and pretty well to boot.

The curious thing was that Anna Chapman did not appear to have stolen any meaningful information. The only remarkable thing about the episode was that, yes, she was an attractive Russian spy--certainly the stuff of Cold War-era spy novels and male imaginations. Not quite being a real spy like Valerie Plame, Miss Chapman subsequently lost her British citizenship and used her newfound celebrity for material gain. Nothing wrong there, actually--from appearing in her skivvies (with weaponry, even!) in the Russian edition of Maxim to recently hosting an otherwise unremarkable mystery show in her homeland in, er, skimpy attire.

Closer to the end of last year, we had another spy scandal here in the UK involving an attractive, young Russian lady that didn't receive as much attention abroad (at least until she appears in FHM, Maxim, Stuff or another of those lad's mags). Ekaterina 'Katia' Zatuliveter was working as an aide to Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock when the UK Border Agency had her arrested and scheduled for deportation over not being "conducive to national security."

It seems that the brain trust here at the LSE is of two minds about these mildly salacious stories. On one hand, Avery Hancock sees popular commentary as juvenile:

It seems clear then for both journalists and their sources that Ms Zatuliveter’s beauty, age, or hair colour are all judged highly relevant in forming the basis for such serious allegations. Yet, leaving aside possible connections to the FSB, why is it so surprising that young, educated women (not girls, I would point out) should be taking part in internships, or looking for jobs pointing towards a political career? Some commentators have pointed out that her researcher position in the Commons may have only served as launch pad into a more powerful career in government. But that is precisely what hundreds of parliamentary researchers (many of whom are foreign) are trying to do. The LSE runs a very popular scheme that places many of our graduate students (often from overseas) with MPs as interns to do just that. So until we find out that Ms Zatuliveter’s intentions were to penetrate the heart of British government in order to spy, it seems unfair to criticize her ambition as well.

My preferred, actually very gender-neutral theoretical application is this notion of 'erotic capital'. Instead of overdoing the politically correct route by ignoring that looks matter--for both sexes, actually--why not try to describe it, quantify it, and explain how it is deployed? In the beginning, we had old-fashioned economic capital familiar to readers of classical political economy. Then Chicago School sociologist Gary Becker came up with 'human capital'. Later came the notion of 'social capital' still very much in vogue with policymakers. Not to be outdone, environmentalists coined the term 'natural capital'. Pretty soon, some bored political scientists came up with 'political capital'. Bewildered with this veritable explosion of capitals, Catherine Hakim of our Sociology department has come up with yet another sort of capital:

Erotic capital is the implicit but powerful commodity that can count just as much as educational qualifications in the labour market, politics, media or the arts, finds a new report published today by a sociologist at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 'Beauty and sex appeal have become more important personal assets in the sexualised cultures of our liberal, modern societies, often just as important as educational qualifications' says Dr Catherine Hakim in the study.

She coins the term 'erotic capital' to refer to this difficult-to-define but crucial combination of physical and social attractiveness which makes some men and women agreeable company and colleagues, attractive to all members of their society and especially to the opposite sex. She says: 'People who possess an above-average amount of erotic capital are more persuasive, are more often perceived as honest and competent. They find it easier to make friends, get jobs, get married, and tend to earn 15 per cent more on average as well'.

And here's a list of the seven components of erotic capital:

Beauty - Though it varies across times and cultures, great beauty is always in short supply and highly-prized by all societies. The modern emphasis on photogenic features means that men and women with large eyes and mouths and sculpted faces are valued. Conventionality, symmetry and an even skin-tone also contribute to attractiveness.
Sexual attractiveness - This can be quite separate from classic beauty. Beauty is mainly about facial attractiveness while sexual attraction is largely about a sexy body. However sex appeal can also be about personality and style, femininity or masculinity, a way of being in the world. Beauty tends to be static and easily captured in a photo while sexual attractiveness is about the way someone moves, talks and behaves so it can only be captured on film.
Social attractiveness - Includes grace, charm and social skills – the ability to make others feel at ease and happy, wanting to know you and, possibly, desire you.
Liveliness - A mixture of physical fitness, social energy and good humour. As illustrated by those who are 'the life and soul of the party'
Presentation - This includes the way you dress, style your hair, wear make-up or perfume and jewellery. People who are skilled at these accomplishments are more attractive.
Sexuality itself - A category that includes sexual competence, energy, erotic imagination, playfulness and all the things that constitute a sexually satisfying partner. Not the same thing as having a strong libido, although those that do are more likely to acquire these qualities through experience. The only one of the six which usually only applies in private, rather than social, situations.
All six categories apply to some extent to both men and women However for women, in some cultures, there is a seventh category – of fertility. In many cultures a fertile woman is regarded as having extra attractions, especially if her children are healthy and beautiful.

