Political Participation - Science topic

Are you referring to how political participation impacts youth unemployment or how how youth unemployment impacts political participation?

Dear David, I provided you my definitions so as to share the ideas behind the question to help you provide your view/answer to the current questions, NOT to comment on the concepts: Should woke populations under majority rule be expected to tend towards a more perfect democracy through time? yes, why you think so? No, what you think so?

Yusuf, if you look at exism movements from the point of view of an paradigm shift from normal democratic outcomes to extreme democratic outcomes you need an outside the box thinking model to solve the problem of the paradigm shift knowledge gap created, you need new concepts/ideas no found in dictionaries that how the growth of knowledge works if you remember thomas kuhn's paradigm evolution loop.

If you know what exism movements are you can point out to the answer without looking at the specific concepts.

What is your view on the answer to the question?

Political abstention has two-fold meanings/alternatives - one is very principal and honest - that You do not have any whom to choose - and You do not participate at all, the other is more practical - that You may choose the best from all bad - that is the one that is slightly better. This one is not an open, but, I think, "secret abstention", which needs to be explored by more "original" scientific research methods.

Regarding comparisons with other NSMs, what was the movement's relation to knowledge creation and retention? The way the activists have engaged with knowledge, be it tactics, short vs long-term vision, and knowledge transfer between generations of activists, may help reveal insights about the movement's unique features.

Hello Aloli Kinny

I think it is possible, the question, as David says above, it is more about feasibility and time /timing.

I combined participant observation with grounded theory in my PhD, because I had such an mount of information from observation (15 years) that I needed a tool to organise it, a bridge kindly provided by grounded theory :)

That might also be the case of your research (?) You then can use phenomenology for your observations and grounded theory for the analysis. in this case you need to consider that methodology will be circular ("coming back and forth" between both) and not linear (phenomenology-grounded)

However, if you are on a tight schedule, such a 3 year deadline, you may need to make a choice because any of them is time-consuming (and health exhausting!)

Hope that helps!

Obviously, you are not comparing the same model. The correlation is bivariate and the regression is multivariate. The addition of predictors in the multivariate model can easily flip the signs of coefficients in the model, especially when such coefficients are very close to zero as is your case (you will also probably notice that the confidence intervals of your coefficient run from negative to positive and include zero).

George as shown in my pictures, under an independent rule of law system and without effective targeted chaos that induces full true majority complacency, exism movements like Trumpism cannot come to exist, and if they come to exist and when they go into re-election the targeted chaos that once worked is ineffective, they will lose re-election and nothing they can do, but to fade away, as independent courts without proof or evidence of electoral fraud will validate the winner of the contest…..

In 2016 against Hillary Clinton, systematic targeted chaos was effective, trumpism won; in 2020 against Biden, systematic targeted chaos was ineffective, trumpism lost. The dilemma the Trump party has now is how to make targeted chaos be effective again…otherwise; they cannot come into power again as long as there is no full true majority complacency….

Hi, Aziz Ur Rehman. The first one is a PhD thesis and you can find it online in https://www.academia.edu/27692369/Social_movements_YouTube_and_political_activism_in_authoritarian_countries_a_comparative_analysis_of_political_change_in_Pakistan_Tunisia_and_Egypt. The Second publication is available in https://books.google.pt/books?id=kQWdDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=pt-PT&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Hope this helps!

Article related to TRUMPCONOMICS now published, you can take a look at it when you have time The 2016 shift from normal liberal democracy to extreme liberal democracy in the USA: Pointing out the structure of Trumpconomics, its meaning, and its expected local and global implications, both analytically and graphically https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335313547_The_2016_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracy_to_extreme_liberal_democracy_in_the_USA_Pointing_out_the_structure_of_Trumpconomics_its_meaning_and_its_expected_local_and_global_implications_both_analyti https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334964196_The_2016_shift_from_normal_liberal_democracy_to_extreme_liberal_democracy_in_the_USA_Pointing_out_the_structure_of_Trumpconomics_its_meaning_and_its_expected_local_and_global_implications_both_analyti

Another work, this time a collective one, on the role of women in peace building and on promoting political participation of women is: Mirjam van Reisen (ed.), "Women's Leadership in Peace Building: Conflict, Community and Care", Africa World Press, Trenton NJ 2015.

It is very difficult to exactly specify the factors involved in national elections both in developing and advanced democracies. Although political branding can influence the participants' preferences, there are certain byzantine complexities predominating elections which make it difficult for the researcher to ascertain the true validity of the findings. After all, the world of politics is a context with many interlocking variables that may be manipulated by both internal and external contenders.

Political anything can have negative connotation to many people.

The point is that comments on social media do affect political attitudes and behavior, for good or worse. Especially nowadays, when people do not read books anymore. In fact, most of them read 4-5 lines on Facebook or 1-2 lines on Twitter.

Colleagues in Economics would be best placed to answer this question. All my best

I am already visualising two research topics from this topic you have tendered for some advice. Let me disaggregate to see whether or not my advice shall be helpful. I am inclined to align myself with the topic suggested by Professor C. Nock above. Then, the second topic could be framed from the segment of your initial topic as follows: "The Impact of Conventions on Political Participation in Lithuania." In regard to this latter topic, it would be obligatory for you to rigorously analyse what conventions exist in your country and through such exhaustive analysis that you may provide, especially in the impact they thus created on participation, your readers shall be in a proper position to judge for themselves the most salient. The two topics are apparently aiming at the attainment of the same objective in terms of issues pertaining to political participation. However, the difference inheres in the central concepts such "factors" and "conventions," which are not necessary the same. In addition, the concerns of the two topic are also different: one is about "cause" and the other is about "impact."

As an elections administrator in Georgia, geography matters in terms of youth political participation. I have worked in three different political jurisdictions as an a manager an CONTEXT is so important.

Political participation is necessary to achieve social justice. Amartya Sen uses the concept of ‘deliberative democracy’ to unpack inequalities in society.

