How hateful rhetoric connects to real-world violence |
- Conflict and land tenure security: What is the relationship?
- Could the Facebook papers close the deal on privacy legislation?
- The Biden administration is right to include Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy
- Staffing and compensation are at the heart of building a better early childhood system
| Conflict and land tenure security: What is the relationship? Posted: 01 Dec 2021 07:15 AM PST By Paul Prettitore Land tenure—the formal and informal relationship individuals and groups form with land—effectively determines who uses what land under which conditions. Tenure security is important to promote rural resilience and climate change adaptation, build endowments of assets, and provide adequate housing. But land tenure security is not static. It exists along a spectrum from strong to weak with numerous factors moving the needle between the two. One such factor is conflict and all the elements that comprise it. Violence, forced displacement, land grabbing, destruction of land records, death of land, and weakened governance associated with conflict affect tenure security and people's access to land. Understanding exactly how rights are affected can help design interventions to enhance land tenure security during and after periods of conflict. One way in which land tenure is impacted by conflict is through people's perceptions of the security of their tenure under the cloud of conflict and the risks it brings. In 2020, Prindex, through its global survey, released data on perceptions of security of land and housing rights in 140 countries. Comparing this with data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program's georeferenced records of violent events sheds light on the relationship between conflict and tenure security. The key findings:
A better understanding of the relationships between violence and perceptions of tenure security will help develop targeted policies and interventions that safeguard and strengthen tenure security during and after conflict. Additional research on how additional factors, such as the length of conflict, causes (e.g., expropriation vs. family disputes) and spillover effects into non-conflict areas, impact tenure security would help further fill knowledge gaps. Recognizing and addressing the triggers of perceived insecurity could also help governments build trust in post-conflict settings, a critical element in promoting peace and stability, given the social and economic significance of land and housing in conflict and fragile settings. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Could the Facebook papers close the deal on privacy legislation? Posted: 01 Dec 2021 07:05 AM PST By Cameron F. Kerry, Jules Polonetsky The disclosures from the Facebook Papers have led to a flurry of legislative proposals on Capitol Hill to address data use, kids' online safety, and malicious content. The single most effective step Congress can take is to enact comprehensive privacy legislation to address the explosion of digital information not covered by existing, narrower privacy laws. Congress should not let this latest "Facebook moment" pass without meaningful action. Every day that passes without a baseline privacy protection law in effect is another day that not just Facebook, but a multitude of businesses, collect and use data generated from billions of devices. IBM estimates that the world generates 2.5 quintillion bytes of data per day – that's 2.5 followed by 18 zeroes. This volume will soon explode even further as data-intensive technologies power augmented and virtual reality environments (the "metaverse" to which Facebook's new corporate name refers), and autonomous vehicles in the streets communicate with sensors that monitor traffic and pedestrian safety. It is past time for the United States to require businesses to use data responsibly and give individuals rights in data about them, safeguard that have been absent and that would protect everyone in America. Every major democracy in the world has passed legislation to set boundaries on business data collection – and this month a new commercial privacy law took effect in China. After the Cambridge Analytica stories in 2018, several congressional committees hauled in Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for back-to-back hearings carried live on cable news. Since then, Facebook has been a subject of some 70 hearings on privacy, competition, content moderation, misinformation, security, and diversity and inclusion, with 17 Facebook-affiliated witnesses. Galvanized by Facebook's sharing of data with Cambridge Analytica, Congress made a promising start on comprehensive privacy legislation. Leading members called for legislation, several introduced bills, and multiple committees and working groups got to work toward bipartisan legislation. When it came to the hard bargaining, however, the early promise waned. Even though flagship bills from the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee had encouraging areas of overlap, bipartisan agreement stalled. Ideological red lines that have frozen progress include whether a federal law should preempt state privacy laws in part or altogether, and whether to allow lawsuits by individuals for violations of privacy rights. There is ample room for compromise on these issues, but little sense of urgency to do so. As privacy work slowed, Congress' attention has turned to the many other concerns about Facebook and tech platforms, including their impact on children, free speech and disinformation, competition, and jobs. Now the Facebook files have rekindled the privacy debate. The Senate Commerce Committee held its first privacy hearing this year in September. Committee Chair Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Ranking Member Roger Wicker (R-MS) both affirmed their interest in working together on comprehensive legislation. At this hearing, Senators and business witnesses publicly softened their differences on the fractious issue of private lawsuits. The two of us have been deeply involved in the public discussion of privacy legislation for more than a decade. We speak often with congressional staffers and members as well as advocates for industry, consumers, privacy, and civil rights. We have never seen passage of a broad privacy law as close as it is now, and no other issue targeting the major tech platforms is anywhere near as ripe for action. The work already done in Congress and through laws passed in California, Colorado, and Virginia have laid a foundation for passage of federal legislation. Both -industry and advocates for privacy, consumer protection, and civil rights are ready to compromise on key issues when and if Congress moves toward passage of a privacy bill. It will take more than privacy legislation to solve the wide-ranging challenges that social media has created and amplified. But protecting people's personal information is the place to start. Congress should finish the job of enacting a privacy law that began with its first Facebook hearings in 2018. Facebook and IBM are general, unrestricted donors to the Brookings Institution. