November's Comment of the Month was sent in by Sarah Standish of Portland, Oregon. Sarah commented on Alok Amatya's post Dairy Cows Fight Terrorism in Fallujah. She offers an alternate look at the relationship between job creation and terrorism. Sarah also wisely points out the need to look at more than one source of information before drawing conclusions. For her efforts, we will make a $25 donation to a project of her choice on Global Giving.

This Wall Street Journal blog post mentions that one study suggested that job creation may not necessarily reduce terrorist attacks:

When unemployment declined in Iraq and the Philippines, violence increased. The scholars say that one reason for this is that government forces may be able to pay off locals for tips on guerrillas more cheaply when unemployment is high. Another possibility is military crackdowns may increase unemployment, because communities are walled off, but reduce attacks by insurgents.

These ideas should definitely provoke us to think carefully about the relationship between violence and job creation, but I don't think they present any compelling reasons to stop focusing on job creation. It sounds to me like the authors have noticed an interesting phenomenon but don't know quite how to explain it yet. In a complicated issue like this one, a single study is probably not enough to draw any absolute conclusions.

Keep writing in and share your though-provoking comments for a chance to win $25 towards the well-deserving charity of your choice!

* Lest anyone think $25 is not a lot, consider these figures from our affiliate Mercy Corps: $25 delivers clean, safe drinking water to 50 people in one of eastern Congo's sprawling displacement camps. $25 provides seeds to farmers in cyclone-devastated areas of Myanmar to plant five acres of rice. $25 gives traumatized children in Darfur 12 weeks of activities and psychological care to help them heal.

October's comment of the month comes from James in Portland, Oregon. James commented on our story Poverty Isn't Always Ugly. He reminds us that poverty rears its ugly head in many forms — not just monetarily. For his efforts, we will make a $25 donation to a project of his choice on Global Giving.

There are definitely a few issues to consider and discuss relating poverty. In reading Muhammad Yunus' book "Creating a World Without Poverty". He felt, and I agree, that the definition of poverty isn't going to be the same from country to country. For Bangladesh the Grameen Bank developed there own definition of poverty for their internal purposes and to measure impact over time.

Many organization attempt to place a dollar amount of income/day to determine poverty, we've heard the $2.00 per day used frequently. Income isn't a solid method because it doesn't factor variables outside of money. Location and access to natural resources for instance are variables that change the need for money, or an individuals dependence upon it.

Bottom line, I think it's important to realize that poverty can't be defined the same way in every community we visit. Poverty includes physical need and extends into the mindset of individuals and how they view the world around them. It's also important to be culturally sensitive when working with people around the world. Sure, we have it pretty good here in the U.S. but we have problems too. We shouldn't seek to cookie cut our cultural values everywhere we go.

Keep writing in and share your though-provoking comments for a chance to win $25 towards the well-deserving charity of your choice!

* Lest anyone think $25 is not a lot, consider these figures from our affiliate Mercy Corps: $25 delivers clean, safe drinking water to 50 people in one of eastern Congo's sprawling displacement camps. $25 provides seeds to farmers in cyclone-devastated areas of Myanmar to plant five acres of rice. $25 gives traumatized children in Darfur 12 weeks of activities and psychological care to help them heal.

September's winning comment was sent in by Alok Amatya of Portland, Oregon. Alok commented on our post Indian Girls Throw Punches at Poverty, and mentions how boxing is opening new avenues for and instilling self-confidence in Muslim women in India. For being chosen as this month's winner, Alok will get $25 to donate to the cause of his choice through Global Giving.

The WSJ article about Muslim girls from India taking up boxing was a very well written one. It puts in perspective the kind of social conservativeness that Muslim women like Ms Fatma have to battle to achieve self-actualization through a sport like boxing that her neighbors deem fit for boys only.

Traditional gender barriers prevent women like Ms Fatma from challenging the male social supremacy that reserves positions of any power or prestige for men, thus leaving for women only domestic chores and odd jobs like sewing, and lowering the female self esteem.

A sport like boxing is a compromise really—by pursuing it, the Muslim women does not challenge the economic supremacy of the male in the family, i.e. the father or the husband. Yet the value of the self-confidence inspired in women by being good at a complex sport—and at that, one presumed by their society to be fit exclusively for males—is immense.

It is very heartening to read about the fathers of women like Ms Fatma and Ms Shabnam standing up against social pressure for the sake of their daughters’ emotional and social well-being. Perhaps such fathers have understood that only feeding and clothing their daughters does not making them complete human beings. Also heartening to read is that women from these societies who excel at sports can not only take part in tournaments at various levels, but are also invited to join the police force or the railway because of their talent. Such a segway into other occupations traditionally reserved for men might inspire a wider social change, that would finally benefit both women and men.

