Mohamed Amara received his master's degree in economic modeling from the Higher Institute of Management of Tunis in 2004, before undertaking a PhD in Geography at the University of Paris I and a PhD in management (quantitative Methods) at the University of Tunis in 2010. His research focuses on development economics, regional sciences, labor market, youth and gender in MENA region, and applied micro-econometrics. He has published in a range of journals on a variety of topics such as the Annals of Regional Science, Social Indicators Research, Annals of Economic and Statistics, Growth & Change, Papers in regional science, Middle East development Journal, and Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences.
Altmetrics are generally seen as indicators for online engagement and attention. However, taking the field of political science as an example, Gustav Meibauer, Kiran Phull, Audrey Alejandro & Gokhan Ciflikli use altmetrics to analyse the dynamics of knowledge production in the field. Finding that altmetrics show a highly hierarchical and gendered spread of attention to … Continued
Open science is increasingly becoming a policy focus and paradigm for all scientific research. Ismael Rafols, Ingeborg Meijer and Jordi Molas-Gallart argue that attempts to monitor the transition to open science should be informed by the values underpinning this change, rather than discrete indicators of open science practices. Following a flurry of policies and investments … Continued
Contributor(s): Dr Tali Sharot, Dr Joan Costa-Font, Professor David de Meza, Dr Chris Kutarna | Despite our growing collective pessimism about the state of the world, when it comes to our own lives, research suggests we are generally optimistic.
After a year that will remain synonymous with anxiety, isolation, endless devastating news reports, and for too many – loss, this episode of LSE IQ asks: is optimism is good for us? And, beyond the effects on our wellbeing, is optimism an accurate lens through which to view the world?
Addressing these issues are: Dr Tali Sharot, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL; Dr Joan Costa-Font, Associate Professor in Health Economics at LSE; Dr David de Meza, Professor of Management at LSE; and Dr Chris Kutarna, author of Age of Discovery: Navigating the Risks and Rewards of our New Renaissance.
Contributors
Dr Tali Sharot Dr Joan Costa-Font Professor David de Meza Dr Chris Kutarna Research
The Optimism Bias: Why we're wired to look on the bright side by Tali Sharot. Neither an Optimist Nor a Pessimist Be: Mistaken Expectations Lower Well-Being by David de Meza and Chris Dawson in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Why optimism and entrepreneurship are not always a good mix for business by David de Meza and Chris Dawson in The Conversation. Optimism and the perceptions of new risks by Elias Mossialos, Caroline Rudisdill and Joan Costa-Font in the Journal of Risk Research. Explaining optimistic old age disability and longevity expectations by Joan Costa-Font and Montserrat Costa-Font in Social Indicators Research. Does optimism help us during a pandemic? by Joan Costa-Font. Age of Discovery: Navigating the Risks and Rewards of Our New Renaissance by Chris Kutarna and Ian Goldin.
Since the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power in the federal elections in India in 2014, the country's performance in key indicators of democratic quality has suffered. Over the course of its two terms in power, the party has sought to subvert key institutions for accountability, enact an ethno-cultural majoritarian electoral agenda, and use federal law enforcement agencies against their political opponents. While there is extensive literature on the erosion of civil-political rights in the past ten years, the effects of the BJP government on social rights like education and healthcare remain under-explored. Therefore, in this post, I explore three striking dimensions of primary educational policy under the BJP government.
Just one flagrant American ESG violation among countless others.This news story from Bloomberg had me laffing so hard it hurt: Despite the action being rather novel--banning investment in US Treasuries over environmental, social and governance [ESG] grounds--it is undoubtedly true that America is an ESG disaster. Offhand, we can cite endless ESG offenses that the US has perpetuated on its citizens and the rest of the world. Among others:Environmental: Being the world's second-largest carbon emitter and, historically speaking, by far the world's largest;Social: Maintaining a persistent racial underclass of nearly half of blacks who have experienced inter-generational poverty despite accounting for less than 15% of the overall population;Governance: Inflicting far more gun deaths annually than any other country by allowing largely unfettered sale and ownership of military-style weapons. Now, it is not news to anyone that the US is a super-polluting, racialized and hyper-violent nation. However, it is news when others like the German state of Baden-Württemberg start calling a spade a spade... and put their money where their mouth is at: That's because the new environmental, social and good governance filters have resulted in US Treasuries ending up on an investing blacklist, due to America's failure to ratify a number of treaties in areas including women's rights and controversial weapons...The bulk of Baden-Württemberg's exclusions impact its equity and corporate bond portfolios. The law establishes the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the European Union's Taxonomy Regulation and the Paris Agreement on climate change as the basis for future investment decisions.Lest you think it's just one German state objecting to America, Inc., there are others:Back in Germany, meanwhile, other states have taken similar steps. Baden-Württemberg, the only one of Germany's 16 states with a coalition government led by the Greens, was inspired by a similar law in the smaller state of Schleswig-Holstein, where bans apply to US Treasuries as well as to fossil-fuel companies. And the pension funds of Brandenburg, Hesse and Germany's richest state North Rhine-Westphalia are this year allocating as much as €11 billion to Paris-aligned stock indexes that exclude ESG laggards alongside Baden-Württemberg. While I do not doubt the sincerity of these actions, I am not convinced that what international ESG-related treaties a country has ratified should constitute the basis for assigning ESG ratings to sovereign debt. Solability, for instance, has a "Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index" (GSCI) that takes into account a number of indicators similar to conventional bond credit ratings.Ah well, I guess it's the thought that counts for these Germans.
I've received many requests for some kind of journal rankings list from readers.
Readers will be aware of several different rankings of philosophy journals. These include the Australian Research Council's (ARC) now disused ERA rankings and European Science Foundation's (ESF) European Research Index for the Humanities (ERIH). Plus, there have been different polls by Brian Leiter and the Brooks Blog (and this more comprehensive poll of 140+ journals). Other blogs discussing journal rankings include Certain Doubts, Lemmings, Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants, and this.
Each metric has its limitations and such a discussion would merit a long blogpost of its own. Let me be clear from the beginning that I believe that journal rankings are the crudest of indicators. If you want to assess the quality of something, then read it.
