Crime and the Economic Crisis, A Global Perspective

This Al Jazeera story, shown in a 2-part video series, is a bit dated (aired on Feb. 24, 2009). However, it is useful in illustrating how the economic crisis, which started in high-income countries, disproportionately influences low-income countries in the global south, particularly in terms of crime.

As the discussants state, poverty and social instability are the primary causes of crime, including terrorism. Thus, when we have low-income countries' unemployment rates rise further, other social phenomena subsequently rise that have direct impacts on rich countries. Such phenomena include mass migration (both legal and illegal), crime (e.g., pirating, information technology hacking, robberies, burglaries), terrorism, etc.

In short, different levels and types of crime are symptoms of larger societal problems, namely huge economic disparities. We hear about this all the time in the criminology literature on local and national scales, but rarely is this basic theoretical stance applied globally despite the fact that it is widely accepted we live in an internationally inter-dependent economy.

Some other interesting points the discussants mention:

• Immediately following the economic crisis, the U.S. government saved the banks. Virtually nothing in comparison has been done to assist family and community concerns in the global south.
• Poorer countries will be further hurt by decreased remittences, export products going down in volume and price, and a decrease in investment capital.
• Investments should shift to building infrastructure in sustainable energy since the global south is being doubly hit by the economic crisis and climate change.
• Investments are also necessary in occupational training for the poor (i.e., capacity building).
• There needs to be a cultural shift away from over-consumption.

The videos are a good teaching tool to play devil's advocate when students say we need to focus on domestic problems before assisting the rest of the world since the rest of the world's problems (often created by rich countries) influence rich countries. Videos, below:

The Nuclear Family Reconsidered, A Little Too Late?

NPR’s Michel Martin hosted an interesting story today titled “Enjoying an ‘Empty Nest’? Not So Fast,” that overviewed the growing number of young adults who are moving back in with their parents due to the recession, and the negative stigma that family model carries throughout most parts of the United States.

Not that the recession is insignificant in Hawaii. In fact, it’s been quite harmful. Still, I’ve always thought that some families in Hawaii might have an easier time coping with the recession since it’s far more socially acceptable for extended families to live together here, thereby allowing groups to share expenses and other possible burdens.

Of course during the 19th and 20th centuries, it wasn’t so simple. Capitalists and missionaries worked in tandem (sometimes unknowingly) to divide the extended family, forcing indigenous parents and their immediate children to live in solitude on privatized property, segregated from grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins, and so on. Laws were even established and enforced that made it impossible for women to leave, let alone divorce, abusive husbands (Merry, 1999).

These forced changes in family dynamics and other colonial impositions notwithstanding, the preponderance of diverse Pacific Islander and Asian settler groups, along with the indigenous population, have kept the idea of an extended family living under one roof alive.

Said one of Martin’s guests, describing the present context in most of the continental U.S. that is causing the nuclear family to "break down" (not her words):

…for a lot of young people, they’re burdened with college debt. The cost of getting your first home is very high, so we’ve actually seen since the 1970s there’s actually been a 50% increase in the number of people…from 18 to their early 30s living with their parents, and so now we have a recession layered on top of that, where we have all these job losses. We’ve lost more than 5 million jobs since this recession began. So you put an existing trend together with the recession, and you’ve got a lot of this…. And then you layer in foreclosures, last year we had more than 3 million foreclosures…

While listening to Martin and her guests, I couldn’t help but think that the western emphasis on a nuclear family is hardly a majority perspective across the globe. Finally, Martin chimed in by saying:

You know, in much of the world this is not considered unusual. In fact our style is considered unusual. It’s considered customary for much of the world to live in intergenerational households until a child gets married off and even after a child gets married…

There's a ton more to unpack regarding Hawaii's colonial history, but sticking to this immediate issue, it kind of makes you wonder, who had it right from the start.

Merry, S.E. (1999). Colonizing Hawaii: The Cultural Power of Law. Princeton Univ Press.