The negatives of not having political participation is becoming invisible, unheard and therefore marginalised and relegated to margins of society.

One reason is the belief that the various political parties are so controlled by special interests that, regardless of who wins, real social change will never be accomplished. I take the failure of the US Congress to implement single-payer, universal health care as a case in point. Research consistently shows that such a system works best. So how else, apart from politicians receiving large sums of money from corporations that would take a financial hit if single-payer health care were implemented, does one explain the reluctance by many Democrats and virtually all Republicans to adopt this model? 

In your modelling approach to investigating "why and how political institutions can moderate the negative economic effects of remittances on economic growth" I would urge you to take account also of potentially positive effects, including indirect effects (for example, potentially positive effects of remittances on exports and investment  which, in turn, may have positive growth effects). A recent paper identifying positive effects of remittances on exports  and referencing the relevant literature is: Gashi, P., Hisarciklilar, M., and Pugh, G. (2016). Kosovo – EU trade relations: a dynamic panel poisson approach, Applied Economics, 49:27, 2642-2654, DOI:

10.1080/00036846.2016.1245836. To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2016.124583649(27) On-line publication 03-11-2016.

In principle, if you find evidence for your hypothesised negative effects in the presence also of potentially positive effects you will obtain richer and more convincing results. Focussing only on negative effects may seem to examiners/referees to be like "tennis with the net down".

As for the popular vote in the US, this indeed does not diverge too far from 50-50 (although note that at state and especially at county level you will easily find extremes, and they are getting more and more typical).  For referenda, I don't know whether empirical evidence supports the observation that tight 50-50% result occur more often than just by chance, but let's assume for now that they do.

What is explaining it? Well, there are probably different situations and explanatory factors.  But I am thinking now of the following hypotheses which may at least explain parts of the phenomena.

1. For the US popular vote: it is typical, not only in the US, that the population will grow fatigued with the party giving the president after a while. People who could be convinced by enthusiastic activists to vote for the now-president will not turn up again to vote for him(her). Maybe even your local activists will lose their faith and put in less effort.

- Also, the supporters would probably have benefitted from new policies that the president brought but they are satisfied now and don't see much to gain. The opposition can promise more ('Change') and their policy offering starts to seem more appealing, and more important for certain groups not favoured by the current adminisitration.

So if you won the presidency, chances are that after your second term the other party will win it. But they wouldn't have enough time to accumulate a huge lead before actually winning, as voter shifts in established democracies are usually slow.

(I am sure there is good literature on this already, would be interested to hear about it)

2. For referanda: a new cause, when it is first formulated only has little population support. It needs to gain enough popularity to have a chance of winning a referendum. But if it gets to a level of popularity where it is obvious that this is what voters want, politics will want it implement it anyways, without a referendum.

Only if it is a real question what the population wants, does it make sense to hold a referendum.

Perhaps this research on community heterogeneity and social participation of ethnic groups is helpful to you (it's open access, but you may have to copy and paste the link into your browser). https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4551796/alesina_participation.pdf

Nicholas is correct - it is Perceived rather than actual Performance that is the key to public trust (or lack thereof).  No one has adequately defined what Performance the public is really looking for!  It's not necessarily "total honesty" or reliability, or none of the other conventional virtues - instead it seems to be a mix that reflects the "current public mood."  That "public mood" is quite variable, fluctuating as different priorities "flit across the public mind" with each change is public circumstances.  So, public officials that earn and keep public trust combine clever opportunism and political entrepreneurship - they are quite prepared to lead of follow the public mood, as long as in doing so, they can pursue their objectives.  As you can see, this is a demanding role, which is why public trust is "hard to earn!"

There are (at least) two perspectives on this issue:  (1) some analysts contend that a lot of time spent online is simply wasted on trivial pursuits; they are likely to conclude that this simply detracts from engaging in more politically efficacious activity otherwise.  But, (2) others say that time online hones skills that could be directly and indirectly helpful to political activity, so it is actually time well spent!  How are we to decide between these two perspectives?  This is the key factor:  More and more often these days, political mobilization and coordination is actually accomplished through online efforts!  So, IF the online activity is actually devoted to political activity, then of course, it can be VERY helpful to political efficacy.  If it is just devoted to gaming, or gossiping, then it is NOT likely to be particularly politically efficacious.  I think that is it!

parties' messages, voter enrollment, mobilization of voters on voting day , party membership, political networking; but  no significant impact on attitudes and decision making.

This book has everything on this topic!

This has always been a sore point with me. What you call "soft manipulation" could also be called incumbent advantage. Control of the government can be a very useful tool for undermining opponents through the mechanisms you mention. Was, say, Daniel Arap Moi in his early days a "dictator" or just an extremely shrewd electoral politician? How about the long line of PRI presidents in Mexico? 

I n both cases, I'd opt for calling Kenya and Mexico democracies that had long standing competitive party systems where the dominant party used its advantages to cement at least a national hegemony. So what distinguishes these from, say, Putin's Russia? I think the differentia specifica is the extent of the rule of law and support of human rights. Let's take Moi as an example. Early on his regime was one-party and noticed hardly a blip when competitive elections were held. Then it began to look like the opposition was beginning to see how their ethnic distrust was being undermined by Moi's use of incumbent advantages. As their formations began to jell, Moi turned more and more to fomenting ethnic violence between his followers and theirs and the cops stood aside.  In addition it was then that Moi began to ship massive funds overseas with compliance within his government and clientalism became more and more open and discriminatory. 

In short, I think the big problem here is that it is hard to distinguish the use of incumbent advantage and authoritarianism until electoral politics becomes an active threat to governments. I think the focus should be on the extent of encroachment on human rights limitations. When the government begins to suppress open assemblies, muzzles the press effectively (not just by controlling information flows, iow), and stands aside when unofficial violence against opponents takes place, the government can be termed authoritarian without too much damage to democracy as a category of analysis. But this can lead to some thorny empirical problems. 

