Podcasts about world development

Die Hälfte der Menschheit hat keinen Zugang zu sicherer, sauberer Sanitärversorgung. Doch Wasserklosetts sind nicht die Lösung. Wie also müssen wir umdenken?  Unsere Autorin Lena Bodewein hat als Korrespondentin in Südostasien an vielen Orten gesehen, was für Auswirkungen eine mangelnde Sanitärversorgung hat: Ohne Toiletten können sich Infektionskrankheiten verbreiten - 800 Kinder unter fünf Jahren sterben täglich an Durchfallerkrankungen. Aber auch Antibiotikaresistenzen spielen eine Rolle, Frauen sind mehr Gewaltverbrechen ausgesetzt, Mädchen gehen oft nicht zur Schule. Im Gespräch mit Host Lucie Kluth erklärt Lena, warum Forschende sich mit dem Problem auch kulturell beschäftigen und was für ungewohnte Lösungsansätze es gibt. Denn unser Abwasserkonzept lässt sich nicht einfach auf den globalen Süden übertragen, viel zu viel Trinkwasser wird dabei vergeudet. Die Recherche für diesen Podcast führt uns an Orte, die besser riechen als gedacht, zu Technologien, die Namen von Popstars tragen - und Unternehmern, die Kalauer lieben.  HINTERGRUNDINFORMATIONEN: 1. Pickering, Amy J et al.: Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
The Lancet Global Health, Volume 3, Issue 11, e701 - e711. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00144-8/fulltext 2. Sharma Waddington H, Masset E, Bick S, Cairncross S.: Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2023 Apr 20;20(4): e1004215. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004215 3. Cameron L, Olivia B S, Shah M.: Scaling up Sanitation: Evidence from an RCT in Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics 138(2019)1–16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818316298 4. Orgill-Meyer J, Pattanayak SK: Improved sanitation increases long-term cognitive test scores. World Development. 2020 Aug 1;132:104975. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418412 5. Studie der German Toilet Organization über deutsche Schultoiletten: https://media.germantoilet.org/pages/schulen/toiletten-machen-schule-studie/2242471965-1692953784/tms_studie_2022-2023.pdf 6. Gu, Y., Zhou, W., Zheng, T. et al.: Health effects and externalities of the popularization of sanitary toilets: evidence from Rural China. BMC Public Health23, 2225 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17192-4 7. Nunbogu AM, Elliott SJ: Characterizing gender-based violence in the context of water, sanitation, and hygiene: A scoping review of evidence in low-and middle-income countries. Water Security. 2022 Apr 1;15:100113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468312422000049?via%3Dihub Mehr Wissenschaft bei NDR Info: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/wissenschaft-und-bildung/index.html

Die Hälfte der Menschheit hat keinen Zugang zu sicherer, sauberer Sanitärversorgung. Doch Wasserklosetts sind nicht die Lösung. Wie also müssen wir umdenken?  Unsere Autorin Lena Bodewein hat als Korrespondentin in Südostasien an vielen Orten gesehen, was für Auswirkungen eine mangelnde Sanitärversorgung hat: Ohne Toiletten können sich Infektionskrankheiten verbreiten - 800 Kinder unter fünf Jahren sterben täglich an Durchfallerkrankungen. Aber auch Antibiotikaresistenzen spielen eine Rolle, Frauen sind mehr Gewaltverbrechen ausgesetzt, Mädchen gehen oft nicht zur Schule. Im Gespräch mit Host Lucie Kluth erklärt Lena, warum Forschende sich mit dem Problem auch kulturell beschäftigen und was für ungewohnte Lösungsansätze es gibt. Denn unser Abwasserkonzept lässt sich nicht einfach auf den globalen Süden übertragen, viel zu viel Trinkwasser wird dabei vergeudet. Die Recherche für diesen Podcast führt uns an Orte, die besser riechen als gedacht, zu Technologien, die Namen von Popstars tragen - und Unternehmern, die Kalauer lieben.  HINTERGRUNDINFORMATIONEN: 1. Pickering, Amy J et al.: Effect of a community-led sanitation intervention on child diarrhoea and child growth in rural Mali: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
The Lancet Global Health, Volume 3, Issue 11, e701 - e711. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(15)00144-8/fulltext 2. Sharma Waddington H, Masset E, Bick S, Cairncross S.: Impact on childhood mortality of interventions to improve drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) to households: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS medicine. 2023 Apr 20;20(4): e1004215. https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1004215 3. Cameron L, Olivia B S, Shah M.: Scaling up Sanitation: Evidence from an RCT in Indonesia. Journal of Development Economics 138(2019)1–16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304387818316298 4. Orgill-Meyer J, Pattanayak SK: Improved sanitation increases long-term cognitive test scores. World Development. 2020 Aug 1;132:104975. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3418412 5. Studie der German Toilet Organization über deutsche Schultoiletten: https://media.germantoilet.org/pages/schulen/toiletten-machen-schule-studie/2242471965-1692953784/tms_studie_2022-2023.pdf 6. Gu, Y., Zhou, W., Zheng, T. et al.: Health effects and externalities of the popularization of sanitary toilets: evidence from Rural China. BMC Public Health23, 2225 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17192-4 7. Nunbogu AM, Elliott SJ: Characterizing gender-based violence in the context of water, sanitation, and hygiene: A scoping review of evidence in low-and middle-income countries. Water Security. 2022 Apr 1;15:100113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468312422000049?via%3Dihub Mehr Wissenschaft bei NDR Info: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/sendungen/wissenschaft-und-bildung/index.html

Ilman Shazhaev is the founder and CEO of Dizzaract — one of the largest gaming studios in the Middle East. Ilman is an entrepreneur with a strong scientific background in AI, gaming, and web3. He has developed healthtech and gametech solutions that are used by businesses and governments worldwide. A recognized expert by the United Nations, Ilman has authored 46 scientific papers and holds 10 invention patents.His journey in web3 began in 2017 with the founding of Oneboost, and his passion for gaming led to the creation of Farcana, a game with a Bitcoin-backed prize pool. His work is reshaping the gaming landscape by integrating web3 elements into mainstream gaming.Recent media coverage: Arabian Business: Gaming industry poised for big churn with new breed of developers shifting to ‘play-generate value-earn' model to boost user engagementCryptonaute: Farcana: révolutionner la GameFi avec le gameplay avant toutCointelegraph Magazine: Off The Grid may be the ‘catalyst' for new crypto gaming bull run: Web3 GamerBlockchain Reporter: Web3 and Beyond: Ilman Shazhaev's Vision for the Future of GameFi with FarcanaCrpto.news: GameFi investment is surging: Blockchain becomes a staple in every title | OpinionEvents speakership: AIBC World: Keynote speech

Ilman Shazhaev is the founder and CEO of Dizzaract — one of the largest gaming studios in the Middle East. Ilman is an entrepreneur with a strong scientific background in AI, gaming, and web3. He has developed healthtech and gametech solutions that are used by businesses and governments worldwide. A recognized expert by the United Nations, Ilman has authored 46 scientific papers and holds 10 invention patents.His journey in web3 began in 2017 with the founding of Oneboost, and his passion for gaming led to the creation of Farcana, a game with a Bitcoin-backed prize pool. His work is reshaping the gaming landscape by integrating web3 elements into mainstream gaming.Recent media coverage: Arabian Business: Gaming industry poised for big churn with new breed of developers shifting to ‘play-generate value-earn' model to boost user engagementCryptonaute: Farcana: révolutionner la GameFi avec le gameplay avant toutCointelegraph Magazine: Off The Grid may be the ‘catalyst' for new crypto gaming bull run: Web3 GamerBlockchain Reporter: Web3 and Beyond: Ilman Shazhaev's Vision for the Future of GameFi with FarcanaCrpto.news: GameFi investment is surging: Blockchain becomes a staple in every title | OpinionEvents speakership: AIBC World: Keynote speech

UE5 is not suitable for the open world? Let speak about the truth about Unreal Engine capabilities!Links: https://linktr.ee/okiemdevaPatronite Okiem Deva:https://patronite.pl/okiemdevaDiscord Okiem Deva:https://discord.gg/4anD7dJJn800:00:00 Intro00:03:46 Dan Vavra about UE 500:10:43 CryEngine00:15:36 UE5 vs open world00:25:00 Summary00:28:52 Outro----------------Supporters:InternPiotr ŁypSpotify:adamp545, teki, kozak12qJunior DevKamil Śliwa, Konrad Szejnfeld (ko_sz), Aloxxx, GerWanT, Saaellor, Marcin Pietrzyk (Mithrandir), Mateusz Salach, kondi16, Kruszynka Izka, Khart, nothing, Tomek “Tomku” Mar, Anna Weglarz, ExitWound, Kojo Bojo, ZajacccXD, Ania Węglarzy, FiSherMan414, MichalDev, AliweraRegular DevBackgroundcharacter_A, Kaspa Anonim, Mateusz Stolarz Stolarczyk, Leniwa Ola, Marcin "kowboj_czacza" Ignasiak, Adam Kabalak, czekająca na cud, Małgorzata Kuźmierz, kona 1, PabloRal, vandalllo, R W, scooby666, Mat Heus (Sizuae), Agnieszka Rumińska, Bonga, vxd555, Remigiusz Maciaszek, Jakub Staniszewski, Ari Gold, bibruRG_78Senior DevŁukasz Klejnberg, Bartosz Majcherczak, Agata Pławna, Patryk Bzdyra, Veman, Jakub Kornatowski (@GramyNaMacu), Agnieszka Rumińska, Cezary Łysoń, Michał Stankiewicz, Mariusz Kowalski, Tek, Maxjestic, Magdalena Porath, Rafał Jaszczuk, Mateusz Śródka, Kornel Kisielewicz, Jan Skiba, Arek Dudkowski, Buła Losu, Gatki, Michał Kondzior, DamianRoman, Ard, Robert Jurasz, Mateusz Myga, Łukasz Kister, HARDCOROWYKOŚCIU GAMEPLAY!, Michał Król, Jakub WmH, Krzysiek Prus, Wered, Marek Leśniak, Pielgrzym, jmozgawa, Mimomza, Mateusz Kozielecki, Maja, JayKob, Piteroix, Arti ,,Niezłomny＂, Warsi, Regito93, enonemasta, Miras, Daniel Zabłocki, Pawelek1329, Morfiniusz, Magdalena Płoszaj-Kotynia, R K (Red Valour), Michał Ginter, Arkadiusz Czeryna, Piotr Beyer, Pielgrzym, Tomasz Golik, Principal DevMariolka Mazur, Wojciech Uziębło, Zuzanna Lepianka, Leszek Lisowski, Dawid Kuchttps://workplays.it/----------------Sources:https://www.gamesindustry.biz/kingdom-come-deliverance-tops-2m-copies-sold-in-less-than-two-weeks-news-in-briefhttps://www.reddit.com/r/fuckepic/comments/1iiuvr7/the_witcher_4_is_in_development_hell_because_of/https://ithardware.pl/aktualnosci/wiedzmin_4_unreal_engine_5_kingdom_come_2-38730.htmlhttps://www.windowscentral.com/gaming/kingdom-come-deliverance-2-dev-witcher-4-has-a-long-road-ahead-on-unreal-engine-5https://tech4gamers.com/witcher-4-development-hell/https://www.cryengine.com/https://www.cryengine.com/showcasehttps://www.unrealengine.com/en-UShttps://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/open-world-tools-in-unreal-enginehttps://www.igdb.com/games/kingdom-come-deliverance/creditshttps://youtu.be/_Y2475PMbBkhttps://youtu.be/_Y2475PMbBk?t=9247https://gdconf.com/news/gdc-2025-state-game-industry-devs-weigh-layoffs-ai-and-morehttps://x.com/DanielVavra/status/1891877309226897888