The Price Others Pay for Luxury: The Case of Dubai

I’m a bit late getting to this story, posted in The Independent by Johann Hari back on April 7, titled “The dark side of Dubai.” It’s long for an internet story, but it should be long. Hari provides an incredibly comprehensive overview of the numerous problems entrenched in the Middle East’s “Sin City” – gluttony, hideous forms of contract labor (essentially slavery), unmitigated environmental irresponsibility, racism, white collar crime…the list goes on.

As developing countries shift their industrial infrastructure, Dubai can be seen as the ultimate example of social recklessness.

Sahinal Monir, a slim 24-year-old from the deltas of Bangladesh. "To get you here, they tell you Dubai is heaven. Then you get here and realise it is hell," he says. Four years ago, an employment agent arrived in Sahinal's village in Southern Bangladesh. He told the men of the village that there was a place where they could earn 40,000 takka a month (£400) just for working nine-to-five on construction projects. It was a place where they would be given great accommodation, great food, and treated well. All they had to do was pay an up-front fee of 220,000 takka (£2,300) for the work visa – a fee they'd pay off in the first six months, easy. So Sahinal sold his family land, and took out a loan from the local lender, to head to this paradise.

What follows?

As soon as he arrived at Dubai airport, his passport was taken from him by his construction company. He has not seen it since. He was told brusquely that from now on he would be working 14-hour days in the desert heat – where western tourists are advised not to stay outside for even five minutes in summer, when it hits 55 degrees – for 500 dirhams a month (£90), less than a quarter of the wage he was promised. If you don't like it, the company told him, go home. "But how can I go home? You have my passport, and I have no money for the ticket," he said. "Well, then you'd better get to work," they replied.

The work is "the worst in the world," he says. "You have to carry 50kg bricks and blocks of cement in the worst heat imaginable ... This heat – it is like nothing else. You sweat so much you can't pee, not for days or weeks. It's like all the liquid comes out through your skin and you stink. You become dizzy and sick but you aren't allowed to stop, except for an hour in the afternoon. You know if you drop anything or slip, you could die. If you take time off sick, your wages are docked, and you are trapped here even longer."

Is he angry? He is quiet for a long time. "Here, nobody shows their anger. You can't. You get put in jail for a long time, then deported." Last year, some workers went on strike after they were not given their wages for four months. The Dubai police surrounded their camps with razor-wire and water-cannons and blasted them out and back to work.

Again, although the piece focuses heavily on this type of occupational exploitation, it covers a wide variety of other important issues. I could cut and paste more sections in here, but that would not do the story justice. If you have 15 minutes or so, check it out. It is a must read.

The only concern I had with the piece was an ethical one. It quotes individuals who, although their names may have been changed, could still be identified by the government. And as noted in the article, resistance to the capitalist project is met with extreme reprisals. I don’t suppose linking this article up on my little blog will add to that risk, but it is a risk to the confidential informants.

Last year, a good friend of mine suggested I apply for a faculty position in Dubai. At the time, I knew very little of area. Yikes.

(Photo courtesy of The Independent)

With Global Economic Crisis, Will Suicide Rates Spike in '09?

Emile Durkheim couldn't have called it much better.

As told in a video story in The Independent ("Japan suicides rise with crisis"), completed and attempted suicides seem to be rising in Japan due to the global economic crisis. Actually, Japan has had elevated suicide rates relative to the rest of the world since WWII, but according to the story, in the 1990s when Japan was in economic recession, suicides rose 34%.

Seems they're rising again. Said one of the individuals profiled in the story:

In recent months, I've rescued 19 people. They were temporary workers that had lost their jobs, people so badly hit by the economic crisis that they had no other solution than to kill themselves. I've been patrolling here for five years now, and this year, I can only say the situation is serious.

Then I saw this today, also from The Independent ("1,500 farmers commit mass suicide in India").

Over 1,500 farmers in an Indian state committed suicide after being driven to debt by crop failure, it was reported today.

It appears these suicides are coming off the heals of a combination of problems stimulated by greedy money lenders, governmental development, and likely climate change.

