Give Directly: Evidence and Poverty Alleviation

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Give Directly: Evidence and Poverty Alleviation

I first heard about GiveDirectly, a charity that simply gives money to people in extremely poor villages in Africa, on an episode of This American Life several months back. GiveDirectly has challenged other charities to show that their donors that are getting their bang for their buck. 

Here is a description of that story, cleverly titled “Money for Nothing and Your Cows for Free”:

Planet Money reporters David Kestenbaum and Jacob Goldstein went to Kenya to see the work of a charity called GiveDirectly in action. Instead of funding schools or wells or livestock, GiveDirectly has decided to just give money directly to the poor people who need it, and let them decide how to spend it. David and Jacob explain whether this method of charity works, and why some people think it’s a terrible idea. (28 minutes)  

 

More recently, the Freakonomics Radio Podcast discussed some of the data coming in on GiveDirectly as well as poverty alleviation more broadly.  

Here is a description of the Freakonomics show, entitled “Fighting Poverty With Actual Evidence”:

But one case study can’t definitively answer the larger question: what’s the best way to help poor people stop being poor? That’s the question we address in this new podcast. If features a discussion that Stephen Dubner recently moderated in New York City with Richard Thalerand Dean Karlan. Thaler is an economist at the University of Chicago, and a co-author of Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. (Both the British and U.S. governments now have “nudge” units, focused on using behavioral economics for policy improvements.) Karlan is a professor of economics at Yale and founder of the nonprofit Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA), which hosted the New York event. IPA, which Karlan founded, is trying to figure out how to best alleviate poverty. The answer, as you might expect, isn’t so simple. 

 

In some situations, giving money directly to poor people works well; in others, less so. IPA studied the efficacy of a cash-transfer experiment in Kenya run by the nonprofit GiveDirectly. For background, you might want to see how The Economist described the experiment, and also what NPR’s Planet Money had to say.

Exploring Myths and Misconceptions in Energy

/ Danielle Kloster / Leave a comment

I recently finished reading my new favorite energy and energy policy book, “Energy Myths and Realities: Bringing Science to the Energy Policy Debate” by Dr. Vaclav Smil. While I highly recommend that anyone interested in energy policy or the science of our energy systems invest in the book, I’d like to offer a sneak peek into the debunked myths that Dr. Smil addresses. He begins with myths that have somehow persisted through the decades (or centuries). The first myth is that electric cars will be the transportation method of the future. Dr. Smil reminds us that electricity is not free or, in most cases, clean. The majority of electricity comes from fossil fuel power plants, mostly coal and natural gas. As concerns about mountain top removal, hydraulic fracturing, and carbon emissions come up in the mainstream news, it’s easy to forget that those sources of energy power our electronic devices, lights, appliances, and so on. Adding our cars to that pressure would hugely increase the demand for electricity, resulting in the need to build many more power plants (or, more ideally, renewable generation), new transmission lines, and stations that are capable of recharging vehicles. Electricity generation and transmission are also highly inefficient, resulting in losses of electricity at the plant and in the lines. While renewable energy generation is expected to increase significantly over the next few decades, Dr. Smil argues that it is unrealistic to think that this will be enough to power a fleet of electric cars. However, he finds hope in the increased fuel efficiency standards in gasoline and diesel engines, both those realized at this time and the potential for greater increases under tighter standards.
Dr. Smil then turns his attention to more recently in-the-news “myths”, or more accurately, over-hyped technologies or principles, including peak oil, carbon sequestration, biofuels from plants, wind power, and the pace of energy transitions. His main point in this section is that it is very easy to be either overly pessimistic about the energy situation we face or, perhaps more disconcertingly, to be overly optimistic about both new technologies and energy sources and the rate at which they can be implemented. For example, corn ethanol policy is meant to help farmers by providing a market for their crop, to reduce our energy dependence on other nations, and to reduce carbon emissions. However, it is debatable whether any of those goals have been even slightly achieved. Additionally, the resource is limited in how much can be produced and how much can be demanded. Currently, about 10% of the gasoline you pump into your vehicle is ethanol and the EPA is hesitant to raise that to 15%, so the industry has hit a “blend wall” wherein the market is saturated with product unless the gasoline consumption of the U.S. increases. On the other hand, Smil points out that if we tried to replace all of the gasoline used in U.S. with corn ethanol, more arable land would be required to produce the corn required than actually exists in the United States.
In a similar manner with the other energy myths, misconceptions, and overexcitements, Dr. Smil uses both the extensive body of literature on various energy sources and some simple arithmetic to provide sound evidence and advice to his audience, from concerned citizens to policymakers.

Reflections on Nelson Mandela and New York’s Core Curriculum

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Reflections on Nelson Mandela and New York’s Core Curriculum

On the most recent episode of WCNY’s The Ivory Tower, CNY’s finest academics discussed the death of Nelson Mandela as well as New York State’s Core Curriculum public education standards. 

Hosted by David Rubin (Dean of the Newhouse School of Public Communications at Syracuse University, this edition of The Ivory Tower featured a powerhouse panel including: Lisa Dolak (Syracuse University College of Law), Bob Greene (Cazenovia College), Tara Ross (Onondaga County Community College), and Kristi Andersen (Maxwell School of Syracuse University).