There is a vast literature on democratization and its various influences. Your best bet is just to access a good library and use the digital search engines. Should take you about 45 minutes to find many good sources.

Thank you!

This will differ enormously depending on the context you look at.

Thought for sure someone might have answered this by now.  Perhaps it is because nobody has found exactly what you are looking for, but fortunately, I was able to contact another research librarian.  This is what she provided me:

A publication from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics called "The Statistical Abstract," which is published annually. It goes back to 1996.  The link to it is here: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/ shnatonenew_site.htm

The librarian I contacted even offered helpful tips on how to get to the information.  It may be helpful to read the following as you explore the site: 

"To get to the election information, in the “choose subject” drop-down, I chose “10. Government and Local Authorities”, then “continue”. Then a series of tables will be displayed. I was looking at “election results for the 19th Knesset, by type of locality."

I attached a file of a screen shot of the categories of information you will find at this site.  You will notice that you are able to download an Excel spreadsheet of the data found here.  If you really need election data that goes back to 1980, I would first start by contacting the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.  You can e-mail the bureau at info@cbs.gov.il.

Hope that helps!

To my perception these two concepts and ideas neither contradict each other, vice versa they complement the obstacles or gaps raised in the pure constitutional democracy. Definitely representative democracy is the most viable tools in our age, but the very core idea of representativeness is undermined when there are no options for active citizen engagement, participation and deliberation. I fully agree with the school of scholars who believe that deliberation and participation are core fundamentals to evaluate and understand the very essence of genuine constitutional democracy. As renewed Roman thinker, philosopher, statesman, rhetor and polymath Marcus Tullius Cicero indicated Freedom is nothing more than the participation in power. Thus in my vision republican theory and doctrine is the best western intellectual source to understand the very interdependence of the above mentioned western paradigms and concepts.

In this insight please find publication published by Cambridge University Press titled Republicanism A Shared European Heritage Volume II The Values of Republicanism in Early Modern Europe Edited by Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner CUP 2002

I think that such kind of republican understanding and philosophical visions enrich your perceptions about this vital issues.

Sincerely,

Karlo

If you're interested in using only those cases classified as high insecurity (ignoring the other two categories), then a simple omnibus test would be a chi-square goodness of fit test (available in spss as analyze/non-parametric) across the five categories of political participation.  That would yield a 2 (yes/no) x 5 table, and the null hypothesis would be that of equal participation rates across the five categories.  You could also treat this as a multivariate sign test--see Sheu & Curry (1996), Implementation of nonparametric multivariate statistics with S.  Behavior Research Instruments, Methods, & Computers, 28(2), 315-318.

Let me share this interpretation of Hanna Pitkin on political action in Hannah Arendt work: Political action "Implies a realistic perception and acknowledgment of Both self and world, of one's power and one's situation. Its genuinely means, competently taking responsibility for one's conduct, its consequences, and the norms and standards that govern it "(Pitikin, The Attack of the blob, 1998, p. 182). I have an interest in studying the vote as means of political action. Your article helps a lot. Thank you for sharing your interesting article.

La Ferrara, E. (2002). Inequality and group participation: theory and evidence from rural Tanzania. Journal of Public Economics, 85(2), 235-273.

Teorell, J. (2006). Political participation and three theories of democracy: A research inventory and agenda. European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 787-810.

Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(02), 271-294.

Hi;

Maybe you can get some help out from our attached article.

Best,

Erik Amnå

Dear Leonard,

I fear there is no perfect answer to this, but I would recommend to consider one of the following options:

a) take a large sample of tweets and look for geo tagging information to get a rough estimate (although geo / location information is rarely used explicitly om Twitter).

b) do text analysis on the tweet content in order to determine whether its from Zibabwe or not

c) run ad hoc visual analytics using tweetping.net over a time slice of at least some hours - this might give you at least a rough idea of how many people are active on Twitter in Zimbabwe.

d) more elusive alternatives might include starting a crowdsourcing survey ...

Kind regards

Christian

Here are a few other good papers and books:

PIVEN, Frances Fox, CLOWARD Richard A. Poor People’s Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, New York: Blackwell, 1979.

JACOBS, Lawrence R, SKOCPOL, Theda (dir). Inequality and American democracy, New York : Russell Sage Foundation, 2005.

BÈGUE, Murielle. Le rapport au politique des citoyens en situation défavorisée. Une comparaison européenne : France, Grande-Bretagne, Espagne. Sous la direction de Serge Paugam. Thèse de doctorat : Sociologie : Paris : Institut d’Études Politiques, 2007.

OESCH, Daniel. « Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe : Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway and Switzerland », International Political Science Review, vol. 29, n° 3, pp.349-373, 2008.

DIERCKX, Danielle, FRANCQ, Bernard. « Participation politique des personnes en pauvreté », in DIERCKX, Danielle, VAN HERCK, Nicolas, VRANKEN, Jan (dir.). Pauvreté en Belgique, Leuven : Acco, 2010.

MAYER, Nonna. « Les effets politiques de la crise : le vote des personnes pauvres et précaires en 2012 », Informations sociales, vol.6, n°180, 2013, pp.52-59.

MAYER, Nonna. « Bring the poor back in ! Inequalities, welfare and politics », European Political Science, 13, 2014, pp.187-200.

I encourage you to look up Gerrie Mackie, UC San Diego, Democracy Defended, Cambridge University Press (2003)  As you will see in the reviews at the link below, the book is theoretical, but he has chapters that review every empirical work extant that attempts to discredit democracy.   

Hi Wei,

I actually worked on a similar topic for my thesis, considering the motivational processes that drive the relation between online and offline activism.  

Nah and colleagues (2006) proposed a framework that suggests that information access (online/offline) prompts interactions (online/offline) and ultimately offline political participation. As far as I know there is less evidence for the mediating role of political interest, but Boulianne (2011) showed that access to online news amplified political interest and thereby political talk.

