Many in the United States may be aware that most Europe governments use a parliamentary system, but the question most are probably thinking is: what is a parliamentary system? More importantly, how is it different from the system used by the United States? Here are the answers to these questions and more.
Basics of a Parliamentary System
In terms of the U.S. system, a country’s parliament would serve as both its legislative and executive branches. The most important thing to know about parliamentary systems is that the political parties hold the power and not individuals. When citizens vote, their ballots list party names and when a party wins, seat allotment is assigned to party members based on seniority (in most cases).
When a party wins the majority of seats, it then selects a leader to serve as the executive called a Prime Minister or, in some cases, a Chancellor. This person will most likely already be the party leader and they then select their cabinet which sets the government’s agenda. If one party does not win the majority of seats in the parliament, then it must form a coalition with other parties to form a majority.
This process may take time, but it will eventually allow for the smoother passage of legislation.
One House or Two?
Many parliaments are bicameral, meaning it has two houses, while others may be unicameral, having only one house. In bicameral systems, there is a lower and an upper house, but most legislating actually takes place in the lower house.
The greatest difference between the two is the number of veto points or places where legislation can be halted within the legislative process. Unicameral systems have fewer veto points than bicameral systems making it easier and faster to pass legislation but also easier to overturn. Many parliamentary systems therefore adopt the bicameral system for stability.
Parliamentary vs. Presidential
In a parliamentary system, the executive is the Prime Minister while in a presidential system, the President is the executive. There are many differences between these two positions, but most notably, the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet arises from the legislature, while Presidents are directly elected by the people.
At first glance, many would then prefer a President because citizens choose him/her directly, yet many still prefer Prime Ministers.
First of all, they are beholden to their party, so their decisions are far more predictable than a President’s and voters know exactly what values they are voting for. This applies for all members of the legislature as well, not just the Prime Minister.
Parliamentary systems also entail the possibility for a vote of “no confidence” by the legislature which can remove a Prime Minister from power at any point if they lose the vote. Presidents, however, have fixed terms and cannot so easily be removed.
Success Rate
Citizens in the United States are very fond of the presidential system, yet in reality the success rate for parliamentary systems is far greater. The system has been a part of some European countries for centuries, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. When deciding which system to adopt, new countries must consider what is best for its country, and that may or may not be a parliamentary system.
– Megan Burtis
Photo: Flickr
Starting from Scratch: Sustainable Agriculture in Nauru
Unchecked mining left an excessively jagged landscape that was almost useless for plant or food growth. With only 20 percent of land suitable for agricultural use, according to the Commonwealth Network, sustainable agriculture in Nauru became a distant dream. Since the end of the mining boom, the island has made slow progress towards rehabilitating the island for environmental and agricultural purposes. To further these efforts, in 1993 the Nauru Rehabilitation Corporation provided funding for multiple land rehabilitation projects, only of which has been successful thus far.
Due to the lack of any sustainable agriculture in Nauru, 90 percent of the island’s food is imported. Nauru’s strained financial situation makes the high costs of imported food an even greater burden. To make up for these high costs, Nauru imports cheaper, processed food, creating a severe shortage of healthy food in the diets of Nauru’s inhabitants. Increased consumption of unhealthy food led to obesity, in turn causing a rise in non-communicable diseases, threatening the health and lives of the people.
Efforts towards creating sustainable agriculture in Nauru are focused on the essential aspects: energy, water and small crops. Moqua Well, Nauru’s only underground lake, is being used for a solar-powered purification system to deliver drinkable water to the island’s inhabitants.
Buada Lagoon, Nauru’s only surface lake, is surrounded by small crops and domestic gardens, which constitute a large part of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) plan for creating sustainable agriculture in Nauru. These provide the people with small and viable crops, mainly coconuts. Providing food security has proved a challenge; many of the agricultural and farming practices have fallen out of use, leaving the island’s current farmers ignorant of the best systems for crop cultivation.
The FAO provided training for farmers after an insect infestation caused a large decline in coconut production, demonstrating the proper methods for biological control and insect identification. Over 75 percent of Nauruan farmers used pamphlets found in the island’s resource center. Educating the farmers in these matters is the first and most important step towards creating food security and sustainable agriculture in Nauru.