Join Michelle Martin on her tour of markets! Michelle Martin and Ryan Huang,look into Asia-Pacific market gains and the latest on Singapore REITs, with Mapletree Logistics Trust and Sabana REIT painting contrasting earnings pictures. Discover the impact of Trump-era policies on space-related stocks like Redwire, Rocket Lab USA, and Intuitive Machines, as well as AI infrastructure giants Oracle, SoftBank, and Nvidia. Explore Netflix's record-breaking subscriptions, strong showings from United Airlines and Charles Schwab, and challenges for Hong Kong's New World Development. Finally, Ryan dissects LVMH’s PR woes over crumbling Olympic medals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The redistribution of political and economic rights is inherently unequal in autocratic societies. Autocrats routinely divide their populations into included and excluded groups, creating particularistic citizenship through granting some groups access to rights and redistribution while restricting or denying access to others. This book asks: why would a government with powerful tools of exclusion expand access to socioeconomic citizenship rights? And when autocratic systems expand redistribution, whom do they choose to include? In Manipulating Authoritarian Citizenship: Security, Development, and Local Membership in China (Stanford UP, 2024), Samantha A. Vortherms examines the crucial case of China—where internal citizenship regimes control who can and cannot become a local citizen through the household registration system (hukou)—and uncovers how autocrats use such institutions to create particularistic membership in citizenship. Vortherms shows how local governments explicitly manipulate local citizenship membership not only to ensure political security and stability, but also, crucially, to advance economic development. Vortherms demonstrates how autocrats use differentiated citizenship to control degrees of access to rights and thus fulfill the authoritarian bargain and balance security and economic incentives. This book expands our understanding of individual-state relations in both autocratic contexts and across a variety of regime types. Samantha Vortherms is an assistant professor at University of California, Irvine's Department of Political Science. She is a faculty affiliate at UCI's Long U.S.-China Institute; its Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics program; and is a Non-resident Scholar at UC San Diego's 21st Century China Center. The primary focus of her research is on how processes of economic development affect institutional change and the relationship between the individual and the state. Her research has been published in journals such as The China Quarterly, World Development, Review of International Political Economy, Business and Politics, and Urban Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, her M.A. in International Relations at the University of Chicago, her A.M. in Public Policy from University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, and her B.A. from the University of Richmond. Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Lorentzen's other NBN interviews relating to China's economy and social control include Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts, on governance and quantification, Outsourcing Repression, on the use of nonstate actors for coercion, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, on China's marketization procession, Invisible China, on the urban-rural divide, and Welfare for Autocrats, on the strategic targeting of poverty assistance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The redistribution of political and economic rights is inherently unequal in autocratic societies. Autocrats routinely divide their populations into included and excluded groups, creating particularistic citizenship through granting some groups access to rights and redistribution while restricting or denying access to others. This book asks: why would a government with powerful tools of exclusion expand access to socioeconomic citizenship rights? And when autocratic systems expand redistribution, whom do they choose to include? In Manipulating Authoritarian Citizenship: Security, Development, and Local Membership in China (Stanford UP, 2024), Samantha A. Vortherms examines the crucial case of China—where internal citizenship regimes control who can and cannot become a local citizen through the household registration system (hukou)—and uncovers how autocrats use such institutions to create particularistic membership in citizenship. Vortherms shows how local governments explicitly manipulate local citizenship membership not only to ensure political security and stability, but also, crucially, to advance economic development. Vortherms demonstrates how autocrats use differentiated citizenship to control degrees of access to rights and thus fulfill the authoritarian bargain and balance security and economic incentives. This book expands our understanding of individual-state relations in both autocratic contexts and across a variety of regime types. Samantha Vortherms is an assistant professor at University of California, Irvine's Department of Political Science. She is a faculty affiliate at UCI's Long U.S.-China Institute; its Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics program; and is a Non-resident Scholar at UC San Diego's 21st Century China Center. The primary focus of her research is on how processes of economic development affect institutional change and the relationship between the individual and the state. Her research has been published in journals such as The China Quarterly, World Development, Review of International Political Economy, Business and Politics, and Urban Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, her M.A. in International Relations at the University of Chicago, her A.M. in Public Policy from University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, and her B.A. from the University of Richmond. Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Lorentzen's other NBN interviews relating to China's economy and social control include Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts, on governance and quantification, Outsourcing Repression, on the use of nonstate actors for coercion, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, on China's marketization procession, Invisible China, on the urban-rural divide, and Welfare for Autocrats, on the strategic targeting of poverty assistance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

The redistribution of political and economic rights is inherently unequal in autocratic societies. Autocrats routinely divide their populations into included and excluded groups, creating particularistic citizenship through granting some groups access to rights and redistribution while restricting or denying access to others. This book asks: why would a government with powerful tools of exclusion expand access to socioeconomic citizenship rights? And when autocratic systems expand redistribution, whom do they choose to include? In Manipulating Authoritarian Citizenship: Security, Development, and Local Membership in China (Stanford UP, 2024), Samantha A. Vortherms examines the crucial case of China—where internal citizenship regimes control who can and cannot become a local citizen through the household registration system (hukou)—and uncovers how autocrats use such institutions to create particularistic membership in citizenship. Vortherms shows how local governments explicitly manipulate local citizenship membership not only to ensure political security and stability, but also, crucially, to advance economic development. Vortherms demonstrates how autocrats use differentiated citizenship to control degrees of access to rights and thus fulfill the authoritarian bargain and balance security and economic incentives. This book expands our understanding of individual-state relations in both autocratic contexts and across a variety of regime types. Samantha Vortherms is an assistant professor at University of California, Irvine's Department of Political Science. She is a faculty affiliate at UCI's Long U.S.-China Institute; its Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics program; and is a Non-resident Scholar at UC San Diego's 21st Century China Center. The primary focus of her research is on how processes of economic development affect institutional change and the relationship between the individual and the state. Her research has been published in journals such as The China Quarterly, World Development, Review of International Political Economy, Business and Politics, and Urban Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, her M.A. in International Relations at the University of Chicago, her A.M. in Public Policy from University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, and her B.A. from the University of Richmond. Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Lorentzen's other NBN interviews relating to China's economy and social control include Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts, on governance and quantification, Outsourcing Repression, on the use of nonstate actors for coercion, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, on China's marketization procession, Invisible China, on the urban-rural divide, and Welfare for Autocrats, on the strategic targeting of poverty assistance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

The redistribution of political and economic rights is inherently unequal in autocratic societies. Autocrats routinely divide their populations into included and excluded groups, creating particularistic citizenship through granting some groups access to rights and redistribution while restricting or denying access to others. This book asks: why would a government with powerful tools of exclusion expand access to socioeconomic citizenship rights? And when autocratic systems expand redistribution, whom do they choose to include? In Manipulating Authoritarian Citizenship: Security, Development, and Local Membership in China (Stanford UP, 2024), Samantha A. Vortherms examines the crucial case of China—where internal citizenship regimes control who can and cannot become a local citizen through the household registration system (hukou)—and uncovers how autocrats use such institutions to create particularistic membership in citizenship. Vortherms shows how local governments explicitly manipulate local citizenship membership not only to ensure political security and stability, but also, crucially, to advance economic development. Vortherms demonstrates how autocrats use differentiated citizenship to control degrees of access to rights and thus fulfill the authoritarian bargain and balance security and economic incentives. This book expands our understanding of individual-state relations in both autocratic contexts and across a variety of regime types. Samantha Vortherms is an assistant professor at University of California, Irvine's Department of Political Science. She is a faculty affiliate at UCI's Long U.S.-China Institute; its Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics program; and is a Non-resident Scholar at UC San Diego's 21st Century China Center. The primary focus of her research is on how processes of economic development affect institutional change and the relationship between the individual and the state. Her research has been published in journals such as The China Quarterly, World Development, Review of International Political Economy, Business and Politics, and Urban Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, her M.A. in International Relations at the University of Chicago, her A.M. in Public Policy from University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, and her B.A. from the University of Richmond. Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Lorentzen's other NBN interviews relating to China's economy and social control include Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts, on governance and quantification, Outsourcing Repression, on the use of nonstate actors for coercion, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, on China's marketization procession, Invisible China, on the urban-rural divide, and Welfare for Autocrats, on the strategic targeting of poverty assistance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The redistribution of political and economic rights is inherently unequal in autocratic societies. Autocrats routinely divide their populations into included and excluded groups, creating particularistic citizenship through granting some groups access to rights and redistribution while restricting or denying access to others. This book asks: why would a government with powerful tools of exclusion expand access to socioeconomic citizenship rights? And when autocratic systems expand redistribution, whom do they choose to include? In Manipulating Authoritarian Citizenship: Security, Development, and Local Membership in China (Stanford UP, 2024), Samantha A. Vortherms examines the crucial case of China—where internal citizenship regimes control who can and cannot become a local citizen through the household registration system (hukou)—and uncovers how autocrats use such institutions to create particularistic membership in citizenship. Vortherms shows how local governments explicitly manipulate local citizenship membership not only to ensure political security and stability, but also, crucially, to advance economic development. Vortherms demonstrates how autocrats use differentiated citizenship to control degrees of access to rights and thus fulfill the authoritarian bargain and balance security and economic incentives. This book expands our understanding of individual-state relations in both autocratic contexts and across a variety of regime types. Samantha Vortherms is an assistant professor at University of California, Irvine's Department of Political Science. She is a faculty affiliate at UCI's Long U.S.-China Institute; its Philosophy, Political Science, and Economics program; and is a Non-resident Scholar at UC San Diego's 21st Century China Center. The primary focus of her research is on how processes of economic development affect institutional change and the relationship between the individual and the state. Her research has been published in journals such as The China Quarterly, World Development, Review of International Political Economy, Business and Politics, and Urban Studies. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Wisconsin–Madison, her M.A. in International Relations at the University of Chicago, her A.M. in Public Policy from University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy, and her B.A. from the University of Richmond. Interviewer Peter Lorentzen is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco, a nonresident scholar at the UCSD 21st Century China Center, an alumnus of the Public Intellectuals Program of the National Committee on US-China Relations, and is currently a visiting scholar at the Stanford Center on China's Economy and Institutions. His research focuses on the economics of information, incentives, and institutions, primarily as applied to the development and governance of China. He created the unique Master's of Science in Applied Economics at the University of San Francisco, which teaches the conceptual frameworks and practical data analytics skills needed to succeed in the digital economy. Lorentzen's other NBN interviews relating to China's economy and social control include Seeking Truth and Hiding Facts, on governance and quantification, Outsourcing Repression, on the use of nonstate actors for coercion, How China Escaped Shock Therapy, on China's marketization procession, Invisible China, on the urban-rural divide, and Welfare for Autocrats, on the strategic targeting of poverty assistance. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Food insecurity is an issue that's affecting many parts of the world – it is said one in ten people in the world live in food insecurity. To discuss this important issue and to introduce this year's World Development Appeal, Rev Richard Kerr, Convener of PCI's Global Development Committee, hosts the episode with guests - Ruth Cooke (Christian Aid Ireland's Head of Fundraising and Supporter Engagement), Chris Thompson (Tearfund's NI Director) and Rev Liam Rutherford, PCI's World Development Agent and Convener of its World Development Appeal Task Group.  The 2024 World Development Appeal is entitled: “Hunger Pains: Scarcity to Abundance.” You can find more resources, including a promotional video, here: www.presbyterianireland.org/worlddevelopment