What I propose here is a ranking of rankings. Journals will be grouped in tiers based upon various metrics. There is broad agreement between different lists and I don't believe this list will prove controversial. The journals that score best are those journals that have consistently ranked highly across the major studies both European (ERIH), International (ARC ERA), and major opinion polls of thousands of philosophers (Brooks Blog, Leiter Reports). We find wide consistency across most indicators, but taken together we can find a strong "core" that come out top again and again. Those that perform less well is often a result of inclusion on some indicators, but not others. Comments are most welcome and the list (with information on how data was collected) is below. Enjoy! Some proposed journal rankings for philosophy *
Rated 'A*' (maximum 25 points): Ethics Journal of Philosophy Mind Nous Philosophical Review Philosophical Quarterly Philosophical Studies Philosophy and Phenomenological Research
Rated 'A' (20-24 points):
Analysis (24) Australasian Journal of Philosophy (24) Philosophy and Public Affairs (24) Canadian Journal of Philosophy (23) American Philosophical Quarterly (22) Monist (22)
Rated 'B' (15-19):
European Journal of Philosophy (19) Synthese (19) Journal of the History of Philosophy (18) Philosophers' Imprint (18) Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (18) Ratio (18) British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (17) Journal of Political Philosophy (17) Midwest Studies in Philosophy (17) Philosophy of Science (17) Journal of Ethics (16) Journal of Moral Philosophy (16) Pacific Philosophical Quarterly (16) Philosophical Topics (16) Utilitas (16) Journal of Philosophical Logic (15)
Rated 'C' (10-14 points):
British Journal for the History of Philosophy (14) Erkenntnis (14) Mind and Language (14) Kant-Studien (13) Philosophy (13) Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (12) Philosophical Papers (12) Phronesis (12) Southern Journal of Philosophy (12) Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy (11) Review of Metaphysics (11) Hume Studies (10) Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (10) Journal of Philosophical Research (10)
N/a ranked (9 or less points):
Metaphilosophy (9) Philosophical Investigations (9) History of Philosophy Quarterly (8) International Journal of Philosophical Studies (8) Philosophy Compass (7) Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (5) Philosophia (4)
* Note on rankings:
I have weighted the journals in the following way:
ARC ERA list: Journals are ranked A*, A, B, C. Points awarded: A* = 5, A = 4, B = 3, C = 2.
Leiter Reports list: General philosophy journals ranked only in top 20. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4. Leiter has an additional list in ethics which raises complications. Journals are not double-counted and keep score if on general list. Points awarded: #1-10 = 5, #11-20 = 4, #21-30 = 3 where journals not on list 1. While this will cover general journals and journals that publish in ethics, there is need for a list in other areas especially mind/language and philosophy of science.
Notes: There are two lists for the Brooks Blog. List 2 is original list and surveys top 143 journals from a broad range. The top 50 in this poll were polled a second time in List 1.
QUERY FOR READERS: Do the weightings seem appropriate? What would you change? What journal rankings would you add?
UPDATE: Do readers believe the rankings are an accurate reflection of the field? Any surprises?
Health epidemics have a multilayered, long-standing impact on society as a whole, and an inordinate impact on women. Particularly in a country like Iraq where progress on women's rights and issues has been slowly gaining more traction in recent years, the coronavirus threatens to halt progress on these key issues and give lower priorities to women's concerns that are still vital during such a time of crisis. While more men than women seem to get infected with the new coronavirus globally--there is no gender-disaggregated data for Iraq--, the social impact of the virus in countries that already have been through the worst of the pandemic can serve as important indicators for Iraq.
The social impact of the coronavirus has had an uneven impact on women more than men in the first countries hit by the coronavirus in East Asia. Notably, in South Korea, women have taken on a larger burden than men in taking care of children forced to stay at home due to school closures, as societal norms more often place the burden for childcare on women. Not only does this put greater pressure on women who are in many cases already the primary caretakers at home, but it makes them more likely to lose their jobs as they are forced to divert more time to childcare. These societal norms also mean women are more likely to be exposed by the virus, as they are stuck in a caretaker role for sick family members and makeup over 70% of the healthcare sector according to a World Health Organization Report.
Women forced to stay home and work less in order to dedicate more time to caretaking also means that women are more likely to suffer from the economic impact of the virus, whether that means job loss or wage reductions. This means that even after the virus has effectively contained, women are more likely to suffer from the economic fallout than men long after the virus is gone.
In addition, in China, rights activists reported an increase in domestic violence cases, as lockdowns and economic pressure have increased tensions in many households. Particularly at the epicenter of the virus in Wuhan, China, activists reported a threefold increase in domestic abuse cases. The quarantine measures in place, while cases were at their height in China, made it difficult for activists to provide aid, and diverted police attention away from assisting women who suffered from domestic abuse. This disruption of support networks makes it more difficult for women to report domestic abuse cases and to get away from their abusers.
Social, cultural, and political barriers to women's participation in Iraq might lead to disproportionate effects based on gender. First, there have already been voices raising concerns that some families might not allow women who had tested positive for the virus to be quarantined, as more traditional culture is against women to remain unaccompanied. Not only would this present a serious threat to the health of individual women, but such refusals by conservative families to follow the recommendations of medical personnel may contribute to undermining the government measures to contain the virus. Second, women's representation in government is already limited in Iraq, and with a limited voice in the decision-making chambers of government, their gender-sensitive concerns will likely be less of a priority to Iraq's policy makers. And finally, Iraq's economic situation that was in decline even before the outbreak might further impact the poor economic opportunities already facing women in Iraq.
Beyond the loss of life and social and economic impacts on men and women in Iraq, the crisis is also an opportunity for the government and civil society to increase engagement with the most vulnerable groups, including women, and bring them in as a major element of preventing the spread of the virus. Societal norms placing women into the primary caretaker role in homes means they will have a greater awareness of how the virus is spreading, so they can report more accurate information. In addition, polling conducted in several countries suggests that women are more concerned with the spread of the virus than men. The government could take advantage of this trend by bringing women into the process of raising awareness and concern about the virus among Iraq's population.
Given the unequal impact, the social impact of coronavirus will have on women, the Iraqi government and civil society partners should prioritize making sure issues that impact women are not sidelined during the crisis. Support networks should strengthen their outreach efforts and make resources for women's health and domestic abuse support more accessible, ideally with government backing. It is especially important that the government prioritize getting out accurate information on the coronavirus and work with the support of tribal and religious leaders to encourage families to follow quarantine procedures for women who test positive for the virus.
