World Aids Day - some discrepancies

I am watching that admirable man, Nelson Mandela on TV, with his AIDS charity 46664 holding a concert on the occasion of World Aids Day. Quite an interesting global effort to drive solutions on this disease, but again, I am a bit curious about  which diseases get global attention and which do not. For example, see here. The graph of projected global deaths from various selected diseases on page 12 shows that cancers, heart diseases and strokes deaths are higher than AIDS. Another interesting factoid:

The total number of tobacco attributable deaths is projected to rise from 5.4 million in 2005 to 6.4 million in 2015 and to 8.3 million in
2030. Tobacco is projected to kill 50% more people in 2015 than HIV/AIDS and to be responsible for 10% of all deaths.

So you don't really get the same kind of attention to tobacco deaths across the world as you get for AIDS, do you? I suppose this is what is called as the diseases of affluence syndrome. Or is this because AIDS is more "sexy" than say "dysentery"? which kills more? See this (Annex Table 3). This shows how the deaths pan out in various regions by cause. Then map how many "World ???? Days" do you see against that mortality list. Curious, no?

Another couple of points for which I do not have any facts or figures but just struck me. Why there is more western media attention paid to AIDS in Africa compared to AIDS in say India?.

And another discrepancy, at the concert in Johannesburg, most of the attendees seemed to be white in colour. I am not sure why that was the case. Bit puzzling that.

All this is nothing to take away from the fact that AIDS needs to be fought, but wearing my economist hat, I am curious why resources are being invested in diseases which, prima facie, show lesser returns). I wonder if there is any kind of resource modelling aspect around? Then again, World AIDS Day is more "sexy" than World Dysentery Day??

Technorati Tags: South Africa,Healthcare,AIDS

Tax Sensitivity in Electronic Commerce

I have talked previously about taxation on the internet. But there is quite a lot of underlying sensitivities and economics around what is the optimal level of taxation so that you do not kill the golden goose by over taxing the transactions. Here's an example of a paper which delves deeper into this issue.

Generally speaking, if you have high sales tax locally, then people will shop online more (solely based upon the situation in the USA, other countries levy online sales tax). It is a big issue, I quote:

Bruce and Fox (2001), using the concepts from these studies, estimate the annual revenue loss from business to consumer (B2C) commerce alone to be between $1.7 billion and $2.6 billion. Furthermore, each study predicts continued growth in state revenue losses in the future as the number of Internet users increases.

The author finds that actually, the tax sensitivity is not that high as previously thought. I quote further results:

Further analysis based on a splined tax rate indicates that only those facing the highest tax rates are still sensitive to rate changes. I also find that users who have been online for many years are significantly more sensitive to changes in the tax rate than are new adopters. Finally, including broadband and security variables in the model does not improve the significance

this is interesting. As it so happens, the only people who seems to be sensitive to local tax changes are those who are well experienced with the internet and/or are higher tax payers. Unfortunately, this is fairly typical in western societies, the people who really need to care about their financial situations (generally the people at the lower end of the scale) dont. So perhaps the fact that the government is stepping in to remove taxation is helping the consumers on their behalf. But that doesn't remove the problem of the slowly reducing tax income of the states. They have to think about a better way to handle this kind of issue of income shortfall. Perhaps a form of value added tax?

Technorati Tags: Taxation,Internet,USA

Suicide bomber falls down stairs ...

(Perky, enthusiastic, arrogant suicide bomber) Hi, I am here for the 72 virgins.

(bored bureaucrat Gabriel) Say what?

(very self righteously, looking around for applause and appreciation) Oh!, you don’t know me. I am the latest suicide bomber, I am a martyr, and I am here to claim my 72 virgins.

(muttering, poxy gits, cant even let a man drink his mint tea in peace) Wait a sec, let me check the records.

(impatient and slightly unsure about the 72 naked girls who will drape over himself soon but covering it with arrogance) Sure, but come on, get a move on, I want to get to my virgins who must be panting away for me.

(apologetic) Ummm, there seems to be a problem. Looks like you actually did not die in a martyrdom operation but just blew yourself up after falling down stairs. I do not remember anything in the by-laws about giving virgins to people who fall down stairs and blow themselves up.