Today's episode will be part of a 3-part series where I, your host, Nathan Greene, interview a group of my current professors here at Clark University.  I was first introduced to the concept of development in my economic growth and development course at St. John's University. There, we explored how economic growth led to improvements in living standards that allowed people to achieve their full potential. This is what Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen calls his capability approach: when societies are able to produce the conditions necessary for people to flourish. But, since coming to Clark, my idea of development has changed. I began to separate economic development from general development. Growth wasn't always desirable, and could even lead to entrenched inequalities, environmental degradation, or accumulation by dispossession. So I want to ask you, what does development mean to you? Is it different from economic growth? Are the two mutually exclusive? And, should we even strive for economic growth? To answer these questions, I've enlisted the help of three professors, who helped shape my understanding of development. Today, we'll be speaking with Dr. Denise Bebbington to get a macro-level understanding of the impacts of economic growth. Dr. Denise Bebbington is currently a research associate professor at Clark University, where she is the co-director of the Center for the Study of Natural Resources Extraction and Society, a research institute within Clark. Before she became a professor, Dr. Bebbington worked as a representative to Peru for the Inter-American Foundation, South American regional sub-director for Catholic Relief Services, and Latin America Program Coordinator for the Global Greengrants Fund. She has extensive on-the-ground experience working on development projects in South America, especially when it comes to democratization and strengthening institutions. Her research focuses on the political ecology of Latin America's extractives industries and how it impacts indigenous communities. Her writings explore the intersection of gender, the environment, and development. She has authored and coauthored numerous books and articles for publications such as Environmental Science and Policy, World Development, the European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, as well as many others. She earned her bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley in history, her master's in Development Management from American University, and her PhD in Development Policy and Management from the University of Manchester.  Together we discussed why conventional economic indicators like GDP fail to capture the true development story of a country, Latin America's growth in the 21st century, and why large-scale infrastructure projects tend to be disruptive to peoples' way of living. To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/smart-talk-hgsss/support

Host Casandra Grundstrom is very happy to participate in a crossover episode with the wonderful people from the Sociotechs Podcast  Associate Professor Silvia Masiero and PhD Researcher Tejas Kotha. This is a special episode which focuses on Silvia's brand new book (out 26.10.24) about Unfair ID. Sociotechs host Tejas and myself (the IS DIGEST host) interview Silvia on the 14 year's in the making of her book and the stories she shares to demonstrate the injustice of identity in different case settings including food security systems, biometric borders, and algorithmic social protection. We further explore the power of these stories for researchers and to discuss core tenets of unfairness for identity, justice, and resistance. Our focus then shifts from criticisms of exclusion to what can be done about unfair ID, discussing how it could be fairer through design. Quote from the book “This book has been, since the beginning, a hymn to hope: the hope that by understanding unfairness in digital ID, and the paths of its effects on people, a fairer world can be built for the digitally identified.”References: Cheesman, M. (2022). Self-sovereignty for refugees? The contested horizons of digital identity. Geopolitics, 27(1), 134-159.Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. The MIT Press.Jonnalagadda, K. (2024, September 21). Life without Aadhaar. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/life-without-aadhaar-3200235Masiero, S. (2018). Explaining trust in large biometric infrastructures: A critical realist case study of India's Aadhaar project. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 84(6), e12053.Masiero, S. (2015). Redesigning the Indian food security system through e-governance: The case of Kerala. World Development, 67, 126-137.Masiero, S., & Das, S. (2019). Datafying anti-poverty programmes: Implications for data justice. Information, Communication & Society, 22(7), 916-933.Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big data from the South (s): Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319-335.Milan, S., & Velden, L. V. D. (2016). The alternative epistemologies of data activism. Digital culture & society, 2(2), 57-74.Weitzberg, K. (2020). Biometrics, race making, and white exceptionalism: The controversy over universal fingerprinting in Kenya. The Journal of African History, 61(1), 23-43.Links: Silvia's book on Unfair ID is available now! Sociotechs Podcast

For many years, explanations of Pakistan's politics and its failed democratic transition have focused on the role of the military and politicians. But how have the country's bureaucrats contributed to the failed democratic transition? And why do their interactions with politicians continue to perpetuate the country's political instability? Listen as Petra Alderman talks to Sameen Ali about Pakistani bureaucrats, their appointments and interactions with politicians, and the ways in which these interactions have kept Pakistan in the grey zone between democracy and authoritarianism. Sameen A. Mohsin Ali is an Assistant Professor of International Development at the International Development Department at the University of Birmingham, where she works on the impact of bureaucratic politics on state capacity and service delivery. Her research on bureaucratic politics in Pakistan has been published in leading politics and development journals, including World Development, European Journal of Development Research, and Commonwealth and Comparative Politics. Petra Alderman is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in Leadership for Inclusive and Democratic Politics at the University of Birmingham and Research Fellow at CEDAR. The People, Power, Politics podcast brings you the latest insights into the factors that are shaping and re-shaping our political world. It is brought to you by the Centre for Elections, Democracy, Accountability and Representation (CEDAR) based at the University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Join us to better understand the factors that promote and undermine democratic government around the world and follow us on X (Twitter) at @CEDAR_Bham Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Episode 185: Food Crisis, the International Food Regime, and Endless Agrarian Modernization in the MENA Regio The agrarian and food crisis in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have re-emerged vigorously to the attention of global development agencies and governments in coincidence with the Russia-Ukraine war. The food crisis has  been interpreted through a number of tropes, including Malthusian, environmentally determinist, security and development economics approaches. Within the dominant mainstream discourse, the MENA region is often depicted as a homogenous geographical area characterized by dryness, infertile lands and poor water resources. How did imperialism, colonialism and the Cold War influence the MENA food systems? What were the effects of agrarian modernizations, trade liberalization and neoliberalism on the agricultural systems in the region? These are some questions that this presentation tries to answer using a geographical and historical-comparative analysis, through a food regimes lens. Understanding contemporary social relations dynamics cannot be limited to the recent period. Agriculture and food in the MENA region are anchored in the history of power relations ruled by flows of capital and the shaping of ecological transformations during the longue durée of capitalism and its corresponding modes of control and regulation. Giuliano Martiniello is Associate Professor of Political Science and Political Economy at the Faculy of Law, Political and Social Sciences, Université Internationale de Rabat and Adjunct Associate Professor at the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, American University of Beirut. Prior to joining UIR, he was Assistant Professor at the American University of Beirut (2015-2020), Research Fellow at the Makerere Institute of Social Research, Makerere University (2011-2015), and Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Centre for Civil Society, University of KwaZulu-Natal (2012-2013). He got his PhD in Politics at the School of Politics and International Studies of the University of Leeds (2011). He is broadly interested in the political economy, political sociology and political ecology of agrarian and environmental change. His research interests include land regimes, food and farming systems, large-scale land enclosures and contract farming, conservation and deforestation, rural social conflicts and agrarian movements in Africa and the Middle East. He has published articles in a number of top-ranking international journals such as World Development, Journal of Peasant Studies, Journal of Agrarian Change, Geoforum, Land Use Policy, Food Secuirty, Globalizations, Agrarian South: a Journal of Political Economy; Third World Quarterly, Review of African Political Economy, among others. He is Contributing Editor of the Review of African Political Economy and Associate Editor of Agrarian South: A Journal of Political Economy. He is co-editor of the book Uganda: The Dynamics of Neoliberal Transformation, London, Zed Books (2018).  This episode is part of the CAORC and Carnegie Corporation of New York program "The Maghrib From the Peripheries: Property, Natural Resources and Social Actors in the Maghrib". It was recorded via zoom on the 19th of October, 2023 by the American Institute for Maghrib Studies (AIMS). Edited by Hayet Yebbous Bensaid, Librarian, Outreach Coordinator, Content Curator (CEMA).  

Disney fans rejoice! Donald Duck just turned 90 and The Walt Disney Company is celebrating in a big way. Plus, Club Pixar closed early while Pixar Fest continues on at Disneyland Resort, Walt Disney World gets approvals for some long term developments, D23 has announced parking and transportation plans for The Ultimate Disney Fan Event, new songs have been revealed for Country Bear Musical Jamboree, and "The Lion King" is returning to movie theaters. That and so much more on this episode. ------ GIVEAWAYS, BONUSES, SUPPORT, AND SAVE: Gain early access to episodes, take part in Ask Me Anything live streams, and gain more bonuses by joining the DCTC Patreon. Support the show at no additional cost to you. Do your regular shopping on Amazon and Disney Store using my special links. Save money at Whosits & Whatsits using discount code "DCTC". Get FREE DISNEY GIFTS from DCTC. ------ BE SOCIAL: Follow @DizneyCTC and @JeffDePaoli on Instagram. ------ CONNECT: Write me at Contact@DePodcastNetwork.com Leave a voicemail at 818-860-2569 Visit the show at DizneyCoastToCoast.com Sign up for the DCTC Newsletter ------ "Dizney Coast to Coast" is part of the DePodcast Network. Love the show? Leave a tip.

Union agrees on Copper World...do the local Dem politicos fall in line or are they not really "pro union"? Literacy does matter. Financial mess at U of A a "blessing in disguise" according to a guest opinion. Really?

Joshua Eisenman's research focuses on the political economy of China's development and its foreign relations with the United States and the developing world—particularly Africa. His work has been published in top academic journals including World Development, Development and Change, Journal of Contemporary China and Cold War History, and in popular outlets such as Foreign Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Policy. His views have been cited in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Economist and The New Republic. Eisenman's newest book, Red China's Green Revolution: Technological Innovation, Institutional Change, and Economic Development Under the Commune (Columbia University Press, 2018), received the honorable mention for the 2019 Robert W. Hamilton Book Award. In it he explains how more capital investment and better farming techniques increased agricultural productivity growth in Maoist China. In China Steps Out: Beijing's Major Power Engagement with the Developing World (Routledge, 2018), he worked with Eric Heginbotham to analyze China's policies toward the developing world. Eisenman's second book, China and Africa: A Century of Engagement (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012), co-authored with David Shinn, was named one of the top three books about Africa by Foreign Affairs. Eisenman and Shinn's next volume, under advance contract with the University of Pennsylvania Press, will examine the China-Africa political and security relationship.

Laura Embrey, author of eight volumes of form drawing books for healing the mind, body, and soul, talks about "the double" and the understanding that inner development must be in service to world development in order to transform the negative forces within and outside of us. This episode was recorded live and has plenty of  esoteric perspectives, along with a healthy does of humor and the occasional background noise.  You can hear more of Laura on Episode 12: Healing Forms, and find all of Laura's books at lauraembrey.com. 