Bharatendu Prakash, from the Organic Farming Association of India, told the Press Association: "Farmers' suicides are increasing due to a vicious circle created by money lenders. They lure farmers to take money but when the crops fail, they are left with no option other than death."

Mr Prakash added that the government ought to take up the cause of the poor farmers just as they fight for a strong economy.

"Development should be for all. The government blames us for being against development. Forest area is depleting and dams are constructed without proper planning.

All this contributes to dipping water levels. Farmers should be taken into consideration when planning policies," he said.

There sure are lots of depressing examples for those sociology 101 courses.

Capitalist System and Greed Exacerbate Global Stratification

The World Health Organization (WHO) has posted a moving speech made by their General-Director, Dr. Margaret Chan titled “The impact of global crises on health: money, weather and microbes.” The speech, given at 23rd Forum on Global Issues in Berlin, Germany focuses on the two central crises impacting our world today – the financial downturn and climate change.

More specifically, Dr. Chan’s speech bluntly illustrates that although high-income countries are ultimately at fault for both the depressed economy and climate change, they will hit developing countries the hardest. Still, unmitigated capitalism and its impact on climate change will be the demise for everyone if we do not change our means of living and values right now. From Dr. Chan's speech:

The contagion of our mistakes shows no mercy and makes no exceptions on the basis of fair play. Even countries that managed their economies well, did not purchase toxic assets, and did not take excessive financial risks will suffer the consequences. Likewise, the countries that have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions will be the first and hardest hit by climate change.

The financial crisis and climate change are not the only markers of bad policies and failed systems of governance. The gaps in health outcomes, seen within and between countries, are greater now than at any time in recent history. The difference in life expectancy between the richest and poorest countries now exceeds 40 years. Globally, annual government expenditure on health varies from as little as US$ 20 per person to well over US$ 6000.

Dr. Chan’s words on free trade, capitalist venture and their incompatibility with promoting equal health are especially compelling.

If businesses, like the pharmaceutical industry, are driven by the need to make a profit, how can we expect them to invest in R&D for diseases of the poor, who have no purchasing power?

In far too many cases, economic growth has been pursued, with single-minded purpose, as the be-all, end-all, cure-for-all. Economic growth, as many believed, would cure poverty and improve health. This did not happen.

In short, for us to somehow think capitalism run amok would promote health across the globe is ludicrous. Capitalism’s foundation is based on employers trying to get as much out of natural resources and employees as possible for the lowest costs, and then selling products at a premium. This formula is antithetical to promoting equality of any kind. And putting the global economic crisis in perspective, Dr. Chan makes the following statement: “In affluent countries, people are losing their jobs, their homes, and their savings, and this is tragic. In developing countries, people will lose their lives.”

Because our society values financial wealth as the key indicator of success, we fail to place adequate value on helping others. In the end, a globalized capitalist economy with virtually no regulation exacerbates health disparities and has even come back to haunt the power elite.

The policies governing the international systems that link us all so closely together need to look beyond financial gains, benefits for trade, and economic growth for its own sake. They need to be put to the true test.

What impact do they have on poverty, misery, ill health, and premature death? Do they contribute to greater fairness in the distribution of the benefits of socioeconomic progress? Or are they leaving this world more and more out of balance, especially in matters of health?

I would argue that equitable access to health care, and greater equity in health outcomes are fundamental to a well-functioning economy. I would further argue that equitable health outcomes should be the principal measure of how we, as a civilized society, are making progress.

This world will not become a fair place for health all by itself. Economic decisions within a country will not automatically protect the poor or guarantee universal access to basic health care.

Globalization will not self-regulate in ways that favour fair distribution of benefits. Corporations will not automatically look after social concerns as well as profits. International trade agreements will not, by themselves, guarantee food security, or job security, or health security, or access to affordable medicines.

All of these outcomes require deliberate policy decisions.