(gobsmacked, outraged!)What do you mean there is no bylaws? Sure there is, it is all about the niyaat. I wanted to blow up some kids, policemen and some teachers in the greater glory of god. It was those mean Zionists who supplied bad cement to the infidel republic of Afghanistan and that caused the stairs to have crumble. It was not my fault.

(trying to calm the chap down with reference to rules) I am sorry, mate, but if we started to give out 72 virgins to everybody who died in an accident, then we will run out of the virgins. You know our actuaries actually plan to have the relevant number of virgins in stock based upon our mortality tables of suicide bombers.

(collapse of confidence in front of rules and technical talk, appeals to universal brotherhood) Come on, brother, I do deserve it, I was a nice chap, see? I even put khol around my eyes.

(bureaucrat points to the human element and being reasonable) I realise that you are good looking but I have a responsibility towards the virgins as well. How do you think they will feel when they are at the beauty parlour getting their armpits fixed and then their neighbour leans over and says, “Hi, welcome, you must be news, my suicide bomber killed 12 children and 4 soldiers. How about you?” what will your virgins say? “well, ummm, ah, he sort of injured 2 stair steps and 3 people”. And then burst into tears. Between you and me, mate, these virgins are very temperamental, they want proper terrorists, not somebody who had an accident with some stairs.

(looking very disappointed by this time). But cant I claim the 3 injured people?

(patiently refers to rule book) Ah, no, my clumsy friend, you cannot claim accidentally injured people. See? By law 2.34.5 sub-section 3 clearly says that collateral accidental damage must be done in close proximity not exceeding 23 meters from the original main target.

But hey (perks up), I even made a martyrdom video!. Surely, the virgins would like to be with somebody who has made a movie?

(Shock / Horror as he stands up in a rush overturning the chair) You made a video? Do you not realise that making a video is haram? You are not allowed to represent a living being because Allah will ask you to recreate it on judgement day and when you cannot do so, then you will have to spend the rest of eternity in hell.

(withdraws hastily). It was not my fault, it was the fault of those Arab Taliban mullah’s, they told me to do this. They said that they have a fatwa from some fellow.

(glares). So you go about listening to anybody who says anything and don’t read the quran yourself? No wonder you fell down the stairs.

(near tears by this time). Please, Sir, I realise I made a mistake in making that video, but none of it was my fault. It was the Arabs, Americans, Zionists, Infidels, apostates and all who made me do all that and not fulfil my holy mission.

(still very upset) I do not care, this is not good. I have a good mind to send an inter-office memo to the office of Arabs Affairs.

(gingerly but curiously). The Arabs have their own office? What about Afghans?

(gets distracted). Of course, rest of the world are just fine, we just have to deal with the normal run of the mill human problems. But gosh, the Arabs need special attention. Why do you think I appeared in Saudi Arabia in the middle of a desert? And not in say Mauritius or in Helsinki? So yes, they need special attention. I am here in the rest of the world office on deputation, I got tired of handling them.

(whining). But Sir, cant anything be done for me?

(mollified by all the whining and now just wishing to get back to his mint tea) Well, I do have 2 slightly used shop soiled virgins. The last batch had a bit of water damage from a leak in the warehouse and we didn’t catch it in time. I was going to send them back but if you are ok with some slightly cranky homaresses of virgins, I can give them to you.

(bit relieved), well I will take them. Hang on, what do you mean, last batch? When was this last batch received?

(basilisk stare after raising head from filling up the form). Why? 1400 years ago. What is your problem with 1400 year old virgins? Nobody else had a problem with 1400 year old virgins ever before.

(hastily) no no, no problems, Sir, glad to take them (accepts the signed approval form)

(airily waves over to the next window). Go to Tariq over there with the form. He will issue you the heavenly clothes, the vouchers for the beauty parlour and the checkout forms for the virgin warehouse.

(Goes back to his mint tea, muttering) the very cheek, wanting 72 virgins for injuring 2 stairs. What’s next? Wanting 72 virgins for writing an op-ed or blog post?

 

News Story

Technorati Tags: Humour! Islam,Muslims,Terrorism

Who speaks for Muslim women?

This is a curious blog-post which TBS chucked over to me. We have our differences over these three ladies that the post mentions, Asra, Ayaan and Irshad. I have written about Asra Nomani. Well, the post refers to two other women, namely, Ingrid Mattson and second is Zarqa Nawaz. I have heard of those two ladies definitely. But I think there are few questions came to mind.

