In chapter 4 of Poor Economics, Banerjee and Duflo bring up the problem of increasing absentee numbers in schools among poverty stricken areas in the developing countries. There are two sides of the problem though, the demand side (where parents decide whether their children will attend school) and the supply side (the role governments play to provide a promising and efficient educational system). In terms of the demand side of attending school, the parents of children have the final say whether their children will attend, most parents don't see value in education and they would rather have their children at home working for them bringing in income. On the other side of the spectrum, the supply side is controlled by the governments of these respective countries, these educational systems rely on many different factors such as providing teachers that actually "want" to teach, resources (books and informational technology). Although, Banerjee and Duflo have seen improvements in attendance through certain practices involving the supply and demand sides of the educational systems, there is still a lot more that governments and families can do to make sure all children are receiving a proper education.
I googled "poverty and education" and came a across an article in the New York Times titled "Class Matters. Why Don't We Admit It?" There were many similarities between this article and the chapter we read in Poor Economics. Basically, the article brings up that children in the United States from lower level income families do substantially worse in school compared to their high level income counterparts. Also, policy makers are trying to fix this by implementing George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind, which strives to make schools more efficient by analyzing the performance of teachers through test scores their students receive.
Although there are many similarities between the article and the chapter, Banerjee and Duflo analyze many more different aspects of poverty stricken educational systems. They believe that parents have a big decision of whether or not their children go to school, while the article does not take into effect the component of attendance and parental supervision. A similarity was the government intervention that is occurring in both developing countries and the United States to make education systems more efficient. At least the leaders of this country sense there is a problem here... Something I found interesting that the article brought forth was the nutrition and health of students and how it may affect their performance in the classroom.
Overall, the message that is being presented is that children who's families are of the lower class or in poverty are either not performing well in school or they are not attending school, and there are many reasons for why this is true. Do you think that attendance in the United States among children who in live in poverty is as low as the attendance of children in developing countries?
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Drub Dealers Living With Their Moms
In chapter 3, Levitt and Dubner delve into the surprising economical features of a particular Chicago crack selling gang. It was Sudhir Venkatesh's bravery and commitment to his field of study that made it possible to analyze the shocking methods of this particular Chicago based gang. What made this analyzation possible for Levitt and Venkatesh was a notebook of the accounting records that the Black Disciples kept. Levitt and Dubner argue that there is a common misconception that all drug dealers make a ton of money when in reality this is not the case.
A graduate student at Chicago University, Sudhir Venkatesh decides to do some research on poor black people but as he experiences his first interaction with these gangsters rolling dice in a stairwell, he realizes there is a hidden world among gangs. Venkatesh enters a hidden world that no one would have ever thought existed when it came to business practices that these crack dealers follow. Venkatesh receives a special notebook from a gangster who is living his last days and as Venkatesh begins to analyze the notebook he realizes that a lot of economics is involved with crack dealing.
The notebook reveals the profits generated by the selling of crack as well as each ranks salary. What they came across that was surprising is that the lowest ranks make such little money and the highest ranks make a killing. The business of crack dealing has high reward if you're willing to risk your life but when you start out making the equivalent of $3.30 per hour is it really worth it?
The first statistic is introduced on page 96 stating, "J.T. paid the board of directors nearly 20 percent of his revenues for the right to sell crack in a designated twelve-square-block area." The next statistic appears on the next page, 97 and it explains how J.T.'s gang's revenue nearly quadrupled from the first year to the last year. The third statistic elaborates on the salaries among gang ranks, the lowest rank, foot soldiers, earned a pathetic $3.30 an hour. The last statistic I believe to be important describes the risk involved with being a foot soldier and explains how they have a 1 in 4 chance of being killed. I believe all of these chosen statistics are important to this chapter and the order of which they are introduced is exactly how I would present the statistics as well. It makes perfect sense.
If you start out with the first statistic, it basically tells how much revenue these board of directors (who aren't risking their lives) are receiving from every gang leader, nearly 20 percent! This statistic then leads in to how quick the crack industry can grow and how the profits can amount so quickly. Since the revenues quadrupled it means that the board of directors were making four times the amount of which they were making at the beginning. Then we notice how poor the salary of a foot soldier is, a measly $3.30 an hour which does not do pay for the risk that these foot soldiers are vulnerable to every day. These statistics expose the undesirable characteristics of becoming a crack dealer. There is such a small chance that you may end up being a "board of director" when in reality you are more likely to be killed before you ever even sniff at the opportunity of becoming a "board director."