Turning to global climate change, Dr. Chan’s comments are equally poignant, though disturbingly so. As I’ve noted before, climate change will influence high- and low-income countries alike with increasing frequency and intensity in the coming years. Dr. Chan notes that major outbreaks, such as SARS will not only be more common, but will be handled with less efficiency and effectiveness if less resources are put into health systems due to the economic crisis.

Several consequences for health have been identified with a high degree of certainty. Malnutrition will increase, as will the number of deaths from diarrhoeal disease. More storms and floods will cause more deaths and injuries, and cholera outbreaks will occur with greater frequency.

Heat waves, particularly in large cities, will cause more deaths, largely among the elderly. Finally, climate change could alter the geographical distribution of disease vectors, including the insects that spread malaria and dengue.

All of these health problems are already huge, largely concentrated in the developing world, and difficult to control.

Although climate change is, by its nature, a global phenomenon, its consequences will not be evenly distributed. Scientists agree that developing countries will be the first and hardest hit.

According to the latest projections, Africa will be severely affected as early as 2020. A decade from now, crop yields in some parts of Africa are expected to drop by 50%. By 2020, water stress could affect as many as 250 million Africans.

Imagine the impact on food security and malnutrition. Imagine the impact on food aid. In many African countries, agriculture is the principal economic activity for 70% of the population. Among Africa’s poor, 90% depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. There is no surplus. There is no coping capacity. There is no cushion to absorb the shocks.

So what’s the bottom line? This statement sums it up quite nicely.

Up to now, the polar bear has been the poster child for climate change. We need to use every politically correct and scientifically sound trick in the book to convince the world that humanity really is the most important species endangered by climate change.

(Photo courtesy of the World Health Organization)

Sac Town, Growing Homelessness, and Potential Intimate Partner Violence

I remember reading John Steinbeck’s novel, The Grapes of Wrath, way back in high school. I hadn’t thought of it in years, but with the economic crisis incessantly hovering in my mind and impacting people’s lives, well, one gets to thinking. Then I saw this story on the rising tent cities spurting up in Sacramento, California. From Richard Gonzales’s story over on NPR:

The tent city, spread over an area the size of several football fields, has local officials scrambling over how to handle the area's homeless crisis.

More than a year ago, a handful of homeless people staked out the site on the northern edge of downtown Sacramento. Now there are more than 100 tents and anywhere between 300 to 400 people living without running water or sanitation. Their only protection from the elements is nylon tents and plastic tarps.

The piece goes on to tell the story of a laid off welder from Colorado who moved west looking for work.

Months went by without work. Cutch lost his house, his car was stolen, his savings ran out. This past August, he took up a friend's invitation to come to California, but that didn't work out, either.

Growing unemployment, moving west, looking for work that isn’t there – sound familiar to the 1930s?

So while Sacramento gears up for a St. Patrick’s Day Parade, the musical lyrics of rap star Lil’ Wayne, and the colliding gloves of mixed martial arts hometown star Nick Diaz, a significant homeless population of “anywhere between 300 to 400 people (is) living without running water or sanitation. Their only protection from the elements is nylon tents and plastic tarps.”

During a time when people are supposedly cutting back on luxury items and entertainment, all I can say is I hope these events will offer a SIGNFICANT portion of their revenue to addressing this and other local social problems.

On a broader level, as tent cities mushroom nation-wide, systems and services will need to be established that cater to the homeless’ social needs. Granted, state monies are scant. However, if accessible shelters for victims are not made available, unseen and under-reported victimization, in particular to women, will rise as fast as the tent cities.

Those who think excessive levels of intimate partner violence are limited to developing countries and only stand as exceptions in the U.S. (Rihanna-Chris Brown) need only look at Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath for a reality check. The fact is, rapid displacement, poverty, isolation and a lack of services skyrocket women’s victimization, even within our borders.

From the Clarion Ledger (thanks to Poverty in America for the heads up), noting a study conducted from 2006-07:

Women living in emergency trailer parks in Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina were three times more likely to become victims of domestic or sexual violence than they were prior to the storm, according to a new study published by the American Medical Association.