Women participating in NDI's National Reconciliation Program prepare food baskets in Kirkuk to help their community cope with movement restrictions taken in response to COVID-19
That Gen Z Americans have unique foreign policy views isn't news, but the recent student-led protests over the Israel-Hamas war has highlighted the generational differences in this country and may portend a future political distancing of the U.S. from its long-time client in Tel Aviv.Some of the indicators may be concerning. Aside from displaying more support for ceasefire than their older cohorts, a majority of 18-24 year-olds in a December Harvard/Harris poll — 67% — said they believe Jews "as a class" are oppressors, and that the 10/7 attack was justified by Palestinians' grievances (60%). But then, the poll also found 78% of Americans aged 18-34 believe Israel has a right to exist. The majority of this cohort also called what Hamas did on Oct. 7 terrorism and said anti-Semitism is on the rise on college campuses. Meanwhile, an April POLITICO-Morning Consult poll found only "15 percent of Gen Zers said they're more sympathetic toward the Israelis, compared to 4o percent of Baby Boomers," and 24% of Gen Zers said it was a top issue that would affect their vote vs. 11% for over-65 voters. Some 20% of Gen Zers support providing weapons to the Palestinians vs. 2% of over-65 voters.And in April, Pew Research reported, "A third of adults under 30 say their sympathies lie either entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, while 14% say their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people" and "older Americans, by comparison, are more likely to sympathize with Israelis than Palestinians." In November, the Brookings Institution reported, "Even before the Hamas invasion, there were distinct generational differences in Americans' attitudes towards Israel," adding, "only 41% of those aged 18-29 had a favorable view of Israel, compared to 69% of those aged 65 or older." To say this generation was primed for a shift is an understatement. New media has certainly taken advantage and is, at the same time, being fueled by these young voices and their consumption habits. Israel can no longer control the flow of information and messages. Networked tribalism, according to John Robb at City Journal, "bypasses traditional media by directly delivering information and moral framing to people using social networks.". On TikTok, #freepalestine has 31 billion posts compared to 590 million for #standwithisrael, which led The New Arab to claim, "Palestinian solidarity won the internet." By the way, the U.S. has the most TikTok users — 116.5 million; a Pew survey late last year reported that about one-third of young Americans get their news from TikTok. Recently, Senator Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Secretary of State Tony Blinken commiserated over the negative effect of social media on the sustainability of the pro-Israel narrative. Romney volunteered that was the reason Congress voted to ban TikTok. They don't like that 50% of young Americans trust news from social media nearly as much as they do legacy media, and that more student protesters are relying on foreign media like Al Jazeera, which had been covering the conditions on the ground in graphic and persistent measure until Israel banned the network from operating there in early May. Gen Z cannot be seen as a monolith but put the polling together and it would seem that younger Americnas are more questioning about why there is an unconditional relationship with Israel. Growing up in the shadow of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars they may be more skeptical about the prospect of another counterinsurgency at the expense of civilians, or collateral damage, which became the term of art during the years of the Global War on Terror.Young Americans are rightly dubious when they see retired military officers — the same guys who led to the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan — on television supporting $175 billion to Ukraine for its role as a U.S. proxy in the NATO-Russia war, and over $300 billion to Israel — money that young Americans may think should be spent on "nation building here at home." And given the availability of information today, young Americans cannot be ignorant of the fact that far from being an underdog with persistent vulnerabilities in the region, Israel has nuclear weapons, is the most modern military in the region, and gets carte blanche from Washington via nearly $4 billion in military aid each year.Add this to their social and economic challenges at home: Gen Z suffers from high levels of depression and anxiety. They sense their job prospects are limited, and that the American Dream is out of reach. But there's more grim news: America is almost $35 Trillion in debt, over $100,000 per citizen; its bond rating was recently cut to AA+; borrowing costs are climbing and interest costs on debt have nearly doubled to $659 billion over the course of two years. In addition, Social Security has an unfunded liability of almost $66 trillion and is approaching insolvency, probably depleting its reserves by 2033. Things are looking bleak for the U.S. economy as a whole.Then there's student loan debt of $1.75 trillion (including federal and private loans), $28,950 owed per borrower on average. Both Republicans and Democrats would be wise to rethink their unconditional support for Israel as this demographic's support for it is no longer a given. Much of it too is the obvious gap between Israel's professed ideals and the "facts on the ground." According to Columbia University's Rashid Khalidi, many of the students feel a "moral imperative" to support Palestinians and they may not easily be deterred. And their left flank is protected as more American Jews are protesting and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.When the Zs start running for political office and vote more in force, they may embark on a mission to rejuvenate America by first heeding the warning of George Washington and shaking off the "passionate attachment" to another nation that "produces a variety of evils" and could hazard America by creating "the illusion of a common interest ... where no common interest exists."
This year, CEGA was recognized by the American Economic Association (AEA) for our efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in the field of economics and within our center. In this post, Maya Ranganath, Associate Director of Global Networks and Inclusion, reflects on CEGA's inclusion strategy, pointing to unequal power dynamics in global development research and discussing how CEGA ensures that our work — externally and internally — is consistently aligned with our core values.CEGA Fellows, from left to right: Jaah Mkupete, Fola Aina, Hellen Namawejje, Caroline Sitienei Koech, Arnold Musungu, Ojiri Enahoro Innocent, and Muthoni Ng'ang'a, alongside Maya Ranganath at PacDev 2024 | Credit: CEGAAt CEGA, we regularly reflect on what it means to produce evidence for decision-makers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) from our position at an elite academic institution in the United States. In recent years, we have increasingly focused on how scientific narratives are "owned" by privileged groups and have updated our diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) strategy to address this dynamic. While inclusion has always been core to CEGA, we have consistently updated our strategies to match evolutions in the development research ecosystem.CEGA's theory of change centers our DEIJ goals: our third pillar is to "make the evidence ecosystem more inclusive." We pursue three interlocking objectives in support of this:To center the voices of underrepresented groups — including researchers, decision-makers, and study participants in LMICs — in social science research and policy debates.To ensure that rigorous evidence exists to help decision-makers in LMICs address injustices in society.To create a diverse and welcoming community at CEGA, respect and reflect the communities in which we live and work, and encourage the broader evidence-informed policy ecosystem to seek the same.We pursue these objectives by investing in LMIC scholars and institutions, supporting inclusive and equitable research, promoting ethics in research, diversifying our networks and team, and creating an environment where our staff and researchers feel a sense of belonging. Below we highlight some of the most important aspects of our DEIJ strategy.Investing in LMIC Scholars and InstitutionsSince 2008, CEGA's Global Networks initiative has bolstered the leadership of scholars from Africa, South Asia, and other low-income regions by equipping them with the tools, skills, networks, and funding they need to thrive. We organize short-course workshops, host semester-long fellowships, and provide extensive follow-on support. To date, CEGA has hosted 85 scholars at UC Berkeley, Northwestern University, and virtually. The fellowships provide the opportunity to audit relevant courses, present work in seminars, apply to competitive funding calls, receive mentorship, and network with faculty members and students. These scholars have received nearly $2 million in grant funding to promote their independent research activities and mainstream of development research globally. Program alumni started the Network of Impact Evaluation Researchers in Africa (NIERA) in 2018, an independent organization of former fellows that works to advance decision-focused evaluations in sub-Saharan Africa.Importantly, the capacity-strengthening support we provide to LMIC scholars is designed to meet the demand for training and mentorship in the short- and medium-term. Longer term, we are eager to support the transfer of ownership of these types of programs to LMIC institutions, to leverage their growing