Hope this is helpful. All the best for your research!

Sandy

Boulianne, S. (2011). Stimulating or reinforcing political interest: Using panel data to examine reciprocal effects between news media and political interest. Political Communication, 28, 147-162.

Nah, S., Veenstra, A. S., & Shah, D. V. (2006). The Internet and Anti‐War Activism: A Case Study of Information, Expression, and Action. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12, 230-247.

Hi Ann. Maybe you could treat participation as an interval variable, aggregating your 13 dichotomous items into an index, because then you would have up to 13 data points which is potentially a big enough spread to justify treating it as interval (ie metric) data. It partly depends on the shape of that data - how it is distributed - but you might be able to transform it.

It would be interesting to see what the correlations are between the self-rated measures of income (hard to cope etc) and the 'objective' measures you have of household income. And it would also be good to see how household income has been measured, ie whether using ratio data. Even if it is in bands (below a certain figure at the bottom end, and above a certain figure at the top) you might be able to get away with treating it as interval data.

Having a dichotomous dependent variable severely restricts what techniques you can use and it may make it harder to interpret results or explain the strength of relationships - if you can use ratio/interval data for your DV somehow then you can try using linear regression.

One would think - other things being equal - that people with contracts experience less insecurity than those without so I'd definitely have that variable in there somewhere. Have you got any measures of tenure? That's a nice ratio variable in this context. Again one would expect length of employment to be positively associated with security (other things being equal).

You could always explore patterns in your data using cluster analysis since that doesn't depend on making any assumptions about the data. It is not really a technique in that sense.

Another option - closer to the scientific model - would be to start with a theoretical model, perhaps specifying certain pathways and null pathways and see how well that explains the data you have found. Good luck

The book by Hair et al is very good on multivariate analysis. Good luck.

Ann, what you are talking about is not a covariate, it is an intervening or explanatory measure.  Here is the difference:

   A covariate is a measure that is related to both your predictor and your outcome, and may be an alternate explanation.  For example, if age is related to income and political participation, any relationship between income and participation might instead be coming from age differences.   You need to control for age to see if it is income or age that is the actual explanatory factor at work.  You covary for age.  In this analysis, you have your IV and your covariates in your model, and see whether there is a significant relationship between IV and DV after controlling for the covariates.

   An intervening or explanatory measure (EM) is something that is in a causal pathway from your predictor to your outcome.  Your predictor relates to the explanatory measure, which in turn relates to your outcome.  This is a basic path analysis.  The full impact of your predictor to your outcome is the *combination* of its direct effect (the relationship of IV to DV after controlling for EM) and its indirect effect (the relationship of IV to EM times the relationship of EM to DV).  In this analysis, you need to run two regressions, one with the EM as the dependent variable and one with the final outcome as the dependent variable.

You could dichotomize formal and activist such that formals are comprised of those who answered "yes" to at least 3 items and activists to at least four items.  Then binary logistic regression could be used for all four groupings.

Considering the world-wide impact of the book 'Capital in the 21st Century', by French economist Thomas Piketty, and its meaning for social priorities and goals, I am pleased to send you my attached evaluation of this book. I hope this will inspire your reflections about the moments we are going through. Kind regards,

Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014

Brasília - DF - Brasil

About Piketty’s Book on Capital -

The Answer of a convinced Liberal

After fifteen years of research (1998-2013) aimed at understanding the historical dynamics of income and wealth in around 20 countries, mainly in the last 200 years, analysing remarkable facts about humanity such as the industrial revolution, world conflicts and economic crises, using and harmonizing data broadly accepted by credible institutions like the World Bank, the UN and the IMF, this French Professor at the Paris School of Economics, Thomas Piketty, aged 43, came to the conclusion that:

Capitalism, or what is left of it, just as it is now put in practice or crony capitalism is heavily concentrating income and wealth, in a process where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Estimates for the XXI century are alarming and define human coexistence as unfeasible under the rules prevailing nowadays.

The current market competition is like an athletic race in which some are well fed and have access to health assistance and education, whereas crowds of excluded are left far behind: the minimally decent atitude is to place them on the same starting line or to equal their opportunities at the beginning of the race.

“The 85 richest people in the world, who could fit into a single London double-decker, control as much wealth as the poorest half of the global population– that is 3.5 billion people”.

“Strong inequality is corrosive of growth; it is corrosive for society. I believe that economists and politicians ignored inequality for too long.” (Christine Lagarde, Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund)

I personally think that these conclusions are irrefutable. No scholar will, after Piketty’s research, ignore the enormous social exclusion generated by capitalism, or the urgent need of actions to revert this dramatic situation. Inequality is complicating the market economy. One must never forget that the economy depends on supply and demand – it is useless to have supply facing a reduction in demand, or vice-versa. No one, but a liberal dreamer, can imagine that the economy will operate with supply only! Economics is a science where agents are regulated by the inexorable law of supply and demand. Politics is an art where the human will prevails. This is the reason why they cannot blend: economics and politics have diferent natures.

My complete agreement with Piketty’s conclusions also take me to a complete disagreement with his recommendations of a progressive tax and a global tax on wealth. This would be a shortcut to hell: it would mean more government, bureaucracy, war, corruption or, in the economic view, it would transfer assets from the domain of supply and demand to the changing human will of bureaucrats and politicians – an antechamber to hell. Nothing is more predatory than the action of governments in the economy – indebtedness is what governments know how to do, and they do it unreservedly.

“Deficits mean future tax increases, nothing less. The increase of deficits must be seen as a tax on future generations, and the politicians who create deficits should be judged as tax generators”. (Ron Paul, former US Senator – Republican).

Our generation has been the victim of decisions from past generations, that increased indebtedness, just like future generations will have to pay for the inconsequence of our own generation, that expanded those debts even further. The European discussion about austerity or Keynesian stimuli mean to penalize our generation or our descendants. The problem is that policy makers search immediate applause, transfering the solution of structural problems to the future. These are inconsequent acts, showing no concern with future generations.