– Kayla Rafkin
Photo: Flickr
Sustainable Agriculture in Suriname Working to Improve Yields
The country’s most important crops, rice and bananas, have become nearly stagnant in terms of yield and are facing major overseas competition, causing high export and transportation costs. Rice, as the essential backbone of sustainable agriculture in Suriname, is a focus of the Anne van Dijk Rice Research Institute (ADRON). In addition to rice production, sustainable agriculture in Suriname can increase its value significantly by developing a framework for organic farms.
Rice Production
Through ADRON, the Ministry of Agriculture developed a system for intensifying rice production, increasing it from 4.1 to 4.7 tons per hectare at one point. However, ADRON’s research on seed breeding and crop productivity only got them so far. Small farmers lack proper education and knowledge of the most effective rice production practices, resulting in only 400 hectares of rice being planted in 2007, as opposed to the expected 1000 hectares.
ADRON has since supported the Seed Growers Association, an extension program for the support of small farmers and providing them with the technology they need to create sustainable agriculture in Suriname. According to the International Institute for Sustainability, world rice production must increase 50 percent by 2025 to accommodate average consumption per capita. Since 2009, rice production has shown an upward trend of above 200,000 tons per year, but ADRON is looking to push it even further with the following programs:
These five ADRON programs will provide the education and technology necessary for the expansion of rice production, as well as an assurance of rice quality that will survive rising competition in the world market.
Organic Farming
Organic farming has become a worldwide trend and highly dynamic market, particularly in Europe, and Suriname is going along with the trend. The Suriname Business Development Center and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) have funded multiple projects for boosting organic farming and sustainable agriculture in Suriname. With funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UNDP created the GEF Small Grants Programme, allowing Suriname to begin instituting projects involving biodiversity, sustainable land management and non-timber forest products.
Institutions like the Centre for Agricultural Research provide a gateway to the national market for organic food, creating initiatives to capture national interest. Safe farming, an environmentally friendly initiative for the small-holder farmers, is one of many that uses fewer chemicals in their crops.
Sustainable agriculture in Suriname has become a nationwide focus, with support from the government, research institutions and local farmers. They have the means to succeed and they are taking advantage of it.
– Kayla Rafkin
Photo: Flickr
How the US Benefits from Foreign Aid to Uganda
The U.S. international aid budget cuts would severely affect the aid given to Uganda and consequently might hamper Uganda’s development. This is because Uganda’s rapid development is at least partially due to the foreign aid it receives. However, it is in the United States’ interests to continue providing aid to Uganda, because the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Uganda as well.
The rapid poverty rate decline in Uganda is notable: in 2013, the proportion of the population living below the national poverty line declined from 31.1 percent in 2006 to 19.7 percent and the share of people living on $1.90 per day or less dropped from 53.2 percent in 2006 to 34.6 percent in 2013, one of the fastest decreases in sub-Saharan Africa. Poverty reduction among households in agriculture accounts for 79 percent of Uganda’s national poverty reduction from 2006 to 2013. Favorable prices and weather led to the increase in income in the agriculture sector.
Factors that demonstrate market efficiencies, such as investments in infrastructure, economic liberalization and better trade services, lead to favorable prices. Foreign aid, especially from the U.S., has led to the decline in poverty since much of the aid is used to develop agriculture and infrastructure and boost the economy. For instance, Uganda is a part of the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative Feed the Future. Through this initiative, USAID investments focus on three value chains (maize, coffee, and beans) with the greatest market potential, nutritional benefits and income potential for farming households. This has the benefit of transforming subsistence farms into more commercial operations.
Additionally, USAID works to improve farmers’ skills in production, post-harvest handling and storage technologies, all of which increase the likelihood of earning a higher income. This initiative has clearly made a notable impact in the country, as Feed the Future farmers in Uganda earned $97 million from agricultural sales. These numbers show that Uganda benefits immensely from foreign aid. However, other effects such as social capital derived from foreign aid show that the U.S. also benefits from foreign aid to Uganda.
