dan collier

Malaria and how to beat it - The Economist reports on a study in 3 African countries that looked at the effectiveness of selling cheap mosquito nets versus giving away mosquito nets to mothers at health clinic visits. The free nets were more effective at preventing malaria in children. This finding may not stretch too far beyond mosquito nets, but I think it could be extended to healthcare in general. Despite well known risks, people without disposable income will forego preventative care. And it is cheaper for society to pay for prevention than treatment.

---

Is the US really bringing stability to Baghdad? - I thought this was a good article from The Independent (UK) as a counter point to the avalanche of “the surge is working” news reports. The reporter is a longtime Middle East correspondent and formerly was stationed in Lebanon.

---

The Poetry of Roger Clemens - From free form to haiku.

“Glute”

I have strained my glute
On a couple occasions.
I wish I could tell you
How many occasions.
-Feb. 5, 2008, deposition

development & foreign affairs & links posted by: dan  @  17 Feb 2008 23:45 | Comment (1)

Hans Rosling, Professor of International Health at Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden delivers the first in a series of Gapcasts: Health, Money & Sex in Sweden. In this 7 minute video, he demonstrates the Trendalyzer application in a discussion of the economic and social development of Sweden over the last 300 years, and compares it to the various levels of global development today. Professor Rosling’s talk “New insights on poverty and life around the world” from TED 2007 is also interesting and funny. I’ve posted about Gapminder before.

development posted by: dan  @  11 Aug 2007 21:53 | Comments (0)

A World Bank committee has reported that Paul Wolfowitz violated ethical and governance rules in arranging an unfairly compensated position for his lady-friend. The committee report summed up my previous thoughts more succinctly than I expected:

Mr Wolfowitz saw himself as the outsider to whom the established rules and standards did not apply.

The report conclusion is not a surprise. And I’m not surprised that the Bush administration will ignore the findings and continue to praise Wolfowitz as a uniquely qualified leader. I think this analysis by Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution addresses why the administration is tying itself to a sinking ship (emphasis added by me):

I take his continuing unwillingness to resign to be the biggest argument against his managerial abilities. He has lost the public relations battle and can no longer be effective. Why should he want the job any more? The obvious hypothesis is that he is emotionally committed to a losing battle, and is not placing much weight on the long-term interests of the institution he is running.

I have a feeling the final sentence will sum up the next 2 years of the Bush administration.

development & politics posted by: dan  @  15 May 2007 20:14 | Comments (0)

Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at UC Berkley, made an interesting post reviewing the Paul Wolfowitz scandal at the World Bank. The good professor speculates on both the actual series of events and what Wolfowitz has convinced himself is the true story.

While interesting and informative, I think Professor DeLong missed the key point regarding Wolfowitz’s reasoning. It seems clear that Wolfowitz is one of many neo-conservative powerbrokers that do not believe the rules apply to themselves as they do to others. “We” are uniquely good and self-empowered is the basic tenet of neo-conservative realism. The situation can be summed up quite well by Machiavellian philosophy: Petty rules are not intended for great men.

Wolfowitz is in good company in selectively obeying the rules. Alberto Gonzalez recently lied obviously and repeatedly during Congressional testimony. Bush’s response was effectively “Heck of a job, Al!”. In contrast to such blatant disregard for Congressional authority, promoting one’s girlfriend seems quaint.

Though clearly not the thought-leader, George W. Bush is the cheerleader and role model for this philosophy of moral relativism. Bush had no use for international legal approval before invading a sovereign country. Of course, Wolfowitz was a key member of the team that planned and delivered that unjustifiable war. Bush’s choice to ignore FISA and the Geneva Conventions are further examples of the real limitation of rules on men possessed by a supposed greater mission. Bush’s extraordinary use of signing statements, which reserve the right to ignore the just signed law, give a true insight into the governing philosophy of the most influential group of leaders in the current US administration.

development & politics posted by: dan  @  11 May 2007 13:34 | Comments (0)

Listening to Words aggregates links to online lectures. It is a good idea and an interesting implementation.

Browsing the site, I found an interesting video lecture by Thomas Barnett, an author and strategic planner.

Here are a couple paraphrases from his talk:

“After New Orleans, the people in Baghdad said ‘Oh, now I get it.’”

In reference to the volatile relationship between the US and China:

The Arch-Duke Ferdinand lives in Taiwan.

Of course, the entire lecture isn’t one-liners. I’d summarize the talk as ideas for improving the response after armed conflict and shifting foreign policy to adapt to globalization. Many of the ideas apply to natural and economic disasters as well. He builds on Thomas Friedman’s notion of the flat world. The talk runs an hour. The video presentation of the slides and lecturer wasn’t great, but the talk is quite good.

links & politics posted by: dan  @  11 Apr 2007 20:54 | Comments (0)

I’ve often heard it said that the richest 1% of the world controls NN% of the global capital, with figures ranging from 50% to 90%. A new study by United Nations University study provides real numbers for that claim:

You’re in the top 10% if you have $61,000 in capital. I’m still reading the full study but so far my main criticism is that by defining “wealth” as assets minus debts the study underestimates effects of established wealth. While I’m probably in the top 10% of the population based on assets, I have access to borrowed capital that allows my household to live closer to the top 1%. But my assets minus debts results in a net negative wealth and I’d be counted in the bottom 50% of the global population. Likewise debt for an Ivy League student is far different than debt for an immigrant laborer. In a sense, some types of debt and access to debt is deferred capital to which the majority of the global population does not have access.

The Press Release and Study Abstract
The Full Study: The World Distribution of Household Wealth

development & links posted by: dan  @  06 Dec 2006 14:14 | Comments (0)