1. Why do Muslim Women need spokesmen (pun intended)?  (Compare to Hindu or Jewish or Christian women). I dont know much about the Christian or Jewish role models or spokespersons of today but thinking about it, I have never heard of anybody who is a purely Hindu female spokesperson. We have had spokespersons who spoke for Hindu Women like Raja Ram Mohon Roy. We have had Hindu Females who were leaders ranging from Indira Gandhi to Mayawati, but I never got the feeling that they were speaking purely for women. I have to admit that I dont know much about this area so am willing to be corrected, but boy, oh! boy, as soon as you talk about Muslim women, there are absolutely legions and battalions of men and women who form up to speak on their behalf. Curious, no?
2. How do we decide on who speaks for whom? See my previous post on who is the best judge.
3. Do you need to be outside the fold to speak about the fold or inside the fold? (abused women - do they escape the abusive household first or do they stay inside and try to reform the bad husband)
4. Who are the other ladies in the west that are being followed? I mean, if Asra, Ayman and Irshad are on the far left of the scale, Ingrid and Zarqa are sort of in the middle, who is on the right? Yvonne Ridley? I have to admit that I find Yvonne Ridley a bit of a clown, but hey, she wears a hijab and says all the right things I guess that all Muslims like to hear, no? But she still does not have a following (i hope she doesnt!) How about Farhat Hashmi? Or Raheel Raza? (See my book review here.  And and and?
5. Looking at the comment given below, you can see immediately how two identities are colliding. Women generally look at these 3 ladies as ladies first and all women as women first. Obviously, the author of the post looks at herself and others as Muslims first and women second.
6. All reformers face resistance. So the fact that these 3 women's are feeling resistance is not a problem at all. I mean, look at Jesus, how many Jews took up his call? Christ, they even helped to crucify him (just kidding and punning!). Or talking about meeting resistance, even Prophet Mohammad met resistance all through his life. Very few followed him for a very long period of time, no?
7. At end of the day, what seems to be the problem is if somebody gets money and/or publicity which seems to be a problem. I am not very sure why that is a problem. I mean, this criticism seems to be driven more by jealousy than anything that is logical. For example, what exactly is wrong with earning money? It is not like we do not have examples of preachers and mullah's who do exactly the same thing for money, going on TV, banging on and on about how to be a good Muslim and earning quite a lot of dosh for that (see the above example of Farhat Hashmi). Nothing wrong with getting publicity or getting money is there? Until and unless you are a socialist or an introvert, in which case, the problem is economic philosophical or emotional, neither of which applies in this case.
8. And at end of the day, I am curious why people rush to judgement to that extent specially when it comes from a religiously mandated angle. I mean, if it is indeed religiously driven, then should not they believe in "Narrated Umar Ibn Al-Khattab: "Allah's Apostle said, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended." And its even in Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 238!. So this judging of niyaat is curious to say the least. (On a separate basis, this bloody publishing of Hadith's for the same author has to be fixed, somebody says that Hadith is Book 1, number 1, somebody says its 5, 58, 238, somebody says 86, 85, someone says, 1, 2, 51. etc. Go ahead, search the net.

Still, some strange questions indeed.

Technorati Tags: Islam,Women's Rights

Has the internet increased exports for firms from low and middle-income countries?

We know globalisation has always been driven by technology. Better technology, better communications. Whether we are talking about the bronze age to the telegraph to the internet, with each jump in technology, globalisation has improved and extended.

Globalisation can be defined as increased communications, increased trade, increased resource transfers, increased knowledge, etc. on a global basis. And people do complain about globalisation mucking up the poor. Is that true? One way of answering this question is to ask whether the internet has improved exports for lower and middle income countries. This is, of course, assuming that the internet drives globalisation, which I am saying it does.

This paper checks this hypothesis and finds "a strong correlation between exporting and internet access at the enterprise level. Moreover, this correlation remains after controlling factors that might affect both exports and internet connectivity and self-selectivity".