Returning to our Russian spies, there is an explanation for the phenomenon at hand:

She finds that women have the edge over men in these areas, partly because women work harder at being physically and socially attractive, and at dressing well. However, another reason is the large sex deficit that affects more men than women, universally. Recent national sex surveys show that, around the world, men's sexual interest greatly exceeds women's sexual interest and activity, especially among people aged 35 and over. So women are in greater demand as sexual partners, a dramatic reversal of men's advantage in courtship and marriage markets.

So there you are. Cue the Apollonia 6 for old time's sake while you're at it. Let's say I'm not entirely sold just yet, but there are certainly testable hypotheses here that can be examined through the use of survey data and experiments. You can read the entire journal article to make up your mind. (Unsurprisingly, there are sceptics out there.) Meanwhile, the proliferation of various forms of capital being identified is driving me bonkers to the point of wishing I were an orthodox Marxist alike social capital critic Ben Fine who has built a career repeating the idea that capital is indivisible ad infinitum.

But hey, if Marxists were considered sexy, maybe I should become one. Vladimir Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was last century's worst geopolitical catastrophe. As the saying goes, if you can't beat 'em...

Washing Machine Changed World More Than Web

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Development,Gender Equality at 10/06/2010 12:07:00 AM

Don't take my word for it; take Ha-Joon Chang's. Just a few posts back, I wrote about the absolute deluge of events here at the LSE on Tuesday, including the launch event of Chang's new book 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism that turns a lot of economic orthodoxy on its head. Despite my doubts about some of the things Ha-Joon Chang mentions--for instance, he believes that it is possible for governments to pick winners--he too believes the Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be. Now here's something Chang and I could probably agree about as various world governments envision building their policies around the Web. I also have to give kudos to Chang for coming up with quite a catchy title. Plus, the cover is interesting if I don't exactly see what it has to do with a wide-ranging critique of economic orthodoxy.

Whatever your view of Ha-Joon Chang, his new book is certainly worth a read if you get the chance from what I gathered at the lecture. Here is an excerpt of his interview with the Observer on the subject matter of which innovation matters more in the bigger scheme of things:

Is it really true that the washing machine has changed the world more than the internet?

When we assess the impact of technological changes, we tend to downplay things that happened a while ago. Of course, the internet is great – I can now google and find the exact location of this restaurant on the edge of Liverpool or whatever. But when you look at the impact of this on the economy, it's mainly in the area of leisure.

The internet may have significantly changed the working patterns of people like you and me, but we are in a tiny minority. For most people, its effect is more about keeping in touch with friends and looking up things here and there. Economists have found very little evidence that since the internet revolution productivity has grown.

And the washing machine was more transformative?

By liberating women from household work and helping to abolish professions such as domestic service, the washing machine and other household goods completely revolutionised the structure of society. As women have become active in the labour market they have acquired a different status at home – they can credibly threaten their partners that if they don't treat them well they will leave them and make an independent living. And this had huge economic consequences. Rather than spend their time washing clothes, women could go out and do more productive things. Basically, it has doubled the workforce.

The washing machine is just one element here. Other factors have contributed to the liberation of women – feminism, the pill and so on.

Yes, but feminism couldn't have been implemented unless there was this technological basis for a society where women went out and worked. Of course it's not just the washing machine, it's piped water, electricity, irons and so on.

PC Gone Too Far? UK Jobcentres Ban Stripper Ads

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Gender Equality at 8/03/2010 01:18:00 AM

The height of summer is here and even our dedicated scribes have gotten bored talking endlessly about unemployment. Or have they? The silly season is in as the press is having its fun with the headline that UK jobcentres will no longer place adverts for lap dancers and strippers, citing that these jobs may lead to "exploitation." I'd love to hear what cool papa Marx would have to say about that.