Barry St John is a producer focused on virtual production and emerging technology in films.St John's initial focus in film was in camera and lighting, but was quickly redirected upon working with VFX producer Joyce Cox on Men in Black 3. Cox's mentorship on MIB3, The Great Gatsby, and The Jungle Book gifted St John the experience to later produce some of the most complicated films in the business such as The Lion King, Ready Player One, and Mufasa the Lion King. The key to line producing digital content is communication and structure within the digital facility that is feeding a shoot. St John and his company Strange Reality have built a pipeline and reporting structure focused on tracking, scheduling and quota for all the standard departments in production. The Story department, Art Department, Virtual Art Department, LAB, Editorial, asst. directors, and producers all use the production tracking developed by Strange Reality. The Lion King was produced over a 2-and-a-half-year period while a Pixar or Disney fully animated film typically takes 3-5 years. This kind of efficiency on a photo real fully animated film has engrained St John as a Player in the industry. The evolution of the virtual production toolset continues to define new paths for filmmakers to effectively and efficiently layout their films. While the technology runs wild and people dive head first into the Virtual production pipelines, understanding the toolsets available, what to do with the tools available and their limitations is key. Highlights of the Episode: 0:00 Introduction 0:08 Introduction of guest 1:18 Barry St John's journey into film production 5:02 Pursuing a passion for virtual production 10:01 Spielberg's use of virtual production 15:00 The Complex Job of a Production Manager 20:01 Tailoring tools for virtual production 25:01 Planning for digital filmmaking 30:01 Virtual Production: A Tool for Filmmakers 35:01 Benefits of Virtual Production 40:00 Quality Film Production 45:01 Visual Effects & World Development in Filmmaking 50:00 Virtual Production Processes 55:01 Working in Virtual Production 1:00:00 Becoming a Visual Effects Producer 1:03:14 Outro Connecting with the Guest: Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bstjohn54/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/bstjohn54?lang=en Connecting with CG Pro: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/becomecgpro Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/becomecgpro/ Website: https://www.becomecgpro.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BecomeCGPro #VirtualProduction #VFXProducer #DigitalWorkflow

During the last decade, Dallas Independent School District overhauled its system for evaluating and compensating teachers and began a new program to attract teachers to hard-to-staff schools. The effects of these changes on student outcomes in one of our nation's largest school districts are attention grabbing and are documented in two new papers. The first, The Effects of Comprehensive Educator Evaluation and Pay Reform on Achievement, by Eric A. Hanushek, Jin Luo, Andrew J. Morgan, Minh Nguyen, Ben Ost, Steven G. Rivkin, and Ayman Shakeel, looks at Dallas's Principal Excellence and Teacher Excellence initiatives. And the second, Attracting and Retaining Highly Effective Educators in Hard-To-Staff Schools, by Andrew J. Morgan, Minh Nguyen, Eric A. Hanushek, Ben Ost, and Steven G. Rivkin, looks at Dallas's Accelerating Campus Excellence Program.On this episode of The Report Card, Nat Malkus is joined by two of the papers' authors, Eric Hanushek and Steven Rivkin, to discuss these programs. Eric Hanushek is the Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the winner of the 2021 Yidan Prize for Education Research. Steven Rivkin is the Department Head of Economics at the University of Illinois Chicago.Show Notes:The Effects of Comprehensive Educator Evaluation and Pay Reform on AchievementAttracting and Retaining Highly Effective Educators in Hard-To-Staff SchoolsDoes Regulating Entry Requirements Lead to More Effective Principals?Performance Information and Personnel Decisions in the Public Sector: The Case of School PrincipalsDynamic Effects of Teacher Turnover on the Quality of InstructionGlobal Universal Basic Skills: Current Deficits and Implications for World Development

Tomb Kings and Brettonia HYPE: Old World Development Diary by The Honest Wargamer

