Monday, May 27, 2013

A future with shanties

Original picture: Andrés Dapena Boixareu

In Brazil they are called favelas; in Argentina, villas miseria; in Chile, callampas; in Uruguay, cantegriles; in the Dominican Republic, barrios; in Venezuela, ranchos; in Guatemala, asentamientos; in Mexico, ciudades perdidas; in Ecuador and Colombia, invasiones; in Paraguay, chacaritas; in Peru, pueblos jóvenes; in Costa Rica, tugurios; in Morocco and other former French colonies, bidonville; in some former British colonies, slums; in Turkey, gecekondus; in Angola, musseques; in India, jhugi or bustee; in Pakistan, kachi abadi; in Sri Lanka, mudduku; in the South African Republic, imijondolo; in Lithuania, Lušnynai; in Serbia, Kartonsko naselje; in Portugal, bairro de lata; in Spain, chabola, which comes from the Basque language; and in Catalan we call it barraquisme.
That’s what urban planners call precarious settlement, informal settlement, marginal district or misery zone: a type of marginal settlement around most cities in the world, with poor health conditions, no basic services and populated by socially-excluded citizens. 
The latest report of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) provides some facts and figures about these settlements and about their forthcoming future. It’s worth reading!

Some bits and pieces from this report:
1.- Cities are gaining more and more inhabitants, not only in terms of absolute population but also if compared to rural areas. Out of the 229 surveyed countries, 88% increased their urban population in ten years. Moreover, most of the 28 countries which reduced their urban population, this reduction is less than 1% and none of them are large countries (except for the Russian Federation, which reduced its urban population in 0.2%). Most countries reducing their urban population are small islands in the Caribbean or Oceania, some small European countries like Liechtenstein, Latvia, Andorra and Macedonia, or some republics of Central Asia, like Kirgizstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. And the most shocking figure: all 229 surveyed countries, including these 28, are expected to increase their urban population by 2020 and 2030.
2.- Among urban population, the number of citizens living in shanties is shooting up. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the world’s area with major shanty town problem, 61.7% urban people live in shanties with very poor health conditions. In South-East Asia, 35%; in Latin America and the Caribbean, 23.5%. In some other countries, figures are even more devastating: in Central African Republic, 95.9% of urban population is living in shanties; in Chad, 89.3%; and in Mozambique, 80.5%.
3.- In 2001 there were 921 million people living in shanties. Four years later, there were more than one thousand million people: one of every three urban inhabitants of our planet. And figures are still growing: the population of shanties is estimated to grow 2.2% every year, in about 25 more million people. By the year 2030 or 2040 there will be two thousand million people living in shanties, which is about 50% of the world’s urban population.

Sources:
  1. Virtual exhibition Shanties, the Informal City about shanties in Barcelona: http://www.barraques.cat/en/
  2. Report State of the world’s cities 2012-2013: http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3387
  3. Data of section 3 are taken from Rafael POCH-de-FELIU’s book La actualidad de China, un mundo en crisis, una sociedad en gestación, published by Crítica (no English version available): http://ed-critica.claudator.com/libro/la-actualidad-de-china-978847423316


      
     
     
     

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Armed kids

Some weeks ago, mass media reported a sad piece of news from Kentucky, in the USA. Once again, a kid (this time a two-year-old girl) was shot and killed by her five-year-old brother with a rifle. The news stated that it was an "accident". But how can we consider it an accident when parents give a rifle to a kid? In this case, this is literally what happened: it was not an adult’s rifle left on a table unattended, but it was a child-size rifle given to him as a gift, specifically marketed to children as 'My First Rifle'
by the company Cricket, specialised in weapons for kids. Just like that: weapons for kids.
When we started writing this post, on the day after the fatal accident, we checked the company’s catalogue on its website: http://www.crickett.com/crickett_kidscorner.php. However, as you can see if you click on the link, this website is not found any more. But here you have some pictures:





This tragedy is one among many others and it will be used by those who advocate for a better control of firearms in households. But in the US, owning a gun is a constitutional right and most US citizens agree with it, so it won’t be easy to change. A good example of the lack of control over firearms, which is considered to be usual in US households, is the campaign of some mothers who denounce that there is a national schizophrenia about this issue: there are laws overprotecting kids (like the law banning the Little Red Riding Hood tale at school because the little girl on the story carries a wine bottle on her basket) while kids are allowed to own and use firearms.