A recent study found that foreign aid has a strong impact on trust among people and can change beliefs and social capital. This study surveyed specific counties in Uganda and found a positive correlation between aid in a county and the subsequent level of trust, which aligns with the hypothesis that foreign aid contributes to an increase in trust. This is significant because trust is considered a “proxy of social capital and determinant of future growth,” meaning it can be converted into conventional economic gains in the future. In this way, the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Uganda since it allows the U.S. access to Ugandan domestic and foreign policy, making foreign aid to Uganda an essential foreign policy tool. Moreover, foreign aid helps both the U.S. and Ugandan governments establish a mutually beneficial relationship based on cooperation on a wide range of shared issues.
Also, the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Uganda because, as a nation like Uganda improves economically to become a middle-income country, it becomes a potential market for U.S. companies, thereby creating jobs in the U.S.
In short, there are many ways the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Uganda. Hence, the recently proposed budget cuts indirectly harm more than they help the U.S. Additionally, Uganda, as one of the poorest nations in the world, still requires foreign aid in order to continue its development. Hopefully, it will continue to fight poverty amid these cuts in foreign aid from the U.S.
– Mehruba Chowdhury
Photo: Flickr
How Credit Access in Bosnia and Herzegovina Impacts the Economy
The economic crisis that began in 2008 continues to affect credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In addition to causing extended deflation, which hurts small businesses, it also left lending institutions very risk-averse, especially where small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned.
The situation is not all bad. There is an unusually large number of financial institutions in the country and the demand for credit is beginning to increase as the economy grows. This increase in demand is also caused by the growth of many small businesses. Unfortunately, conservative lending practices mean that while it would appear that would-be borrowers have plenty of options, it can still be difficult to get a loan. Additionally, high taxes and complicated regulations mean that there is a large informal sector in the country, further complicating the small business environment. Some of these informal operations are able to undercut their formal counterparts, making competition difficult and hampering people’s ability to get a loan.
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is attempting to bring about change. Its Development Credit Authority Loan Guarantee facility backs up to 50 percent of the loan principal for borrowers deemed too risky for a regular loan. USAID is improving credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina by enabling borrowers to secure financing who would otherwise be rejected.
However, it is important to consider how improving credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina might have unintended impacts. This growth in access to microloans without broader changes in the macroeconomy has meant that while it is easier to secure financing to start a business, the same cannot be said for securing financing to grow an existing business.
While the international community has stepped in to encourage microloans, they have not done the same to encourage banks to make larger loans available to medium-sized enterprises seeking to grow. While many banks claim to offer this kind of financing, the reality is that many will only lend to the most exceptionally qualified applicants, and even then the rates and terms offered may simply not be feasible for the borrower.
This means that there is an ever-growing cohort of businesses in the country that are too large to benefit from microloans but too small or still too risky to borrow from domestic banks. This is a major hurdle to clear before credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina can really be said to have improved.
It is also important to consider the impact that improved credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina may have on education. One recent study found that 16 to 19-year-olds in Bosnia and Herzegovina whose parents received microfinancing for their family businesses were nine percent less likely to be regularly attending school. This figure jumped to 19 percent when the adults in the household had only a primary school education.
This is not to say that improving credit access in Bosnia and Herzegovina for small businesses isn’t a worthy endeavor. It most certainly is, and it can and does lift people out of poverty. However, it is important to also provide continued support and acknowledge the ways that this issue interacts with Bosnia and Herzegovina’s broader economic circumstances to ensure that this money is able to make a real difference.
– Michaela Downey
Photo: Google
Credit Access in El Salvador Growing Among Rural Population
Meanwhile, agriculture, which had fallen off in the 1990s, continues to play an important role in the economy as it employs 25 percent of the country’s labor force. Coffee and sugar, El Salvador’s main exports, account for a significant portion of the agricultural sector. But despite its comfortably high GDP, 32.7 percent of its citizens live in poverty.
A significant obstacle to alleviating poverty is limited credit access in El Salvador. In particular, while banking is common and easy to obtain in larger cities like San Salvador and Santa Ana, the poor, especially in rural areas, have the most difficulty. Of the 40 percent of the population with low income, only 6 percent have accounts at financial institutions. And while access has grown, most banks do not have branches outside of the major cities.