But seriously, there are genuine points of political-economic debate here. For those not following the feminist literature, there is a debate ongoing over the validity of such rulings regarding women's rights. On one hand, it may be good that the government is taking a more active stance towards protecting women. That's the traditional view. On the other hand, revisionists argue that it is paternalistic for the government to introduce such rules since women can themselves best identify whether such work is comfortable enough for them to engage in. Given tough times in Blighty, well, there may be more than adequate motivation to engage in such trades. Understandably, it's quite controversial stuff; read a bit more about it and see where you stand:

Job centres will no longer be able to carry adverts for jobs in the sex industry under a ban announced by the government. The curb, which will come in with immediate effect, will cover jobs such as lap dancers and strippers. The government said this was to prevent jobseekers feeling they had to accept jobs they felt uncomfortable with.

However, adverts for vacancies such as a cleaning job in a lap dancing club would be allowed. The ban will only affect jobs which could lead to exploitation, Employment Minister Chris Grayling said.

The latest move is in response to a public consultation that the government said revealed "significant public concern" about the advertisement of sex industry jobs in job centres. Adult industry job adverts have been allowed in job centres since 2003, when lingerie chain Ann Summers won a legal fight to advertise for shop staff. Figures show that job centres advertised more than 350 jobs in the sex industry in 2008.

As I will need to move on soon, what's their say on, er, male dancers? Dontcha just love those raunchy hen parties?

Gender Imbalances and the PRC's Material Girls

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in China,Gender Equality at 2/12/2010 12:01:00 AM

Gender imbalances in China resulting from sex-selective abortion due to the so-called one child policy are posing troubling questions for the future of the country. Dubious Freakonomics-style explanations of this phenomenon having been debunked, there are real policy implications here: How will lopsided gender ratios affect the PRC's fertility rate going forward? Also, how will millions and millions of young men with limited chances of finding companionship vent their frustrations? Development economist du jour Esther Duflo suggests "violence":

Boys are having trouble getting married. And young men, particularly single ones, have more behavioural problems and commit more crimes than young women...To what extent is the rise in the number of young men responsible for the increase in crime? A recent study by Chinese and American researchers: “Sex ratio and crime: Evidence from China’s one-Child Policy” (by Edlund, Li, Yi, and Zhang) answers this question by comparing the increase in the number of crimes between 1998 and 2004 in regions where the one-child policy was strictly enforced with the same increase in regions where parents were allowed a second child if the first were a girl (where the boy-girl ratio is much closer to normal). They conclude that the one-child policy explains one-seventh of the increase in crime.

It will be interesting but somewhat frightening to monitor what will become of this unwitting social experiment the Chinese have unleashed. Human trafficking may rise. Certainly, there is a possibility of jingoism that can result in military adventurism--remove trouble at home (criminality) and export it abroad. With PRC leadership becoming increasingly confident and the Chinese military becoming increasingly bellicose, plentiful recruits may be close at hand.

Meanwhile, however, there are some enterprising Chinese making matchmaking a business that can only become more important in the future as matters worsen due to "Little Emperors" (pampered male offspring born during the height of the one-child policy era) coming of age. As with many things in life, however, being well-off pays off in this respect:

Xu Tianli is the founder of Golden Bachelor, an online dating site catering to an expanding class of super-wealthy Chinese singletons who have it all except for one thing: a bride. So they pay, a lot, to find one. The Golden Bachelor "Diamond Love" membership goes for 300,000 Yuan ($44,000). The Web site states in Chinese the qualifications for joining: a personal or family wealth of at least 2 million yuan ($292,000); a background that is extremely superior, wealthy and aristocratic; very good personal qualities or young, talented and beautiful.

"More and more Chinese people are finding love from Web sites," said Xu, 36. "The difference between us from other dating sites is we only focus on high-level clients -- those with a high social status or superior physical condition. We don't focus on the mass general public." Golden Bachelor says it has 5 million registered members and employs psychologists and special matchmaking consultants to personally assist multi-millionaires in their pursuit of romance.

Then there are sociological quandaries that the Chinese government is aware of but has yet to address:

In a society where 24 million Chinese men will find themselves lacking wives by 2020 because of the country's gender imbalance, according to a recent study by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, it could get highly competitive.