Welcome to the Ideas Untrapped podcast - and my guest today is Development Economist Lant Pritchett. He is one of the most incisive and insightful scholars in the field, and his influence at the frontier of development research cannot be overstated. His research mostly focuses on economic growth, its contributing factors, and the development implications for peoples and countries. It was a privilege for me to talk to Lant, and I took the chance to ask him questions about some of the big themes of his research like Migration, Education, and State Capability. This is a two-part conversation. In this episode, we discussed Migration and Education. Lant provides insights into how the demographic transition in many rich countries has now pushed the migration debate to the forefront, as opposed to when he was writing about it two decades ago. How the Solow model might explain the absence of migration on the development agenda, and why he thinks the ‘‘brain drain'' is ‘‘mostly a myth''. He also explained to me how we ended up with the wrong dashboard in education policies and the distinction between assessment and examination in measuring learning. I want to thank Lant for talking to me, and thank you all for always listening. I hope you enjoy it.TranscriptTobi;My guest really needs no introduction. There's nowhere in the world of development, global development, and development economics, where Lant Pritchett is not a household name. So I'll like to say welcome, and it's a pleasure to talk to you.Lant;Thanks for inviting me.Tobi;On a light note, let's start on a very light note. What have you been working on recently?Lant;So recently I've been doing two things. I've been wrapping up a large research project on basic education in the developing world, sort of K to twelve, and that had been an eight year research project that's just wrapping up. But more recently, I'm trying to ramp up my engagement on labour mobility. The world is facing a real demographic transition point, with the rich industrial world, particularly workforce age populations, just in constant decline while their aging population is increasing. And at the same time we have this massive youth bulge in parts of, not all of, but in parts of the developing world. And, you know, I'm an economist, whenever you see huge differences, you think, well, here's an opportunity for exchange. So the world's biggest opportunity for exchange right now is the West, as we call it, desperately needs workers, Africans definitely need the hide productivity income and jobs. And it's a great opportunity for exchange, but it's blocked by laws and policies that just make migration next to impossible. And I'm working to break that gridlock and get some sensible ways in which we can put willing workers into needed jobs.Tobi;I think that's a good launchpad to start the conversation on migration, which you've worked quite a lot on. I read your book Let Their People Come a couple of years ago. As a general question, what do you think we have learned from the time you wrote that book and you were compiling that research and now? Because definitely to me, it doesn't feel like much has changed in terms of the debate. And like you said, migration is such a big issue with economic and political consequences on both sides of the Atlantic. So what have we learned? And if nothing, why is that so? Why is there such a resistance to thinking differently about migration?Lant;What have we learned is a great question. Let's start with the demography of this. That book was written in 2006. One thing about demography is you can predict it very far into the future, right? Everybody who's going to be a 30 year old worker in 20 years is ten years old today. And so it's really not that hard to know what the future, the 20-, 30-year future of the labour force is going to look like, because everybody gets a year older. So on one level, we've learned nothing. But on another level, I think there's a current ongoing night and day shift in the urgency of the issue, because things were easily forecastable when I wrote the book - what is it, 2006? 2023 - 17 years ago. 17 years ago, I was saying, look, there's going to be this demographic crisis in the West and you're going to need these workers, but it was far away. So when you ask has anything been learned, it's like, no, but all of the projections for what was going to happen 17 years ago are now 17 years closer. And now, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister of Japan, I don't know if you've seen this, but the Prime Minister of Japan gave a speech a couple of days ago saying, “for the demographic future of Japan, it's now or never.” And it's like, no, it's never. The opportunity you might have had to address your labour force crisis through fertility was 30 years ago. It's over now.Now the only issue is how are you going to get workers to work in the Japanese economy to fill the jobs that you need, given that you have the demographic crisis you have, which you now can't fix? I wish I had a good word for this or a clever way to put it, but it's sort of like when a child touches a hot stove, do you say they learned something? Well, yeah, kind of. They learned that the stove is hot. But people had been telling the kid, the stove was hot, don't touch it for years. So, you know, did they learn something? Well, kind of. They know it in a different, more intense way than they maybe knew it before, but they didn't learn anything new. So my first response is, I was just way premature with Let Their People Come in 2006 because the problem was still too far away for politicians and policymakers really to focus on it. But now it's like, boom, it's in your face. labour shortages in the West aren't like this hypothetical going to come thing. They're here, they're now. They're everything I do, everything I look at, I think it's here now. And now, like I said, the prime ministers of countries are going, “we really need to worry about this demographic thing.” So on one level, nothing learned. On another level, radical change and attention to the issue because what was easily predictable and was predicted is now happening in a way you can't ignore it.Tobi;But even with that, you still hear many of the standard objections to more migration, whether it's in the wages of domestic workers in the host countries and things around cultural integration. So, just do a quick recap for me why these objections are false or untenable at best. Because a lot of people are still susceptible to the same arguments even with copious evidence and years of research debunking them, you still hear these things. And in the age of social media, where information travels very very fast, you know, and it's also easy to appeal to people who might be affected by this and politically weaponize their disaffection. So the standard arguments to migration, whether we're talking about the work of Borjas and people who are built on the back of that, why are they untenable?Lant;I mean, we can talk about why they're untenable or many of the factual claims are false, but I think we want to start a step before that. I think the biggest problem with conversation about migration is fundamentally, and I'm talking mainly about the rich industrial West, which West includes Australia and West includes Japan, the rich industrial world. Okay. The problem is, since the early 20th century, these countries have forced two questions to have the same answer. And they're radically different questions. One question is, who are we as a sovereign entity that control a border? Who are we going to allow to be physically present on our territory and perform labour services? That's a clear question. It's a policy question. It's a legal question. It's a regulatory question. You can have an answer to that question. Then there's the separate question which is, who is the future of we? Who are we going to allow to come to our country and on the premise that they're going to become a citizen, become a future one of us and determine the future of who is us? Right? And I feel that forcing these two questions to be the same, you get a complete distorted discussion of the first question. So I think nearly everybody who's arguing about the impact of migration or labour mobility, which is by the way, I try and use two different words…I try and always use the words labour mobility because when I use the word labour mobility it's clear I'm talking about the first question [which is] who are you going to allow under what terms and conditions to be physically present on your territory and what kinds of work are you going to allow them? What kinds of contracts and labour are you going to allow them to engage in? That's a question we can debate and have independently, in my view, of the question - who are the future citizens of the country? Right? But when you force those questions to be the same, I think nearly all the discussion of wage impacts is complete subterfuge b******t. Because the problem is if you say, oh, I don't want people coming to my country because I just don't feel they're going to fit in with us, boy, that sounds racist. That sounds exactly why whites in America had restrictive covenants that wouldn't allow African Americans to move into their neighborhoods because they're not like us. They'll change the nature of our way of life. And so most intellectuals in the West are reluctant to actually deploy cultural-based arguments for migration, but it's much more politically acceptable to say, “oh, well, I'm not saying that I am racist and that I don't want people of different races or ethnicities in my country, but it would be terrible for our workers. And therefore, that's why we're not going to do it.” And I think for the most part that's just b******t. It's just subterfuge. It's just substituting an argument that's politically acceptable but false for an argument that's true but not politically acceptable.So, I think the reason why these false arguments, quite untenable arguments persist is exactly that. It's that these arguments are factually untenable, but it's easier to justify action in terms of those rather than deal with the concrete issue. And the way in which I'm proposing countries can deal with a concrete issue is start to think about separating these questions. So we have legal mechanisms for people to come and work in the country that perhaps have some path to citizenship, but you don't have to decide the citizenship question immediately when any work authorization is granted.Tobi;Of course, there are also people on the other side of these arguments who advocate for more migration and letting more people travel and be able to work. And like you said, they often mix up these two arguments as you have delineated them. So my question then is, is it time for advocates of more migration to maybe swallow some bitter pills, especially on questions of rights? Because I think that is where some of the hot buttons lie. What rights would people have? What are the benefits they are entitled to in their host country? And some of the fiscal implications of that, you know, even though some of you may be a cover to hide larger cultural or behavioral argument. So is it time for advocates of migration to, I dunno, maybe, embrace more pragmatic arrangements, so that we can move this issue forward a bit, you know? What do you think?Lant; Absolutely. I think that's a very perceptive question because I feel in the space of people that are debating and talking about migration, refugees and labour mobility, those three kind of different channels, the kind of if we use the word migration just to mean the intent that somebody is going to move permanently from one country to the other country and acquire different citizenship, then there's refugees, and then there's labour mobility. I think there's this tension between more and better. And I'm advocating that the path to better runs through more. Whereas a lot of people in this space want better, but it's not at all obvious that they aren't willing to sacrifice more for better. So I'm an economist, so I believe that if the price price of something is higher, people will do less of it. So I feel if you go to countries and you say every person who you allow into your country to do labour services of any kind automatically has to be entitled to the following long list of entitlements. They'll say, “gee, no, we're not going to do that then, we're going to have robots or we'll do without.” No one really should be talking about abrogating fundamental human rights. I mean, I've never say, oh, people should be expected to in any way, shape or form sacrifice fundamental human rights in order to move to another country. But there's a huge space in between. I like that you use the word entitlements versus rights. I feel a lot of human rights are negative rights. These are things that you can't have done to you. It's just immoral, illegitimate to ask you to sacrifice the privileges against these negative things being done to you. Suppressing your freedom of speech, suppressing your freedom of association, forcing you to change your religion, et cetera. But citizens of the West enjoy this huge amount of entitlements which they're entitled to legally as citizens. But migrants don't necessarily need to become endowed with the full panoply of entitlements that citizens have just because they're in the country. And we accept that for students. If you go to study in the United States, no one says, oh, because he's in the United State as a student, he's entitled to every social program available to any citizen in the United States or a tourist. I guess it's the lack of imagination here and I love the title of Ideas Untapped. I think there's a lack of imagination here because we're not making the right analogy.It's like, look, we allow people to be in countries for all kinds o f reasons, like tourism, for students, for passage, to do high level business deals, and we don't expect that to come with this huge array of the complete entitlements of the citizens of the country they happen to be in. And, you know, there's kind of a fetishism about work. Like, if you happen to go to another country and work for three months, that needn't come with the full entitlements of every entitlement every citizen of that country has. And then we just need to have an open and untapped conversation about what is the right line between, for sure protection of rights, for sure limitation of reneging on contracts, of abusing migrants because they're in a difficult legal situation of not being in their home country, but the array of entitlements is a hard question to answer, and countries need to take that on. Okay, if we're going to let people come to our country, what does that entitle them to and in what sequence and how? It's a hard question that countries need to deal with but I don't think it's impossible question. But it is often made impossible by the insistence of like, no, it has to be perfection immediately. Because if you say that, you act as if you're advocating for better, but I feel you're not advocating for more, and lots and lots of people would love more.And second, it's not obvious that there is a path to better that doesn't go through more because a lot of the abuse that people suffer is that they're being trafficked to reach these labour opportunities in illegal and informal and undocumented ways, which puts them at even more risk of abuse. So the analogy I use is prohibition in the United States. At one point in the United States, we passed a constitutional amendment, we banned the sale and production and import and everything of alcohol. But then what did we end up with? We ended up with a whole bunch of alcohol being marketed illegally and everybody marketing alcohol was, by definition, breaking the law. And so we ended up with a really, really crappy regulation of alcohol. And the only path to better regulated alcohol was to end prohibition and have it be legal. And I feel we're in this prohibition mode, vis a vis labour mobility, and it just isn't viable.Tobi; Sometimes the context within which these debates happen is also ideological, especially in America the right, the left. There's a tiny section of the right that I would like you to respond to their argument, or I should say their sentiments. Maybe I'll fit someone like Tyler Cowen in this category, who are pro immigration but who largely favors high performing technical talent from other countries and not people that can work in the jobs that you argue are actually badly in need of workers in the industrial world, what you call the hard non-tradables. Right? So how would you respond to that? What would you say to them who favour more immigration, but what they want is basically the stem talents of other countries? You know, let them come. Perhaps, they argue, that, productivity is stalling in the United States and to keep pushing the technological frontier, it has to be a large absorption of technological talent from other countries.Lant;My first response is that's exactly the inevitable consequence of bundling the two questions. If you bundle the question who are future citizens? And the question, who's going to be allowed to work in our country? It inevitably leads to we should allocate the few scarce slots we're willing to allocate, that inevitably leads to global war for talent kind of migration policies where you're going to attract the best and the brightest out of Nigeria, out of India, out of other places to come to America. And that makes economic sense. My point is there shouldn't be two categories. There should be three categories. Currently the debate happens as if there's two categories. There's migrants and there's refugees. Those are the two kinds of people that move. Whereas my point is we need a third category. In part, we need a third category because as you point out, and as I point out, and this is something that is, I think, completely absent from the debate in the West so far is that the change in occupational demand with respect to some measure of underlying skills in those occupations, it's U-shaped. There's actually been more increase in demand for the low skill, physical, non routine activities and an increase in demand for the super high skill. So if you look at change in wages or change in occupations in Europe, in the US, there's more demand for things that aren't easily amenable to technology and aren't repetitive, like, just to use a prosaic example, like cleaning a hotel room.Cleaning a hotel room is a very hard, it's not an easily automatable thing because it's different every time, you walk in, things are in different places. And so the result of the technological changes in the West is that everybody's complaining about the falling wages because the middle of the wage distribution has been hit hard by technological changes. But we have a whole bunch of jobs that are needed at the low end that the domestic citizens don't want to fill, and in the US, there's going to be something like a million more needed people in home health care. It's not a job that any American middle class family is, oh, you need to grow up and be a home health care aid. It's not a super attractive job to the emerging youth, and we just don't have any youth coming into the labour market, so we need to fill those jobs. But if you say to a country, oh, you should determine who you are as a people and who you are as a nation and who your future citizens are, in order to meet your needs for home health care, they're like, no, we want computer scientists, we want data engineers, we want doctors. So what I'm saying is, Tyler's argument is inevitable if you accept the premise that what we're talking about is immediate and expected path to citizenship, labour mobility and the only form of labour mobility is migration.If you look at what's happened with Canada and Australia, who adopted points systems for their immigration, that's exactly the way it went. You gave points for higher levels of education. You gave points for speaking the language. You gave points for things that were cultural match. Canada has massively benefited from global war for talent kind of recruiting through a points-based system. But there's a whole bunch of other jobs in Canada that you also need to fill. And Canada is dealing with this. It's like, okay, how do we deal with all of these existing [jobs] native born Canadians don't necessarily want and so you're not taking them away from anybody by having more people in here working on those, but on the same type, it's a very difficult political discussion to say, we are going to, in some sense, put the future of who we are as a people at the hostage of the immediate needs of the labour force. So Tyler's arguments make a ton of sense if you accept the premise there's no temporary mobility. Once you allow for rotational or temporary or time limited mobility, which can include path to citizenship, then the whole conversation changes. A fundamental principle of economics that is often ignored is instruments to targets. If you have two different targets, you need two different instruments. And so if we've have multiple needs for immigration, we need multiple pathways. And I think Tyler is right about one pathway. I'm a big advocate of the other pathway. Because I am a development economist, if I say what would really benefit Africa, it's not Tyler Cohen having aggressive American policy to take the best and brightest out of Africa, it's creating multiple pathways for Africans.Tobi;On Africa, I don't want to draw into any particular comments on that, but let's move the debate closer. Which is, we also worry about migration in Africa, especially… Lant; Oh, within…Tobi;Yeah. For example, in Nigeria, there is always a huge debate about the number of Nigerian doctors that leave for the UK every year. Canada is also a big competitor now. Another industry that is causing quite a bit of domestic disruption in Nigeria is software talents, which is a new and burgeoning industry with lots of investments but the talents are moving in droves, which inevitably brings up the issue of the brain drain. Right. I usually cite Sandefur and Clemens work on the Philippines, but I encounter some resistance to that argument that no, no, no, don't tell us about Filipino nurses. So now, is the brain drain, is it a myth or reality? I know that's a bit of a vague question, but… [Laughs]Lant;Well, like, it's mostly a myth, but at the same time, most myths have some grounding in some deep aspect of human reality. Myths that persist are capturing something deep and important. Right. So let's start with the way that it's not a myth. The way