Dr. Lynn Lawry, the lead author of the report published Monday in the journal Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, said the level of violence found in the survey is comparable to similar studies performed in camps for displaced people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and other war-torn countries.

Let’s read that again: “…the level of violence found in the survey is comparable to similar studies performed in camps for displaced people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and other war-torn countries.” Prevention needs to start, right now.

***************
Update from Sacramento's ABC affiliate (thanks Ta'aca for the heads up)...

Looks like tensions are emerging as the city and homeless residents attempt to tease out what is best for this situation. From the television news story:

"I don't like having a third world country inside the city," said Mayor Kevin Johnson.

Johnson wants to close the homeless camp and possibly open a city-sanctioned homeless safe zone with running water and toilets.

"We can't ignore our homeless. We have a moral obligation to help," said Johnson.

But tent city residents don't want to move. One resident resorted to violence and attacked a News10 cameraman covering the story on Wednesday. No one was hurt.

"Where are we supposed to go?" said tent city resident Luis.

(Photo courtesy of NPR).

Economic Insecurity, Male Mental Health, and Violence

One can almost feel Emile Durkheim’s supernatural presence in this story on Reuters.com, “Economic gloom hits men harder than women: study.” Actually I’ve seen conflicting reports on whether the current economic crisis is generating greater job losses among men or women. One NPR story indicates that in the U.S. “Eight out of 10 layoffs in the past year have affected men…”

This story, on the other hand, states that over in the United Kingdom, more women than men have recently lost their jobs. Okay, that’s not really the point, but I would like to know the accurate trends. I can’t imagine they would differ so much based on these locales. Moving on.

As the authors of the Reuters story indicate, men’s attachment to work defines their identities much more so than women. Hence, the sociological fallout of an increasingly shaky economy can be seen in men’s mental health, or lack thereof.

As the economic slowdown wears on, the effects of job insecurity will take a greater toll on men's health than that of their female counterparts, the study found.

"In part there is a macho issue about men being the breadwinner," said Dr Brendan Burchell from the University of Cambridge's sociology department, who compiled the study.

"Men, unlike women, have few positive ways of defining themselves outside of the workplace between when they leave school and when they retire."

Ah, the rigid boundaries of hegemonic masculinity. The “perfect” male = rich, employed, educated, big, strong, desired, computer savvy, white ... you get the picture. And when one of the key components of this hegemonic masculine ideal fades away or appears likely to fade away, it’s time to panic. For those men who place heavy personal emphasis on occupational success/failure, looming unemployment can really fiddle with their sensibilities.

And it’s not just about having or not having a job at present time. It’s also about the ongoing uncertainty of losing a job. The anxious mental state that tends to accompany occupational ambiguity, even in times of employment, have significantly different effects on men and women.

The study cited a Populus poll released earlier this year which showed that women, more than men, say they are worried about the possibility of losing their jobs.

But the Cambridge study found that while men may put on a braver face, job insecurity causes more symptoms of anxiety and depression in men than in women.
Analyzing data from 300 current British employees, combined with a survey of thousands of people by the Economic and Social Research Council charting the effects of social and economic change since 1991, it found that when unemployed men move into insecure jobs, they showed no improvement in psychological health.

For unemployed women, even finding an insecure job helped to restore psychological health.

Very interesting commentary regarding the public nature of men not wanting to show they were worried, and therefore putting on the “braver face.” Gender is largely performed. But when it comes down to it, occupational instability still had more deleterious effects on men’s mental health than women’s.

Additional commentary needs to address how too many men, after becoming unemployed, feel the need to reassert their sense of masculinity through violence. Furthermore, as this Orlando Sentinel story explains, during economic slumps, it is substantially more difficult for women to exit violent relationships.

First, escalating unemployment and foreclosure rates add an extra strain on relationships that already may be volatile. One of the leading risk factors for violence, according to national research, is whether the batterer is jobless.

Second, once victims do make the decision to leave their abuser, they often can't find a job so they can move out of the shelter and start a new life.