“Do not forget that I have found out that more than ninety percent of all the national deficits, from 1921 to 1939, were caused by the payment of past, present and future wars” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

“People do not make war. It is the governments that make it” (Ronald Reagan)

I would go back to the time of the American Revolution – “You will never strengthen the weak by weakening the strong” – and to the moments when the French Revolution was promising “liberty, fraternity and equality”.

Inequality of opportunities in human coexistence has been generating the most terrible process of domination and human bondage: the dictatorship of bureaucracy. The enormous amount of financial resources under the power of the State, to be allocated by acts of human will, stimulates an unbridled race of unscrupulous politicians in search of power at any cost; “They do not disdain, in certain cases, to associate with cheating, fraud and corruption”, to use the words of Vilfredo Pareto.

It would be very efficient and useful if economic policymakers became convinced that applying more measures under the same keynesian references they would come to the same results. We must migrate to another reference frame if we wish to improve our development process.

Economic rulers must be aware of the fact that: “If they do only what they have always done, they will end up having what they always had”. Piketty’s proposition, however, is for more of the same, and it would certainly lead to poor results.

The relation between income and wealth is like a river flowing to a dam, where income is the variable of flow or the fluidity of the river, and wealth is the variable of stock or the accumulation in the dam. They both have the same nature, because wealth is no more than accumulated labour, and only labour can generate wealth. Piketty proved that there are some who harvest without planting, or who generate wealth with the labour of others; when the rate of return on capital is higher than the rate of economic progress, it results in predatory accumulation. This is the patrimonialist economy, that produces income from inherited family properties or from political connections: to be a friend of the king produces more than merit or competence. It would be risible, were it not tragic, to imagine that the control of financial flows (currency, exchange and credit) can generate development, as suggested by Keynes. Only productive labour can generate capital.

“Labor exists before, and is independent from capital. Capital is just the fruit of labor and it would never exist without the previous existence of labor. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much more consideration.”

This truth expressed by Abraham Lincoln must be recognized by all the zombies who are wandering, lost and disconnected from the basic concepts of economics.

One must not criticize without a corresponding proposition. The solution is not among the tools of economic theory, but in the scope of politics, by means of a broad, full and true agreement around a new Social Pact, in which nutrition, health and education will become a responsibility of the private productive process, after the corresponding reduction of taxes by the government, who will also reduce its interference in the economy. Instead of transferring resources from the rich to the poor, this pact will equal opportunities concerning nutrition, health care and education. I do not mean philanthropy, but a new concept of human labor as a process of transformation of human energy in physical or intelectual energy. This would replace the changing logic of ideas –ideology- by the invariable logic of life – biology. Of course, entrepreneurs will not act out of philanthropy: full productive labor will be the broker of this agreement of wills.

This idea is perfectly simple: Piketty proved that after centuries of distributive measures in all countries, in which resources were transferred from the rich to the poor, the result was more social exclusion.

To prohibit wealth with a ceiling on income, as Piketty proposes, means to weaken the strong to strengthen the weak. Better would be, instead of a ceiling on income, to establish a groundfloor, so as to permit wealth and prohibit poverty, in an open system that would open the pressure cooker after the progressive dissipation of pressure.

Let us equal, for all, the access to nutrition, health care and education, and liberate all the tools and values of the market economy.

It was these values that made the West prosperous since the XIX Century and their efficiency has been confirmed.

Instead of terming this my proposition utopic, theoretical or unfeasible, one must keep in mind that the complete liberation of prices and wages will lead us to full productive labour, that is: salaries will be ascending – there will be no need to establish a minimum wage – imagine the Industrial Revolution, at the beginning of the XIX Century.

“Governamental institutions:

a) protect the powerful and interest groups;

b) generate hostility, corruption and hopelessness;

c) hinder prosperity; and

d) repress free expression and the opportunities of individuals”. (IMB - Mises Institute).

I offer, below, some challenges in the scope of this proposition, for the reader to ponder:

1) the agricultural sector and the reversion of migration to the cities;

2) health care, education and the power in the hands of the private sector; profit linked to people health.

3) the financial sector and its incapability in the purchase and sale of papers having monetary expression.; Christine Lagarde: “crisis has prompted a major course correction—with the understanding that the true role of the financial sector is to serve, not to rule, the economy.

As Winston Churchill once remarked, “I would rather see finance less proud and industry more content”.

4) the political area and the prevention of speculation when resources are reduced.

Finally: In a Soccer World Cup or in the Olympic Games, just imagine how the competition would happen if political or bureaucratic influences were present in the choice of teams or in the rules of the games!

“In Hell, the hottest places are reserved for those who chose neutrality in times of crisis’. (Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)

Lets learn with the best lessons of Von Mises:

• If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.

• Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

• Governments become liberal only when forced to by the citizens.

• Both force and money are impotent against ideas.

THE GREAT DIVIDE 2014, JUN 27 6:16 PM 793

Inequality Is Not Inevitable

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

“We need not just a new war on poverty but a war to protect the middle class. Solutions to these problems do not have to be newfangled. Far from it. Making markets act like markets would be a good place to start. We must end the rent-seeking society we have gravitated toward, in which the wealthy obtain profits by manipulating the system.

The problem of inequality is not so much a matter of technical economics. It’s really a problem of practical politics. Ensuring that those at the top pay their fair share of taxes — ending the special privileges of speculators, corporations and the rich — is both pragmatic and fair. We are not embracing a politics of envy if we reverse a politics of greed. Inequality is not just about the top marginal tax rate but also about our children’s access to food and the right to justice for all. If we spent more on education, health and infrastructure, we would strengthen our economy, now and in the future. Just because you’ve heard it before doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try it again.

Widening and deepening inequality is not driven by immutable economic laws, but by laws we have written ourselves”.

