Until last Tuesday I have never even heard of fourth world countries-which apparently are nations unrecognized as states and are recognized as being both marginalized and impoverished-according to wikipedia which further defines fourth world nations by "the non-recognition or exclusion of often ethnically or religiously defined groups from the political and economic world system. Examples of Fourth World nations include the Roma worldwide, pre-WWI Ashkenazi in the region of the Pale of Settlement, Palestinians and Kurds in the Middle East, many Native American/First Nations groups throughout the Americas and many indigenous Africans and Asians."
Here is an article from http://www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/826 which I'll also include here as well.
The Fourth World: Invisible countries
The world has more than 200 countries. But, as John Moynihan points out in this guest opinion, not all of them are recognized: Half a dozen or so are left out in the cold. They are the fourth world. The invisible countries.By John Moynihan, 11/May/2007
A hundred years ago, Poland - one of the largest countries in Europe - did not exist. At the time, Poland had not existed for more than a century. Its borders had been removed from the maps in 1795, when it was partitioned among Russia, Austria, and Prussia. Poland only reappeared in 1918, thanks to postwar agreements between the Great Powers. And yet, to the Poles, Poland had always been entirely real.
Today, the United Nations has 192 countries as full-fledged member states. Among them are countries that have lasted for centuries, and there are countries recognized as recently as two years ago. And one, Montenegro, isn't even a year old.
Poland, which didn't exist a hundred years ago, is actually a veteran among UN members. The vast majority are even younger than Poland: More than two-thirds of all countries in the United Nations are less than fifty years old.
What's not on the list are the states that are waiting to be born. Scots, Palestinians, Transnistrians, Abkhazians, and many more, are all patiently (and not so patiently, sometimes) anticipating the day when their nations will become fully recognized states. Some of them, like Transnistria, already have their countries - officially called the Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica, or PMR for short, Transnistria was founded in 1990 and has governed itself independently ever since. Transnistria has the general qualifications required for statehood (a permanent population, defined territory, government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states). For political reasons, the rest of the world prefers to think of it - incorrectly, at least for the past 17 years - as a part of Moldova.
Others, like the Palestinians or the Kosovars, are not so far ahead on the road to statehood. But what they all have in common is a burning desire for independence. They are peoples with common cultures, or histories, or languages, who seek to rule themselves entirely, to govern and legislate and tax and trade independently, to define their own borders and exercise power over who may cross those lines. This is the Fourth World: the stateless and the unrecognized.
The final arbiter of these notions, of course, is power. There is little complexity, in the end, to the question of how a state is made: the powerful's interests trump the powerless's sovereignty. There are conceptual arguments about what a state really is, but for most of the stateless, the proof is in the lines on the ground. In Georgia, along the Black Sea, the ancient Abkhaz nation currently fighting for independence dates the original sketching of its own lines to tribes back almost as far as the sixth century BC.
“Amazing Abkhazia!” as the Russian writer Isaac Babel called it, and later, “the fertile and enchanted garden,” was sovereign by the eighth century and saw its independence live, die, and be reborn over and over until the 20th century, when it became subject to Soviet Georgia. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, Abkhazia declared its independence again. “But will Georgia give up Abkhazia?” asked the Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski at the time. “There are four million Georgians and only 100,000 Abkhazians. It is easy to predict the chances.”
Neither Georgia nor the United Nations has agreed to recognize the Abkhazian notion as a thing. War between the Abkhazians and the Georgians began in 1992 and lasted through 1993, with sporadic violence following; in August 2004, the Georgian coast guard fired on a vessel heading for Abkhazia, and hardline President Mikhail Saakashvili - a militant hawk, and a darling of Washington - announced that Georgia would sink all unauthorized ships headed for the breakaway nation's shores. Abkhazia, unsurprisingly, broke off peace talks that were being overseen by the UN.
Georgian historians deny Abkhazia's history; Abkhazians counter by pointing out the historical Soviet and Georgian efforts to erase it from the earth. Indeed, Abkhazians possess a history, a culture, an ethnicity, and a language (one with 68 consonants, many of which can communicate whole concepts, and sounds including a trill and a buzz); they also have a land that they know belongs to them. Fifteen years ago, Abkhazia established its own government, with the force of more than a thousand years of history behind it. But who will recognize it? And does it even matter if no one ever does? Fact is, the actual physical existence of a nation requires little besides the nation's belief in its own existence.
There is little agreement on how to treat the invisible. So it is hardly any wonder, then, that the invisible feel that to be seen, they must make a noise.
So apparently not only are these nations extremely poor and practically indigenous and ancient-they are also invisible and unrecognized as states.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Gentrification
Gentrification means "creative destruction" and is an economic concept. As an economic concept its purpose is to exand global markets by first blowing them up. According to dictionary.com-gentrification means "The restoration and upgrading of deteriorated urban property by middle-class or affluent people, often resulting in displacement of lower-income people." Another definition from dictionary.com is "the buying and renovation of houses and stores in deteriorated urban neighborhoods by upper- or middle-income families or individuals, thus improving property values but often displacing low-income families and small businesses."