To combat this, in 2013 the World Bank funded and developed a program that, through technical assistance, supported the Salvadoran authorities in developing legal frameworks and financial services. The World Bank team provided a framework for financial correspondents (third parties such as grocery stores and pharmacies) that authorized them to provide basic financial services. As well, the World Bank provided feedback on models of regulation for mobile banking and electronic banking.
Through these efforts, the World Bank was able to legally enact a framework that allowed for those third-party groups to carry out basic financial services. And between December 2013 and May 2014, basic banking transactions through third parties totaled nearly US $45 million. By utilizing technical channels outside of banks themselves, the World Bank has been able to provide credit access in El Salvador for all its citizens.
And in 2010, the International Finance Corporation, which is a part of the World Bank, financed a $30 million project specifically for micro-financing. Based on remittance flow, which accounts for more than $2.8 billion of El Salvador’s GDP, this project will establish a new funding platform for Fedecredito, a cooperative of 55 El Salvador credit unions and banks. Through support from the World Bank, which will grow Fedecredito’s portfolio by up to 25 percent, Fedecredito hopes to use this new structure to give credit to over 30,000 micro-entrepreneurs.
Through these programs, credit access in El Salvador has improved, especially for the rural poor. As these projects continue and El Salvador gains more stability, hopefully, their citizens will have more economic freedom.
– Nick McGuire
Photo: Flickr
Sustainable Agriculture in Uzbekistan Addressing Mistakes of the Past
Cotton – Profit Over Environment
Uzbeki leadership employed poor practices, originally implemented by Soviet leadership in the 1950s, to cultivate the cotton crop through large-scale chemical use, inefficient irrigation systems and poor drainage systems. Each variable contributed to soil degradation and high soil salinity (salt content of the soil).
The higher the soil’s salinity, the harder plants must work to absorb water. Even if the soil is at proper saturation, if the salt content is high enough, plants will wilt or even die from the high expense of energy. The process of diverting water from the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers that fed the Aral Sea led to the desertification of what was once the fourth largest saline lake in the world. The extremely high concentration of salt in the small body of water left behind affects the soil of its boundaries with a high level of salinity.
The sea is now less than 10 percent of its former size and the eastern basin, which dried up completely, is now known as the Aralkum Desert.
“Modern Slavery”
Further, Uzbekistan employed even poorer labor practices. The cotton industry saw state workers directed away from their occupations during harvest season and out to the fields picking cotton. The practice met the definition of “modern slavery” as outlined by the Global Slavery Index, as the workers received little to no compensation for their extra work and were under the alleged threat of expulsion from their state jobs if they did not participate in the harvest.
Labor and agricultural policies were enforced under the leadership of President Islam Karimov, elected in 1991 after Uzbekistan declared independence from the Soviet Union. Shavkat Mirziyoyev became the nation’s second president in 2016 following the death of Karimov. Mirziyoyev has since publicly denounced the traditional labor practice and initiated reforms across the labor and agriculture sectors.
Time for Crop Diversification
A 2013 study on the possible outcomes of developing land for crops besides cotton found a high potential for more efficient water use, as well as farm income for the area’s dryland citizens. The multiyear study indicated that crop diversification would also assist farmers in wetland areas that will be affected by the climate-driven decline water availability. The article concluded that crop diversification was key to sustainable agriculture in Uzbekistan.
That same year, the World Bank financed the Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change Mitigation project. The project objectives are to introduce renewable energy and technology for energy efficiency to the agriculture (agribusiness and farms) sector, and to improve the degraded irrigated land and water conservation practices.
The project looks to secure the objectives by implementing three components:
Horticulture Development
In 2014, the Horticulture Development Project initiated the shift in focus from heavily relied-upon exports like cotton to sustainable agriculture in Uzbekistan. By growing its own fruits and vegetables, the nation will realize growth in sector-crossing agribusiness and through its more diverse economy.
The project’s three main components include agricultural support services, access to credit and project management. The World Bank partners with the International Finance Corporation for the project to develop solutions to implementing food safety practices, improving competitiveness, agricultural lending and understanding the supply chain.