Conference on Inclusive Capitalism

By Christine Lagarde

Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

London, May 27, 2014

“A greater concentration of wealth could—if unchecked—even undermine the principles of meritocracy and democracy. It could undermine the principle of equal rights proclaimed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Pope Francis recently put this in stark terms when he called increasing inequality “the root of social evil”.

It is therefore not surprising that IMF research—which looked at 173 countries over the last 50 years—found that more unequal countries tend to have lower and less durable economic growth”.

Best wishes,

Ronaldo Campos Carneiro – June 2014

To understand Piketty’s book:

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2 - Paris School of Economics

CUNY debate with outstanding thinkers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heOVJM2JZxI&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Skidelsky’s blog –

“Too Much”: Special Thomas Piketty issue (26 May – Sam Pizzigati

John Weeks – “Why is ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ (C21C) Such a Success”? 30 May 2014

Debate Piketty and Senator Elizabeth Warren

I also suggest reading the texts on this subject by:

David Harvey (“Afterthoughts on Piketty’s Capital”), plus Paul Krugman, Dani Rodrick, Joseph Stiglitz, Lawrence Summers, Robert Solow, James Galbraith.

---------------------------------------

From: Thomas Piketty <thomas.piketty@psemail.eu>

Date: 2014-06-13 3:37 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE : Piketty’s Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Thanks Ronaldo, I appreciate it. Best, Thomas

__________________

Thomas Piketty

Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics

Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/

From: Thomas Piketty <thomas.piketty@psemail.eu>

Date: 2014-07-02 7:38 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal

To: Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>

Thanks Ronaldo, this is a very interesting reaction! Best, Thomas

_______________

Thomas Piketty

Ecole d'Economie de Paris/Paris School of Economics

Page personnelle : http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hector Julio Melchiori - june,13,2014

Creo que la diferencias comienzan en los tres primeros años de vida al no tener nivelado el alimento, ya que el intelecto se relaciona con la primera capacidad de ingesta, luego ya es tarde.

CREO QUE LA IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES DEBE NACER ALLÍ, DESPUÉS MISMA EDUCACION Y MISMA INSTRUCCIÓN, LA EDUCACION SE DA EN EL HOGAR, PERO SI TENEMOS PADRES NO EDUCADOS, QUE A SU VEZ SON HIJOS DE OTROS PADRES NO EDUCADOS , VAMOS PEOR.

POR ULTIMO LA INSTRUCCIÓN SE DA EN LOS COLEGIOS QUE DEBERÍAN DAR LAS MISMAS POSIBILIDADAES PARA TODOS, CON ESAS TRES COSAS ARRANCAMOS A UN FUTURO MEJOR,

ES MI PERSONAL OPINIÓN QUE NO TIENE PORQUE SER NADA MAS QUE MI VERDAD, QUE ES ABSOLUTA SOLO PARA MÍ, PERO TODOS TIENEN EL DERECHO A TENER SUS VERDADES PROPIAS Y PARA ELLOS SERÁN VERDADES ABSOLUTAS TAMBIÉN,

LO QUE HACE FALTA ES CONCORDAR PARTE DE LAS OPINIONES DE UN GRAN NÚMERO DE PERSONAS DISPUESTAS A TRABAJAR PERO QUE SABEN QUE ELLOS NO VERÁN LOS FRUTOS,

ESO ES PARA LAS GENERACIONES VENIDERAS

"SI TODOS CUMPLIERAMOS CON NUESTROS DEBERES HABRIA MENOS PERSONAS RECLAMANDO POR SUS DERECHOS" GHANDI DIXIT.

ATTE. MELCHIORI.

---------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pedro Schwartz <pedro@pedroschwartz.com> june,13,2014

Dear Mr. Carneiro:

I find what you say complicated and will think on it. However, I think Piketty is wrong in his forecast of the future of capitalism.

Sincerely

---------------------------------------------

Dhian Chand <mdhianchand@hotmail.com> june.14,2014

2006-7 DG - 3080 District

Shimla Him. Pr. India

Dear PDG Ronaldo Carneiro,

Thank you for sending me your evaluation of Piketty's Capital - the answer of a convinced liberal. You have motivate me to buy and read his book "Capital in the 21st Century". You have rightly concluded in the last four points, the people responsible to create balance in the social economic status in the society. However, the question remained unanswered that politicians and bureaucrats have no limit for their greed for money and power which ultimately encourage corruption in the country and war between neighbouring countries. If we are able to influence these two category of our society the balance in distribution of economic growth will be maintained and there will be no poor in the modern world which due to technology evolution has become one a global village.

Regards

Dhian Chand

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Anthony de Jasay <jasay@wanadoo.fr> 14/6/14

Dear Mr. Carneiro,

I have had your letter of 13 June read to me (as you may know I have lost my eyesight long ago). I agree with most of it , but as you must know very well it is not by condemning politics and politicians for being toxic and nasty that thay will become any less harmful. They are a probably inevitable product of one man, one vote.

Yous sincerely,

Anthony de Jasay

-----------------------------------------------

From: Stephen Raudenbush - 13/6/14

Dear Ronald

Thanks for sending this. I have admired your work and made very good use of your book with James Heckman on inequality.

I do have a few questions

* Why are key elements of Sen's "human development index" so much better in the European social democracies than in the US?

* Why have the countries that employed a Keynesian stimulus done so much better during the recession than countries that used the recession to reduce government spending?

I believe you have offered a false choice between heavy government involvement and light government involvement. All sides are competing to use the government to support their own special interest. If the government does not intervene to insure child care, education, health, housing, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, and social security for the elderly, and protect the environment, the result will not be a utopian laissez faire society. Instead, government resources will be directed entirely to prop up agri-business, build roads to support real estate developers, save failing banks, generate unneeded contracts for lobbyists, etc. In sum, we will have neither social democracy nor laissez faire but rather socialism for the rich, which is pretty much what the US has now.

Why did you not comment on our extraordinarily corrupt political system in which running for low level offices now requires millions of dollars? Where huge firms literally dictate legislation to the office holders they have bankrolled?

