Posts Tagged ‘ethics of care’

A Question of Priorities

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

Via Matt Yglesias, here is a graph of comparative defense spending among nations.

 

defensespendingcontext

 

The U.S. spends nearly three times as much on defense as China and Russia.

And, via Yglesias, here is a graph showing countries with paid parental leave programs that give parents time off to take care of child care duties.

 paidleave-1

Among all Western nations, only the U.S. lacks paid parental leave.

A correlation is not a cause, but one could hypothesize that there is a causal connection here. We lack sufficient child care institutions because we spend too much money on defense.

We think it is more important to spend billions on fantasy weapon systems we don’t need so we can strut about on the world stage pretending to be that last great hope of humankind instead of really taking care of our future.

Life Is Hard for the People who Harvest Our Food

Wednesday, June 24th, 2009

Yesterday’s LA Times had a terrific article by Mike Anton on the hardships faced by the people who harvest our food.

Right now, someone reaches for a bag of grapes in a supermarket. The shopper cradles the chilled, voluptuous fruit in his palm and admires the uniform size and color.

Perfection for as little as $1 a pound.

Regardless of whether the grapes are green or red or where the supermarket is, from mid-May until mid-July it’s a good bet they came from about 9,000 acres of vineyards surrounding the hard-luck town of Mecca. […]

Table grapes have been the valley’s biggest crop for more than a century. Each year, some 100 million pounds are picked by an army of laborers during an epic harvest against which the ugly realities of global agribusiness stand in vivid relief.

The work is hard, dirty and dangerous. It begins at dawn when the air is sweet and moist and stretches until midafternoon, when temperatures can top 120 degrees and the sun feels like a steel-toed boot to the head.

The pay is $8 to $9 an hour, less than it was 40 years ago when adjusted for inflation.
“Nothing changes,” says Arturo Rodriguez, an attorney in the Coachella office of California Rural Legal Assistance. “It’s the same harvest of shame.” […]

Privately, farm laborers talk of being cheated out of pay, forced to skip rest or lunch breaks and fired if they complain. But what happens in the fields tends to stay in the fields.

Heat killed five farmworkers in California last year, including a 17-year-old pregnant Mexican girl who collapsed after working nine hours in a Lodi vineyard without shade and little water. Dozens of others were hospitalized.

The ethics of care requires of us that we become more aware of the sacrifices of people who make possible the lifestyle that we enjoy and take responsibility for their exploitation.

More stories like this in the mainstream press would certainly help.

 

Development Aid That Works

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009

Development aid to underdeveloped countries is a controversial topic. Some people argue that such aid is a moral imperative, the only means of preventing human misery. Others argue that it undermines local markets and prevents people from developing the institutions that will ultimately enable them to take care of themselves.

One idea is to give everyone a Basic Income Grant (BIG) so that people have enough money for food, basic health care, school fees, and to set up a small business so they can take their lives into their own hands.

Via Crooked Timber

There is now empirical evidence supporting this line of reasoning, coming from Namibia, where in 2004 a coalition of churches, trade unions, NGOs and AIDS organisations decided to run a pilot project to figure out what a small BIG would do to the lives of the extreme poor.

The BIG Coalition raised money which allows them to give a BIG of 100 Namibian Dollars to each individual which was registered in July 2007 as living in the Otjivero-Omitara area, about 100 kilometres east of Windhoek (pensioners were excluded as they get an unconditional state pension). The amount is small, since the food poverty line stands at 152 Namibian dollars per capita, whereas the poverty line counting “the severely poor” stands at 220, and the official poor are all those living on less than 316 Namibian dollars per month.

As the study of the effects of the BIG after one year clearly demonstrate, the effects are strikingly positive. The percentage of those falling below the food poverty line has dropped from 76% to 37%. The percentage of those being able to get a job or become successfully self-employed has increased from 44 to 55%, and the amount of non-BIG income per capita rose from N$ 118 to N$ 152 (indicating a virtuous economic growth cycle). The number of underweight children has dropped from 42 to 10%. School attendance has gone up, and teachers report that the children are better able to concentrate. The health clinic receives many more patients (for illnesses that would otherwise not have been treated). Average household debt fell from N$ 1,215 to N$ 772. Crime rates fell by 42%, and there is no evidence that alcohol-abuse (which is a serious problem in many poor areas) has worsened. (Further details are in the report, together with interviews documenting the experiences of the people who have been given the BIG).

There is some skepticism about this report discussed in the comments section at Crooked Timber. (It is worth checking out the conversation) But if the data holds up, it is stunning example of how relatively small amounts of targeted assistance can make a huge difference in people’s lives.

This experiment certainly bears watching.