capacity and resources to train and mentor the next generation of African scholars.As a learning organization, CEGA is committed to pursuing open inquiry and debate about the barriers to — and opportunities for — inclusion across the evidence-informed policy ecosystem. Through our Collaboration for Inclusive Development Research (CIDR), we are working with NIERA to develop an evidence-based theory of change for inclusion that delineates which stakeholders are best placed to add value at various stages of the research-to-policy pipeline.Supporting Inclusive and Equitable ResearchMany research approaches in development economics reinforce Western notions of "epistemic superiority" over indigenous ways of knowing. CEGA has long encouraged an inclusive approach and a plurality of methods and disciplines that, together, make our research more accessible and more relevant to a broader range of stakeholders. While we continue to prioritize the use of impact evaluations where feasible and appropriate, we also support studies that leverage quasi-experimental methods, qualitative methods, data science, and mixed-methods approaches.As a re-granting institution, we recognize our power to fund research equitably and inclusively and support research that challenges unequal power structures. Our research granting policy formalizes how and when research teams should consider DEIJ criteria when awarding new grants. Typically, when evaluating research proposals, we include criteria that assess the diversity of the research team and of the larger portfolio. We have also developed a "co-authorship statement" with our grant awards outlining how researchers should be credited for their contributions, encouraging greater equity within research teams.CEGA prioritizes research activities that address persistent inequities and injustices in society. This means moving beyond sub-group analysis and conducting research with transformational potential for traditionally disadvantaged groups. For example, CEGA recently established a "Gender & Agency" theme to support gender transformative research aimed at dismantling harmful power structures and promoting gender equity. Additionally, our domestic-facing portfolio, the Opportunity Lab, hosts an initiative on "Racial Equity in the Labor Market," which examines the role of state and federal wage and employment policy in reducing racial disparities and promoting greater equity of economic opportunity in the United States.CEGA's Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences (BITSS) works to democratize the way social science is produced, scrutinized, and shared by realigning incentives for knowledge generation and use. For example, the BITSS catalyst program invests in scholars from LMICs to encourage transparent and reproducible research. Tools and standards that foster open access to data, code, and published research make it easier for LMIC researchers to access and advance new research. Additionally, the Social Science Prediction Platform (SSPP) provides a tool for sourcing input from community members, amplifying local knowledge, and helping to inform better research.Diversifying our Network and TeamCEGA continues to pursue a more diverse staff and network of affiliates. We have audited and refined our hiring processes, writing more inclusive job descriptions, disseminating them to diverse institutions, and developing a more equitable interview process. While the work of diversifying our organization will never be "finished," our efforts have yielded some progress: currently, 27% of our staff come from underrepresented backgrounds (as defined by UC Berkeley), up from 9% only three years ago. To track our progress, we conduct annual demographic surveys with staff, measure staff perceptions of the Center's equity and inclusivity, and enable anonymous feedback mechanisms. Meanwhile, we recently revamped our compensation framework to ensure that staff of different backgrounds are compensated equitably and transparently. We also audited and adapted our affiliate nomination process to ensure it is equitable and conducive to a diverse network. Importantly, we maintain a variety of staff forums to discuss our positionality in development research and reflect on current events in our communities.CEGA's DEIJ work is managed by a dedicated working group that I lead as the Associate Director of Global Networks and Inclusion, and guided by an internal DEIJ strategy and set of key performance indicators. We are energized by the AEA's recognition of our efforts over the years, while acknowledging that we have a long way to go to achieve our DEIJ goals. In this spirit, we welcome your comments and feedback on our approach. We further commit to sharing our learnings, including our challenges and failures, openly and transparently. Please stay tuned for more updates on DEIJ in the near future.CEGA's Award-Winning Approach to Promoting Diversity and Inclusion was originally published in CEGA on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
It's not too early to declare some winners and losers in Louisiana's state elections this cycle, primarily because so many contests already have been decided or wrote on the wall what will come in next month's runoff elections.
WINNER: Jeff Landry. The Republican attorney general wiped out all opposition in the gubernatorial race, in the most impressive display of the 1974 Constitution era. He became the first first-time candidate ever to win without a runoff and joining only Democrat Edwin Edwards (1983), Republican Mike Foster (1999), and Republican Bobby Jindal (2007 and 2011) in pulling off the feat of a general election triumph. That he did so bodes well for his powers of persuasion in herding the Legislature, which almost certainly will deliver supermajorities for his party, towards delivering on an agenda that looks to be the most transformative in a century.
WINNER: Billy Nungesser. The chattering class (see Loser below) thought he could give Landry a run for his money and were somewhat surprised when the Republican passed on that race to win reelection as lieutenant governor. Perhaps he knew something that other like GOP Treas. John Schroder and GOP state Sen. Sharon Hewitt didn't, that Landry would win. His big win keeps him in office while others retire or hope to bag jobs in the Landry Administration.
WINNER: Jefferson Parish GOP legislators. Too often, a majority of this group abandoned a conservative agenda in favor of licking the boots of Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, which made a few of them targets in their reelection campaigns of conservative insurgents. Those challenged all survived, from narrowly to easily. Now they conveniently can flip-flop to back Landry's agenda (with one exception: closed primaries that threaten their continued service) since they know they can't stop it and thus try to keep their political careers alive.
LOSER: Louisiana Democrats. The party's ruling white powerbrokers ran a poor gubernatorial candidate in the form of former cabinet member Shawn Wilson, knowing they had to have some black face to head the ticket to stave off extremist left insurgent black competitors. The inevitability of Landry also discouraged turnout, dooming any chance to prevent Republicans from doing no worse in legislative contests that ensured retention of a supermajority. Landry's win and separate Board of Elementary and Secondary Education campaigns that also weren't close now gives the GOP a commanding 9-2 edge on that body. And Republicans after Nov. 18 will have swept all statewide offices, after all but one of these contests put them within a few points of winning outright in the general election, if not Landry and Nungesser winning then.
Two other indicators demonstrate the reality of this rout. A white Democrat minister named Danny Cole raised and spent no money in running for governor, conducting his campaign solely through free social media and personal appearances, yet grabbed 3 percent of the vote, such was the dissatisfaction with Wilson. And in Caddo Parish, for sheriff former Shreveport city councilor Republican John Nickelson racked up 45 percent of the vote against black Democrat former Shreveport chief administrative officer Henry Whitehorn's 35 percent, even though Nickelson has no law enforcement experience and Whitehorn has decades of it, in a parish with a solid Democrat plurality and bare white plurality. Statewide Democrats had zero coattails, and the results sends the strongest signal yet that unless it abandons its far-left agenda it will have no impact on policy-making on state issues.
LOSER: Legacy media. Whatever generally left-leaning newspaper and television outlets did, in terms of story selections trying to slow Landry or cajoling him to turn out for debates hoping to catch him off guard, failed. Landry as well as a number of conservative candidates simply ignored media requests and campaigned emphasizing cutting out intermediaries like the media – Landry showed up for exactly one of several media-sponsored candidate forums – by going directly to voters. As a result, the state's chattering class had almost no influence on election outcomes and face increasing irrelevancy in trying to shape policy outcomes going forward.
LOSER: Clay Schexnayder. After four years of serving as House of Representative speaker kissing up to Edwards on budget and several other major issues, although the dictates of the GOP supermajority more often pushed policy in a conservative direction, Schexnayder hoped that this triangulation legacy could retain enough conservatives and capture enough non-conservatives in the electorate to attain the secretary of state's office, aided by business-as-usual monied interests, to extend his political career and set himself up for future advancement. Instead, he finished a dismal fourth that extinguishes his hopes.
