Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper examines the impact of ultraviolet radiation (UV‐R) on state capacity. The results indicate that the intensity of UV‐R is a strong predictor of cross‐country differences in state capacity. Countries with a higher degree of UV‐R exposure tend on average to have weaker states. This finding remains unaffected after controlling for different variables that may be correlated with both UV‐R and state capacity, including an extensive set of geographical, historical and contemporary factors. The observed link between sunlight and state capacity is not driven by potential outliers and is robust to the employment of alternative measures of state capacity, estimation methods and other sensitivity checks. Furthermore, the analysis also reveals that the individualistic–collectivist dimension of culture acts as a transmission channel connecting UV‐R and state capacity. The estimates show that a lower degree of UV‐R exposure leads to the adoption of individualistic values, which in turn contribute to the development of state capacity.

Education in general and adult education in par ticular will determine the future well-being of the United States. The primary goal of education in a free society is to help the individual realize his potentialities and to enable him to expand his capacity to make wise decisions. The goal of a totalitarian society is the dominance of the state. The Soviet systems has a single philosophy which gives coherence to all aspects of life; there is a single organization in this system. In the United States there are many organizations, and we can organize and associate freely and voluntarily. Leadership in the USSR is assigned. Leadership in the United States is vol untary, fluid, and multiple. The economic needs of the Soviet Union and the United States are the same, but the methods and ends differ. The basic educational curriculum of a free society is that of the liberal arts and sciences. The teachers, students, and motivations of liberal adult education vary. To educate individuals to be responsibly free requires many meth ods, techniques, and tools; the goal should be the active par ticipation by the learner. In recent years United States educa tion has put increasing importance on educating the individual for responsible freedom in his private and public roles: in the home, on the job, and in the community. We further need to educate for public responsibility. Educational opportunities for our present and future leaders should be improved and expanded.—Ed.

This paper exploits a two-stage estimation approach to examine the impact on secondary school attainment in rural Honduras of four key variables affecting household choices: wealth, credit access, crop choice, and shocks. The first stage estimates the probability that a household is credit constrained, while the second estimates secondary school educational attainment of appropriately aged children. Credit-constrained households have lower educational attainment and are more likely to be adversely affected by negative shocks. (InWent/GIGA)

Looking at the theory and practice of privatization in its broadest manifestations, the contributors to this volume scrutinize the combination of public and private initiatives that makes up the present U.S. social sector. As they discuss privatization both in production and delivery of services and in financing, they reveal complexities that have been ignored in recent ideological arguments. This book, while warning about political misuse of privatization, offers an unusually rigorous definition and theory of the concept and presents a number of case studies that show how public and privat

It may seem self-evident that a democratic society ought to develop inclusive institutions and an inclusive educational system, yet when we try to define what we understand by inclusion, its complexity becomes apparent. This book does not seek to diminish that complexity but aims to deepen our understanding of the idea and ideals of inclusion, as well as examining the presuppositions, values, aims and blind-spots associated with the language of inclusion. What do we mean by the concept? What normative assumptions underpin discourses of inclusion? What happens when we fail to think about the un

"Serial no. 101-M." ; "February 1990." ; At head of title: Committee print. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Abstract
This article explores whether transnational state apologies—apologies from one state to another, but invariably apologies from "strong" states to "weak" ones—have any real meaning under international law. Without the force of law, states could continue to pursue the same or similar policies to those things for which they now apologize. One of the more remarkable aspects of transnational state apologies is the way in which they challenge the dominant "territorial" interpretation of international law. Through these apologies, states are committing themselves to protect not only their own citizens, but foreign nationals as well. Moreover, these principles are reflected in things like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) initiative as well as the Arms Trade Treaty. On the other hand, there is also evidence of a fissure between (apologetic) words, on the one hand, and international law and state practice, most notably the law on state responsibility as well as the legal apartheid now institutionalized in both the United States and in Europe—the two largest purveyors of state apologies.