This Mother's Day, it would be worth spending a minute or two praying for those mothers, who work just as hard as ours but don't get the flowers and 'thank you's they deserve.
A Save the Children survey puts Afghanistan as the worst place to be a mother - though I disagree and would put the Democratic Republic of Congo - also on the list - in that spot.
Norway tops the list owing to healthy sex-ratios, best male-female wage ratios and enviable maternity leave policies. The United States fares worst of all industrialized nations because of its poor policies towards expecting mothers.
Here is the full FP Photo essay featuring the 10 worst places to be a mother: Afghanistan, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, Yemen, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Mali, Sudan, Central African Republic.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/06/the_worst_places_to_be_a_mother?page=0,0
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Tuesday, 3 May 2011
Should Economists Help Authoritarian Regimes?
I was rather enraged when Sir Howard Davies announced his resignation from the position of Director of the London School of Economics (my alma mater) on account of links that had been exposed between the School and the Gaddafi regime.
So why was I enraged? Afterall, if the School had sinned, someone responsible for its decisions ought to have resigned. In that light, the Davies resignation sounds logical.
But, NO! I was enraged because Davies shouldn't have resigned because he advised the Libyan regime on the British government's request! And even if he should have resigned, he should certainly not have resigned alone. Gaddafi has been in power since French President Sarkozy was 14, U.S. President Obama was 8 and British Prime Minister David Cameron was 3! That's how long the three NATO big-wigs have got this wrong. So why should Davies alone resign and all these other people stay in their positions of greater power and influence? Perhaps, Davies's resignation was a personal act of selflessness, perhaps it was forced by the media or the British government. But didn't we try to plug a sink-hole to save the sinking Titanic? His resignation stinks of Western hypocrisy in dealing with regimes like Gaddafi's.
I came across an excellent article on Project Syndicate. Titled 'Saif Qaddafi and Me', Dani Rodrik explores the role of advisors to authoritarian regimes citing the example Davies among many others. Now you decide for yourselves if Davies is guilty as charged or if someone from the British Government ought to have resigned instead, if at all.
"The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.” A terrorist is holding several people hostage, and he asks you to deliver water and food to them. You may choose the moral high ground and say, “I will never deal with a terrorist.” But you will have passed up an opportunity to assist the hostages. Most moral philosophers would say that helping the hostages is the right thing to do in this instance, even if doing so also helps the terrorist."
Full article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik55/English
So why was I enraged? Afterall, if the School had sinned, someone responsible for its decisions ought to have resigned. In that light, the Davies resignation sounds logical.
But, NO! I was enraged because Davies shouldn't have resigned because he advised the Libyan regime on the British government's request! And even if he should have resigned, he should certainly not have resigned alone. Gaddafi has been in power since French President Sarkozy was 14, U.S. President Obama was 8 and British Prime Minister David Cameron was 3! That's how long the three NATO big-wigs have got this wrong. So why should Davies alone resign and all these other people stay in their positions of greater power and influence? Perhaps, Davies's resignation was a personal act of selflessness, perhaps it was forced by the media or the British government. But didn't we try to plug a sink-hole to save the sinking Titanic? His resignation stinks of Western hypocrisy in dealing with regimes like Gaddafi's.
I came across an excellent article on Project Syndicate. Titled 'Saif Qaddafi and Me', Dani Rodrik explores the role of advisors to authoritarian regimes citing the example Davies among many others. Now you decide for yourselves if Davies is guilty as charged or if someone from the British Government ought to have resigned instead, if at all.
"The conundrum that advisers to authoritarian regimes face is akin to a long-standing problem in moral philosophy known as the dilemma of “dirty hands.” A terrorist is holding several people hostage, and he asks you to deliver water and food to them. You may choose the moral high ground and say, “I will never deal with a terrorist.” But you will have passed up an opportunity to assist the hostages. Most moral philosophers would say that helping the hostages is the right thing to do in this instance, even if doing so also helps the terrorist."
Full article: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rodrik55/English
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)