I would propose a government role that does the good things I mentioned above while aggressively intervening against oligopoly and favoritism to insure competition in the market place. The government can be a friend of the free market and a friend of meritocracy while insuring basic necessities, particularly for the children and the elderly, and supporting human capital development.

Sincerely

Steve Raudenbush

----------------------------------------------------------

From: William Anderson - 13/6/14

If these points are true, then are you saying that the vast amount of people are materially poorer than they were, say, in 1980? That they have fewer goods and services available to them now than they had then?

It seems to me that the theories depend upon (1) homogeneous capital (capital as a lump of stuff that is useful primarily for how much is spent in creating and accumulating it), and (2) underconsumption. We have been getting underconsumption theories at least since “Fable of the Bees.”

Now, we do have a lot of what is called crony capitalism today, in which owners of capital, through political alliances, are able to force resources into a direction that would not be profitable (or would be less profitable) without the government intervention. However, from what I can tell, Piketty is not so worried about this development. Piketty would prefer lots of people to be poor to make Bill Gates and a few other people pay more taxes.

If Piketty’s thesis is true, then the vast majority of people today are poorer than were the people of the early 1800s, when the development of large-scale capital really took off in Great Britain and in Europe. Are you prepared to say that? Think of the logic of his thesis; are you prepared to claim that a larger percentage of people are poor today (and living in worse conditions) than were people of the early 1800s?

Then, to follow Piketty’s logic, the bifurcated returns to capital (versus ordinary income growth) would have to be consistent from the very start. Thus, you are having to claim that the poor today are poorer than the vast majority of people in the early 19th Century. Can you empirically justify that statement?

-----------------------------------------------

From: g.reisman@capitalism.net - 13/6/14

Dear Mr. Carneiro:

Thank you for your review of Piketty.

Attached, please find a copy of my review of him, which I’ve just posted to my blog.

Sincerely,

George Reisman

--------------------------------------------

From: studiosarpietro@gmail.com

june, 16, 2014

Dear fellow Rotarian Ronaldo Carneiro,

thank you very much. your thoughts on the book of Piketty are very interesting, especially in this period we are going through.

I will continue to reflect on this, and I will send it to my daughter who is studying Economics.

Many greetings.

Salvatore Sarpietro

2007-08 DG – 2110 District

-----------------------------------------------------------

Benegas-Lynch, Jr., Alberto

National Academy of Sciences, Argentina

abenegaslynch@yahoo.com – june,20,2014

Dear Ronaldo Carneiro, thak you for sending your papers that I will read with great interest. In the meanwhile, I copy one of my weakly columns on the subject. Cordially, Alberto Benegas Lynch, Jr

------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Deist

jeffdeist@mises.org - june,20,2014

Excellent, thank you. Jeff

--------------------------------------------------------

From: Floy Lilley <floylilley@mises.com>

Date: 2014-06-20 17:29 GMT-03:00

Subject: Re: About Pikettys Book on Capital - The answer of a convinced liberal

To: Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>

Hello Mr. Carneiro,

Your enthusiasm for this project is palpable. That's a fine way to feel about whatever you do.

You embrace Piketty's work in ways that I do not. I do not find that he proves his thesis.

Thank you for having thought of me.

Best,

Floy Lilley

---------------------------------------------

From: Rev. Robert A. Sirico <rsirico@acton.org>

Date: 2014-06-21 13:30 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Dear Ronaldo:

Your email arrive just as I had begun reading Pikettey’s book Capital, so I shall now do so with your critique in mind.

Many thanks,

Fr. Robert A. Sirico,

President

The Acton Institute

-------------------------------------------------------

From: Gary North <gnorth@poetworld.net>

Date: 2014-06-23 9:02 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: About Piketty’s Book on Capital - The Answer of a convinced Liberal

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Don't start with Pikkety. Start woth Pareto: 1897

From: Jaana Woiceshyn <jwoiceshyn@gmail.com>

Date: 2014-07-11 1:29 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: Why competition is good and regulation bad

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Thank you, Ronaldo.—My silence does not imply anything but me being swamped and not being able to find the time to correspond—sorry. I hope my life will get less busy soon. But in general, I disagree with Piketty’s thesis. Inequality is a non-issue! Regards, Jaana

From: Noam Chomsky <chomsky@mit.edu>

Date: 2014-07-11 1:56 GMT-03:00

Subject: Piketty’s "Capital" - The answer of a convinced liberal

To: Ronaldo Carneiro <rcarneiro@salutecafe.com.br>

Thanks for sending. Hope to get to it soon.

From: Info <info@profilebooks.co.uk>

Date: 2014-07-18 5:41 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: Inequalities

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Hello,

Thank you so much for your email below.

Unfortunately, Profile books do not accept unsolicited material. However, we do recommend the following websites as industry standard for gaining a reputable agent as well as other tips for publishing. Please do not pay an agent either – this is usually not a good sign.

• Writers and Artists yearbook

• Preditors and editors

• Absolute write

We most certainly wish you the best with getting published.

Kind regards,

Olu

*****************************************

Olu Ubadike

Office Manager

Profile Books

3A Exmouth House

Pine Street

Exmouth Market

London

From: Ieva NAVICKAITĖ <Ieva@llri.lt>

Date: 2014-08-01 4:07 GMT-03:00

Subject: RE: Inequalities

To: Ronaldo campos carneiro <rcarneiro4@gmail.com>

Thank you for sharing, Ronaldo. It will be very interesing to read your remarks on Piketty‘s book. Let‘s keep in touch.

Best wishes. Ieva

Christopher Spackman comentou sua publicação.