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions posted in this piece are solely those of the authors and not influenced by any donation. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| The Biden administration is right to include Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy Posted: 01 Dec 2021 06:39 AM PST By Richard C. Bush, Ryan Hass The Biden administration recently announced arrangements for Taiwan's participation in the Summit for Democracy, which will be held virtually December 9-10. This was not an easy call. The issue was not whether Taiwan has a genuine democracy; it does. The island's leaders and much of its public wanted very much to participate and share Taiwan's experiences as a thriving democracy. The problem was the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has long sought to exclude Taiwan from the international system and multilateral events like the summit. The Biden administration appears to have threaded the needle just right, affording Taiwan the dignity it deserves in the process. TAIWAN'S DEMOCRATIC EVOLUTIONIn the late 1940s, the Republic of China government led by Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan after being defeated by Mao Zedong's communists in a civil war. For the next four decades, the Taiwan population lived under a tough, authoritarian system that suspended civil and political rights, allowed elections mostly at the local level only, and maintained a monopoly of power. Although Taiwan became an economic success story, its political development was stunted. That changed in the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons. The leader at that time, Chiang Ching-kuo (Chiang Kai-shek's son) made a firm decision to bring democracy to Taiwan. The PRC had begun its program of economic reform and Chiang wanted to keep ahead by doing political reform. He also probably realized democratization was his best way of sustaining American support and protection. But there were other reasons. A political opposition had grown up, which in difficult circumstances exerted pressure on the government to undertake reform. A middle class had emerged that sought more political freedoms. And there was some pressure from the U.S. Congress. Chiang Ching-kuo began the democratic transition in 1986, two years before he died. His successor, Lee Teng-hui, completed the process. The first popular elections for the entire legislature were held in 1992. The first popular election for president occurred in 1996. As one of us (Bush) described in his recent book, "Difficult Choices," several factors made this transition remarkable. First, it was basically peaceful. Second, it occurred gradually. Third, under Lee's leadership, an ad hoc, centrist coalition of moderates of the ruling party, the KMT, and the primary opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in effect negotiated the scope and pace of change. Taiwan thus became the poster child of the "third wave" of democratization, all the more impressive because it occurred at the same time as the tragedy of Tiananmen Square and its repressive aftermath was unfolding in the PRC. China was relevant to Taiwan's democratization in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, the PRC government asserts that Taiwan is a part of China and that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should unify. In 1981, it proposed a formula for doing that, known as "one country, two systems," the same approach that was applied to Hong Kong. Beijing's offer was unappealing, in part because many on Taiwan were anti-communist by ideology. In addition, "one country, two systems" offered partial democracy at best, and Taiwan was quickly moving to full democracy. One result of Taiwan's democratic transition was that the island's public would have a say in whether to accept any agreement that might be negotiated between leaders in Beijing and leaders in Taipei. Democratization also affected Taiwan's relationship with the PRC because it unleashed a flood of ideas about Taiwan's future. Most disturbing to Beijing was the dream of some in the DPP that Taiwan should be an independent country with no legal or political ties to China. President Lee (1988-2000) and his successor Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008), the island's first DPP president, certainly played up Taiwan nationalism for political purposes, which PRC leaders perceived to be covert moves to independence. The rising cross-Strait tensions that arose as a result were of concern to the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, who each worked to limit risks of an unwanted conflict. Taiwan politics stabilized in 2008 with the election of the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou, who believed that engaging China was better than provoking it. Both Ma and his successor, Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP, who was first elected in 2016, seem to have adjusted the positions of their political parties to the status quo preferences of the Taiwan population. Neither independence nor unification has much appeal with voters. China has alleged that Tsai is another closet independence advocate, but her record does not lend serious credence to such assertions. She was easily reelected in 2020. MEASURING TAIWAN'S DEMOCRATIC PERFORMANCE TODAYIn some respects, Taiwan's democracy deserves all the admiration it receives. Political rights are protected and vigorously exercised. Policy issues are