With so many people obtaining Medicaid coverage in the wake of the Affordable Care Act and during the pandemic, it is worth investigating whether this expanded eligibility is improving health outcomes. Overall, decreases in the proportion of uninsured individuals over the last decade are not being matched by improved life expectancy. Indeed, life expectancy at birth in 2021 was lower than it was when the Affordable Care Act passed. But this fact tells us little about the benefits of Medicaid coverage since the decline has been driven in large part by COVID-19 deaths among elderly patients (often not on Medicaid) as well as increased mortality from accidents and drug overdoses. To better gauge the benefits of Medicaid, it is necessary to look at more specific health indicators. The federal Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS) compiles a large variety of healthcare quality measures that could help us analyze outcomes. Unfortunately, most of these measures are not available for all states and all years, making it difficult to assess performance in a systematic way. One indicator that is generally available is the rate of low birth weight, which is the percentage of newborns weighing less than 2500 grams, or about five pounds eight ounces. Low birth weight (LBW) babies have "a higher risk of morbidity, stunting in childhood, and long‐term developmental and physical ill health including adult‐onset chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease." Consequently, reducing the incidence of LBW should improve public health, but Medicaid services are not achieving this outcome. A 2019 study in JAMA found no correlation between Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion and LBW. The authors used administrative records to obtain rates of LBW (and some other adverse birth outcomes) before and after Medicaid expansion in states that accepted the expansion and those that did not. The change in LBW rates in expansion states was not significantly different than that in non‐expansion states. The authors did find some improvement for Black infants in expansion states, but not for white or Hispanic infants. Overall, the US is not among the countries that have had the best success in minimizing low birth weight. A 2015 World Health Organization analysis ranked the US 64th among 146countries, with such less affluent nations as Albania. China, and Cuba performing better. Poor US outcomes have been attributed to the use of fertility drugs (which increases the likelihood that a mother will give birth to twins or triplets) and the high rate of Caesarian sections. According to data from the CDC WONDER Database, 8.3% of US babies born in 2019 were low birth weight. The LBW rate among Medicaid patients was substantially higher, coming in at 9.8% (WONDER also has 2020 and 2021 data, but I chose 2019 data to avoid any pandemic‐related affects). In the District of Columbia, the LBW disparity between Medicaid‐financed births and those with other types of coverage is especially stark. In 2019. DC's overall LBW rate was 9.9%. For Medicaid births, it was 12.7% and for non‐Medicaid births it was only 7.4%. And, it does not appear that this disparity is caused by a lack of access to government‐paid medical services: the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC) reports that (in 2018) 99.3% of DC Medicaid births took place in a hospital and that 91.7% were attended by a physician, with almost all of the remainder attended by a Certified Nurse Midwife. The risk of low birth weight can be minimized through proper nutrition, not smoking, and avoiding narcotics. These risks can be controlled with non‐medical interventions. For example, at‐risk mothers can be accommodated at maternity homes, where their diet and substance use can be carefully supervised. The widespread use of maternity homes in Cuba may explain the low rate of LBW in that country (although Cuba's health statistics have been subject to criticism). WONDER provides statistics on tobacco use in pregnant women. In DC, the LBW rate among Medicaid tobacco users was 23.7%. Unfortunately, data are not available for other types of substance abuse or malnutrition, however Wallethub recently ranked DC's drug use fifth among all states (plus DC). Some states are devoting Medicaid resources to the "social determinants of health", funding non‐medical services such as housing and nutrition that are intended to address health inequities. DC has an Office of Health Equity that supports "projects, policies and research that will enable every resident to achieve their optimal level of health — regardless of where they live, learn, work, play or age." But these added efforts are not making a dent in LBW. Despite spending over $3 billion on Medicaid annually, DC (like other parts of the US), has pregnancy outcomes that are on a par with or even below those of developing countries. It appears that providing costly pregnancy services cannot substitute for the basic health precautions we hope all expectant mothers will take.
All the ignorance, fibbing, and emoting doesn't change the facts that make Republican state Rep. Gabe Firment's HB 463 worth enacting, if not vitally so, into law.
The bill would prohibit any procedure that physically or hormonally changes the sexual physiology of a minor, except in the very rare instances of disorder of sex development or dealing with the consequences of previous attempts to change sex. Science unimpeachably supports the proposition behind the bill that these permanent alterations to children almost always cause more harm than good, and out of an abundance of caution under the watchful waiting protocol typically practiced in Europe that plays out to allow for developing physical, mental, and maturity until adulthood for those who at some point believe they want to try to change their sex, this protects children from rash decision-making by them and others affecting their adolescent lives.
Unfortunately, this area of investigation suffers from a plague of poor research quality. Common problems of these studies feature unrepresentative samples, lack of adequate controls, and unjustified inferential leaps. The efforts that do the best in avoiding these pitfalls shatter common myths circulated by advocates of making permanent physical changes to children who at some point identify as transgender.
One myth concerning about these children is they have an elevated desire for suicide and related indicators of harm solely because they feel their identity mismatched with their sex. In fact, that risk is comparable to that of other psychological conditions such as depression, anorexia, and autism that predisposes them to suicide, and in some cases differ little significantly from the population without these conditions.
Where elevated levels are observed in large part occur because of the high degree of association of transgender identification with these and other psychological disorders. (Also associated: natal sex, where girls are significantly more likely to report a desire to change sex.) As for a counter hypothesis that societal attitudes create a stigma driving confused children to self-harm, quality research simply doesn't support that and this notion runs counter to experiences in previous historical periods where even greater societal pressures operated on children to conform to certain sex roles yet the child suicide rate was much lower.
The best, most recent research reveals that transgendered-identified youth respond well to traditional psychotherapy in alleviating psychological distress, whereas long-run studies of those who underwent medical transition show this doesn't reduce and perhaps even exacerbates distress. Other research indicates that social contagion or psychological difficulties with parents encourages adopting identification differing from sex as a response to these stimuli.
Another myth is that the rate of suicide and other contemplated harmful behavior decreases with physical alterations. Collectively, quality research suggests a "honeymoon" period in the short run, but the sparse long-term research available paints a disturbing picture where harmful thinking returns, with those who underwent surgery or medication having a significantly higher rate of suicide attempts, pointing to the underlying mental health causes associated with a desire to change sex.
Finally, there is the myth that those who do undergo physical transition overwhelmingly are satisfied. Again, when reviewing the best research, there is no evidence of this, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence demonstrating a significant number of those altered surgically or medicinally having regrets. Further, any observed childhood dysphoria if left untreated physically typically turns into desisting from a desire to change sex and by adulthood those who had it most likely will adopt homosexuality.
In other words, given the state of quality research, claims that preference must be given to the wishes of children at a given moment that they should undergo physical and endocrinological mutilation are reckless and irresponsible, built upon myth and ideological opportunism, and that medical professionals complicit in this shamefully either are ignorant about the area in which they assert to have expertise or they are driven by motives unrecognizable from those associated with the Hippocratic Oath. Regrettably, several such individuals appeared to testify against the bill.
(Also deserving of opprobrium is a study, requested by a resolution Firment had pass last year, by the Department of Health utilizing Medicaid data which it largely contracted out that did provide some useful data but completely botched an assessment of outcomes, due to search criteria that ignored research quality and limited substantially the number evaluated while including studies with the problems listed above. This stood in stark contrast to a much more comprehensive and careful study compiled for the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration last year that didn't largely waste taxpayer dollars.)