The authors check eastern European and central Asian republics as their sample countries and most importantly, use firm level data rather than country level data (as country level data can be skewed by few very larger firms). The authors found that the firms having internet connectivity export more than firms who did not. But before you get all excited and get everybody hooked up to the internet, the authors also found that non-internet firms which already exported did not show more exports when they did get connected to the net.

But conscious of the fact that correlation does not mean causality, they further generate regression models and determine that even after controlling for various factors, the link between exports and net access is strong thereby giving credence to the fact that if you get net access, your exports will start at worst and improve at best.

So overall, it does seem to be prudent for Governments interested in pushing for better export performance to improve internet access and penetration rates across the country. Also for globalisation opponents, it might be worthwhile for them to consider the plus's of their argument as well.

I was a bit disappointed with the selection of sample countries, I would have preferred if they had added some of the lesser developed countries from Latin America and Africa but I suppose data availability was the challenge.

Technorati Tags: Asia,Europe,Poverty,Internet,Globalisation

 

George R.G. Clarke, Has the internet increased exports for firms from low and middle-income countries, Information Economics and PolicyVolume 20, Issue 1, , March 2008, Pages 16-37.
Many commentators have suggested that the internet is one of the forces driving globalization. This paper assesses one aspect of these claims, looking at whether internet access appears to affect the export performance using data from enterprises in low and middle-income economies in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The paper finds a strong correlation between exporting and internet access at the enterprise level. Moreover, this correlation remains after controlling factors that might affect both exports and internet connectivity and self-selectivity.
Keywords: Internet; Development; Exports

The problem of conversion, can you be Danish and Muslim at the same time?

The fact that Immigrant Muslims and native Europeans are at loggerheads is not in doubt. Just look at the current huge hoo-haa around the Archbishop's silly statement. The Muslims are firmly noted as the "other" and this is across most of the countries in Europe. Specially in Denmark, where the feeling is much stronger than other countries (it has even elected clearly racist parliamentarians!). But what about the native Danes who covert to Islam? I got some very interesting clues from this paper.

Converts are seen as dangerous and possible traitors because (1) they have abandoned the Lutheran Protestantism and (2) they violate the unspoken rule of not showing their religion in public by wearing veils, praying at work, using different language, etc..

I would have thought that conversion would not show up that dramatically but apparently it does. The author talks about women changing clothing by wearing the veil, changing names, growing beards (for men that is), wearing different headgear, changing social locations such as pubs and churches to mosques etc. Estimates run from 2100-2800 Danes who have converted over the past 3 decades.

So why did they convert? Well, reasons range from a religious quest, search for the meaning of life, identification with the "other", rebellion against the common, and identification with the downtrodden/oppressed Muslims, identification with Islam as opposed to materialism, capitalism and modernity.

An interesting if unrelated joke point about this illness which converts seem to face called as convertitis and I quote, "which is at the same time an allusion to the generally assumed pathological nature of the conversion and a partial affirmation of this....The newly converted often exhibit a so-called fanaticism with their new religion, which is expressed in very ritualised behaviour such as only wearing Islamic dress and a preoccupation with the Islamic rules of what is haram ('forbidden') and halal ('allowed') - of doing things 'right'. This often leads to ironic situations where converts repudiate people who are born Muslims for not doing things in 'the right way' or not living up to what is defined as being 'Muslim'..

But all jokes have a kernel of truth. Converts who are going down the Islam route to find God usually end up in the Sufi or spiritualist camp. The other way is the literalist way and it shows itself with a pre-occupation with rules and regulations, it involves huge amounts of fixations and unquestioned beliefs and relates more to the Salafi or Hizb-ut-Tahrir type of fundamentalist school.

But when asked about their conversion and the path to/following conversion. Converts frequently talk about conversion as a love story which is very beautiful to hear personally. I quote,

This is especially reflected in the many cases that involve the relationship to a Muslim man or woman, where physical love conflates with metaphysical and spiritual love, both initiating identical processes of radicalism and transformation. It can also be seen in the various metaphors of love used to describe the conversion process, such as in the phrase 'Allah opened my heart to Islam', as well as other terms revolving around religiosity and conversion like 'submission', 'surrender', 'attraction', 'fascination', 'admiration', seduction', and 'willingness'.