intensely debated. Civil society is lively. Trust in election integrity is high. There have been three rotations of power between the KMT and the DPP. On the other hand, there are problems: political corruption, polarization between the two political camps, the emergence of an occasionally destabilizing protest culture, and an increasing reliance on referendums to challenge government policy. In short, political forces have become very good at blocking what they do not like, but they find it difficult to forge compromises to enact what society needs. Another challenge confronting Taiwan's political system is Beijing's multi-pronged campaign to influence decisions on Taiwan toward the mainland's preference for peaceful integration. Such efforts often fall in the grey zone between peaceful exchange and actions that could invite conflict. Efforts that fall within this realm of coercion without violence include cyber campaigns, misinformation and disinformation efforts, illicit cash flows to political actors sympathetic to Beijing's aims, military intimidation, preferential policies to attract Taiwan's innovators and companies to relocate to the mainland, and attempts to isolate Taiwan diplomatically. Viewed holistically, such efforts are intended to weaken the will of the Taiwan people. Beijing would prefer for Taiwan society to be divided. It seeks to compel the people of Taiwan to lose confidence in their ability to provide peace and prosperity for future generations. They also would like to call into question whether the United States remains committed to supporting Taiwan's democratic development, i.e., whether Washington is willing to pay costs and accept risks in relations with Beijing to keep open a path to peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences in a manner that reflects the will of the people in Taiwan. THE BIDEN TEAM MAKES THE RIGHT CALLThese were the circumstances under which the Biden administration decided to include Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy. The administration faced a choice of whether to exclude Taiwan from the summit in service of seeking to stabilize relations with Beijing, or to invite Taipei's participation, recognizing that Taiwan has meaningful contributions to offer. At a more fundamental level, the Biden administration likely also concluded that its calls for Taiwan's meaningful participation in the international community would ring hollow if it boxed Taiwan out of its own summit. Its decision to include Digital Minister Audrey Tang and Taiwan Representative to Washington Bi-Khim Hsiao builds on past precedent of Taiwan's involvement in U.S.-organized coalition efforts. Taiwan officials previously have played active roles in U.S.-led coalitions to protect religious freedom and counter the Islamic State group, to name but two examples. The combination of Tang and Hsiao to represent Taiwan is a smart choice. Tang is a subject-matter celebrity in the democratic world, given her innovative track-record leading Taiwan's efforts to counter disinformation and misinformation. She and her team have built a rapid-response system to counter Beijing's attempts to manipulate public discourse in Taiwan, often employing humor to expose the sources of malicious information. Hsiao is a longtime trusted advisor to President Tsai who has built strong relationships across the political spectrum in the United States. Together, they will be able to speak authoritatively on Taiwan's behalf and offer meaningful contributions to the summit's objectives of defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights. Even as Beijing can be counted on to object to Taiwan's participation in the summit and cry foul at America's emboldening of "Taiwan independence forces," Chinese officials likely will frame their opposition to the summit in broader terms than just Taiwan's participation. For example, in a joint op-ed, the Chinese and Russian ambassadors to the United States cast the summit as an attempt by Washington to split the world into blocs. They argued that the U.S. had no standing to judge other countries' governance systems and asserted that effective governance should be measured by whether it "brings about economic development, social stability and progress, and better lives for the people." There is a fair debate to be had over whether America's hosting of the summit and its choices on whom to invite and exclude will do more to aid or undermine its broader global objectives. Leaving aside broader questions, the Biden administration made a sound decision to include Taiwan and to invite Minister Tang and Representative Hsiao to speak to Taiwan's experiences. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Staffing and compensation are at the heart of building a better early childhood system Posted: 01 Dec 2021 04:00 AM PST By Daphna Bassok, Anna J. Markowitz, Katherine Miller-Baines, Isabelle Fares When COVID-19 hit, the work of being a child-care teacher—already challenging and low paying—became even more demanding, dangerous, and emotionally challenging. Prior to the pandemic, teachers left child-care sites at extremely high rates (more than twice as high as those of K-12 teachers), and the pandemic has exacerbated this issue. Many media accounts document child-care sites' loss of staff and difficulty hiring, particularly as wages in other sectors rise. Recent U.S. jobs data show that the child-care sector is still about 10% smaller than prior to the pandemic. These staffing challenges have real implications for young children, who benefit from consistent relationships with the adults in their lives, and for the working families who rely on child care to do their jobs. In a recent survey of thousands of child-care providers, one-third reported having longer waitlists or being unable to open classrooms due to staffing challenges and one-quarter had to reduce their operating hours. Early in the pandemic, centers struggled to fill slots as families pulled their children out of care; more recently, parents returning to work are finding shut down centers and no slots available. These narratives are alarming, but because of a lack of systematic data in child care, it is unclear both how truly widespread these challenges are and how different conditions are compared to pre-pandemic times. The American