Levitt and Dubner reveal the economics that are involved with crack dealing. It extremely surprising that these uneducated gangsters could follow a business model and generate such a profitable business. Levitt and Dubner expose the common misconceptions and back their opinions with legitimate facts. Why do you think so many young kids choose to be in gangs? Why don't they seek a job elsewhere? Or do you think that peer pressure is a common factor among these kids' decisions?
A graduate student at Chicago University, Sudhir Venkatesh decides to do some research on poor black people but as he experiences his first interaction with these gangsters rolling dice in a stairwell, he realizes there is a hidden world among gangs. Venkatesh enters a hidden world that no one would have ever thought existed when it came to business practices that these crack dealers follow. Venkatesh receives a special notebook from a gangster who is living his last days and as Venkatesh begins to analyze the notebook he realizes that a lot of economics is involved with crack dealing.
The notebook reveals the profits generated by the selling of crack as well as each ranks salary. What they came across that was surprising is that the lowest ranks make such little money and the highest ranks make a killing. The business of crack dealing has high reward if you're willing to risk your life but when you start out making the equivalent of $3.30 per hour is it really worth it?
The first statistic is introduced on page 96 stating, "J.T. paid the board of directors nearly 20 percent of his revenues for the right to sell crack in a designated twelve-square-block area." The next statistic appears on the next page, 97 and it explains how J.T.'s gang's revenue nearly quadrupled from the first year to the last year. The third statistic elaborates on the salaries among gang ranks, the lowest rank, foot soldiers, earned a pathetic $3.30 an hour. The last statistic I believe to be important describes the risk involved with being a foot soldier and explains how they have a 1 in 4 chance of being killed. I believe all of these chosen statistics are important to this chapter and the order of which they are introduced is exactly how I would present the statistics as well. It makes perfect sense.
If you start out with the first statistic, it basically tells how much revenue these board of directors (who aren't risking their lives) are receiving from every gang leader, nearly 20 percent! This statistic then leads in to how quick the crack industry can grow and how the profits can amount so quickly. Since the revenues quadrupled it means that the board of directors were making four times the amount of which they were making at the beginning. Then we notice how poor the salary of a foot soldier is, a measly $3.30 an hour which does not do pay for the risk that these foot soldiers are vulnerable to every day. These statistics expose the undesirable characteristics of becoming a crack dealer. There is such a small chance that you may end up being a "board of director" when in reality you are more likely to be killed before you ever even sniff at the opportunity of becoming a "board director."
Levitt and Dubner reveal the economics that are involved with crack dealing. It extremely surprising that these uneducated gangsters could follow a business model and generate such a profitable business. Levitt and Dubner expose the common misconceptions and back their opinions with legitimate facts. Why do you think so many young kids choose to be in gangs? Why don't they seek a job elsewhere? Or do you think that peer pressure is a common factor among these kids' decisions?
Friday, February 3, 2012
Low-Hanging Fruit for Better (Global) Health?
Currently, there are astonishing statistics related to deaths caused by malaria and diarrhea in developing countries, especially the 9 million deaths of children ages 5 and under per year. It is surprising that these numbers are so high when there are many inexpensive alternatives to reduce the chances of contracting an illness or even totally prevent these illnesses. Banerjee and Duflo question why people in these developing countries are not choosing to utilize these inexpensive ways to protect themselves and their families from illness. Instead, people are contracting these illnesses and then must seek an expensive route to either cure the ailment or temporarily stop the symptoms. Banerjee and Duflo suggest that if these alternative ways of preventing disease were utilized it would increase the income of many because they would not spend nearly as much time being sick and not being able to work.
Chapter three introduces startling statistics of how many people could make wiser and more economical decisions to prevent contracting deadly illnesses. Banerjee and Duflo explain that not nearly enough people in developing countries are taking the right steps to stay healthy and keep their families healthy. If these people were eager to stay health, they would choose the inexpensive alternatives which include: ORS packs, bed nets, chlorine for purifying water, immunizations, better sanitation and the addition of plumbing. But why are people not choosing these methods?