that it's not a myth is that if a country is not yet in the position in which there's really rewarding ways for the high talent workers to use their skills, then people are going to leave the country and not come back. And then brain drain is, I think, a significant problem because a lot of the pathway of the the education of the people to become the superstars in software and medicine, capable of moving to Canada, Germany, and the US, was publicly funded. So there is a legitimate concern. The whole premise is we'll educate our people because we'll recoup our investment through taxes when they become more productive people. But if that productivity happens in another place, then, yes, there's a serious problem there. But I think what we've learned from lots of experiences with India, where I live and have been working on and off for over 30 years, eventually there's another rhyming thing that's never going to become as popular as brain drain, and I call it cortex vortex. I think one reason brain drain gets so much attention is the two words rhyme, which is not a good reason for an argument to have credibility. But I'm afraid it's like people [go] “brain drain, oh, yeah. Brain drain, oh, yeah. Rhymes. It must be true.” So I want to contrast that with cortex vortex, your brains moving back and forth. There's a vortex of movement, and I think India undoubtedly has benefited from the fact that the early migration out of India into America was permanent. These people left India. But then, as India changed its economic policies, became a more dynamic place, the rotational mobility that there were trained Indians in both places that you could establish the connections, that you could create essentially huge software firms that were essentially US firms based in India. Meaning. All of the revenue was in the US. All of the work was in the US. But the work was being done in India. That was a consequence of the previous establishment of connections.So I think, on net, the benefits of vortex cortex, when countries become sensible and viable places to do business, exceed the risks of brain drain. So, not that there can never be a brain drain situation, but the brain drain situation is often a much deeper problem with the country. And when the country changes, you can move from brain drain risks to cortex vortex benefits. And I think that as a country, in Nigeria, I would be saying, well, look, we really should be thinking about why software engineers aren't setting up businesses in Nigeria much more than worry about losing Nigerians to the US. And moreover, the more Nigerians we have going and working in the US, eventually it is going to benefit Nigeria in the long run by creating the possibility of connections. The third issue. I realize I'm giving long answers, but the third issue is an issue that Michael Clemens has raised and has documented is if there were viable, again, time limited pathways, then the net effect of investment in training in these things can far exceed the drain and hence you actually get more skilled people from the possibility of migration. So if you look at the Philippines as an extreme example, like if brain drain were true, Philippines should be desperately short of nurses because there's Filipino nurses all over the world. Exactly the opposite, because Philippine nursing schools train a whole bunch of people with the promise and premise that some of them are going to go work and get jobs as nurses in other places. But the net number of nurses trained versus the net number that actually go abroad is very small. So the opportunities for Filipino nurses to work abroad have dramatically increased the supply. And so there's way more nurses, we need to think of the long-run endogeneity of the number.So again, people's ability for counterfactual is often very limited. They see a Filipino nurse working in the Gulf and think that nurse could have been working in the Philippines, so therefore it's created less nurses in the Philippines. And they have a very difficult time imagining the more complex counterfactual of well, that nurse actually created five or six additional trained nurses who are in the Philippines because they got trained as nurses and went abroad for a while and then came back and worked in the Philippines. Or never got the opportunity to work abroad. So the net brain creation is a huge driver to the extent that these very high returns to possibility of going abroad increase the total creation of supply often gets completely ignored in the brain drain discussion. So I'm sure a lot of Nigerians are investing in their software skills in the hopes of working abroad. And the net effect of software skills available in Nigeria may well be hugely positive, even though you can point to lots of individuals who leave.Tobi;One evidence that you're having a conversation with Lant Pritchett is if his answers always lead you to your next question. Speaking about the cortex vortex now. There are people who argue, and sometimes they toy with a very horrible idea of limiting emigration in African countries, especially emigration of highly educated, highly skilled people because of the fear of brain drain. And one argument that I've heard is that there is less incentive for national development if your brightest and the best leaves. The political incentive is for the ruling class to keep looting. They have no incentive to fix anything. I mean, citizens get educated, they grow up, they leave. Nothing about the political dynamics of the country changes. How would you respond to such people? How would you tell me to respond to such people?Lant; I have to say there's two levels to this. First kind of this is getting beyond my pay grade, so to speak. It's like the true dynamics of how countries come to do national development in this fourfold transformation that I talk about, of the politics, the society, the economy, and the administration, it's a huge, complicated historical transformation. And I'm not at all convinced forcing your best and brightest to stay in the country because they'll be really unhappy, and therefore, by being unhappy, they're going to play a positive role in the political dynamics is a plausible story to first order at all? I don't know. Maybe. But it's hard to point to the cases where by not allowing these people to migrate, they instead of becoming a Nigerian doctor working in Canada, they became this path-breaking political transformational figure. And a very striking counterexample is Gandhi in India. Came back to India when he was in his 40s, having spent a significant amount of time in the UK and a significant amount of time in South Africa. You could have said, oh, man, if we had just forced Gandhi to stay in India, things would have been so much better. And there are a number of significant examples of people who went abroad for a period and then came back and made a positive difference, too. So that first one, it's like, kind of on first order sounds plausible, but I don't know of any either historical, or social or political or economic solid evidence that it's true.Part of my brand is skepticism. Just because it sounds plausible doesn't mean it's true. First of all, yeah, that sounds plausible, but I'm not sure it's true. Had Gandhi not been allowed to go study law in the UK, would India have in the long run historical trajectory, be in a better place? I don't know. The actual historical thing was, and I feel embarrassed as someone who has lived in India for a long time, but I think he was 44 years old before he came back and became a prominent and effective political advocate in India. And who's to know that that experience of living broad didn't radically increase his productivity as a transformational political leader? So that's the first thing I'd say. Second thing I'd say is I have these fundamental liberal tendencies that forcing people, even if it's good for the country, forcing people to do it, makes me nervous.Tobi;Yeah.Lant;Even if I did accept that it were true, that it would be marginally better for Nigeria if these people didn't go off and work in other countries, putting that burden in a coercive way on the individual makes me nervous. Just makes me nervous. Because how did the burden of Nigeria's national development transformation fall on this person just because they happen to be a good programmer? That's not at all an obvious thing. And then the last point I want to make is, you know, I sometimes want to promote the analogy that human capital is a lot like physical capital, right? And on this, both sides have been completely hypocritical in the sense that when Westerners make this argument, I go, hey, until you guys start refusing to take Nigerians physical capital, when Nigerians want to invest in Swiss banks or British banks and say, no, this physical capital should be forced to remain in Nigeria to promote the national development of Nigeria and so we should ban Nigerians from being able to put money in Switzerland because it would be better used there than in Switzerland. Until you're willing to make that same argument, I'm pretty sceptical that your argument a Nigerian should be forced to remain in Nigeria is really a principled argument. Because analytically, it's exactly the same. And yet the West is like, oh, yeah, yeah, all of the money that wants to roll out of Africa into Swiss, and British and other banks [we're] super happy to take it, even though exactly the analytically same argument can be made as, oh, this money should be better invested and if we force people to invest their money in Nigeria, they'd be more aggressive about creating a better investment climate. But the West is fully complicit in taking all the money that wants to come out of Africa, and yet when it's people, all of a sudden they acquire principles. And then, secondly, the same thing for the country, it's like, look, if you're losing physical capital, you might want to look at why people don't want to invest in Nigeria and create a better investment climate.Tobi; My final question on migration, before we move on to another baby of yours - education. So as a development economist, and also you've written about this, why isn't migration so much on the “development agenda”? I don't know any development organization or any communique or report that is so big on migration as a development policy. Policy that radically increases the welfare and the incomes of the people, like you said. Because sometimes development is usually framed more as a country thing than the people. So why is it missing on the agenda?Lant; I think there are lots of reasons. And let me start with the one that is less, I think, discussed and deserves more consideration. And the answer is the Solo model.Tobi;Okay.Lant;So let's talk economics first, right? The Solo model, which I don't know how many of the listeners are actually into economics, but it was the dominant model of economic growth. And it said that economic growth is a combination of this thing called investable stuff. We'll call it capital. And that includes human capital and infrastructure and all kinds of physical stuff. I'm taking human capital as a physical stuff. So there's capital and then there's the productivity with which capital is used, which we'll call A. And that was kind of the dominant model of economic growth when development organizations in the 1950s and 60s came into being. Now, in the Solo model, and I had the privilege of actually being taught by Bob Solo, so I can speak with some authority about how Bob Solo talked about it. A, was regarded as blueprints. This total factor productivity that interacted with capital was ideas that were in the air. It was regarded as technical. Now, if you think about, therefore, how the dynamics of growth were going to work, is A, this technical blueprints of how to do stuff was going to diffuse very fast, right? Because after all, if I have a blueprint for how to build a power plant or build a dam or build a highway or run a coffee processing plant, that blueprints can transfer across countries really fast. So if you scratch what was the intellectual kind of environment in which the bones and DNA of places like the World Bank were built? They were built on a model that ideas were going to diffuse fast. Well, if ideas diffuse fast, then the productivity of factors in the places that now have high A but have low human capital and low physical capital was going to be super high. And so the whole problem was how do we invest in this super high productivity, physical and human capital in these places with high A and low K? That was the whole model of development. Right? Now, what we have learned and this we really have learned in the sense that we didn't know it and now we know it, is what we have learned from five decades of research on economic growth is that model isn't exactly wrong. Exactly wrong. A, is what hasn't converged. If you ask why hasn't Nigeria had the gross prospects that we would have hoped and anticipated for Nigeria, it's because A stayed low. Not because Nigeria and we'll get to this when we get to education in two minutes, but not because Nigeria has necessarily had radically underinvestment in human capital or radically possibility for investment in physical capital. It's that A didn't diffuse, and it turns out A isn't blueprints. A is much deeper things about how you can make factor productivity in a country which go way beyond do you have the blueprint to build a power plant? Right. So the first reason why development wasn't originally part of the development agenda is that in the Solo model, we should have had human capital flowing to Nigeria because the return to factors should have been super high, because A should have been super high relative to the level of K and HK. So before we get into more cynical, and hence probably more realistic and true positive models of why it's not on the agenda, I think there was an intellectual flaw about economics itself and how it thought about growth that I don't think we've pointed out strongly enough, how completely, totally wrong it is, and how it leads to radically different assumptions with how important migration is going to be. And in the Solo model, there was no need for migration. Like, once A was there, the returns to HK were going to be phenomenally high, not low.So we really have learned from constructing data sets and just decades and decades of growth research, that A doesn't converge. And that is a huge, huge puzzle. Right. Because if A were, as Bob Solo thought it was, a set of blueprints, it should have diffused very fast, and instead it's been not diffused. So that's an economic-based argument for why it wasn't on the development agenda. And the problem is, like I say, the DNA and bones of the World Bank were built because if you ask, why does the World Bank focus on moving money? Well, again, in this model that A has converged and we need K and HK to catch up, what these countries need is money. Right. Anyway, and it's very hard to change an organization's DNA. Then there are the obvious, and I just want to point out, I'm not being completely silly and naive… it's also the case that most of the development organizations have their intellectual agendas dominated by the rich donors, and the rich donors never really wanted it. Since they never really wanted it, it was always easy to push it off the agenda. Now, on the plus side, the World Development part of the World Bank, which is often a very flagship document, is this year on migration. So for the very first time, the World Bank is going to solidly bring development issues and migration issues side by side. This is another way in which I think the overall environment for discussing migration is going to change radically, I think, in the next ten years. And I think this is a harbinger of that.Tobi; I look forward to reading the document.Lant;  I've seen drafts of it, and it will be good.Tobi;  Okay, moving to education now. Yeah, so I'll start this way. It's one of those things that is super sexy to talk about politically. We are in [an] election season now in Nigeria, and every candidate is saying, I'm going to invest in education. We need to fix basic education. We need to make our education work. If we make it work, then this and this and X and Y will not happen. There will be no crime. People will no longer kidnap. They can, you know, a lot of things. The benefits of education seems intuitive.  But what frustrates me, whether you're talking to policymakers or investors or even my friends who talk about education, is, other than researchers like yourself who are working in the field, almost nobody stops to look at the evidence. Nobody. And then we've ended up with this, to use one of your phrases, we ended up with the wrong dashboard for education, where we are basically measuring schooling and not learning. How did this happen? You can't talk about human capital without talking about education. So how come we are still measuring the wrong things? How come countries are putting in money, and there's basically nothing to show for it? Lant; Wow, okay, well, that was a long set-up. So I'm writing, like, one of these efforts where a variety of people are getting together, writing about different topics, people are writing about infrastructure and other things, and I'm writing about education. And I start by saying I feel that the field of education is the field in which more false things get set than any other domain. Just completely, totally, obviously false things. Perfect people are perfectly happy to repeat them again and again, year after year, decade after decade. So let me start with the most positive possible spin on it. The most positive spin on what's happened with schooling and education is that if you go back again to the origins of decolonialisation and these newly independent national governments come in and they have control of policies for the first time, it was obvious to everyone and completely accepted that the education level and if now by education we mean mastery of certain capabilities. If we define education in some sense as a vertical axis of, we want them to have skills and capabilities and values and dispositions that are going to contribute to national development, how many years of schooling are going to do, right? There's two ways to increase the stock of, kind of, skills and capabilities. One is more kids in school. One is more learning per year. Well, in the 1960s, it was obvious more kids in school was an easily available, doable, and viable way to do that. You could just push more kids through school, and as long as you push them through at roughly the same level of skills per year, you've got more of it. Right? And every time either national leaders or global leaders or people raised the quality issue, the response is, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. There was a lot of nervousness that a lot of the early pushback against excessive expansion in the education system was really elitist nonsense, right, that, oh, these people don't really need to be educated and we should reserve education for the elite. And so it was easy to create this debate where the people talking quality were hidebound traditionalists that were anti-egalitarian, and the only acceptable position was [to] expand schooling. And so to some extent, people kept saying, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.So the reason for starting with this positive thing is, hey, we're now at the bridge. Like, around the world, nearly every kid goes to school. Like, something like 3% of children don't go to any school ever in their life. And most kids are going to school for a very long time now. And we haven't ever really come back to say, by the way, in the 1960s, it was obvious more kids in school and at constant learning per year was okay. In 1980s, there was still a lot of kids not in school, girls were out of school, et cetera, poor kids were out of school, et cetera. But in 2020, it's like, hey, we're at the bridge. The scope for increasing a country's stock of human capital or the stock of learning and skills and capabilities by expanding the years of school is over. It's just over. It's just over. The additional marginal gain from pushing out on the quantity of schooling access just doesn't hold any promise in most countries of the world. So to some extent, the discourse has to change because the facts have radically changed. Like, I don't want to go back and say people in 1960 were wrong to radically and rapidly expand education or that free primary education in 1970s was a mistake, because there were still lots of kids not with the opportunity or access to school. But that world is gone. That world is gone. And our views and attitudes and discourse hasn't changed nearly as much as the facts on the ground have changed. And so we just have to recognize that, look, the only real viable possibility for substantial, sustained improvements in the level of skills and capabilities of youth is now from more learning per year. We have to radically change that.Tobi;So I mean, pivoting to learning, I get that. But I want to talk a bit about testing. Right.Lant;About who?Tobi;Tests.Lant;Oh, okay, let's not talk about tests.[Laughs]I'm being quite serious, because there's two radically different things.Tobi;Okay.Lant;One is assessment and one is examinations.And then tests, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm preempting you here because I was just literally writing about this two days ago.Tobi;Okay.Lant;Most education systems relied radically too much on high-stakes for-the-student-late-in-the-cycle examinations. But they relied radically too little on assessment of learning. And so when you say testing, I want to be clear, are we talking about grade ten school leaving high stakes for the student examinations, or are we talking about assessments of, in third grade, can kids read and how do we use assessment of learning? Because within the education community there's this huge negative stigma around testing, which then I think leads in radically unproductive directions, because assessment gets thrown into the bundle with high-stakes examinations. And everybody hates high-stakes examinations, particularly because they're often unbelievably crappy examinations, meaning they're examinations of how much can you memorize? And hence we're allocating future opportunities to go to college on the basis of a really crappy assessment of learning. So everybody hates examinations, but I think everybody should love assessment. Sorry, so I've answered a question you haven't asked yet. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