And, third, donations for domestic-violence programs are down, leaving shelters with fewer resources to help their rising caseloads.

Of course in low-income, developing countries, the multiple layers of gender stratification are that much more severe, and unfortunately, we can expect to see intimate partner violence escalate even more so in those areas if preventative actions are not soon implemented.

Gluttonous Sports Teams Now "Hurting" for Cash

So now the Cowboys, Yankees, and Mets are hurting for spectators to roll in and dish up exorbitant amounts of money to watch games. And I use the word "games" deliberately. Hey, I'm as big a sports fan as many, but let's remember, they're just games. Well, games that are apparently worth more than most people's monthly mortgages. From the Wall St. Journal describing the lavish new Yankees Stadium (kudos to ESPN Sports Radio host, Colin Cowherd):

Luxury suite-holders can access a separate deal-room for conducting business. In the sleek, exclusive "Legends Club," the high-definition screens are so ubiquitous they're even set into the lavatory mirrors. For spectators in the premium section's teak-armed seats, waiters will bring brick-oven pizza to anyone able to shell out $2,500 a ticket to watch a ballgame in the midst of the worst recession in a generation.

The story mentions that the Yankees' stadium cost $1.5 billion to build. And they're not the only sports team "hurting" for business because they spent big a few years back. The Dallas Cowboys' new stadium set them back $1.1 billion, and the New York Mets also built a new stadium that exceeded the $1 billion mark.

How does the Cowboys' stadium compare for those who live the lifestyles of the rich and famous?

Top-level ticket holders can actually park inside the stadium building, then relax in the more than 200,000 square feet of clubs and lounges.

And why spend so liberally on such excessive perks?

When the Yankees broke ground on the new Yankee Stadium in August 2006, home prices were still rising, stocks were still climbing and Lehman Brothers was still a pillar of the Wall Street establishment. Back then, selling 4,300 premium seats to 81 home games a season seemed like a reasonable objective.

Look, I don't care if business was booming in 2006. Luxury tickets at $2,500 a pop are never warranted, for anyone. Can someone please say social stratification … and social indifference?

In an ironic turn of events, the Mets' stadium has been named "Citi Field," after you guessed it, Citigroup (dare I say a now deviant association).

Citigroup, which has received billions of dollars of federal aid, has been forced to defend its $400 million marketing deal with the Mets that includes the right to name the park Citi Field. The Mets have endured weeks of jokes about renaming their field "Taxpayer Stadium" or "Bailout Park," but the deal with Citigroup looks safe for now. A Citigroup spokesman says no taxpayer money will be used for the marketing deal.

One Yankees fan summed up the team's economic gluttony best, saying, "Literally, my words were, 'Are you f- kidding me?'"

Ditto that.

(Photo courtesy of The Wall St. Journal)

Shouldn't We All Be So Lucky?

So when a company gets so powerful that it can literally leverage the U.S. government into bailing it out, don't we have problems? From Reuters.com:

American International Group Inc had warned of turmoil around the globe if the government allowed the insurer to fail when it appealed to U.S. regulators for its latest rescue...

AIG needed immediate help from the Federal Reserve and Treasury to prevent a "catastrophic" collapse that would be worse for markets than the demise of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, according to the 21-page draft AIG presentation circulated among federal and state regulators, the agency reported...

AIG warned its failure could cripple money-market funds, force European banks to raise capital, cause competing life insurers to fail and wipe out the taxpayers' stake in the firm, the agency said.

I'm no economist, but couldn't demographers and financial wizards who track the country's fiscal health see this coming? Prevention, as opposed to intervention, anyone?

And while the global implications of not bailing AIG out may have been catastrophic, it's not as if our country dishing out more money to save companies does not have deleterious ramifications in its own right.

Borrowing so much money from China puts us in quite the subservient position. Our national debt as a whole, and specifically that to China, has mushroomed to such an extent that we don't have the power to call them on their own human rights violations.

Ugh, I've written enough on this already. It's too early on a Monday morning to gripe about this anymore right now.