But the converts are usually very hesitant to talk about their relationships with Muslims of immigrant background and would prefer to keep it secret. Why? I quote, "The avoidance of talking about one's often intimate interactions with people who belong to the immigrant minority population seems to be related to converts' reproduction of a public discourse that associates Islam with alienation, forming an enemy image that threatens Danish society"

Seems like there is serious psychological trauma involved, with converts being deeply defensive or offensive when asked about their conversions. Awkwardness and defiance is frequent on one end while on the other end, out and out rebellion is visible. Curiously, while some Dane converts have consciously and totally rejected Danish culture (as defined by pork eating, alcohol drinking sexual promiscuity...), others have not and say that they dont see any harm in being Danish and Muslim.

Family reaction seem to be a major factor in conversion, and there is unfortunately and sadly far too much family breakdown after conversion. But that just means that after conversion, the relationship to the original family breaks down and a new relationship with the "others" begins.

There is an amusing interlude about how a convert woman removed the legs of the sofa because her Muslim Husband did not like to sit on tall sofa's but then made it taller by padding it up by cushions and padding. But seems like converts then take on the racial overtones that is common, for example, referring (in a bad way) to "Arabs".

Religious observances such as Iftar during Ramadan being celebrated in the way they used to celebrate Danish Christmas (without, obviously with the church bits) with the same kind of food, discussions, drinks, etc. And in the end, integration proceeds quietly. Quite a sensitive and interesting paper, very well written without prejudice or discrimination on this small minority in steadily and increasingly Islamaphobic Denmark.

JO - Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Routledge, Jensen, Tina Gudrun, To Be ‘Danish’, Becoming ‘Muslim’: Contestations of National Identity? 1369-183X, 2008, 34, 3, 389-409
AB - This article discusses the relationship between national, ethnic and religious identities as embodied by so-called ethnic Danes who convert to Islam. The point of departure is the constructed polarisation between Islam and the West. The article explores how converts experience their apparently contradictory identities as ‘Danish’ and ‘Muslim’. Identity is dealt with as processes of both difference and similarity, whereby the constructions of ‘self’ as ‘same’ and ‘other’ as ‘different’ are questioned. In exploring the space between ‘self’ and ‘other’ among Danish converts, it is argued that they negotiate their identities as both Danish and Muslims by engaging in an ideological struggle over otherwise commonsense meanings. This process opens a space for re-making identity by connecting relations between these identities, which are otherwise perceived as having nothing in common.

 

Technorati Tags: Islamophobia,Denmark,Islam,Muslims

FDI causes child labour, yes? Wrong!

It is almost a truism in the modern day and age that FDI is bad, and one ways that it shows up is that it causes child labour. What nobody see's is the impact on the child itself (see here for an interesting email discussion that I partook in). Blame the foreigner for making our children work, while we are quite happy to have children work as servants or not to provide any other economic way to allow the children to actually study. But its better to kick out the foreign investor, no?

But here's a study which checks what is the impact of FDI on child labour. The authors find that FDI is negatively correlated with child labour and even after controlling for per capita income, the effect totally disappears. Nothing, no impact, zilch, zero, nada.

Another very interesting conclusion that the authors come to is and I quote, "A key policy implication of this finding is that policies that increase the income effects of FDI may be especially useful in combating child labour. Such policies include payroll tax reductions that encourage multinationals to increase employment and wages. Thus, rather than interpreting these findings as an indication that FDI has no effect on child labour, we believe that our results point towards the need for nuanced policy that exploits these indirect effects."

This was a very curious conclusion to draw. I can understand concluding that dont swear at FDI, guys, if nothing, there is no relationship to child labour at all. But why talk about income effects? How will reducing payroll taxes actually help improve child labour? Well, the fact remains that child labour exists because of a variety of factors, not least because their parents are not gainfully employed. Get their parents into employment and you will lop off a very large number of children having to work. Which parent would want to see their children work when they could be playing and studying? But, all those payroll taxes do is to make it difficult to increase employment.

Ronald B. Davies and Annie Voy, The Effect of FDI on Child Labor, Journal of Development Economics In Press. 

Technorati Tags: Childrens Rights,Employment,Labour

The role of gender and beauty in economics

We know that being beautiful helps in the workplace, yes? Or rather, if you are ugly (like me), then you face problems. Also, if you are a male (also like me, but that gets washed out because of the ugliness, see above), you benefit. So appearances do matter. But has anybody delved deeper into this? This paper has.