'Development of the World; Development of the Mind' - A Dhamma talk given by Ajahn Anan on 21 Jan 2023, translated from Thai to English. To join Ajahn Anan and the Wat Marp Jan Community online for daily chanting, meditation, and a Dhamma talk, you can email wmjdhamma@gmail.com for the link. Daily live sessions at 7.15pm - 9pm, Indochina Time (Bangkok, GMT+7).

Chalban (8) The Spiritual Stages of World Development by Rabbi Shaya Sussman, LCSW

This week, Jeremi and Zachary are joined by Dr. Joshua Eisenman to discuss protests and political upheaval in China. Zachary sets the scene with his poem entitled, "A Blank Sheet of Paper" Joshua Eisenman is an associate professor of global affairs at the University of Notre Dame. His research focuses on the political economy of China's development, and its foreign relations with the United States and the developing world—particularly Africa. His work has been published in top academic journals including World Development, Development and Change, the Journal of Contemporary China and Cold War History. He has also published widely in Foreign Affairs, The Wall Street Journal, and Foreign Policy. Prof. Eisenman is the author of: China and Africa: A Century of Engagement, with David Shinn (2012) and Red China's Green Revolution (2018).

In this episode, Divya Gupta speaks with Dr. Daniel Miller. Dan is an Associate Professor in the School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame and has been extensively working on the socio-economic, ecological, and political dimensions of forests in tropical countries.  In this conversation, they focus on Dan's projects on conservation legacy and his other project looking at the role of forests as pathways out of poverty. Later in the episode, they also discuss Dan's new role as the coordinator of FLARE, which stands for Forest and Livelihoods Assessment, Research, and Engagement.  For his project on conservation legacies, the projects that Dan started as a graduate student in the west Africa region at W National Park, a park that spreads across the countries of Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso, Dan focussed on how protected area governance interfaces with international aid. Interaction on this topic was a great way to explore the critical question of what conservation funding really does for people and protected areas in tropical countries. Dan shares that international aid has disproportionate impacts on people; while it provides new sources of income to some with the creation of jobs in the areas like park management, monitoring, and tourism, these opportunities only extend to some in the community. In fact, with the implementation of conversation projects, and many lose access to the forest, thereby creating more challenges for them.  Dan suggests that this happens because the aid has a tendency of what he refers to as— ‘missing the middle'. When implemented, he says that the aid programs often tend to partner with the national government, national park agencies, and forest departments, but rarely or never with the local governments. He says this is a problem because these local governments have a bigger impact on people's lives. As Dan continues to extend his work on conservation legacies in other countries like Bhutan, Peru, and Madagascar, he is finding that while external intervention in the form of aid in conservation in low-income countries is important, it works best when it is inculcated in the local governance structures and can bring clear benefits to people.   In the discussion on Dan's parallel project on forest-poverty relationships, where he is working with a large team of scholars looking at the impacts that forests can have on poverty alleviation in low-income countries. Dan shares that the greater vision that he has for this project is to highlight how forests can serve as pathways to prosperity. He suggests that changing the framing of forests for prosperity is important because in the larger policy discourse benefits of the forests is mostly linked to carbon sequestration when the reality is that forests provide critical socio-economic benefits to especially people in low-income countries. Dan emphasizes that it is important to mainstream these benefits.  In the end, they discuss Dan's new role as a coordinator of FLARE. He talks about how the FLARE community has been catalytic for him in establishing networks and collaboration for meaningful research. He shares that as a coordinator, he aims to retain the great sense of community that FLARE already has and grow the community by opening to new partners like practitioners, donors, activists, and local community members.  References:  Miller, D.C., Mansourian, S., Gabay, M., Hajjar, R., Jagger, P., Kamoto, J.F., Newton, P., Oldekop, J.A., Razafindratsima, O.H., Shyamsundar, P. and Sunderland, T., 2021. Forests, trees and poverty alleviation: Policy implications of current knowledge. Forest Policy and Economics 131: 102566. Miller, D.C. Rana, P., Nakamura, K., Irwin, S., Cheng, S.H., Ahlroth, S. and Perge, E. 2021. A global review of the impact of forest property rights interventions on poverty. Global Environmental Change 66: 102218. Miller, D.C., R. Hajjar. 2020. “Forests as Pathways to Prosperity: Empirical Insights and Conceptual Advances.” World Development 125: 104647. Miller, D.C. 2014. “Explaining Global Patterns of Aid for Linked Biodiversity Conservation and Development.” World Development 59: 341-359. Miller, D.C., A. Agrawal, and J.T. Roberts. 2013. “Biodiversity, Governance, and the Allocation of International Aid for Conservation.” Conservation Letters 6(1): 12-22. Agrawal, A., Chhatre, A., & Gerber, E. R. (2015). Motivational crowding in sustainable development interventions. American Political Science Review, 109(3), 470-487. Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. (2016). A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133-141. Persha, L., Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation. science, 331(6024), 1606-1608.  

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/israel-studies

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

The city of Tel Aviv presents itself as a bastion of liberal values, tolerance, and ultimately of freedom. But like many self-definitions, there is something of a gap between this description and the reality of everyday life. In this gap resides a hidden reality—Palestinians who work, study, and live as an unseen minority, to some degree denied full benefits of equal urban citizenship. Much of the discourse concerning this descriptive gap focuses on attempts to preserve or contextualise the claim to social liberalism from the Israeli Jewish perspective. A new book by the anthropologist Andreas Hackl, takes a different point of view. The Invisible Palestinians: The Hidden Struggle for Inclusion in Jewish Tel Aviv (Indiana UP, 2022) focuses on what he terms the “immersive invisibility” of Israel's minority Palestinian population: the challenges they face, the strategies they deploy, and ultimately the consequences of acts of personal and collective self-censorship that define and circumscribe their everyday life and presence in Tel Aviv. The Invisible Palestinians documents the experiences of a diverse Palestinian population in the Jewish Israeli city: residents and commuters, professionals and day laborers, activists, artists, students. Differences of education, economic wherewithal, and social class aside, all share one central experience: circumscribed citizenship of the Jewish metropolis. Andreas Hackl is Lecturer in Anthropology of Development at the University of Edinburgh. His research has been published in leading academic journals such as World Development, American Ethnologist, and Social Anthropology. He has worked as a consultant with the International Labour Organization and as a newspaper correspondent based in Jerusalem. Akin Ajayi (@AkinAjayi) is a writer and editor, based in Tel Aviv. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Writing down insolvent countries loans is key IF China wishes to extricate itself from a difficult morass.

Literature CitedKaimowitz, D., Mertens, B., Wunder, S., & Pacheco, P. (n.d.). Cattle ranching and deforestation in Brazil's Amazon. 10.Rajão, R., & Georgiadou, Y. (2014). Blame Games in the Amazon: Environmental Crises and the Emergence of a Transparency Regime in Brazil. Global Environmental Politics, 14(4), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00259Rajão, R., Soares-Filho, B., Nunes, F., Börner, J., Machado, L., Assis, D., Oliveira, A., Pinto, L., Ribeiro, V., Rausch, L., Gibbs, H., & Figueira, D. (2020). The rotten apples of Brazil's agribusiness. Science, 369(6501), 246–248. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba6646Rajão, R., & Vurdubakis, T. (2013). On the Pragmatics of Inscription: Detecting Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(4), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413486203Shukla, J., Nobre, C., & Sellers, P. (1990). Amazon Deforestation and Climate Change. Science, 247(4948), 1322–1325. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.247.4948.1322Silva Junior, C. H. L., Pessôa, A. C. M., Carvalho, N. S., Reis, J. B. C., Anderson, L. O., & Aragão, L. E. O. C. (2021). The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(2), 144–145. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01368-xSkidmore, M. E., Moffette, F., Rausch, L., Christie, M., Munger, J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2021). Cattle ranchers and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Production, location, and policies. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102280Soares-Filho, B., Rajão, R., Macedo, M., Carneiro, A., Costa, W., Coe, M., Rodrigues, H., & Alencar, A. (2014). Cracking Brazil's Forest Code. Science, 344(6182), 363–364. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246663Walker, N. F., Patel, S. A., & Kalif, K. A. B. (2013). From Amazon Pasture to the High Street: Deforestation and the Brazilian Cattle Product Supply Chain. Tropical Conservation Science, 6(3), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291300600309Walker, R., Moran, E., & Anselin, L. (2000). Deforestation and Cattle Ranching in the Brazilian Amazon: External Capital and Household Processes. World Development, 28(4), 683–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00149-7

Following the 2014 coup in Thailand, in which the Thai military overthrew the caretaker government after 6 months of political crisis, major media outlets suggested that the coup could lead to ethnic tensions—and potentially civil war—between the Isan people of northeastern Thailand and the central Thai government. While this civil war never eventuated, there were genuine tensions between the Isan people and the Thai state. In this episode, Dr Natali Pearson is joined by Associate Professor Jacob Ricks, to discuss why these tensions never escalated into full blown conflict as predicted. Is this a sign that Thailand's centuries-long effort to integrate diverse ethnic identities has been a success, and what cautionary tales might apply? About Jacob Ricks: Jacob Ricks is Associate Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University. He researches development topics as well as nationalism and ethnicity in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Thailand and Indonesia. Recently he has been studying the identity of the Isan people of Northeastern Thailand. He is co-author of the book Ethnicity and Politics in Southeast Asia with Amy Liu. His research has also been published in journals like World Development, Political Behavior, Pacific Affairs, and Journal of Contemporary Asia, among others. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Following the 2014 coup in Thailand, in which the Thai military overthrew the caretaker government after 6 months of political crisis, major media outlets suggested that the coup could lead to ethnic tensions—and potentially civil war—between the Isan people of northeastern Thailand and the central Thai government. While this civil war never eventuated, there were genuine tensions between the Isan people and the Thai state. In this episode, Dr Natali Pearson is joined by Associate Professor Jacob Ricks, to discuss why these tensions never escalated into full blown conflict as predicted. Is this a sign that Thailand's centuries-long effort to integrate diverse ethnic identities has been a success, and what cautionary tales might apply? About Jacob Ricks: Jacob Ricks is Associate Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University. He researches development topics as well as nationalism and ethnicity in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Thailand and Indonesia. Recently he has been studying the identity of the Isan people of Northeastern Thailand. He is co-author of the book Ethnicity and Politics in Southeast Asia with Amy Liu. His research has also been published in journals like World Development, Political Behavior, Pacific Affairs, and Journal of Contemporary Asia, among others. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Following the 2014 coup in Thailand, in which the Thai military overthrew the caretaker government after 6 months of political crisis, major media outlets suggested that the coup could lead to ethnic tensions—and potentially civil war—between the Isan people of northeastern Thailand and the central Thai government. While this civil war never eventuated, there were genuine tensions between the Isan people and the Thai state. In this episode, Dr Natali Pearson is joined by Associate Professor Jacob Ricks, to discuss why these tensions never escalated into full blown conflict as predicted. Is this a sign that Thailand's centuries-long effort to integrate diverse ethnic identities has been a success, and what cautionary tales might apply? About Jacob Ricks: Jacob Ricks is Associate Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University. He researches development topics as well as nationalism and ethnicity in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Thailand and Indonesia. Recently he has been studying the identity of the Isan people of Northeastern Thailand. He is co-author of the book Ethnicity and Politics in Southeast Asia with Amy Liu. His research has also been published in journals like World Development, Political Behavior, Pacific Affairs, and Journal of Contemporary Asia, among others. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Following the 2014 coup in Thailand, in which the Thai military overthrew the caretaker government after 6 months of political crisis, major media outlets suggested that the coup could lead to ethnic tensions—and potentially civil war—between the Isan people of northeastern Thailand and the central Thai government. While this civil war never eventuated, there were genuine tensions between the Isan people and the Thai state. In this episode, Dr Natali Pearson is joined by Associate Professor Jacob Ricks, to discuss why these tensions never escalated into full blown conflict as predicted. Is this a sign that Thailand's centuries-long effort to integrate diverse ethnic identities has been a success, and what cautionary tales might apply? About Jacob Ricks: Jacob Ricks is Associate Professor of Political Science in the School of Social Sciences at Singapore Management University. He researches development topics as well as nationalism and ethnicity in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Thailand and Indonesia. Recently he has been studying the identity of the Isan people of Northeastern Thailand. He is co-author of the book Ethnicity and Politics in Southeast Asia with Amy Liu. His research has also been published in journals like World Development, Political Behavior, Pacific Affairs, and Journal of Contemporary Asia, among others. For more information or to browse additional resources, visit the Sydney Southeast Asia Centre's website: www.sydney.edu.au/sseac.