The emoting part was left to a parade of allegedly potentially aggrieved adults over these restrictions. They represent the children of intellectual trends that have invaded the academy and public square that place primacy on people's feelings and perceptions rather than evidence-based data and critical thinking in the making of policy, a mindset that increasingly marks the thinking of the political left.
Even so, some leftist allies didn't buy it. This week, the House Health and Welfare Committee passed the bill by substitute with only a couple of Democrats, state Reps. Jason Hughes and Larry Selders, and the most roguish Republican in the chamber, state Rep. Joe Stagni, opposing the other 14 members (including recent new Democrat Roy Daryl Adams). This poses a big political problem for Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, who two years ago said he would veto that kind of bill and others restricting a transgender agenda.
That's because last year with Democrats aiding Republicans, he capitulated on a bill he vetoed the year before that prevented biological males from competing in athletic events restricted to biological females and also had a veto overturned, demonstrating if the numbers are enough he can't stop bills from becoming law. The committee vote's overwhelming nature compels the bill's moving forward until it becomes law, and rightly so. Children's welfare and lives depend upon it.
NDI's Chris Fomunyoh is once again joined by Ambassador Johnnie Carson as they discuss the steps that can be taken to strengthen democracy. They continue their conversation with their thoughts on the key challenges and opportunities facing Africa this year. Find us on: SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | Google Play Johnnie Carson: When female voices are not heard, the conversation is crippled, the policy is crippled, the institutions are crippled and the results are crippled. Chris Fomunyoh: I'm Chris Fomunyoh, senior associate and regional director for Central and West Africa at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, NDI. Welcome to this edition of DemWorks.
Again we're joined by Ambassador Johnnie Carson, a proud member of the board of directors of The National Democratic Institute, NDI with a 37 year career in the U.S. Foreign Service focus on Africa. In our previous episode, you spoke about the risk of back sliding. So for this episode, we will focus on the steps that can be taken to strengthen democracy in Africa.
I'd like us to pivot a little bit to the Sahel because in Tanzania we see the back sliding that's coming from political actors themselves, but there's something happening in the Sahel, which is a region in which we see a lot of political commitment to democratic governance, whether it's from the leaders and activists in Niger Republic, in Burkina Faso and in Mali, but at the same time these countries are coming under tremendous pressure from violent extremists who are coming across the desert and destabilizing what would be an emerging democracy and what concerns do you have and how do you think organizations like NDI, like USIP and others that have the self-power expertise, so to speak can contribute to the efforts to counter violent extremism like Sahel and also the whole of Africa?
JC: Chris you're absolutely right and we should all be concerned about outside forces that can come in and destabilize a country, its politics, its economy and its society and across the Sahel we in fact see this happening. The challenges to stability, to democracy to holding free and transparent and creditable elections and having democratic systems that work, are not only challenged by sometimes authoritarian leaders seeking to maintain power and control, we also can see this emerging as a result of exogenous forces coming in from outside, and here we see non-state actors undermining stability across the Sahel, which is creating tension for democracies and tensions for states.
I think one of the things that is absolutely critical in addressing the problems with the Sahel is for government to reconnect with their citizens, to put in place the kinds of services that citizens are looking for and are demanding and expecting. They need to be responsive to the needs that they, citizens believe are not there and they have to have these connections in order to build up resilience, to build up strength against the ideologies and to the negative forces that are brought in by extremist groups.
It is extremists groups across the Sahel are taking advantage of the absence of good services and good connectivity between government and citizens and one of the things that must accompany the security response is in fact a development and government response. Security alone cannot end the problems in the Sahel. It's an important ingredient but the most important ingredient is government going in and establishing responsible connections, providing services, education, healthcare, sanitation, water cattle feeding stations and services that citizens require and are being deprived of.
So one of the things that must be hand in hand and be out front is not the military response and the security response but the governance response, the social service response and if that is absent, the security response will be deficient and will not work.
CF: In fact, I'm so thankful you say that, because I know that you and other members of our board, Secretary Albright, in particular the chair of our board, you've been emphasizing reinforcing this message about democracy and development component as part of the toolkit in conquering violent extremism and in fact, that's the approach that NDI is taking to its work in the Sahel because we currently have ongoing programs in Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso, and our focus, the main focus of that piece of work is on people, processes and the politics and trying to create platforms where governments can reconnect with citizens at a grassroots level.
So in a number of cases we've set up platforms where civil society with legislatures and members of the executive branch, including representatives of the security services get together regularly to figure out what the challenges are in various communities and how to foster inter-communal dialogue and better relationships between the security services and the populations that they seek to serve, because you may remember there was a UN study that said that in many of the cases where violent extremism persist, that 70% of the people who join extremist organizations, are reacting to poor performance by security services and you have paid a lot of attention to Nigerian and the whole Boko Haram phenomenon.
I don't know how this would fit into our conversation with regards to the Sahel as well.
JC: I think it also very pertinent for Nigeria, and I too have seen studies of some very distinguished organizations, Mercy Corps and others that talk about why people are recruited and indeed, the authoritarian sometimes brutal nature of security forces towards communities that they should be protecting drives individuals away from the government and into the hands of Boko Haram.
Even the origin of the current violence in Northern Nigeria has its origins in the brutal extrajudicial killing of Boko Haram's first leader in 2009. His apprehension, his questioning, his interrogation, torture and mistreatment were all recorded on someone's cellphone and became widely seen throughout the country and throughout the north. Two years later, after that event in 2009 we saw and upsurge in 2011 and the activities of Boko Haram and indeed people continued to say that the brutal nature in which the security forces sought to root out Boko Haram, in fact generated more recruits for Boko Haram than it did for support for the government's efforts.
It is absolutely critical, it's absolutely critical that security forces recognize that they have a responsibility to protect the civil liberties and the human rights of the citizens of the state that they are protecting and that the way they treat the individuals in areas that they go into, may have an impact on their ability to ultimately win the conflict, but one thinks of Nigeria and particularly of the North East and there again weak institutions of corruption of lack of social services are all playing a major part in why the conflict in that region continues.
In the north east of Nigeria particularly and the three most affected states, Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. Those three states have the lowest social indicators of any of Nigeria's 36 states, less access to education, to healthcare, to water resources and to jobs and access and this all plays out as well. Governments needs to be responsive to their citizens and while a security response is important, governance and providing social services and the needs to citizens to build resilience is critical as well.
CF: This seems like a good place to take a short break. For well over 35 years NDI has been honored to work side by side with courageous and committed pro-democracy activists and leaders around the world to help contribute to develop the institutions practices and skills necessary for democracy's success.
I realize it's many countries to cover but in the few minutes that are left, I just see if you have any parting words for four countries that we haven't really focused that much on and those are Ethiopia, Kenya, The Democratic Republic of Congo and we'll exit with Cameroon. What are your thoughts?
