rfmcdonald | [BRIEF NOTE] In the Economist (Reply)

I picked up The Economist at the Dufferin Mall today, before stopping by No Frills to stock up on frozen dinners and rice crackers.

There is an interesting, and only somewhat contestable, of the types of anti-American sentiment extant in the world. Different nationalism-inspired sorts of anti-Americanism (Franco-American competitiveness, Arab resentment of the American-Israeli alliance, Greek resentment of American support for the colonels) and different ideological-inspired sorts (left-wing anti-materialism, right-wing anti-democratic sentiments), concluding with an assessment that there is a real danger that continued and growing anti-American sentiments could jeopardize the American position. Much is implicitly beyond the realm of debate, for instance, whether the current American position in the world is a good thing.

An anonymous author refers to a new World Bank report ("Beyond the City: the Rural Contribution to Development") that examines the underestimated importance of rural areas, both in terms of population geography (using more realistic definitions, 42% of Latin Americans live in the countryside, not 24%) and in terms of economic output (unlike in the subsidy-heavy developed world, growing agricultural output triggers significant growth in the non-farm economy). Author Guillermo Perry argues that investments in education and transportation infrastructure would be most helpful to rural residents, as opposed to land distribution (as favoured by Brazil's Sem Terra movement, for instance). The report also argues that agricultural subsidies in the First World have a greater effect on MERCOSUR countries than on other Latin American countries.

An examination of Russian xenophobia suggests that a combination of long-term trends (stereotypes and policies dating back to the Soviet era and even Tsarism) and recent events (the war in the Caucasus and the recovery from the post-Soviet collapse) have created new patterns of racist behaviour. A December survey suggests that Chechens, Roma, and Caucasians are the most unpopular, followed by Africans and Chinese; Americans, Jews, and Russian Muslims follow at a considerable distance. "West Europeans" are the least unpopular (only a tenth of survey respondents would prefer to not work with them, and only a sixth would prefer that they not live in Russia). The Russian state has apparently done little to move against this racism; the author argues that "the sort of paranoid nationalism espoused by Mr. Putin and mainstream politicians [with its] indecent haste to lay the blame on 'others' for Russia's woes" (49) encourages racist violence.

Charlemagne profiles José Manuel Barroso, former Prime Minister of Portugal and current head of the European Commission. The Economist's long-time writing on European affairs takes special care to distance Barroso from his 1970s history as a student Maoist, calling it a reaction to the stifling isolation and backwardness imposed by Portugal's fascist and imperialist regime. Barroso, Charlemagne argues, is concerned with promoting Europe's economic growth. Alas, many of the member-states are uninterested in his proposed reforms.

The Economist devotes on of its trademark surveys to New York City, examining how that metropolis has adapted after September 11th. The survey's authors argued that New York City's continued role as a metropolis of global import--in particular, as a source and subject of popular culture and as a major destination for new immigrants--has helped the city survive the slump that hit many old American cities in the 1970s and 1980s. Three sitcoms in particular--Friends, Sex in the City, and Seinfeld--are credited with rehabilitating New York City's image.

Iceland, it seems, is becoming a major investor in the European Union and beyond, with investors acquiring a variety of store chains, food processors, and financial institutions. The author notes that the Icelandic buying spree is unexpected from an island with 300 thousand people, pointing to the country's deregulation of finances and Iceland's consequent status as a low-cost tax haven outside of the European Union as explanation. Despite good economic times in Iceland, the penchant to buy losing firms and steadily rising levels of domestic and foreign debt may yet wreck things.