Instead people are choosing to visit unqualified private doctors to help them with their illness. Its surprising these people are not utilizing the free services their governments provide to keep them healthy. Banerjee and Duflo suggest that their is a level of mistrust towards government provided clinics because of their unreliable hours of operation and the minimal care they provide. But the minimal care that these clinics provide is enough to help cure these illnesses, the population just feels that since these services are so inexpensive they think that they must not be able to do the trick. If these people would trust the sometimes subsidized and inexpensive methods they would not need to shell out the expensive funds to a private "doctor."They need to utilize the resources that are so readily available to them this would not only keep them healthier but also increase their income.
A statistic that surprised me the most involved the use of bed nets to reduce the prevalence of malaria in Kenya. The statistic provides information stating that if a child slept under a bed net then they would have a 30 percent less risk of being infected by malaria between birth and the age of two. The introduction of this particular statistic provides evidence suggesting that using bed nets could potentially produce high returns. The minimal use of bed nets and the statistic provided implies that if these simple things were utilized it would greatly improve the lives of many. I believe this statistic is very realistic, if it said something like, "a bed net would provide a child a 90 percent less risk" then I would says its very unrealistic. The only thing I question is if so few people are utilizing these bed nets then how do we know this statistic is accurate, wouldn't we need a bigger sample size?
Overall, the people struggling in these developing countries need to be better educated about illness prevention. It would improve not only their health but their quality of life. I truly believe that some people do not trust these inexpensive methods and more times than not overlook them. I also think these people would rather take the easy way out and visit a "doctor" rather than having to assemble a bed net or adding chlorine to the water they drink everyday. Adding this effort of taking the initiative adds more work to their already poor quality life so I think they choose to visit the doctor so they can have someone else provide them with what they need. These simple resources need to be utilized because if they continue we will see even more startling statistics.
Chapter three introduces startling statistics of how many people could make wiser and more economical decisions to prevent contracting deadly illnesses. Banerjee and Duflo explain that not nearly enough people in developing countries are taking the right steps to stay healthy and keep their families healthy. If these people were eager to stay health, they would choose the inexpensive alternatives which include: ORS packs, bed nets, chlorine for purifying water, immunizations, better sanitation and the addition of plumbing. But why are people not choosing these methods?
Instead people are choosing to visit unqualified private doctors to help them with their illness. Its surprising these people are not utilizing the free services their governments provide to keep them healthy. Banerjee and Duflo suggest that their is a level of mistrust towards government provided clinics because of their unreliable hours of operation and the minimal care they provide. But the minimal care that these clinics provide is enough to help cure these illnesses, the population just feels that since these services are so inexpensive they think that they must not be able to do the trick. If these people would trust the sometimes subsidized and inexpensive methods they would not need to shell out the expensive funds to a private "doctor."They need to utilize the resources that are so readily available to them this would not only keep them healthier but also increase their income.
A statistic that surprised me the most involved the use of bed nets to reduce the prevalence of malaria in Kenya. The statistic provides information stating that if a child slept under a bed net then they would have a 30 percent less risk of being infected by malaria between birth and the age of two. The introduction of this particular statistic provides evidence suggesting that using bed nets could potentially produce high returns. The minimal use of bed nets and the statistic provided implies that if these simple things were utilized it would greatly improve the lives of many. I believe this statistic is very realistic, if it said something like, "a bed net would provide a child a 90 percent less risk" then I would says its very unrealistic. The only thing I question is if so few people are utilizing these bed nets then how do we know this statistic is accurate, wouldn't we need a bigger sample size?
Overall, the people struggling in these developing countries need to be better educated about illness prevention. It would improve not only their health but their quality of life. I truly believe that some people do not trust these inexpensive methods and more times than not overlook them. I also think these people would rather take the easy way out and visit a "doctor" rather than having to assemble a bed net or adding chlorine to the water they drink everyday. Adding this effort of taking the initiative adds more work to their already poor quality life so I think they choose to visit the doctor so they can have someone else provide them with what they need. These simple resources need to be utilized because if they continue we will see even more startling statistics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)