Uzbekistan must overcome the inheritance of neglectful policies, rising above the mandates of 1950s Soviet Russia and the heavy-handed culture of the Kamirov-led 1990s and 2000s. Through aid and the drive to emerge victorious, Uzbeki will citizens create sustainable agriculture on their way to creating a fully sustainable nation.
– Jaymie Greenway
Photo: Flickr
Major Efforts Toward Fighting the Cholera Crisis in Africa
Cholera
Cholera is a diarrheal illness caused from an infection of the intestine with bacteria called vibriocholerae. The symptoms of the illness include: diarrhea, vomiting and leg cramps, and such loss of body fluid can lead to dehydration and sometimes shock. Oftentimes, death can occur within only hours without treatment.
Since the start of the New Year, there have been over 2,009 cases and 22 deaths in the countries in Africa facing the cholera crisis. Zambia, one of the countries in southern Africa, faced the worst of the epidemic, with more than 74 deaths since October of 2017. The main area where Zambia’s impacted with cholera is in their capital, Lusaka. The government banned street food from vendors in the capital to reduce the number of cases, but in return, caused violent protests from the vendors.
Cholera Causes
The government, along with the World Health Organization, states the cause of the cholera crisis is poor waste management and lack of personal hygiene. These factors cause the contamination of food and water, which in turn, can spark the epidemic.
To help with the cholera crisis, the government has sent in the army to control measures, clean the markets and unblock drains. An oral vaccine program was also launched with the goal of immunizing one million people, and since its implementation, the number of cholera cases have dropped.
Cholera Effects
The effects of the cholera crisis have not just been deadly, but also have forced public places to close. Many schools, churches and workspaces are deferred until they can contain the outbreak. This impediment puts citizen jobs, payment and education on hold.
The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests the prevention of cholera consists of clean water, sanitation and reminding communities of basic hygiene behaviors that includes hand washing with soap after using the bathroom, before eating or touching food.
The WHO also suggests there should be media regarding health education messages for these reminders, and the implementation of routine antibiotic and immunizations if available.
– Chloe Turner
Photo: Flickr
Understanding the Basics: What is a Parliamentary System?
Many in the United States may be aware that most Europe governments use a parliamentary system, but the question most are probably thinking is: what is a parliamentary system? More importantly, how is it different from the system used by the United States? Here are the answers to these questions and more.
Basics of a Parliamentary System
In terms of the U.S. system, a country’s parliament would serve as both its legislative and executive branches. The most important thing to know about parliamentary systems is that the political parties hold the power and not individuals. When citizens vote, their ballots list party names and when a party wins, seat allotment is assigned to party members based on seniority (in most cases).
When a party wins the majority of seats, it then selects a leader to serve as the executive called a Prime Minister or, in some cases, a Chancellor. This person will most likely already be the party leader and they then select their cabinet which sets the government’s agenda. If one party does not win the majority of seats in the parliament, then it must form a coalition with other parties to form a majority.
This process may take time, but it will eventually allow for the smoother passage of legislation.
One House or Two?
Many parliaments are bicameral, meaning it has two houses, while others may be unicameral, having only one house. In bicameral systems, there is a lower and an upper house, but most legislating actually takes place in the lower house.
The greatest difference between the two is the number of veto points or places where legislation can be halted within the legislative process. Unicameral systems have fewer veto points than bicameral systems making it easier and faster to pass legislation but also easier to overturn. Many parliamentary systems therefore adopt the bicameral system for stability.
Parliamentary vs. Presidential
In a parliamentary system, the executive is the Prime Minister while in a presidential system, the President is the executive. There are many differences between these two positions, but most notably, the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet arises from the legislature, while Presidents are directly elected by the people.
At first glance, many would then prefer a President because citizens choose him/her directly, yet many still prefer Prime Ministers.
First of all, they are beholden to their party, so their decisions are far more predictable than a President’s and voters know exactly what values they are voting for. This applies for all members of the legislature as well, not just the Prime Minister.
Parliamentary systems also entail the possibility for a vote of “no confidence” by the legislature which can remove a Prime Minister from power at any point if they lose the vote. Presidents, however, have fixed terms and cannot so easily be removed.