Both Japan and Germany became power houses once again after WWII by blowing up their old factories and building brand new ones. This process both allows and opens up the pssibility for generating value again . Gentrification leads to three things. One is that the uses of the space change. This is usually associated with artists. For instance it is no longer manufactured but is cultural production. The second thing that happens is a change in perspective. In other words, people's relationship with the space changes because they see it differently-such as a once unhip area may now be seen as cool. The third thing is the nature of the space which often results in reinvestment.
Here's an interesting article I discovered through this link:http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
I'll post it here as well.
Gentrification: Not Ousting the Poor?
By Barbara Kiviat Sunday, Jun. 29, 2008
People tend to think gentrification goes like this: rich, educated white people move into a low-income minority neighborhood and drive out its original residents, who can no longer afford to live there. As it turns out, that's not typically true.
A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, examined Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S. in 1990 and 2000, and found that low-income non-white households did not disproportionately leave gentrifying areas. In fact, researchers found that at least one group of residents, high school–educated blacks, were actually more likely to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods than in similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify — even increasing as a fraction of the neighborhood population, and seeing larger-than-expected gains in income.
Those findings may seem counterintuitive, given that the term "gentrification," particularly in cities like New York and San Francisco, has become synonymous with soaring rents, wealthier neighbors and the dislocation of low-income residents. But overall, the new study suggests, the popular notion of the yuppie invasion is exaggerated. "We're not saying there aren't communities where displacement isn't happening," says Randall Walsh, an associate professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the study's authors. "But in general, across all neighborhoods in the urbanized parts of the U.S., it looks like gentrification is a pretty good thing."
The researchers found, for example, that income gains in gentrifying neighborhoods — usually defined as low-income urban areas that undergo rises in income and housing prices — were more widely dispersed than one might expect. Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more: 33% of the neighborhood's total rise. In other words, a broad demographic of people in the neighborhood benefited financially. According to the study's findings, only one group — black residents who never finished high school — saw their income grow at a slower rate than predicted. But the study also suggests that these residents weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify.
This study isn't the first to come to that conclusion. A 2005 paper published in Urban Affairs Review by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, looked at a nationwide sample of neighborhoods between 1986 and 1989 and found that low-income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods. The real force behind the changing face of a gentrifying community, Freeman concluded, isn't displacement but succession. When people move away as part of normal neighborhood turnover, the people who move in are generally more affluent. Community advocates may argue that succession is just another form of exclusion — if low-income people can't afford to move in — but, still, it doesn't exactly fit the popular perception of individuals being forced from their homes.
The new study found that while gentrification did not necessarily push out original residents, it did create neighborhoods that middle-class minorities moved to. The addition of white college graduates, especially those under 40 without children, was a hallmark of gentrifying neighborhoods — that much fit the conventional wisdom — but so was the influx of college-educated blacks and Hispanics, who moved to gentrifying neighborhoods more often than they to did similar, more static areas. Two other groups tended to move more often into upwardly mobile neighborhoods as well: 40-to-60-year-old Hispanics without a high-school degree, and similarly uneducated Hispanics aged 20 to 40 with children — a counterpoint to the common conception of gentrification, if there ever was one. The only group that was less likely to move to a gentrifying area was high school–educated whites aged 20 to 40 with kids.
The study is under review for publication, but is being circulated early by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The findings, while unexpected, are notable for the depth of data on which they're based. Walsh and his colleagues, Terra McKinnish, an associate professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kirk White, an economist at Duke University's Triangle Census Research Data Center, compared confidential Census figures from 1990 and 2000 from 15,040 neighborhoods, with an average of about 4,000 residents each, in 64 metropolitan areas, such as Phoenix, Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Columbus, New York, Atlanta and San Diego. The researchers identified gentrifying neighborhoods as those in which the average family earned less than $30,079 in 1990 — the poorest one-fifth of the country — and at least $10,000 more 10 years later. Taken all together, the study paints a more nuanced picture of gentrification than exists in the popular imagination. But the authors acknowledge that it leaves plenty of unanswered questions, such as why certain demographic groups are more likely to stay in — or move to — gentrifying neighborhoods, and why certain groups, such as blacks without high school degrees, don't see the same income gains as others.
Then there is that most fundamental of questions: does gentrification lead to greater wealth for people in a neighborhood, or are the people who choose to live in such a place otherwise predisposed to make more money? "This study shows us a lot more about gentrification," says Walsh, "but there's still a lot we don't know."