Here is a description of the program:

The panelists first offer some reflections on the passing of Nelson Mandela. Then they examine the controversial Core Curriculum in New York State that is meant to improve the quality of K-12 education. It has roiled parents and teachers considerably and forced the State Education Commissioner to defend it in public forums around the state.

International Standards for Education: A Discussion of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

/ Angel Baker / Leave a comment
There were international declarations and conventions that are the foundation for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“Convention”).  One of those precursors was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), which states, “Everyone has the right to education.” Furthermore, under the UDHR, education in the elementary and fundamental stages is to be free and compulsory. The UDHR further requires that education be directed towards the full development of the human personality and strengthen respect for human rights.  Lastly, the UDHR acknowledges that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that is given to their children.
Another precursor to the Convention is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), which has two articles which set out the right to education. Article 13 of the ICESCR contains a general statement that everyone has the right to education and that education contributes to the full development of the human personality. Furthermore, Article 13 requires primary education be compulsory, available, and free to all.  Article 13 also requires secondary education, including technical and vocational education, to be available and accessible to all by every appropriate means.  Article 13 requires, as well, fundamental education to be intensified for people who have not received or completed their primary education.  Additionally, Article 13 mandates that systems of schools are established and the teaching staff be continuously improved.  Article 13 further requires that the liberty of parents to be able to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to minimum educational standards.  Article 14 of the ICESCR requires each state party that has not been able to secure compulsory primary education free of charge, “to work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation . . . of compulsory primary education free of charge for all” within two years.

Another international document, that lead the way for the Convention, is the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”).  Article 28 of the CRC requires free, compulsory, primary education for all.  Article 28 also requires that different forms of secondary education available and accessible to all.  Additionally, article 29 of the CRC requires the full development of the child’s personality and his or her talents and abilities to their full potential.  The right to education is universal and must extend to all children, youth, and adults with disabilities.  This right is further addressed in several significant, internationally approved declarations, including the World Declaration for Education for All (1990), the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disability (1993), the UNESCO Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action (1994), and the Dakar Framework for Action (2000).

The Convetion offers more benefits and protections than the previous international documents.  Article 12 of the Convention recognizes equal recognition before the law for persons with disabilities.  Article 12 requires that countries ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities. Article 7 of the Convention requires that the best interests of the child be the primary consideration and due weight in accordance with their age and maturity.   Article 24 of the Convention ensures the right to education for persons with disabilities, which requires that all countries to have an inclusive education system.  The inclusive education system provides equal opportunity without discrimination at all levels of education for all types of learning. Article 24 states that an inclusive education system enhances the development of persons with disabilities in their emotional, physical, and mental abilities. Article 24 states that with greater access to education, persons with disabilities will likely more fully participate in their respective societies.

Article 24 requires an “inclusive education system.”  Article 24 of the Convention requires countries to ensure opportunities for persons with disabilities by not excluding them from the general education system due to their disability.  Article 24 requires that the general education system be free and compulsory at the primary education level on an equal basis with others in their own country.   Article 24 also requires countries to ensure secondary, tertiary, and life-long learning opportunities, for persons with disabilities, on equal with others in their own country. Additionally, article 24 requires countries to provide reasonable accommodation to persons with disabilities, so that they may receive an effective education. Article 24 states that reasonable accommodation includes effective individualized support to maximize academic and social development. Article 2 of the Convention defines “reasonable accommodation” as the “necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

The Convention is not a limitation on country laws to protect persons with disabilities, but sets out a minimum standard for all countries to ensure equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.  Additionally, the Convention allows countries to enact higher standards to give more protections for persons with disabilities to effectuate equality.

For more information, check out these links.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966)  http://www.un-documents.net/icescr.htm

The Covenant on the Rights of the Child (1989) http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx

The Flagship on Education for All and the Right to education for Persons with Disabilities: Towards Inclusion  http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/know_sharing/flagship_initiatives/disability_last_version.shtml

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03jdw6y

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

What Is The Role of the Police?

This was question being explored on the most recent episode of the BBC’s Moral Maze podcast.  Given that I have been studying criminal procedure this past semester, this has been a particular relevant question.

Here is a description of the podcast:

“Plebgate”, the Hillsborough disaster, evidence of blatant fixing of crime statistics – by any standards our police have come under searching scrutiny lately and haven’t exactly come out with flying colours. So this week’s report by a former commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, John – now Lord Stevens – on the future of policing is certainly timely. But this is more than just a debate about numbers, structures and complaints procedures, this is a fundamental question about what our police should be for. Lord Stevens says it’s time to accept that police “are not simply crime fighters”, but they should also have a “social mission” that should be enshrined in law which would incorporate improving safety and well-being within communities. We’ve come a long way since the days of the Sweeney catchphrase “get your trousers on – you’re nicked”, but do we want our police to take on the mantle of social workers as well as crime fighters? Is this mission creep by the police, or an abdication of our own responsibility? By widening the scope of what we expect our police to police are we in danger of turning them from law enforcers, in to enforcers of social norms? And that this will lead to a subjective understanding of what society regards as right and wrong and blur the moral line between what is and isn’t a crime?