What they did was to create an experiment where they controlled various variables around the contribution by each member, gender, relative attractiveness, and that of the group. They found, when performance is not known to the respondents, they tended to reward beauty and females. So as long as you are in a group, then the eyes will normally fall to the beautiful females. On the other hand, when performance is known (even when it is the same) the female premium vanishes. The author's point to 3 factors behind this result.

1. relative beauty is rewarded. So if you are attractive compared to others, then you will get more money. As as simple as that. If you are butt ugly, then you will get peanuts. 12% is the premium, and that's a huge amount! And this seems to be because you expect beautiful people to be more cooperative. But if you then let the respondents know about their individual contributions, the weight of defeated expectations actually works against the attractive people. So the lesson is, get dressed well and put on make up, but dont let anybody know about your salary.
2. Second, women earn 7% more than men when individual contributions are not known. Simply because we think that women are more helpful! This is also because attractiveness seems to play a bigger part in the case of women compared to men!
3. But this disappears when contributions are known, and the payoff for men is a startling 15%.

I quote a line from their conclusion: The most striking result from this research is that, on average, men and women did not behave very differently, and attractive people did not behave appreciably differently than unattractive people. Nonetheless, beauty and gender had significant effects on earnings. This happened because beauty and gender affect the way people were treated by others.

It is quite interesting how people behave to stereotypes. Now if you are a manager, you need to think about how to manage these bias's inside yourself, while if you are an employee (male or female), you need to make sure that you look attractive. And if you are female, enhance your visible contributions if in an open group. If you are male, stop ogling those attractive women!.

The triumph of Christianity in the Roman empire: An economic interpretation

What a fascinating paper. Imagine trying to use economic models to describe how Christianity moved from being a sect to a religion in the Roman Empire? You see, the author tries to explain and understand how a religion which started off being exclusive became open to all while on the other hand, became very doctrinarian and dictatorial about theology.

So being open as well as rigid at the same time, and how did that help in making the success of the religion in a relatively short period of time? Also, why did all the theological debates around 320AD break out at the same time across a wide variety of countries ranging from Egypt to Asia Minor? The answer can be found in the rational choice theory and the author applies it to the fight between paganism and Christianity.

You see, there was never a question of conversion in Greek or Roman times, you can switch from one deity to another, no problems, as long as you are ok with the Roman Religion (see the parallels with today's secular regimes?). So what did Christianity bring to the table, so to say? and I have to give a lenghty quote here because this is the crucial bit.

Modern historical research ([Harnack, 1908], [Nock, 1933], [Bardy, 1949], [Latourette, 1954] and [MacMullen, 1984]) has shown that the Christian message made converts because it promised individual spiritual salvation, made this promise credible by a unity of doctrine and organization founded on books embodying God's revelation to humankind, and backed this long-term promise with a short-term network of mutual protection and charity that paid tangible benefits to members. Christianity asked of its converts a complete renunciation of all other cults and “insurances” against misfortune and an uncompromising break with the religious traditions that had seemingly made the Roman state the greatest power to date. Against these heavy costs, however, were to be set the benefits of spiritual salvation and material within-group security. These benefits would become especially valuable when the old order appeared to be incapable of further guaranteeing the security and prosperity it had prided itself of for centuries, as happened in the third century.

Its when political dislocation occurred that Christianity took root as paganism was not able to satisfy the Roman's (and that's broadly defined as all members of the Roman empire, not just the inhabitants of current Rome or Italy) ecumenical and spiritual needs.

The author talks about how the Jews were quite heavily involved in proselytisation at that time and how the Christians had to break away from being just another Jewish cult or salvation group and they used the unique theological basis of Jesus, his life, his incarnation and re-incarnation to produce clear blue water between the Jewish and Pagan practices. But this, in the initial cases, was restricted to only few members, admission was very carefully controlled. This could therefore keep the doctrine clean and controlled within a controlled group of people.

