Category: Public Policy

Blog author: jballor
Monday, September 10, 2007

Some notes from a talk by Sally E. Stuart, author of The Christian Writers Market Guide:

  • Publisher blogs are increasingly prevalent (for example, IVP).

  • Authors are sometimes expected to provide fully developed marketing plans.
  • “Secular” has become a pejorative term, now the preferred term is “General.”
  • There is a move toward digital publication and dissemination, due to competition, postage, printing costs.
  • Christian booksellers are facing stiff competition with decreasing margins, in part because Christian books are becoming popular in mainstream outlets like Barnes & Noble, Amazon, and Wal-Mart.
  • Only 44% of Protestants read Christian magazines, which themselves only make up 21% of the magazine reading of the average Protestant.
  • Christian publishing is the only publishing segment that has been growing in recent years (it is roughly 5-10 percent of the overall market).
Blog author: kschmiesing
Monday, September 10, 2007

Richard John Neuhaus is calling it “one of the most important books on world poverty in a very long time.” It’s Paul Collier’s The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Neuhaus’s discussion is thorough so I won’t reiterate. Suffice it to say that I’m intrigued by the book’s arguments. I’ve always thought the question of when to intervene militarily—self-evidently one of the key foreign policy questions—is also one of the thorniest moral questions. The way one answers it often has ramifications, for good or for bad, for the world’s most vulnerable people. It seems obvious that a strictly libertarian approach (“never intervene”) is callous, not to mention geopolitically foolish, while a vigorously interventionist policy is dangerous in many ways as well as unsustainable in the longterm. In between the two, how does one formulate consistent criteria of intervention, rather than make decisions in an ad hoc fashion, a method too easily affected by the passions of the time, special interests, and so on? I’ve yet to see a satisfying answer.

Blog author: jballor
Friday, September 7, 2007

This week’s commentary by Anthony Bradley, “Obviously, Sports Do Not Build Character,” (along with our poll question) made me think of the series of articles appearing in the current issue of Christianity Today, which included a cover story on the NFL and an editorial addressing faith and the NBA.

And that made me think of this parody (HT: the evangelical outpost):

Update: See also the new “Centre for the Study of Sport and Spirituality.”

Blog author: jballor
Thursday, September 6, 2007

They say that those who can’t do, teach. But what if you can’t teach?

From the AZ Republic: “Hundreds of students in Arizona are trying to learn English from teachers who don’t know the language, state officials say.”

I’ve never been too attracted to the whole “English-only movement,” but I would think the language should at least be the sine qua non of our educational system.

That is, we should be teaching English and other languages. Some of the examples from the piece are pretty egregious, as teachers are employed who are clearly unqualified to comply with “Arizona law [that] requires teachers to use only English in the classroom and bans all texts and materials in any language but English.” I’m assuming that law is in effect for classes other than foreign language classes.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Blog author: jballor
Wednesday, September 5, 2007

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the UK has given generic approval allowing “human-animal embryos to be created and used for research.” According to a Christian Science Monitor report, Evan Harris, “a lawmaker on a parliamentary committee that has oversight in this field,” says that “No scientist I have found has provided scientific reasons as opposed to religiously based ethical reasons for not proceeding,” he adds, even though his committee “looked high and low for such scientists.”

Typically the case that secular scientists make for such research is based on the necessity of the measure for their all-important research: “Stem-cell researchers say they desperately need the animal matter because not enough human eggs are available. Britain has adopted an accommodating attitude toward stem-cell science, fostering a favorable environment that scientists argue would be undermined if this latest experimentation is rejected.”

“We pride ourselves here on working in a pro-science environment,” says Stephen Minger, director of stem-cell biology at King’s College London, one of two scientists who have applied for the HFEA license. “It would be viewed as a depressing turn of events” if the application were turned down.

Anything not clearly “pro-science” in such a narrow way, like any ethic with religious foundations, is similarly understood to be archaic, obsolete, irrelevant, and reactionary.

For some such “religiously based” arguments, see my series on chimeras in five parts.

For more on how scientists and religious leaders dialogue in the public square, see Thomas M. Lessl, “The Priestly Voice,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75, no. 2 (1989): 183-97; and this 2005 interview on science and rhetoric.

Update: Reformation21 provides a link to the “Linacre Centre Submission to the Science and Technology Committee Inquiry into Government Proposals for the Regulation of Hybrid and Chimera Embryos” (PDF). The Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics is a bioethics research institute under the trusteeship of the Catholic Trust for England and Wales.

A recent NBER paper, “Distributional Effects of Globalization in Developing Countries,” by Pinelopi Koujianou Goldberg and Nina Pavcnik examines some effects of trade liberalization on low-skill workers.

Les Picker summarizes the findings, “Not surprisingly, the entry of many developing countries into the world market in the last three decades coincides with changes in various measures of inequality in these countries. What is more surprising is that the distributional changes went in the opposite direction from what the conventional wisdom suggests: while trade liberalization was expected to help the less skilled, who are presumed to be the relatively abundant factor in developing countries, there is overwhelming evidence that they are generally not made better off relative to workers with higher skill or education levels.”

There’s a lot more here to digest and the article has some predictably necessary nuances and caveats, not least of which concerns the problematic elements of trying to find a causal link between temporally related phenomena: “The authors’ findings suggest a contemporaneous increase in various measures of globalization and inequality in most developing countries, although establishing a causal link between these two trends has proven more challenging. However, the evidence has provided little support for the conventional wisdom that trade openness in developing countries would favor the less fortunate.”

It’s one thing to say that globalization proportionally rewards more highly educated and skilled workers relative to less educated and skilled workers. This by itself is not obviously unjust, and indeed, it seems to pass a basic sense of justice that jobs that require more skills and training ought to command a higher wage. Maybe a system that distributes more unevenly according to a measure of merit such as education or skill-level is more just than another system which is more equitable in purely distributive terms.

That said, it’s quite another thing to say that low-skilled workers are not made better off in absolute terms by globalization. I’m inclined to think that we shouldn’t be so concerned about relative disparities as we are by comparing in absolute terms the state of the working poor under systems of liberal versus illiberal trade.

If the working poor are better off under a liberal trade regime than an illiberal one, and higher educated workers are paid relatively more, there is a simultaneous increase in the poor’s immediate economic prospects as well as a relative increase in the economic incentive to improve their skills.

But his latter point only is effective in a situation where labor mobility is a real option, and as the NBER paper points out, “the strict labor market regulation that many developing countries had in place prior to the recent reforms is a potential source of labor market rigidities.”

So, for the promise of globalization to be realized, trade not only needs to be liberalized, but so does labor. Workers need to be free to move between sectors, both within and without national boundaries. As I’ve argued before in another context, we need both free trade and free labor.

For more on international labor mobility among low-skill workers, see this NYT piece, “Short on Labor, Farmers in U.S. Shift to Mexico.” See also, “New UN Report Underscores Ties between Poverty and Productivity.”

Blog author: kschmiesing
Wednesday, September 5, 2007

PowerBlog has in the past endorsed the concept of micro-loans as a market-friendly and thereby effective way of aiding the poor, especially in developing countries.

Now Arneel Karnani has attacked microfinance in a prestigious publication, largely on the basis of macroeconomic data.

Over at Business as Mission Network, microfinancier Peter Greer supplies a thorough and fascinating response to the charges.

Certainly any movement needs it critics and Karnani scores some genuine points, but it seems to me that Greer’s rebuttals are on the whole convincing. Micro-loans won’t eliminate poverty, but they play an important role in its alleviation—and in the rehabilitation of the dignity of the individuals who are able to take responsibility for their economic welfare.