Success Rate
Citizens in the United States are very fond of the presidential system, yet in reality the success rate for parliamentary systems is far greater. The system has been a part of some European countries for centuries, but that doesn’t mean it’s perfect. When deciding which system to adopt, new countries must consider what is best for its country, and that may or may not be a parliamentary system.
– Megan Burtis
Photo: Flickr
A Crucial Shift: How the US Benefits from Foreign Aid to Venezuela
Human Rights Defense
According to the U.S. Department of State, assistance from the United States to Venezuela is focused mainly on human rights issues, civil services and building up the strength of political interests in the area. One main interest in Venezuela is building a strong counter-narcotics network in the region, but recently the USDS has reported that Venezuela has failed to maintain the network to adequate levels.
Politically, this demonstrates the inability for the Venezuelan government to control its national defense programs, which became even more obvious after a presidential election putting Nicolas Maduro in charge, an action widely disputed for its legitimacy.
Venezuela’s Economy
According to CNN, a major reason for this election and presidential cycle being so tumultuous is due to a decline in Venezuela’s economy, which is one area wherein questions arise about the way the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Venezuela.
Another article from CNN Money states that the Venezuelan crisis spreads further than just a loss of democracy; it spreads to the pockets of the people as well. Venezuela’s cash revenue has fallen from $30 billion in 2011 to $9.9 billion in 2017. That drastic of a drop is causing a humanitarian crisis disproportionate to Venezuela’s economic capacity.
The U.S. and Venezuela
This being said, the United States remains one of Venezuela’s largest suppliers of goods. According to the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. exports nearly $8.3 billion to Venezuela include agricultural products, car parts and petroleum. In return, the U.S. imports a large number of oil products from Venezuela, totaling around $15.6 billion. However, this number has declined since the price of oil fell, causing an economic shift in Venezuela’s market.
This occurrence, along with a cash-poor economy, has pushed Venezuela into a crisis situation. With food being harder to get and inflation through the roof, humanitarian aid to Venezuela is going to increase in the next few years — that is, if the rest of the world wants to help stabilize the country.
A Global Shift
The way the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Venezuela is going to change. As long as political alliances don’t shift too far from their current position, there is a high chance that the U.S., through increased humanitarian efforts and support for the agricultural and healthcare systems in the country, can help Venezuela recover before the nation degrades any further.
– Molly Atchison
Photo: Flickr
How the US Benefits From Foreign Aid to Belize
Security
The U.S. government helps Belize fight organized crime and drug trafficking while regulating the number of migrant workers coming into America. The U.S. has helped strengthen the police force in Belize as well as improve the capacity to secure its borders. It has also helped improve citizen security and Belize’s ability to confront and disrupt criminal organizations that run rampant throughout the country. This is all in the effort to strengthen Belize as a country which will be beneficial to the U.S. in the long run.
Immigration and Tourism
The U.S. and Belize have always been very close as the U.S. houses the largest number of Belize nationals outside of the country itself. This is partly because of migrant workers that come to the country from Belize. The U.S. is a major source of investment funds and is the principal trading partner for Belize. The U.S. also helps to promote tourism in Belize. The tourism often results in Americans retiring and moving to Belize permanently. This helps increase the revenue within the country, promoting economic growth while also exposing Belizean culture to Americans that had never experienced it before.
International Relations
Giving help to Belize depicts U.S. diplomacy and also helps with relations among all Latin American countries. The U.S. has operations in over 100 companies located in Belize which helps the Belizean economy while simultaneously assisting corporations in the U.S. All the while, these efforts increase international relations and positive American diplomacy.
These are just a few ways that the U.S. benefits from foreign aid to Belize, and as the relationship between the two countries continues to grow, more benefits will become apparent.
Belize has benefited substantially from America aid which has allowed an increase in economic status with attempts to end organized crime and illicit drug trafficking. U.S. foreign aid helped Belize improve the inner-workings of the country as well as citizen relations. Foreign aid has had a positive effect on Belize as a whole, and this is a trend that seems to be continuing as long as the U.S. is there to offer foreign aid to the country when it needs it.
– Simone Williams
Photo: Flickr