Both Japan and Germany became power houses once again after WWII by blowing up their old factories and building brand new ones. This process both allows and opens up the pssibility for generating value again . Gentrification leads to three things. One is that the uses of the space change. This is usually associated with artists. For instance it is no longer manufactured but is cultural production. The second thing that happens is a change in perspective. In other words, people's relationship with the space changes because they see it differently-such as a once unhip area may now be seen as cool. The third thing is the nature of the space which often results in reinvestment.
Here's an interesting article I discovered through this link:http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1818255,00.html
I'll post it here as well.
Gentrification: Not Ousting the Poor?
By Barbara Kiviat Sunday, Jun. 29, 2008
People tend to think gentrification goes like this: rich, educated white people move into a low-income minority neighborhood and drive out its original residents, who can no longer afford to live there. As it turns out, that's not typically true.
A new study by researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Pittsburgh and Duke University, examined Census data from more than 15,000 neighborhoods across the U.S. in 1990 and 2000, and found that low-income non-white households did not disproportionately leave gentrifying areas. In fact, researchers found that at least one group of residents, high school–educated blacks, were actually more likely to remain in gentrifying neighborhoods than in similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify — even increasing as a fraction of the neighborhood population, and seeing larger-than-expected gains in income.
Those findings may seem counterintuitive, given that the term "gentrification," particularly in cities like New York and San Francisco, has become synonymous with soaring rents, wealthier neighbors and the dislocation of low-income residents. But overall, the new study suggests, the popular notion of the yuppie invasion is exaggerated. "We're not saying there aren't communities where displacement isn't happening," says Randall Walsh, an associate professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the study's authors. "But in general, across all neighborhoods in the urbanized parts of the U.S., it looks like gentrification is a pretty good thing."
The researchers found, for example, that income gains in gentrifying neighborhoods — usually defined as low-income urban areas that undergo rises in income and housing prices — were more widely dispersed than one might expect. Though college-educated whites accounted for 20% of the total income gain in gentrifying neighborhoods, black householders with high school degrees contributed even more: 33% of the neighborhood's total rise. In other words, a broad demographic of people in the neighborhood benefited financially. According to the study's findings, only one group — black residents who never finished high school — saw their income grow at a slower rate than predicted. But the study also suggests that these residents weren't moving out of their neighborhoods at a disproportionately higher rate than from similar neighborhoods that didn't gentrify.
This study isn't the first to come to that conclusion. A 2005 paper published in Urban Affairs Review by Lance Freeman, an assistant professor of urban planning at Columbia University, looked at a nationwide sample of neighborhoods between 1986 and 1989 and found that low-income residents tended to move out of gentrifying areas at essentially the same frequency they left other neighborhoods. The real force behind the changing face of a gentrifying community, Freeman concluded, isn't displacement but succession. When people move away as part of normal neighborhood turnover, the people who move in are generally more affluent. Community advocates may argue that succession is just another form of exclusion — if low-income people can't afford to move in — but, still, it doesn't exactly fit the popular perception of individuals being forced from their homes.
The new study found that while gentrification did not necessarily push out original residents, it did create neighborhoods that middle-class minorities moved to. The addition of white college graduates, especially those under 40 without children, was a hallmark of gentrifying neighborhoods — that much fit the conventional wisdom — but so was the influx of college-educated blacks and Hispanics, who moved to gentrifying neighborhoods more often than they to did similar, more static areas. Two other groups tended to move more often into upwardly mobile neighborhoods as well: 40-to-60-year-old Hispanics without a high-school degree, and similarly uneducated Hispanics aged 20 to 40 with children — a counterpoint to the common conception of gentrification, if there ever was one. The only group that was less likely to move to a gentrifying area was high school–educated whites aged 20 to 40 with kids.
The study is under review for publication, but is being circulated early by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The findings, while unexpected, are notable for the depth of data on which they're based. Walsh and his colleagues, Terra McKinnish, an associate professor of economics at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Kirk White, an economist at Duke University's Triangle Census Research Data Center, compared confidential Census figures from 1990 and 2000 from 15,040 neighborhoods, with an average of about 4,000 residents each, in 64 metropolitan areas, such as Phoenix, Boston, Ft. Lauderdale, Columbus, New York, Atlanta and San Diego. The researchers identified gentrifying neighborhoods as those in which the average family earned less than $30,079 in 1990 — the poorest one-fifth of the country — and at least $10,000 more 10 years later. Taken all together, the study paints a more nuanced picture of gentrification than exists in the popular imagination. But the authors acknowledge that it leaves plenty of unanswered questions, such as why certain demographic groups are more likely to stay in — or move to — gentrifying neighborhoods, and why certain groups, such as blacks without high school degrees, don't see the same income gains as others.
Then there is that most fundamental of questions: does gentrification lead to greater wealth for people in a neighborhood, or are the people who choose to live in such a place otherwise predisposed to make more money? "This study shows us a lot more about gentrification," says Walsh, "but there's still a lot we don't know."