But if it had to grow, it had to throw open the doors to outsiders and that would mean that the doctrines would be exposed to different interpretations and then it would again dribble away into sectarianism at worst or paganism at best. So, the compromise that was drawn, and perfectly economically based, was that they threw open the doors but closed the doors on doctrine such as the Council of Nicaea. I quote:

Finally, first imperial favor and subsidization of the church, then disestablishment and financial starving of pagan cults, and lastly the lifting of Christianity up to the rank of official religion of the state under Theodosius in the 390's, with the accompanying proscription of all non-Christian cults, solved the church's problem of adverse selection in recruitment. By disrupting the traditional public cults of the literate upper classes and thereby lowering their opportunity cost of joining in, the church was able to sustain its huge organizational growth.

The author then creates an economic model to predict this movement (see beginning equation and graph) which shows how Christianity moved from sect to an universal church modelling the relationships between benefits of being a pagan versus Christian, the membership conundrum and equilibrium points. He concludes that the rise of Christianity was not a historical accident or an inevitable occasion but a perfectly logical and economic choice made by Romans of that time.

But this does not explain how Christianity dribbled away in Europe nor how Secularism arose from the basic tenets of Christianity. Or how it is arising in USA. Or how its flourishing in Latin America, Africa and Asia? Or how it arose via missionaries in the European imperial times in countries as wide ranging as India to Madagascar?

Or why it did not take root in China, India, or Japan? In particular, why did it not take root in these 3 countries which will, arguably, have the most pagan religions of all (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism and perhaps Animism as well?). Mind you, it is perfectly rational for conversion to happen in these countries. Whether it is because of fear, or economic benefits or peer pressure, generally, you can boil this idea of adopting another religion down to economic factors. As for why you continue in that religion is a different matter and for future research.

This paper offers an economic interpretation of Christianity's transformation from sect to universal religion in the Roman empire. It first points out paganism's apparent inability to provide individual security in times of distress, such as the third century C.E., as a reason for the increasing demand for monotheism. It then reviews Christianity's monotheistic competitors and points out the reasons why they lost out. Next, it addresses the Christian church's choice between exclusive membership and open access to all applicants on the day of its triumph and shows, by means of a cooperative model, that open access and universal membership were a superior policy if coupled with doctrinal radicalization. Finally, it analyzes the theological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries by means of a Hotelling-type linear spatial model of doctrinal strictness ranging from paganism to Judaism, and traces the theological choices that were made back to the church's need to distance itself from its potential competitors.

Shifting borders and shifting sands

You must have seen this picture many times:

As an amateur historian, I am always curious about the boundaries and how history is framed. For example, the first photo establishes a state called as Palestine in 1946 which sort of puzzled me because there was an Ottoman Empire then and not a country known as Palestine. Mind you, there wasnt a state called as Israel either before 1948! If one thinks about Zionism as a driver, then this should go back to centuries and millennium. But as an ideology, you can go back to 1882 when the immigration started. But the immigration went into the Ottoman Empire and not into a state called as Palestine.

On the other hand, you can then draw the Palestinian parallels to the Philistines. You can also legitimately argue that the Roman state unit called as Palaestina created after they defeated the Jews was one of the ancestors of current day Palestine.

Now if I go back a bit further, you can see where the challenge comes from. Look here at how the Roman Empire grew and shrunk over hundreds of years. 

Obviously, the latter part of the presentation talks about the Byzantine empire and how it got taken over by the Ottoman Empire and then the Ottoman Empire then disintegrated into various countries just like the Roman Empire did. Borders shift all the time when seen from a distance. See more here for Ethiopia.

But this was even more interesting, how do you look at the Persian Empire? They also ruled over vast swathes of the Middle East. Did you know, the bastion of Sunni thought, Al Azhar, was actually founded by a Shia empire? Curious, no? Check out the Middle East changes here.

How about the Armenians? See their history here. How about Kosovo? It has had a long history and how there is talk about it seceding from Serbia. And as soon as it does, it will be recognised by the USA and UK. And when it does, a huge spear called as hypocrisy will go through almost every political structure.

If Kosovo can be independent, why cant Palestine be? Or Northern Cyprus? Or Kurdistan in Turkey? Or Eastern Shia in Saudi Arabia? Or Baluchistan in Pakistan? Or Kashmir in India? Or Southern Thailand? Or Darfur from Sudan? The basic principle is the same no?

But over the long view, you can see how boundaries rise and change.

Technorati Tags: Geography,Kosovo,History,Palestine,Middle East,Serbia,Turkey