JC: My thoughts on Ethiopia. It is absolutely essential that those of us who support a democracy and democratic progress lend all of our efforts to those of the Ethiopian government to ensure that the democratic experiment that is underway is successful. Prime Minister Abiy won the Nobel Prize for bringing about peace with Eritrea but the more important thing is that we, outside step up our effort to help him ensure that his legislative elections, this year, are successful and that we do what we can to strengthen his country's democratic progress.
He has appointed and outstanding leader, Birtukan, former opposition leader, spent many years in jail as his country's election commissioner. We need on the outside to provide the kind of technical and financial and advocacy support that she might need to put in place the architecture for running the country's elections. It will in fact be the first real serious elections in that country since the collapse of the Derg in the early 1990s. So it's important that we help do this.
Ethiopia is Africa's second most populous country behind Nigeria and it's important that we help democracy there. It's also a key and strategic state in the region bordering a number of other countries that will look to the success of what happens here. So we need to support.
Kenya, will have elections next year. It is important that there be a continuation in the improvement of the country's electoral agencies. The shadow of the flawed and failed and controversial and violent elections of 2007 and 2008 continue to be a shadow. The controversies associated with the last elections and court decisions there continue to hang over. It is important to continue to support civil society, support the electoral commission and work with the Kenyan government to ensure an outcome.
It appears very clearly that President Kenyatta wants to leave a positive legacy of progress, economically, politically and electorally. This will be a challenge but we should support the process moving forward. The features are still there.
CF: In fact, I should say before end up with the last two countries that for listeners, Ethiopia has got a parliamentary system of government. That's why the parliamentary elections are extremely important, the national elections for Ethiopia and also with regards to Kenya, as you say, President Uhuru Kenyatta would like to leave a good legacy. He's coming to the end of his second term and NDI working with partners on the continent has been very strong on the issue constitutionalism, respect for rule of law. In fact, we had a continent wide conference in Niamey, Niger Republic last October on the whole question of presidential term limits and we'll be having a second conference in Botswana in June to discuss term limits with former African heads of states and various other partners on the continent.
Just to say that, as leaders relinquish power when their terms come to an end, they help consolidate and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. So, with the two remaining countries-
JC: I applaud President Kenyatta for saying very early on that he would adhere to the constitution, he would serve two terms and step down. This is an important message for the most important country in East Africa, especially looking at the neighboring states, particularly Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda where leaders there have found ways to extend themselves in office. He recognizes the importance of transition at the top and allowing the citizens of the country to select new leadership on a constitutional basis rather than trying to alter the constitution to eliminate term limits, age limits and perpetuate themselves in power.
So I hope others in the region are in fact looking at Kenya's model. One jumps across to West Africa and looks at President Paul Biya who's been in power for three decades, plus shows no desire whatsoever to leave office. Here is a man who has lost touch with his citizens and the communities of his country and because he has lost touch with his citizens, because there have been structural deficiencies and weaknesses and the institutions that he is responsible for, we now see a country that is suffering from three or four major political crisis, crisis with the English speaking portion of this country in the south west, the emergence of Boko Haram and radicalism across the border from Nigeria in the north west and problems of herders and farmers driven by drought and climate conditions.
President Biya has lost touch with the needs of his citizens and his government has not been responsive to anyone but himself and a small political elite. I think it is important for the international community to point out the failures and the flaws of his governance, the corruption that underpins it and to support those internally who are pushing for a constitution and political policies that fundamentally change the nature and structure of society, political architecture in society.
CF: You're so right, because that's one country that it's got tremendous potential but that it's not pulling its weight at all and because of its strategic location, invariably weakens other countries in the central Africa sub region, as well as in West Africa too and it's now taking full advantage of what could be real opportunities to improve the wellbeing of its citizens.
We'll be right back after this quick message.
And let's end with the country right in the heart of the continent, The Democratic Republic of Congo. I was in Kinshasa in October and met with political leaders and opinion leaders across the board, civil society, religious leaders who are very powerful in the Congo, very influential and I came away, I should say, a little more optimistic than I was going in. I was quite apprehensive given what has transpired in the 2018 presidential elections but after talking to the Congolese, I got a sense that a genuine attachment to reform.
Everybody wants some reforms of the political process or the electoral process and the key question is whether they are going to be able to set aside their personal agendas and actually get together to help this country, which has got tremendous resources and tremendous potential get back on its feet. I was very impressed by the fact that most of the leaders in Congo are pretty young. I know that you and I have talked about Congo for many, many times and when you were still in the administration you had to deal with some of their crisis.
I don't know what you take is on the present leadership and the present challenges but also the opportunities that present themselves in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
JC: Let me say that The Democratic Republic of the Congo has more unrealized potential than any other large state in Africa and that potential has continued to be in held in check and not realized because of the poor nature of the politics that have occurred there since the 1960s.
The 2018 elections were deeply flawed and irregular and not representative, I think, of the vote of the people. The one thing that one can say about the process that it did lead to President Kabila stepping down and a new younger president, Tshisekedi coming into power. There was immediately after the election a strong feeling that Tshisekedi was going to be instrument of Kabila going forward in that his leadership and his authority and his ability to do things would be substantially constrained. Tshisekedi has shown some degree of independence.
It is again important to recognize that there is little we can do to rerun that election or to reverse it but there is something that all of us can do going forward, and that to put pressure on President Tshisekedi to ensure that the electoral commission is strengthened, it has more independence, more technical capacity and more of an ability to deliver a more responsible, fair and transparent election going forward.
It is also important that he continue the fight against corruption, that he begin to put in place the kind of economic reforms that are going to unleash the potential of the Congo and to provide the people, The Democratic Republic of the Congo an opportunity to realize so many of the opportunities that they have been denied in the past. He has shown more independence than I thought but it is important that he not stop, that he continue to move forward, that he open up political space and continue to open it up for civil society, for the opposition, for the media, that he not constrain but unleash the country's potential and that he continue to show both in reality and fact his independence away from Kabila and those who were around him in the past.
He will be judged on the next four years very keenly, but it's important that the institutions of democracy to the extent that we can help civil society strengthen them, that they be nurtured and pushed forward. Elections and democracy...Democracy doesn't depend essentially, solely on elections. It is institutions that must be strengthened and we can help the DRC and civil society move those forward.
Again, working effectively with religions groups, Catholic Church, a very powerful instrument, working with women's groups, with working youth groups across the DRC and working with an emerging entrepreneurial class of young Congolese as well. We have to nurture and strengthen and push them forward. These next elections will be able to tell us whether there's been progress. President Tshisekedi needs to continue to move forward.
CF: Thank you very much Ambassador Johnnie Carson. It's really been an honor to have you do this tutor for us on the entire continent. Of course there still would always be ground to cover. As you were speaking, I thought about what late President John F Kennedy said about democracy as a never ending endeavor, and so NDI and similar organizations will continue to work side by side with our African partners to make sure that we can support them, give them the support and share experiences that they need so that we can all collectively, continue to work to strengthen and support democracy in countries like the DRC, Ethiopia, Sudan and across the entire continent.