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Globalization
In general, global poverty is influenced by changes and the emergence of the global economy. Apparantly globalization was responsible for causing the erosion of soverignty-also known as the nation state. This was due to the emergence of market capitalism in which trade is more important than politics thus giving way to a weaker nation state. The nation state willingly surrendered to business and finance corporations. An example of this would be China becoming a communist country with an orthodox strain of Marxism. Hong Kong was returned to China, yet it was left autonomous rather than becoming completely ruled by China once more. In other words Hong Kong became a free zone city. A free zone city is a little island whosse business and finance is above that of the nation state. Thus business becomes self regulatory. Usually a nation state is viewed as a bad thing, and that this is not a normal way to regulate a country-as both a nation and a state that is a combination of both ethnic and political power. Apparently it seems that a country should be run either way(politically or ethnically) but not by both. This is why nation states generally lead to genicide and ethnic cleansing because a nation state is generally composed of a high number of a certain cultural group of people. This is most likely how the Holocaust in Germany started. If you weren't a "perfect example of the Aryan race" then your life was in grave danger.
Yet on the other hand, globalization weakens the nation state because it is oriented with profit making. So by choice, the nation state defers to global capital thus establishing it as an entity onto itself because it contains certain privileges and rights as well as capital privileges and rights.
Somali pirates have jumped into the global economy through piracy. The truth is that Somali pirates are not terrorists nor should be considered so negatively. It's their only choice because Somalia lacks cities for them to migrate to. They have given in to piracy as a way of making money. Here is a link that tries to clear up the negative stereotypes of piracy and cast Somali pirates in a more positive light.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html
Yet on the other hand, globalization weakens the nation state because it is oriented with profit making. So by choice, the nation state defers to global capital thus establishing it as an entity onto itself because it contains certain privileges and rights as well as capital privileges and rights.
Somali pirates have jumped into the global economy through piracy. The truth is that Somali pirates are not terrorists nor should be considered so negatively. It's their only choice because Somalia lacks cities for them to migrate to. They have given in to piracy as a way of making money. Here is a link that tries to clear up the negative stereotypes of piracy and cast Somali pirates in a more positive light.http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Slums-exactly as it sounds.
The growth of slums is caused by many moving to the periphery of cities. Sadly the promise of urbanization only results in producing massive concentrations of poverty rather than urbanization itself. Slums are a poor standard of living. There is insecure tenure, pollution, inadequate infrastructure , overcrowding, (Far too many people in a small space) and poor housing. Poor housing results in shanty towns. The building structures are impromptu and made out of whatever is available. 78% of the world's population lives in these conditions- and it continues to increase in the future. Slums are generally located on land of little or no value whatsoever.
Here's a link on more information on how slums are the future.http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/third-world-slums-biz-cx_21cities_ee_0611slums.html
Here's a link on more information on how slums are the future.http://www.forbes.com/2007/06/11/third-world-slums-biz-cx_21cities_ee_0611slums.html
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Ghettos-not necessarily a bad thing
Usually when I first think of ghettos I think of either the Jews under Nazi Germany confinement or poor black people-you know from the hood-the rough part of town. Yet ghettos weren't always necessarily a bad thing. Yes, ghettos were originally self imposed during the Middle Ages when they were first created and the purpose was for certain people to be segregated according to their status and economic status as well as their religious status. Jews lived in ghettos because the old stereotype is that Jews are connected to money. Actually most Jews did have jobs that involved money such as bankers and merchants and the majority population relied upon them because according to religion, Christions were not allowed to handle money while in Judaism, there are no such prohibitions regarding money.
Yet despite being associated with one particular group and poverty, ghettos weren't originally negative. For one thing, they helped preserve certain cultures, they also provided security-in the case of Jews it was from pograms. Also ghettos provided a sense of commonality as well as an economic status locality. Ghettos usually occured through immigration. So ghettos weren't always associated with poverty or crime-that's usually what they represent today though.
here is a link to a website that explains more about ghettos during the Holocaust-yet also explains that the concept is much older than that of WWII and the Nazis. In other words, Jews have been forced to live in ghettos long before Nazis came into the picture.http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/
Yet despite being associated with one particular group and poverty, ghettos weren't originally negative. For one thing, they helped preserve certain cultures, they also provided security-in the case of Jews it was from pograms. Also ghettos provided a sense of commonality as well as an economic status locality. Ghettos usually occured through immigration. So ghettos weren't always associated with poverty or crime-that's usually what they represent today though.
here is a link to a website that explains more about ghettos during the Holocaust-yet also explains that the concept is much older than that of WWII and the Nazis. In other words, Jews have been forced to live in ghettos long before Nazis came into the picture.http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/ghettos/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)