|
|
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Help the Economy: Have a Baby - a rant on birth-encouragement policies The birth-rate in South Korea is at a record low. As one of the most densely populated nations in the world, some would be forgiven for thinking that population decline might actually be a good thing. But apparently that is not the case. The South Korean government is very concerned about this trend and is planning to spend 32 Trillion won to boost the birth-rate. The money will be spent of a variety of initiatives designed to 'ease the burden of child-rearing'. I find that phrase particularly amusing because the policies are aimed at those women who are more likely to view child-rearing in a more positive light rather than label it a burden. Just as a quick aside: Cathartidae has a short post on Bada's contribution to this effort. Her idea, like the government's ideas, are likely to lead to very little. I find public policy addressing birth-rates to be an endlessly fascinating topic. Here you have a bunch of suited old men with little financial woes lamenting the economic repercussions of an aging population combined with low birth rates. These are the men (in Korea I think we can assume the main policy makers are men) drafting policies to encourage women to start having children earlier and to have more of them. Their concern for families wanting children and women's views on child-rearing are limited to their own myopic economic perspective. I'm not saying their policy prescriptions are bad. I think they are neutral. My own knowledge of women who want children is that these policies have very little impact, if any, in the decision-making process of when to have children and how many. The issue I have here is one of motivation. I think that spending money of childcare facilities and such are a good idea. But the motive behind the policy is wrong. Cheaper and better childcare facilities should be aimed at allowing women (and families) greater choice and freedom in this area. That is, the option for women to go back to work or to stay home, to work part-time or full-time, to take time off and return later to work or whatever. The idea of having better childcare facilities with the aim of ensuring that women can return to the workforce for the economic good of the nation is insulting. The problem I have is not the policy, it is the policy-makers idea of what the 'problem' is. I don't isolate Korea in this. Australia's 'baby bonus' I thought, was highly offensive. My gripe is that these policies are not designed with the aim of granting women (and families) greater freedom to choose how and when they raise a family. They are designed to "boost the birth-rate". If there is an economic impact to reduced birth-rates surely a better option is to find out how the economy can adjust. I have yet to see a government report that looks at the savings (long-term obviously) of a lower population on public and natural resources compared to the cost of having to first pay for the aging population (pension and care for the elderly costs). I think its time to accept that many women (and families) in modern society just don't want children and that government policy should try to reflect that reality rather than try and change it.
Permalink
Post a Comment
Friday, July 28, 2006
My Shoes I bought these shoes back in January of this year but only managed to wear them for the first time this week. Part of the reason for hesitating was that I feared they would be too uncomfortable to walk in (ie: they would be good only to wear in the office when one is sitting all day). However, I finally decided it was time to put them to the test. I took them out on Wednesday and we did quite a bit of walking together. Although I certainaly wouldn't want to go hiking in them, they were not as uncomfortable as I had feared. In fact, they weren't too bad at all. I bought them as part of my effort to wear high heels more often rather than my typical cluncky hiking boots or joggers. And because they are beautiful. Shoes, I think I love you. 
They Say the Neon Lights are Bright in Broadway This is not true of Broadway, UK however. We recently made a short trip up to this extremely pretty town in late June. It sits on part of the Cotswold Way making it a great location for walking. I have some pictures of our stay:  This is the Broadway Country Park leading up to Broadway Tower. Its a bit of a steep walk but well worth the effort as the views are nice and the country air is lovely. You can access Broadway Tower by a shorter, less pretty path (or drive) but that detracts from the whole country feel of the area. The Country Park also features red deer, which can be seen here lazing under a tree. It was a rather warm day and we had reached the Tower late in the morning when it was reaching the hottest part of the day so it is understandable that they are not frolicking in the fields. This is Broadway Tower, a three-turreted folly built by the Earl of Coventry. The Earl was the founder of the North Cotswold Hunt (fox hunting) and the folly was built so that he could look over Broadway, the headquarters of the Hunt and the surrounding countryside. The view from the top allows one to see 12 counties on a clear day. And finally, a picture of the garden at Snowshill Manor. The Manor houses a great collection of amazing knickknacks collected by its last owner, Charles Wade. The rooms display full sets of Japanese armour as well as a large collection of the old 'boneshaker' bicycles with the HUGE front wheel and small back wheel.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
North Korean Missles, the Iranian twist The diplomatic bickering has hotted up since the UN Security Council condemned the North for tet firing several missiles. Hard-liners, loudest in the K-blogosphere being The Korea Liberator, advocate sanctions as a step in the right direction. The more jingoistic among them are even going so far as to call for pre-emptive strikes. This view is in stark contrast to those more in favour of a more pragmatic response; or indeed a business-as-usual response. The latest news that I've come across is that Iranian officials were present to witness the missile test. I have to admit to being a bit skeptical about this information. It may be true, but why is it just coming out now; surely this was known before-hand. And were there officials from other countries or no? And if they were there, what does it mean? And it just seems oh-so convenient that US' two most hated countries are caught in such a situation. All I'm saying is that this information only leads to more questions. I am willing to recognise that this information may have come out earlier and I just didn't notice. Tuesday, July 11, 2006
North Korea Missiles A diplomatic storm is brewing over how to deal with North Korea. Both China and South Korea have criticised Japan as over-reacting. Christopher Hill is in Beijing and has voiced the idea of excluding North Korea from future talks. Beijing is sending an envoy to North Korea. Japan is drumming up support for a sanction-approving resolution in the UN which is currently thought to have US, France and UK backing. It is unlikely that such a resolution could be passed though due to reluctance by China and Russia to take a hard-line. It is hardly surprising that South Korea and China started having a hissy fitt at Japan. Any military stance directed toward an area of land as well-trodden by the feet of Japanese soldiers as North Korea is clearly going to be unpopular. But the gap between US/Japan voting for tough response versus Korea/China voting for more discussion has clearly widened. The patience of the Japan and US is clearly running dry. There are quite of lot of editorials and such being printed analysing whether the missiles have had the desired outcome for North Korea. Some say it has been a failure and put them in a worse position, others suggest that events have gone in their favour. None of this makes much sense to me because for now, apart from a few diplomatic words, nothing has actually happened. Thursday, July 06, 2006
North Korea Tests Missiles North Korea has test fired some missiles and is vowing to keep doing so. I'm fairly certain that there is more being written on this topic than I care to ever read about so I have limited myself to just reading the ny times article (above) and Slate. As someone who blogs predominantly about Korea some might think that I am being lax in my duty by not reading more. And those people would be right. But there is also the point that I don't believe that this round of tests is going to do anything other than create a bit of media hoo-ha and a bit of rhetoric from politicians. Then it will fade away from the new papers and becomes just one more item to list when journal articles recite all the belligerent and brinkmanship antics of North Korea - ho hum, here we go again. Not because this isn't a threatening act but its been tried before. There is nothing to be done about it. North Korea is trying to get US and others to do its bidding but this is a complete waste of time because Japan, Korea, US, China etc can't achieve anything against North Korea, whether it be engagement or isolation, until they agree on an approach and tossing a couple of missiles into the ocean doesn't change that fact.
|
Korea Blogs 
Newspapers |
![[Powered by Blogger]](http://buttons.blogger.com/bloggerbutton1.gif){kind=small}