An Unusual Kind of Economic Development "Strategy" Between Ghana and China

For the past decade my own research has focused especially on Ghana, so I was naturally drawn to an article in today's NY Times detailing the travails of Chinese peasants who were investing in and working in illegal gold mines in Ghana. I don't claim to know anything about gold mining in Ghana, but since I do know of estimates suggesting that much of the wood exported from Ghana is harvested illegally, and so it seems reasonable to believe in the existence of illegal gold mines. What is much harder to believe from this story is that the Chinese government encouraged rural peasants to invest money in these gold mines (whose legality must have been in question in some form or another) and, even more unbelievably, that these same rural peasants from China went to Ghana to work in the mines. 

With a population rate of growth of 2 percent (a doubling time of 35 years), and a relatively young population, there is no shortage of labor in Ghana. Does a pig farmer from China make a contribution to the Ghanaian economy as a miner in a way that a cassava farmer in Ghana could not? Very unlikely. Indeed, although the story is about the plight of the Chinese peasants, the underlying story is of non-governmental foreign direct investment in Ghana, in which the workers are also Chinese and the money earned from the mining is being sent directly back to China. I don't see where Ghana benefits from this in any way that would be thought of as sustainable development.

A Dose of Demographic Reality About the US

David Brooks, columnist for the New York Times, has a generally conservative bent, so it was with a certain amount of trepidation that I started reading his column today titled "A Nation of Mutts." But, in fact, he walked his readers through the reality of modern America--a nation composed of people from a lot of different origins who, thankfully, tend to intermingle and intermarry (thus, the "mutts"--this is a good thing, not a pejorative term).

If you grew up between 1950 and 1985, you grew up at a time when only about 5 percent or 6 percent of American residents were foreign born. Today, roughly 13 percent of American residents are foreign born, and we’re possibly heading to 15 percent.

Of course, he neglects to mention that if you grew up between 1900 and 1930, you grew up when about 14 percent of American residents were foreign-born. We are going back to our roots, in that sense.

Moreover, up until now, America was primarily an outpost of European civilization. Between 1830 and 1880, 80 percent of the immigrants came from Northern and Western Europe. Over the following decades, the bulk came from Southern and Central Europe. In 1960, 75 percent of the foreign-born population came from Europe, with European ideas and European heritage.

Soon, we will no longer be an outpost of Europe, but a nation of mutts, a nation with hundreds of fluid ethnicities from around the world, intermarrying and intermingling. Americans of European descent are already a minority among 5-year-olds. European-Americans will be a minority over all in 30 years at the latest, and probably sooner.

This, of course, is true, and it came about after President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation ending decades of a deliberately racist exclusionary immigration policy.

On the whole, this future is exciting. The challenge will be to create a global civilization that is, at the same time, distinctly American. Immigration reform or not, the nation of mutts is coming.

In most respects, we started out that way. Early Europeans did not see themselves as a homogenous group. English, Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles--you name it--all eventually came together to create the earlier version of the mutt-society.

Senate Passes Immigration Bill--Will It Ever See the Light of Day in the House?

The big demographic news today was the passage by the US Senate of a comprehensive immigration bill. It passed by a vote of 68 to 32, with bipartisan support. But it's way too early to celebrate because, as the New York Times reports:

The strong 68-to-32 vote in the often polarized Senate tossed the issue into the House, where the Republican leadership has said that it will not take up the Senate measure and is instead focused on much narrower legislation that would not provide a path to citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country. Party leaders hope that the Senate action will put pressure on the House.

A cynic might say that Republics in the Senate knew that they could vote for it pretty readily, no matter what they thought of it, since the odds of passage in the House are so slim. As BBC News noted, House Speaker John Boehner had his own ideas about the bill:

On Thursday, Mr Boehner, the Republican House speaker, said the House would not take up the Senate bill directly.

"We're going to do our own bill... that reflects the will of our majority and the will of the American people," he said.

Mr Boehner's comments cast doubt on the chances legislation will quickly reach Mr Obama's desk, and could portend failure for immigration reform entirely, analysts say.

It seems pretty clear to me that Boehner is watching the wrong polls (again?) if he thinks that the American people oppose the bill passed by the Senate.

Abortion and the Sanctity of LIfe...or Not

People who oppose a woman's right to have an abortion typically invoke the idea of the sanctity of life, despite the fact that they often oppose an abortion even if the woman's life is in danger. I don't really get the logic of that argument, but I do get the fervor with which people supported Wendy Davis, a state senator in Texas, as she filibustered to stop the passage of a very restrictive abortion law in that state. Indeed, the bill was not passed--at least not last night, although Texas Republicans say it will come up for a vote again in the near future. In the meantime, of all the news coverage of this story, the one that really hit it on the head for me was from The Onion:

AUSTIN, TX—Following state senator Wendy Davis’ successful filibuster of sweeping abortion restrictions last night, disappointed Texans told reporters they are looking forward to tonight’s scheduled execution of convicted murderer Kimberly McCarthy to cheer them back up. “I was completely devastated after learning that abortion providers throughout the state would remain open, but thankfully, there’s nothing better to lift up our spirits than an old-fashioned execution,” said Fort Worth anti-abortion activist Caroline Hinton, who added that the impending lethal injection of McCarthy was “more than enough” to put a smile back on her face. “And as soon as I remembered that the state of Texas is preparing to take a woman’s life this evening by strapping her onto a gurney and shooting a cocktail of deadly chemicals into her arteries, I just perked right up and put those failed abortion restrictions out of my mind. And it’s our 500th execution, too, so it’s going to be a real celebration! I guess this week won’t turn out all bad after all.” At press time, Hinton reported feeling “even better” after learning that Governor Rick Perry is expected to call a special session to reintroduce the anti-abortion legislation and that political analysts say it will likely pass.

You don't really know whether to laugh or cry at this. 

Demographics of Kids' Books Don't Match the Demographics of Kids

You only have to go to the local mall on a weekend to appreciate what the census data tell us--the younger the population, the more ethnically diverse it is. But, as NPR pointed out in a story today, the ethnicity of characters in books for children has not yet caught up with American demographic trends.

When it comes to diversity, children's books are sorely lacking; instead of presenting a representative range of faces, they're overwhelmingly white. How bad is the disconnect? A report by the Cooperative Children's Book Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that only 3 percent of children's books are by or about Latinos — even though nearly a quarter of all public school children today are Latino.

Does this really matter to kids? The consensus is that it does matter, although the story does not refer to any studies done on the subject. It just seems common-sensical that children will be more engaged in stories about people who look like they do.

Vaunda Micheaux Nelson wrote Bad News For Outlaws, as well as several other books about African-Americans. She is also a librarian at the public library in Rio Rancho, N.M. She says that young people need to see themselves represented on the page so that they will continue reading.

"If they don't see that then perhaps they lose interest," Nelson says. "They don't think there's anything in books about them or for them."

Nelson adds that it is also important for white children to see characters of different races. "Not only do they learn to appreciate the differences," she explains, "but I think they learn to see the sameness, and so those other cultures are less seen as 'others.' "

The obvious point here is that there is a market for ethnically diverse books that really didn't used to exist, and we can expect authors and publishers to start responding soon to these changing demographics.