Rescue Plan and other federal COVID-19 relief funds included unprecedented investments in early care and education, acknowledging the need to address staffing issues. Many states are now experimenting with strategies to allocate these funds to teachers. Evaluating these initiatives provides a unique opportunity to both collect systematic child-care data to inform and refine efforts, and to learn how financial supports can best stabilize this workforce. In Louisiana, our longtime partners in the early childhood office at the Louisiana Department of Education are allocating $27 million in federal relief dollars to create Teacher Support Grants (TSG)—a fund that aims to get money to teachers through stipends, bonuses, or wage supplements, and to ultimately reduce turnover. Our team is tracking the success of TSGs through a set of key staffing and compensation questions embedded in the application that child-care providers must submit to obtain grant funds. Because all publicly funded programs are eligible for the grant, and the vast majority apply, the application data provide for the first time a comprehensive look at child-care staffing across an entire state. Through multiple rounds of application data we can document whether the workforce is indeed stabilizing. Here, we share findings from the first round of application data, collected from 673 publicly funded child-care sites (representing about 80% of all Louisiana sites) in summer 2021. We have three key findings. First, teacher turnover and difficulties hiring are widespread. More than 70% of Louisiana child-care sites reported having at least one teacher vacancy. On average, leaders reported that about one in five (18%) positions at their site were currently unfilled; 35% reported that more than a quarter of their positions remained unfilled (Figure 1). Figure 1: Percent of teaching positions currently vacant (by child-care site)
Nearly all leaders (88%) reported that, between January and July of 2021, losing teachers posed a challenge. Filling vacancies proved particularly hard: 95% of leaders indicated finding or hiring replacement teachers was difficult and more than 70% said it was very difficult. Without pre-pandemic data, we cannot say how much these alarming rates reflect COVID-19-specific challenges as compared to long-standing staffing struggles. Either way, however, rates are high. Figure 2: Child-care site leaders' responses to questions about staffing challenges
Second, leaders reported that staffing challenges impacted teachers, children, and families. In our data, 84% of site leaders reported asking staff to work more hours or take on additional roles to make up for staffing shortages (Figure 3). Three-quarters worried that staffing issues negatively affected children at their site. Almost half (46%) indicated that they served fewer children or turned away families due to staffing challenges, and nearly two-thirds (63%) indicated they currently had a waitlist. In an open-ended response, one site leader explained, "Teacher turnover has created many challenges for us. … Losing teachers and finding quality candidates that actually want to work has been our biggest challenge. This … hurts our current employees, hurts our enrollment, and also can really negatively affect the children [who] need stability and routine." Figure 3: Child-care site leaders' responses to questions about the impact of staffing challenges on children and site operations
Third, leaders reported low wages as a key driver of staffing challenges. Many leaders wrote about their inability to offer competitive wages. Across Louisiana, the median wage for lead teachers was $10 per hour; for assistant teachers it was $9. Access to benefits was also low: 79% of leaders reported they do not provide health-insurance benefits to any teachers. Leaders recognized the need for additional compensation: "I need to be able to pay my teachers a livable wage. It’s not fair to them to work so hard but be compensated so little. Many of them are becoming tired of the small checks and are talking about finding other work. Their jobs are important, we are the reason parents are able to go to work or to school." However, they expressed concern about using short-term relief funds to address this long-standing problem. One leader commented, "I keep feeling like [the teachers] deserve more money, but I am so afraid to not be able to continue to afford it." Another explained, "I did not give raises because I did not know how long I would be able to pay them that amount. … We cannot take a raise back." Investments in Stabilizing the Workforce are Investments in High-Quality Early EducationAlthough many media accounts have documented child-care staffing challenges, Louisiana's statewide data provide the most comprehensive view to date. The picture is dismal. Nearly all leaders reported struggling to hire and retain teachers, and the resulting instability has negative implications for teachers, children, and families—and ultimately the U.S. economy. Leaders reported that they could not compete with higher-wage, lower-stress jobs. While most of the leaders in our data (82%) did offer bonuses or wage increases in the six months leading up to the survey, they were not enough to combat the staffing crisis. Earmarked compensation initiatives like the TSG will likely help stabilize the field in the short term, but they are not sufficient to overcome a longtime funding problem. While it seems obvious that we cannot build high-quality early learning systems if we cannot recruit, retain, and adequately compensate early educators, most early-childhood-education policy solutions fail to address the true costs of staffing. The Build Back Better Framework proposes sweeping compensation reform. It re-casts a living wage and salary ladder for early educators as a core cost for providing high-quality care, and requires subsidy reimbursement to reflect this full cost of care. By expanding access to subsidies, it also provides a more stable revenue stream. If passed, this investment would revolutionize compensation and have a dramatic impact on early-childhood-education workforce stability. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Conflict and land tenure security: What is the relationship?. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment