Future radiation measurements in low Earth orbit

The first Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) mission has demonstrated the value of the LDEF concept for deep surveys of the space radiation environment. The kinds of measurements that could be done on a second LDEF mission are discussed. Ideas are discussed for experiments which: (1) capitalize on the discoveries from LDEF 1; (2) take advantage of LDEF's unique capabilities; and (3) extend the investigations begun on LDEF 1. These ideas have been gleaned from investigators on LDEF 1 and others interested in the space radiation environment. They include new approaches to the investigation of Be-7 that was discovered on LDEF 1, concepts to obtain further information on the ionic charge state of cosmic rays and other energetic particles in space and other ideas to extend the investigations begun on LDEF 1

The politics of economic policy reform in developing countries

Because of politics, some economic policy reforms are adopted and pursued in the developing world, and others are delayed, and resisted. Economic reform is inherently a political act: It changes the distribution of benefits in society, benefiting some social groups, and hurting others. Social groups may oppose reform because of doubts about its benefits, or because they know it will harm their economic interests. The author shows how three types of reform - currency devaluation, the privatization of state enterprises, and the elimination of consumer (food) subsidies - affect the utility of nine different social groups (including international financial institutions). When governments try to privatize state-owned enterprises, for example, more social groups with greater political weight are likely to be disadvantaged than helped. Urban workers, urban bureaucrats, urban students, and the urban poor, are likely to"lose out"and will strongly oppose privatization. But the ruling elite, and urban politicians are also likely to at least partly resist privatization, fearing that such reform will reduce their economic"rents". More social groups, and power points thus oppose privatization than favor it, so this policy reform is likely to be delayed, or not implemented at all. However, social groups do not possess an absolute veto over economic reform, and policy reform can (and often does) occur, despite the opposition of certain social groups. It depends on the aggregate political weight of the groups opposing reform. For example, as the author shows, five social groups, either wholly or partly, oppose eliminating consumer (food) subsidies, but the combined weight of those groups is only roughly equal to the political weight of the four social groups - international financial institutions, the ruling elite, urban politicians, and urban capitalists - that favor this reform. Politically, consumer subsidies can be eliminated, or reduced, if the right kind of concern is shown for opposing social groups.Banks&Banking Reform,Economic Theory&Research,Environmental Economics&Policies,Payment Systems&Infrastructure,Social Inclusion&Institutions,Gender and Education,Economic Theory&Research,Banks&Banking Reform,Poverty Assessment,Inequality

Remittances, household expenditure and investment in Guatemala

The author uses a large household data set from Guatemala to analyze how the receipt of internal remittances (from Guatemala) and international remittances (from the United States) affects the marginal spending behavior of households on various consumption and investment goods. Contrary to other studies, the author finds that households receiving remittances actually spend less at the margin on consumption-food and consumer goods and durables-than do households receiving no remittances. Instead of spending on consumption, households receiving remittances tend to spend more on investment goods, like education, health, and housing. The analysis shows that a large amount of remittance money goes into education. At the margin, households receiving internal and international remittances spend 45 and 58 percent more, respectively, on education, than do households with no remittances. These increased expenditures on education represent investment in human capital. Like other studies, the author finds that remittance-receiving households spend more at the margin on housing. These increased expenditures on housing represent a type of investment for the migrant, as well as a means for boosting local economic development by creating new income and employment opportunities for skilled and unskilled workers.Housing&Human Habitats,VN-Acb Mis -- IFC-00535908,Economic Conditions and Volatility,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Municipal Housing and Land

Nonfarm income, inequality, and land in Rural Egypt

The author uses household-level data from a nationally representative survey to analyze the impact of nonfarm income on income inequality in rural Egypt. After pinpointing the importance of nonfarm income to the rural poor, the author decomposes total rural income among five sources, nonfarm, agricultural, livestock, rental, and transfer. He shows that while nonfarm income represents the most important inequality-reducing source of income, agricultural income represents the most important inequality-increasing source. A 1 percent marginal increase in nonfarm income will cause the Gini coefficient of overall income to fall by 12.8 percent. But a 1 percent marginal increase in agricultural income will cause the Gini coefficient to rise by 15.8 percent. The reason for this difference has to do with land, which is distributed very unevenly in this study. Regression analysis of the determinants of income shows that land ownership is positively and statistically related to the receipt of agricultural income but has no statistical relationship to the receipt of nonfarm income. This leads the author to three conclusions: 1) If policymakers are interested in reducing poverty and improving income distribution in rural Egypt, they should focus on nonfarm income - which not only accounts for almost 60 percent of total income for the rural poor but also favorably affects income distribution. 2) Nonfarm income is an inequality-reducing source of income in a land-scarce setting such as rural Egypt because inadequate land"pushes"poorer households out of agriculture and into the nonfarm sector. 3) Agricultural income contributes most to rural income inequality because it is highly correlated with land ownership and with total rural income.Services&Transfers to Poor,Environmental Economics&Policies,Poverty Impact Evaluation,Economic Theory&Research,Poverty Monitoring&Analysis,Inequality,Environmental Economics&Policies,Rural Poverty Reduction,Safety Nets and Transfers,Services&Transfers to Poor

The demographic, economic and financial determinants of international remittances in developing countries

What causes developing countries to receive different levels of international remittances? This paper addresses this question by using new data on such variables as the skill composition of migrants, poverty, and interest and exchange rates to examine the determinants of remittances. The paper finds that the skill composition of migrants does matter in remittance determination. Countries which export a larger share of high-skilled (educated) migrants receive less per capita remittances than countries which export a larger proportion of low-skilled migrants. It also finds that the level of poverty in a labor-sending country does not have a positive impact on the level of remittances received.Population Policies,Remittances,Debt Markets,Access to Finance,Rural Poverty Reduction