One of the most vexed questions in development studies is why the poor often receive such poor government services. The development literature is littered with hundreds—if not thousands—of examples of elite capture, weak state capacity, corruption, and subversion. But a focus on the failures obscures the fact that, every once in a while, the state does get it right and the top-down and the bottom-up meet in a place that produces positive benefits for ordinary citizens.How exactly this happens is the subject of a new book by Georgetown University professor Rajesh Veeraraghavan, Patching Development: Information Politics and Social Change in India. Milan and Rajesh discuss how bureaucrats and civil society forged an unlikely partnership in the south Indian state of Andhra Pradesh to implement the world's largest workfare program at scale. Plus, the two talk about the the role of technology in government, the political economy of India's National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), and the limits of transparency.  “Information Politics and Social Change,” Ideas of India (podcast) with Shruti Rajagopalan and Rajesh Veeraraghavan, March 3, 2022.Philip Keefer and Stuti Khemani, “Why Do the Poor Receive Poor Services?” Economic and Political Weekly 39, no. 9 (2004): 935-943.Diego Maiorano, “The Politics of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra Pradesh,” World Development 58 (2014): 95-105.

Speakers: Eric Bishop-von Wettberg (he/him), Travis Reynolds (he/him), and Dan Tobin (he/him) We are launching the Consortium on Crop Genetic Heritage, a group of researchers and practitioners who view the maintenance and promotion of crop diversity as critical to building resilient agricultural systems positioned to address climate change, increase access to culturally meaningful crops, and promote empowerment and self-determination. Through our work, we conduct basic and applied research, collaborate with domestic and international partners, build networks and capacity, facilitate convenings, offer training, train students, and publish report and peer-reviewed publications. We value diversity, equity, inclusion, participatory processes, community engagement, and action-oriented scholarship based on the principle that crop diversity must be viewed and supported as a public good. Our partners include non-profit organizations, farmer collectives, BIPOC communities, smallholder farmers, international research institutions, and seed libraries, among others. Eric Eric von Wettberg is a Gund fellow, an associate professor of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Vermont, director of UVM's Graduate Program in Food Systems, and a member of UVM's Consortium for Crop Genetic Heritage. As a conservation geneticist working to preserve the genetic diversity of legume crops, his research uses a combination of laboratory, greenhouse, and field approaches. Working in the legacy of the great crop geneticist, Nikolai Vavilov, many of Eric's recent projects have supported international crop genebanks by exploring and adding to the genetic diversity held in their collections. Travis Travis Reynolds is a Gund fellow and an assistant professor in the Department of Community Development and Applied Economics at the University of Vermont. Dr. Reynolds' has studied the relationships between farm management, economic development, and ecosystem services – with an emphasis on poverty alleviation – for the past ten years. His work has been published in top interdisciplinary and agricultural development journals including World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Journal of Agricultural Economics, and Food Security. Dan Daniel Tobin is a rural sociologist who is an assistant professor in Community Development and Applied Economics, a Gund Fellow, and graduate faculty in Food Systems. His research focuses on how small- and medium-scale farmers respond to external influences like market forces, policy mechanisms, and environmental changes. Particular interests include sociology of agriculture, development sociology, the political economy of agricultural development, crop diversity conservation, and seed systems. Eric, Travis, and Dan spoke at UVM on December 10th, 2021. Read more about their work: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/calsfac/190 Learn more about the Gund Institute: https://www.uvm.edu/gund Explore Gund events: https://www.uvm.edu/gund/events ​​​​

To say that World War II and Southeast Asia: Economy and Society under Japanese Occupation (Cambridge University Press, 2020) is an impressive achievement is a huge understatement. Based on years of research in over two dozen archives on three continents, this book won the Lindart-Williamson prize from the Economic History Association. World War II and Southeast Asia: Economy and Society under Japanese Occupation explores how Japan, as part of its plan to build an East Asian empire and secure oil supplies essential for war in the Pacific, swiftly took control of Southeast Asia. Dr. Huff describes the occupation's devastating economic impact on the region. Japan imposed country and later regional autarky on Southeast Asia, dictated that the region finance its own occupation, and sent almost no consumer goods. GDP fell by half everywhere in Southeast Asia except Thailand. Famine and forced labor accounted for most of the 4.4 million Southeast Asian civilian deaths under Japanese occupation. World War II and Southeast Asia presents a new understanding of Southeast Asian history and development before, during and after the Pacific War. Gregg is Senior Research Fellow at Pembroke College, University of Oxford. He is the author of The Economic Growth of Singapore: Trade and Development in the Twentieth Century and co-editor of and contributor to World War II Singapore: The Chōsabu Reports on Syonan-to. Gregg has large number of publications in the Journal of Economic History, Economic History Review, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Oxford Economic Papers, Cambridge Journal of Economics, World Development, Modern Asian Studies and Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. Michael G. Vann is a professor of world history at California State University, Sacramento. A specialist in imperialism and the Cold War in Southeast Asia, he is the author of The Great Hanoi Rat Hunt: Empires, Disease, and Modernity in French Colonial Vietnam (Oxford University Press, 2018). When he's not reading or talking about new books with smart people, Mike can be found surfing in Santa Cruz, California.

In this week's episode, Katelyn & Hannah talk about religion and gender in our Religion 2.0 episode! If you missed our first religion episode, don't wait, listen to it now! This episode expands on our previous episode about religion and identifies organized religion's impacts on gender and gender inequities. Did you know religion is THE primary driver and contributor to gender inequities across societies and cultures??? Our rant this week talks about women being arrested for having to perform their own medical treatments. Come rage with us! You have got to listen to this week's episode! Episode Resources: PBS- Women, Religion, Violence and Power: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2014/05/09/may-9-2014-women-religion-violence-power/23004/ Religion News Service: https://religionnews.com/2021/07/30/brutal-killing-spotlights-violence-against-women-in-pakistan/ Violence Against Women and the Role of Religion: https://vawnet.org/sites/default/files/materials/files/2016-09/AR_VAWReligion_0.pdf Religion's Impact on Gender Inequity: https://www.uvm.edu/giee/pubpdfs/Seguino_2011b_World_Development.pdf Global Sisters Report: https://www.globalsistersreport.org/column/equality/power-religion-over-women-india-43236 The Intersection of Religious Freedom and Women's Rights: https://www.cfr.org/conference-calls/intersection-religious-freedom-and-womens-rights

Is work (as we know it) on its way out? Some certainly think so, and they have not hesitated to envision the kinds of lives and societies that would be possible in a world that is founded not on formal wage labor but something like universal basic income. But here is the thing: ethnographers in different parts of the world have found that many of the people who would benefit the most from such a shift are still very much committed to employment—they want money, but they would prefer that it be a wage and not a cash transfer. In this episode, Kelly chats with Dr. Liz Fouksman about enduring attachments to formal wage labor and what she calls the "moral economy of work" in South Africa and Namibia. Liz Fouksman is a Lecturer in Social Justice at the Centre for Public Policy Research in the School of Education, Communication, and Society at King's College London. Her scholarship has appeared in various outlets, including Economy and Society, World Development, and Africa.

There are lots of reasons why people become entrepreneurs. Nav Sawhney had three, instilled within him from a young age, and these inspired him to develop a product that would enhance everyday life for the consumers of tomorrow. As our latest guest entrepreneur, Nav explains to Founded & Grounded how the plight of refugees, the central role of women in life, and the intrigue of engineering were the genesis of The Washing Machine Project: producing an off-grid manual washing machine that would alleviate hand-washing. In a unique and inspiring tale of entrepreneurship, there are learnings for all founders as Nav talks through the challenge of resilience, the sacrifices made by families and partners, and to not fear failure,  but instead treat it as a learning.Presented by Andrew Parsonage, with expert analysis from Ollie Collard and feedback from our Founded & Grounded community courtesy of Samantha Miles.    

In Making Women Pay: Microfinance in Urban India (Duke UP, 2022), Smitha Radhakrishnan explores India's microfinance industry, which in the past two decades has come to saturate the everyday lives of women in the name of state-led efforts to promote financial inclusion and women's empowerment. Despite this favorable language, Radhakrishnan argues, microfinance in India does not provide a market-oriented development intervention, even though it may appear to help women borrowers. Rather, this commercial industry seeks to extract the maximum value from its customers through exploitative relationships that benefit especially class-privileged men. Through ethnography, interviews, and historical analysis, Radhakrishnan demonstrates how the unpaid and underpaid labor of marginalized women borrowers ensures both profitability and symbolic legitimacy for microfinance institutions, their employees, and their leaders. In doing so, she centralizes gender in the study of microfinance, reveals why most microfinance programs target women, and explores the exploitative implications of this targeting. Smitha Radhakrishnan is Professor of Sociology and Luella LaMer Professor of Women's Studies at Wellesley College. Her research examines the cultural, financial, and political dimensions of gender and globalization, with particular focus on India, the United States, and South Africa. Her most recent book, Making Women Pay: Microfinance in Urban India, examines exploitative anti-poverty practices that target women. Radhakrishnan's previous book, Appropriately Indian: Gender and Culture in a Transnational Class (Duke University Press 2011) is a transnational ethnography of Indian IT professionals. She has previously researched the cultural politics of post-apartheid South Africa. Her articles have appeared in World Development, Gender and Society, Theory and Society, and Signs, among other prominent journals. She received her PhD in Sociology from University of California, Berkeley. Saronik Bosu (@SaronikB on Twitter) is a doctoral candidate in English at New York University. He is writing his dissertation on South Asian economic writing. He co-hosts the podcast High Theory and is a co-founder of the Postcolonial Anthropocene Research Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Michael and Stefan spoke with Arun Agrawal, the Samuel Trask Dana Professor at the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan. Arun has played an important role in the development of the Commons field and the study of the related subjects of conservation and development. They talked about Arun's path to an academic career, his thoughts about the history and current developments of the study of the Commons, and his thoughts on the categories and dichotomies that structure so much of our thinking in this field. They also talked about Arun's professional roles, including being editor-in-chief of World Development and the director of the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) program. Arun's website: http://www.arunagrawal.org/ References: Agrawal, Arun. 2005. Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Ferraro, Paul J., and Arun Agrawal. 2021. “Synthesizing Evidence in Sustainability Science through Harmonized Experiments: Community Monitoring in Common Pool Resources.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (29). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106489118.

In this episode, Michael is joined by a new co-host of the podcast, Divya Gupta, to interview Forrest Fleischman, their friend and colleague currently working as a professor of forest resources at the University of Minnesota. Forrest talked to Michael and Divya about the two years he spent in India studying forest governance, his examination of joint forest management programs there, and his discovery that such projects seem to have often focused more on simplified metrics around tree planting and plantations than engaging with local communities. He also discussed his empirical examination of the policy known as forest landscape restoration, a supposedly transformative approach that generates win-wins for all involved. Forrest has become an important voice in this space, raising doubts about the ability of projects oriented primarily around tree plantings to solve local to global environmental issues. Forrest's website: https://forestry.umn.edu/people/forrest-fleischman References: Fleischman, F. 2014. Why do Foresters Plant Trees? Testing Theories of Bureaucratic Decision-Making in Central India. World Development 62: 62-74.   Fleischman, F. et al. 2018. Pitfalls of Tree Planting Show Why We Need People-Centered Natural Climate Solutions. BioScience 70(11): 947–950.   Veldman, J.W. et al. 2019. Comment on The global tree restoration potential. Science 366 (6463).