Thank you also for being a member of our board of directors. We are extremely proud of that and extremely proud of the partnership that NDI has with USIP and hope that our two organizations would continue to work together to support the growth of democracy across Africa and to our listeners, can I just say thank you for sharing in this edition of DemWorks, to follow our next podcast. Please check us out on our website www.NDI.org.
Last month, CEGA held its ninth annual Measuring Development (MeasureDev) conference on "Mitigating the Risks and Impacts of Climate Change," in partnership with the World Bank's Development Impact Evaluation (DIME) Department, Data Analytics and Tools Unit (DECAT), and the University of Chicago's Development Innovation Lab (DIL). Speakers showcased innovative approaches for measuring and tracking climate-related risk, developing effective responses, and evaluating outcomes in data-sparse environments. Sean Luna McAdams, CEGA's Data Science for Development Program Manager, shares key insights from the event here.Climate change is disrupting weather patterns around the world. Look no further than the unhealthy levels of smoke in the Northeast's skies last week. The impacts on human activity require urgent investments in mitigation and resilience for those most vulnerable. Last month, CEGA, DIL, and the World Bank brought together some of the most innovative social and natural scientists working on this existential challenge to share how they are pushing the frontiers of data collection, for example by using remote sensing technologies, engaging in participatory data collection, and effectively (and meaningfully) integrating different data streams.University of Chicago's Rachel Glennester emphasized the importance of measurement to help diagnose, mitigate, and adapt to climate change, particularly to incentivize green investments in LMICs. Credit: World Bank.A Call for Better Measurement"Mitigation is one of the true global public goods," noted the University of Chicago's Rachel Glennester in her keynote address. Indeed, the efforts by one country or group of countries to reduce carbon emissions will have benefits that are felt worldwide. Recognizing that low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) — who have historically contributed little to climate change — nevertheless face growing opportunities to mitigate emissions for the whole planet, Rachel suggested high-income countries could fund highly costeffective mitigation efforts in LMICs. These payments should not be considered aid as they benefit the world and offset high income countries' damage to the atmosphere. To do this effectively we need scalable approaches to measuring emissions, among many other critical indicators.Cost-Effective Measurement with Remote SensingMany speakers addressed the challenge of cost-effective measurement through the use of remote sensing. CEGA Affiliate Tamma Carleton highlighted the promise of satellite imagery and machine learning (SIML) to improve climate management. Her own work on MOSAIKS demonstrates the potential for these data and predictive models to increase the spatial coverage and resolution of survey and administrative georeferenced data, while lowering barriers to access for decision-makers in low-resource settings. Similarly, Dieter Wang showcased how higher resolution and frequency satellite imagery alongside cloud-penetrating sensors can improve estimates of how well conservation policies in the Brazilian Amazon are preventing deforestation. Better measurement in this case makes it possible to reward governments through bonds whose rates are tied to mitigation performance. Kangogo Sogomo discussed a novel approach that leverages satellite imagery to predict maize yields at a finer scale with less computational resources.Since 2010, new satellites have come online that increase both sensor resolution and cloud-free revisit rate. These advances provide researchers with more granular and frequent imagery data to incorporate into their analyses. Credit: Burke et al, Science 2021.Of course, remote sensing is not just limited to satellites and can inform adaptation and resilience alongside mitigation. Samuel Seo, for example, compared measurement strategies for methane emissions from a large, unmanaged landfill in Dakar, Senegal by collecting data using human enumerators, drones, and satellites. Across the board, these measurements suggest that current approaches used by the IPCC underestimate total emissions from these sites by more than half. Bridget Hoffman instead used low-cost air pollution sensors along bus routes and within buses in Dakar to understand the effects of an infrastructure project on air quality. Drones, stationary sensors, and other instruments can all provide rich data at scale to improve the evaluation and monitoring of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.The Role of Participatory Data CollectionResearchers and climate practitioners not only think creatively about the sensors they use to collect data, they also innovate data collection and its infrastructure to make it more participatory. Kangogo Sogomo noted increasing mobile phone use and internet penetration across the global South suggesting, "climate action is urgent… there is still an opportunity for having participatory methods [for data collection]." Tom Bewick, for example, has trained indigenous communities in Africa and Latin America how to collect georeferenced data on planted trees to improve the monitoring of their growth and local collective governance. Similarly, Kenneth Mubea, who works to conserve mangrove forests, discussed how his research assembled teams of students to work with local communities to collect georeferenced data. Participatory approaches can extend to model validation, as with the case of Alejandra Mortarini. She worked with organizations that have long-standing relationships with communities living in informal settlements in Honduras to help validate the outputs of the predictive model and calibrate it to improve its performance. By incorporating local actors into data collection efforts, we can increase its frequency, provide greater access, and contribute to a local culture of evidence-use.New Approaches to Data IntegrationA third strategy to make data collection cheaper and more effective relies on exploiting efficiencies generated by integrating different data streams. The World Bank's Stéphane Hallegatte stressed the opportunity of integrating different data sources in his remarks."We have all this fantastic progress in measurement with remote sensing and big data, we have these household surveys that are playing an absolutely critical role to measure what we are doing and to prioritize," said Hallegatte. "One of the big challenges is to make them completely interlinked and to flow smoothly from the spatial to household surveys, and have household surveys that can be more flexible when there is a shock that can use data coming from satellites to maybe focus and do dedicated surveys in places that have been affected by a shock."In particular, Hallegatte stressed that traditional measures of vulnerability may lead us to miss some individuals who may be critically underprepared to face the "long tails" of climate shocks. Adaptive research designs can help us understand which interventions work best in particular contexts and communities, improving our understanding of how climate systems affect those who are socioeconomically and environmentally most vulnerable and how we may build resilience together.Hallegatte stressed how different metrics of climate vulnerability can lead policy makers to prioritize different areas. Here we see how four different risk indicators — annual asset risk, annual consumption poverty increase, socioeconomic resilience, and annual well-being risk — map onto the Philippines. Source: Hallegatte 2023.Paola Agostini, Mohammed Basheer, and Erwin Knippenberg simulated physical and social systems in their research designs. These simulations enabled each of them to estimate new quantities of interest, like the decision-space of negotiations for potential dam designs in the Nile River Basin, the cost-per-benefit of different land restoration interventions in Tajikistan, or the percentage of the population at risk of falling into poverty due to weather shocks in Afghanistan. Ben Brunckhorst showed how the incorporation of weather predictions unlocks the possibility of anticipatory cash transfers with demonstrable effects on household resilience to flooding in Bangladesh.Through better measurement we can improve our collective efforts to meet the challenge of climate change. As Hallegatte reminded us in his keynote remarks, how we construct these measures of impact fundamentally affects what regions, communities, and interventions we prioritize. A critical part of this effort will be to leverage measurement strategies highlighted during MeasureDev 2023 to channel resources to the places and communities where interventions to mitigate and adapt to climate change will have the greatest impact. In so doing, measurement can contribute to a more equitable future by incentivizing green investments in LMICs.How does Measurement Contribute to a Habitable Planet for All? was originally published in CEGA on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