 
Last week, while newspapers were busy talking about the Kentucky tragedy, a group of parents from Michigan claimed that Anna Frank’s Diary should be also banned from school. Their reason: this book is too pornographic because the female protagonist discovers her own body, and children should not have access to such dangerous material.

Sources:
  1. The news about the toddler shot dead by her brother: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317512/Kentucky-boy-5-shoots-sister-Caroline-Starks-2-child-size-22-caliber-rifle-given-GIFT.html
  2. The claim to ban Anna Frank’s Diary for being too pornographic: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/anne-frank-diary-pornographic-7th-grade-michigan-parent_n_3180134.html
    
   
    
    

Evo Morales: the VAT man


Every country can tax books as convenient. In the European Union, for instance, there are remarkable differences: Spain and Italy tax books at 4%, whereas Denmark taxes books at 25%. The EU countries with lowest taxes on books are Luxemburg, at 3%, and the United Kingdom, at 0%. Such differences between countries led the virtual bookstore Amazon to move its European headquarters to Luxemburg, where salaries are rather high but taxes are very low.
Moreover, taxes are also different if we talk about print books or e-books. In Spain, for instance, e-books are taxed at 21%, whereas print books are taxed at 4%. In order to end up with such big differences, the European Commission is planning to unify criteria by the end of the year 2013 (to be in force by 2015).
Needless to say, the price of books affects the reading rates. Therefore, printing houses and other institutions which promote reading habits advocate for low taxes on books. In the case of Spain, having a fixed price for books (which lets small- and medium-sized bookstores survive) and paying a reduced VAT of 4% are good measures to promote reading.
Some days ago, the president of Bolivia Evo Morales passed some acts to promote reading habits among Bolivians, including a National Library Network with funds to buy contemporary literature and the suppression of taxes on books (it was 13%) and on book transaction (it was 3%). Thanks to these measures, Bolivians can buy books 16% cheaper.
When announcing these measures, Evo Morales talked about a major problem in Bolivia: the low reading rate. And he set himself as a good example because he admits that he rarely reads a book. However, most Spanish newspapers gave a new nuance to this piece of news and the headlines were “Evo Morales does not like to read”. Only the small print revealed that the Bolivian government will pass some measures to promote reading. And not all newspapers included this information either.

Some examples:
El Mundo: «Evo Morales: "I don’t like to read"»:
http://www.elmundo.es/america/2013/04/30/noticias/1367307011.html
ABC: «Evo Morales: "I don’t like to read "»:
http://www.abc.es/internacional/20130430/abci-morales-gusta-leer-201304300833.html
La Vanguardia: «Evo Morales: "I don’t like to read"»:
http://www.lavanguardia.com/internacional/20130430/54373016764/evo-morales-no-me-gusta-leer.html
El País: «Morales admits that he does not like to read after passing a law to reduce taxes on books»:
http://economia.elpais.com/economia/2013/04/30/agencias/1367286502_156441.html
El Periódico: «Morales admits that he does not like to read»:
http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/internacional/morales-admite-que-gusta-leer-2378316
20 Minutos: «Evo Morales admits that he does not like to read: "I have this problem"»:
http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/1801885/0/evo-morales/no-gusta-leer/baja-impuesto/
La Gaceta: «Evo Morales does not like to read»:
http://www.lagaceta.com.ar/nota/542975/mundo/a-evo-morales-no-le-gusta-leer.html
Libertaddigital / esRadio: «Evo Morales: "I don’t like to read"»:
http://esradio.libertaddigital.com/fonoteca/2013-04-30/cultura-evo-morales-no-me-gusta-leer-58173.html

Sources:
  1. VAT policies on books around Europe: http://publishingperspectives.com/2012/07/why-is-europes-policy-e-books-so-schizophrenic/
  2. Amazon in Luxemburg: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-tax-amazon-idUSBRE8B50AR20121206
  3. VAT rates in Spain: http://www.tumbit.com/how-to-guides/articles/93-spanish-iva-explained.html
  4. Fixed book price: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_book_price_agreement