Christopher escreveu: "Thanx for the article. Thoughts. 1. Agree that capitalism is well on the way to eating itself 2. Agree that war is a major problem. Nation states have abrogated the right to billions of unprofitable dollars. 3. Agree that answer is probably not a 'ceiling' but a 'floor' - in other words, the tax system. If the 'haves' agree to pay generously, then the problems you point out with health, education, etc. will disappear. The problem occurs when the 'haves' think they own their money and try to hold it all. Conclusion: a neat summary of the problem ;-) Christopher"

------------------------------------------------------------

I can only speak from my experiences in Mozambique but it seems to me labour force and political participation are both culturally constructed practices  and while they do overlap, they don't tend to fit into western categories of what constitutes labour force and political participation. 

Let me back up and first address the question of education. In Mozambique, while it is true that girls in rural areas often leave school at greater rates, the presumption that this is because rural parents don't value education is historically and currently false, or at the very least a gross generalization. Historically, educated women were considered more attractive brides because of their greater capacity to contribute to family income, even in rural areas. The contribution of women to family economic well being was important enough that parents were/are willing to risk that education leads young women (and men) to leave rural areas for better paying jobs in urban centers, although their movement back and forth may be rather fluid.  Rural families in general tend to be morally more conservative in many areas including dress. Women wear ankle length capulanas or wraps. Since the state has instituted uniform policies, young girl must now wear uniforms that show their ankles and therefore do not conform to the dress codes of the community. While this alone has made parents reluctant to send girls to school, the greater issue is the fact that the schools in rural areas are very poor quality and there is a very high rate of sexual assault of female students by their male peers and teachers.  To have their daughters morally corrupted AND come out illiterate makes no sense to most parents. In some areas that are predominately muslim, while the official statistics indicate a high attrition of girls from the public schools, a closer look shows that many parents withdrew their daughters and sent them to koranic schools instead. In other parts of the country, parents belief that rituals and rites of passage are education and so in some instances, it isn't that they don;t value education but a kind of education not recognized in our western conceptions of mass schooling.

As for political participation and gender and place, at least in Mozambique, the problem has been that much of the research has imposed western definitions and understanding of power and political participation.  In many regions of the country, people express dismay when democracy experts insist that individuals in the same family can vote for different people and western scholars have interpreted this as a lack of understanding of democratic participation. But really what goes on is that families may have very heated discussions about how they will participate in elections and in many areas democracy is considered women's work (that is, the women of the family decide). In some instance the family may decide to split their votes: half goes to have tea and vote for one party and the other half goes to have tea and votes for the other party. This is not for lack of understanding but their attempt to avoid anyone winning by a huge landslide and causing the kind of political asymmetry that historically has led to wars.  Moreover, in rural areas, the idea that women are the keepers of democracy comes from their association with agricultural production (and thus their proximity to the land and to the ancestors and their wisdom). Westerner observers note women's reluctance to comprise 50% of the poll watchers (a western understanding of gender equity in political participation) and not understand that this is meaningless expression of political participation when they could be in the field working the land that DOES give women their power in political participation.  I hope I have not muddied the waters too much ; )

Dear David,

It is clear that any optimal political system is rather Utopia. The point is that every system has its pros and cons. Concerning democracy and its forms (incl. representative democracy), the true is that theory differs from reality in significant way. Therefore it might be tricky to formulate a clear answer to your question. There are many factors that may determine quality of representative democracy. I mean... just look at present member states of the EU, and you can find very colourful picture. If you concentrate for instance on some new EU members (especially those with experience with Communist parties´ domination) then you can find plenty of examples how insufficient level of political accountability is followed by citizens´ general distrust to politics. Consequently, there is no surprise that the citizens are uninterested, dissatisfied and inactive; and it is pretty difficult to define their choice. (Obviously, the topic is much more complicated.)

And one more comment on Madison´s idea: decisions of local governments and local referenda on replacement of Roma settlements in a few Slovak municipalities could be perfect examples of limits of direct democracy. Phenomena like NIMBY syndrome play the role, and the final decisions can be sometimes described rather as tyranny of majority than as common good.

Daniel

Sí, yo conozco un gran libro, pero es sólo sobre el siglo 19: "Clientelismo e política no Brasil do século XIX", de Richard Graham (hay versión en inglés)

Saludos.

Andrea, Babar, thank you for your responses.

Perhaps though Babar I am not so concerned with how much of an impact these modes of participation quantitatively have on governments and policy, but rather if citizens themselves continue to engage with them post-economic crises despite their social resources being depleted. Various authors have stated that formal participation drops post-crises for this reason, but I think because 'personal' participation is so easy and low-resource, we could expect that citizens' ability to participate in this manner shouldn't be affected too much by crises? Is this something which seems agreeable? Is there any literature which could assist?

However, your point is a strong one and alludes to something I perhaps have not considered as of yet - do people even think these forms of participation are worth engaging in? In terms of trend analyses that perhaps could lead us to expect that while participation in this mode might not be falling, we won't see a growth in participation of this sort, because citizens do not believe it is worth doing? Do you have any literature to support such a view?

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (UK) has commissioned some very useful reports on community participation tools and evaluation http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/what-works-assessing-community-participation

Voters vote when convinced of the efficacy of their vote in affecting public policy. When not so convinced, they abstain from voting often as a protest against an inefficacious democracy and often as mere indifference to the democratic process. Do we take democracy for granted? We become aware of it when it malfunctions as in cases of corruption. Democracy is like the air we breathe: when fresh we often take little notice of it; when polluted, we protest.

As a contribution to those interested in the subject, here are the links of some manuals:

1) Handbuch zur partizipation : http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de/soziale_stadt/partizipation/download/Handbuch_Partizipation.pdf

2) Grundkonzeption für den Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2015: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/DE/Anlage/VerkehrUndMobilitaet/bvwp-2015-grundkonzeption-langfassung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

3) Leitlinien für mitgestaltende Bürgerbeteiligung in der Stadt Heidelberg: http://www.heidelberg.de/site/Heidelberg_ROOT/get/documents/heidelberg/PB5Documents/pdf/12_pdf_Buergerbeteiligung_LeitlinienEnd.pdf