Keep writing in and share your though-provoking comments for a chance to win $25 towards the well-deserving charity of your choice!

* Lest anyone think $25 is not a lot, consider these figures from our affiliate Mercy Corps: $25 delivers clean, safe drinking water to 50 people in one of eastern Congo's sprawling displacement camps. $25 provides seeds to farmers in cyclone-devastated areas of Myanmar to plant five acres of rice. $25 gives traumatized children in Darfur 12 weeks of activities and psychological care to help them heal.

This week's winning comment comes from Phillip Hafner in Portland. Phillip shares his thoughts on the informal economy based on his experiences with the informal sector in rural Jamaica. Phillip gets to choose between a $25 cash prize or a $25 donation made in his name to benefit a project of his choosing on Global Giving.

I visit friends in rural Jamaica every summer, and most of the individuals who make up the community in which I stay make their money through informal means. As mentioned in the post, this includes farming, child care, and transportation, to name a few. As I have found, and this is based on personal perception and may not represent the whole, there is a definite population of individuals in developing countries which stray from government contact, this including government sponsored jobs and aid. For my friends in Jamaica, and I assume for those who carry on in this manner in other developing countries, the state of the government’s well being does not necessarily reflect their own.

When considering the economic crisis, the situation remains the same. Small scale informal commerce will not suffer as much as large scale traditional commerce. This is to say, those selling fruit on the side of the road will generally stay in business while large corporations buckle under economic pressure. Still, when one looks at the whole, a decrease in economic growth will reduce spending. Yet, those not involved in traditional jobs will not be as affected. Moreover, as I am neither an advocate for or against the informal market, it is very interesting to see the subsistence informal trade and commerce is providing during the financial crisis.

Cynthia Changyit Levin's comment about how the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire has sparked conversation and shined a light on poverty in India caught our eye. That's why Cynthia is this week's winner of the comment of the week contest. Her comment:

No matter what people may think about how poverty was portrayed in Slumdog Millionaire, it has definitely sparked a discussion. I have seen poverty-focused editorials, op-eds, and news articles inspired by this film printed in local papers, Newsweek and even the current Entertainment Weekly. But my favorite place to hear it discussed was at a party attended by upper middle class suburban moms. When I heard a woman say "I had no idea that level of poverty existed in India or anywhere!" I was satisfied to think that the film had broken through to her so that she would open the dialogue about global poverty in as unlikely a place as a birthday celebration.

It's great to hear that the film is making an impact among people that weren't previously aware of issues of extreme poverty. Thanks for the great comment!

This week's comment contest winner is anonymous, which is technically against the rules, but we liked the comment anyway.

Anonymous commented on a 2006 article that questions whether China or India will become the dominant global force of the 21st century.

This is a belated comment on the article in June 2006. I believe many Indians these days have moved on from the pre-2006 India Shining or India Poised hype.

I am responding in particular to the comment in the 2006 article that the economy China has only recently overtaken that of Britain despite Britain having a small population and resources compared with China because 'Britain has all of the economic dynamism associated with free societies.'

If that be the case, why is India's economy, being a democracy which adds creativity and dynamism to an economy (according to the author) and not to mention a population which will soon bigger than that of China is not bigger than that of China's or indeed that of Japan's, Germany's, Britain's, France's and Italy's?

As to people in India feel empowered by the ballot box why do so many Indian people choose to live in slums then? Surely such empowered and happy people will choose better than living in slums? Perhaps Indian people need so many religions in their country to tell they really live in a wonderful paradise?

As to the better command of English, of course, India is notorious for poor literacy rate in the world especially amongst the female population. Successful economies like Japan and Germany, of course prove that you need more than being able to speak English to make your a country a success.

Global Envision is offering a $25 cash prize to the weekly comment contest winner. Read more about the contest here, and good luck!

Congratulations to Katie from Portland, OR for winning this week’s comment contest and the $25.00 prize! Katie responded to our post “Emissions Trading: Good for All or Good for None?”

Globalization plays a role as both a threat and an opportunity in carbon trading. As the article above mentions, the U.S. has been a culprit in taking advantage of off-shore polluting and has long been independent of global efforts to improve emissions when it failed to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

BBC News reports that the EU is expanding its Emissions Trading Scheme in order to include more industrialized nations, including poorer nations where help is needed.
Part of the plan to cut emissions will cost 175 billion euros annually by 2020, much of which the EU says will be needed in developing countries. The pact will be determined in Copenhagen in December, which would be a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

While the EU is expanding emissions control standards in developing nations, how will they find a way to include developed nations, like the U.S., as well as China and India? It is promising that the EU hopes to encourage a green infrastructure in these countries, but what about countries with the resources that fail to be responsible for their effects on the environment?