"Men at the bottom of the social hierarchy are going to have very few chances to meet women," said James Farrer, author of "Opening Up: Youth Sex Culture and Market Reform in Shanghai. This is going to be very apparent in the future as poor men with few economic resources just won't find women," Farrer said. "Women won't benefit from this imbalance either. These are the women who are highly educated and have high career ambitions. They will be competing for men at the top of the social hierarchy."

I wouldn't want to be Taiwan if the PRC doesn't get around to addressing this problem. In the meantime, what Madonna once sang may hold for many Chinese ladies in an increasingly competitive meet market--'cause the boy with the cold hard cash is always Mr. Right.

Out Now: UK Inequality Report

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in Europe,Gender Equality,Neoliberalism at 1/29/2010 08:08:00 PM

I almost forgot to post on this: Just made available is a report commissioned by UK Minister for Women and Equality Harriet Harman and prepared by the LSE's very own Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. The report was co-authored by some of the biggest names in the UK working on social policy issues including Ruth Lister (social exclusion) and Tariq Modood (multiculturalism). The results should be of concern not just for feminists but society as a whole: although women up to age 44 are better qualified than their male counterparts, they earn 21% less. Minorities also fare quite poorly in relation to the reference white males:

Elsewhere, the top decile of earners is also pulling away from the rest. All in all, it's pretty damning stuff on how women and minorities have not really progressed despite all this talk you hear about Britain becoming a "multicultural" society. It sounds a heckuva lot like the United States--a more or less permanent underclass accompanied by limited prospects of upward mobility. Given that the premise of Anglo-Saxon economies was that stultified structures would be rid of as to not limit mobility, it's galling that gains are so hard to find. You can download a summary or the full report, although be prepared for some sobering reading. Meanwhile, here's the overview:
------------------------------------

The National Equality Panel was set up to document the relationships between inequalities in people’s economic outcomes – such as earnings, incomes and wealth – and their characteristics and circumstances – such as gender, age or ethnicity. How does who you are affect the resources and opportunities available to you?

We map out in detail what these relationships look like in a way never done before. In this summary we bring together the key findings from our main report, and the challenges they create for the development of policy. There are several over-arching themes:

Inequalities in earnings and incomes are high in Britain, both compared with other industrialised countries, and compared with thirty years ago. Over the most recent decade according to some measures, earnings inequality has narrowed a little and income inequality has stabilised, but the large inequality growth between the late 1970s and early 1990s has not been reversed.
Some of the widest gaps in outcomes between social groups have narrowed in the last decade, particularly between the earnings of women and men, and in the educational qualifications of different ethnic groups.
However, there remain deep-seated and systematic differences in economic outcomes between social groups across all of the dimensions we have examined – including between men and women, between different ethnic groups, between social class groups, between those living in disadvantaged and other areas, and between London and other parts of the country.
Despite the elimination and even reversal of the differences in educational qualifications that often explain employment rates and relative pay, significant differences remain between men and women and between ethnic groups.
Importantly, however, differences in outcomes between the more and less advantaged within each social group, however the population is classified, are usually only a little narrower than those across the population as a whole. They are much greater than differences between groups. Even if all differences between such groups were removed, overall economic inequalities would remain wide.
The inequality growth of the last forty years is mostly attributable to growing gaps within social groups, however those groups are defined. The pattern of the last decade has been more mixed, with the effects of growing inequality within some groups offset by narrowing gaps between them.
Many of the differences we examine cumulate across the life cycle, especially those related to people’s socio-economic background. We see this before children enter school, through the school years, through entry into the labour market, and on to retirement, wealth and resources for retirement, and mortality rates in later life. Economic advantage and disadvantage reinforce themselves across the life cycle, and often on to the next generation. By implication, policy interventions to counter this are needed at each life cycle stage.
A fundamental aim of people with widely differing political perspectives is to achieve ‘equality of opportunity’, but doing so is very hard when there are such wide differences between the resources which people and their families have to help them fulfil their diverse potentials.

29/1 UPDATE: "Send inequality whingers to high equality Cuba"

30/1 UPDATE: You may be wondering, "Wasn't Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister a turning point for gender equality in Britain?" Well, I was visiting the London Times website when the reason for her rise (since corrected, mind you, and an interesting article too) was revealed:

31/1 UPdATE: Also see the blurb on the LSE website.