Emissions trading is a complex and controversial approach to reducing emissions worldwide. Critics argue that emissions trading will prohibit economic growth in developing countries, while others insist that action be taken now to prevent further damage caused by global warming. What do you think? Share your thoughts and keep commenting for a chance to win next week!

Congratulations to Manasi in Portland, Ore., this week's winner of our weekly comment contest. Manasi's comment on What a Slowing GDP Means for China's Workforce earned her a $25 prize to keep or donate to a project of her choice at Global Giving.

China has come up with its own stimulus plan to deal with the global recession and rising unemployment, according to the International Herald Tribune. Unlike the U.S., China has few debts, a small budget deficit and therefore more funds to invest in new spending plans. In order to quickly create jobs for millions, China is planning to spend $88 billion this year on construction of intercity rail lines and improving roads and highways throughout almost every city, town and county across the country. This plan will not only create millions of jobs, but will also curb China's dependence on cars, foreign oil and reduce air pollution. The stimulus plan will also include environmental projects like water treatment plants.

Economists are arguing about the actual feasibility of this plan and how quickly it will be executed. But most experts say that China will move faster than the U.S. in implementing their stimulus plan. This is because the government controls large sectors of the economy and is able to seize private property when it wants without all the legal and environmental regulations the U.S. government has to deal with. China is also planning to spend $123 billion to provide universal health care within the next 2 years according to the Tribune.

In a country that has seen the fastest growing GDP in recent years, perhaps it will be able to pull off this larger than life plan — even in a recession!

Whether the Chinese government will be able to stem the deepening economic crisis remains to be seen — right now it is hitting China's workers hard.

Congratulations to Nic Dominguez, a Peace Corps volunteer in Kenya, for winning this week's comment contest and a $25.00 prize. Nic responded to our post on Nicholas Kristof's provocative op-ed entitled Where Sweatshops are Dreams.

The problem of labor standards is a double edged sword for development. Yes sweatshops have horrific labor conditions by U.S. standards, but business has to start somewhere. Not only do these detestable conditions give an opportunity for the poor to work but they give an opportunity for the slightly less poor to employ. These factories are making goods with tiny profit margins. These margins are the only way to stay in business. If stricter labor conditions were to be forced upon the business it would make business impossible for thousands of sweatshops. It may sound right to condemn sweatshop conditions but any work is almost always better then no work.

It's an interesting dilemma. The concept of fair trade is a growing trend, but does the small paycheck associated with having a job in a sweatshop outweigh the poor conditions associated with working in one? Are sweatshops really a bad thing?

We've also been following the discussion surrounding financial social work for Americans. Danny from Utah commented on Americans, credit card abuse and the possibility for financial social work programs in the future.

I've heard it said that to give a man a fish is to bring him demise, but to give him a fishing pole is to give him life. We've found ourselves in a world that advertises fish and never the pole. We are constantly bombarded with marketing that makes us feel inferior if we don't have the latest car or biggest house. Its no wonder that we have developed such poor behavior when it comes to spending ... Credit card companies make it so incredibly easy to obtain and spend money that we don't have, why should we subject ourselves poverty, right? Wrong. Our problem starts there... Lets keep distributing poles!

Danny, we couldn't agree with you more. Mercy Corps was founded on the idea of teaching a man to fish and our programs emphasize that philosophy. But it looks as if the days of easy credit may be gone for many Americans, and the learning curve may be steep and painful.

But, what do you think? Keep commenting for a chance to win next week!

Photo: Gaeten Lee (flickr)

We want to hear from you. Yes, you.

Central to Global Envision's mission of exploring the confluence of global markets and poverty alleviation is to inspire dialogue.

That's why we've decided to launch a weekly comment contest with a cash prize of $25.*

So how does it work? Simply comment on our blog posts, and check the box to enter your comment into the weekly contest. You'll need to enter your real name and a valid email address so that we can contact you if you win. There's no limit to how often you can comment, so comment on one blog post or 20, one week or every week.

How will comments be judged? Well, each week we'll simply pick the comment we like best. Sound vague? You betcha. We'll be looking for a variety of things in comments including (but not nearly limited to): thoughtfulness, wit, insight and understanding of the topic. Feel free to challenge us, critique, praise or just plain discuss.

Comment away — we can't wait to hear from you.

* Lest anyone think $25 is not a lot, consider these figures from our affiliate Mercy Corps: $25 delivers clean, safe drinking water to 50 people in one of eastern Congo's sprawling displacement camps. $25 provides seeds to farmers in cyclone-devastated areas of Myanmar to plant five acres of rice. $25 gives traumatized children in Darfur 12 weeks of activities and psychological care to help them heal.

Comments on this post have been closed. Please make comments on other Global Envision posts to participate in the weekly comment contest.