http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
ENCOD BULLETIN 64 - Encod.org
ENCOD BULLETIN 64 - Encod.org
Search English
The entire site
Cannabis Social Club
Encod.org
European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD)
Secretariat: Lange Lozanastraat 14 - 2018 Antwerpen - Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)3 293 0886 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +32 (0)3 293 0886 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
E-mail: office@encod.org
Home page > English (en) > BULLETIN > ENCOD BULLETIN 64
* - BECOME AN ENCOD MEMBER
* - CALL FOR SOLIDARITY WITH BERNARD RAPPAZ, SWISS HEMP PIONEER
ENCOD BULLETIN 64
published Tuesday 1 June 2010 10:32, by encod . update Tuesday 1 June 2010 10:32
All the versions of this article: [Deutsch] [English] [Español] [français] [italiano] [Nederlands]
ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE
NR 64 JUNE 2010
WOULD LEGALISATION HARM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
Last March, during the CND meeting in Vienna, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa warned that developing countries could face a "health disaster if wealthy countries fail to control drugs”.
Costa pointed to a growing drug problem in impoverished nations. He also remarked that the "developing world – already struggling to deal with health, education and unemployment problems – lacks the treatment facilities and law enforcement to control narcotics". And he continued: "Poor addicts– and there are millions of them– have been pushed to the margins of society, deprived of medical attention, often exposed to conditions, including imprisonment, that exacerbate their illness’.
Costa also seemed to have already found the ones to blame for this fatidic destiny: "This seems to have been forgotten by people in rich countries calling for loosening of drug controls," and he concludes: "Why condemn the Third World, already ravaged by so many tragedies, to the neo-colonialism of drug dependence?"
Mr. Costa is speaking to us from an imagined moral high ground, but in fact advocating the continuation of the harmful policies that are the main cause of the misery that he tries to make his opponents feel guilty about.
It is true that developing countries that have important connections with the illegal drug market, as producers or as trade routes, have been struggling with drug related problems for decades and it is also true that many of them have increasing rates of drug consumption. It is also quite obvious that developing countries are expected to have less resources to adequately address drug addiction, and have more aggravating circumstances then developed nations (urbanization, poverty, migration, educational deficits, income inequalities...).
But let’s make one thing clear here: what was exactly the role of “neo-colonialists”or “rich countries” in this “disaster”? Certainly it was not the “loosening of drug controls”. Let’s forget the rhetoric and look at the facts.
The so-called War on Drugs, fiercely pursued by rich nations led by the US, was forcefully imposed to developing nations, and is becoming tougher and tougher each day. It is widely acknowledged now, and even admitted by UNODC, that this policy is also systematically generating immense “unintended consequences” such as a criminal market, displacement of routes, markets and substances, and the marginalization of users. Despite strong indications of failure of this policy, organizations such as UNODC are still encouraging countries to join international drug control efforts.
Having considered the efficacy of the current drug “control" system then how can Costa call for more of the same? How can he claim that this would help developing nations to escape from “drug dependence tragedy”? How exactly can more drug prohibition and counter-drug tactics save poor countries from a “health disaster”?
One thing that probably is worrying Mr Costa is the mythological concept that the cost of drug use to the individual and to the society infinitely outweighs the cost of enforcing prohibition. According to this concept any effort to reduce the availability of drugs is justifiable. However, evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition are, in fact, very high, and evidence on the efficacy of prohibition to reduce drug use is, at best, disappointing.
Even if we admit that the costs of drug use are in fact very high, we can not forget the role that prohibition plays in that. It is certain that criminalization of drugs is behind the majority of health and social problems related to drug use and is also an important factor for the perpetuation of poverty, inequalities, corruption, poor governance and underdevelopment of many nations.
Criminalization increases the negative effects of drug use
1. Prohibition attracts drug traffickers and drug consumption to countries in which drug consumption would otherwise not be prevalent. The costs of distributing drugs inside transit countries is lower, given that traffickers already must build up networks of collaborators to move the drugs through. Even though transit countries are poorer, and drug prices therefore much lower, low marginal costs make these markets highly lucrative. The fact that drug traffickers pay local collaborators in drugs, may explain part of the rise in consumption in transit countries.
2. Illegality undermines the usual vehicles of quality control upon which legal markets rely. In this context, overdoses due to uncertain strength and poisoning due to adulteration are both certain to be more frequent.
3. Criminalization of drugs and drug use impedes efforts to treat drug addiction and to prevent the spread of HIV among drug users. Since consumption is an illegal activity in most developing countries and, because of that, drug use tends to take place under less than ideal conditions, the transmission of contagious diseases and overdoses becomes more likely. Access to health care and harm reduction may lessen these problems, but users are still reluctant to take advantage of these when consumption is criminalized and profoundly stigmatized.
Criminalization perpetuates corruption, poverty and inequality.
1. The war against drugs increases the cost of drugs, making drug production and sale more profitable and therefore more attractive - particularly to those living in poverty. More risks, more profits, and even more poor people being recruited to this illegal activity.
2. To achieve and maintain profit goals, traffickers implement strategies to respond to the "challenges" of confronting the state, which include corruption of important officials and policemen and violence against the state and other competing groups. Corruption jeopardizes democratic stability and is a serious obstacle to guaranteeing a countrys’ governablility and national security.
3. An estimated 4 million people depend on income derived from the cultivation of illegal drug crops. In many countries, efforts to wipe out drug cultivation and supply have a high cost to human welfare and lives. For farmers there are few economic incentives for growing alternatives to drug crops. Moreover, a major part of the profits end up in the hands of those who control the later stages of the distribution process (retailers in developed countries).
4. Two other well-known costs of prohibition are the lives lost due to prohibition-induced violence and the productivity losses due to incarceration. The majority of people incarcerated in Brazil due to drug related crime are uneducated, poor, black young men, who where caught selling small amounts of drugs. More people die of drug trafficking related violence then of drug-related diseases or overdose, especially in developing countries.
In summary, despite the research and analyses made so far, social and individual costs of drug use, and the effects of prohibition on consumption are uncertain. Some will argue that it is likely that the relaxation of prohibition would lead to an increase in drug consumption. However, there is much evidence (see for instance the EC Report by Reuter and Trautmann) that the influence of repressive policies on levels of drug use is marginal. In addition, the nature of the “legalization” regime against which prohibition is being compared is not clear. But if drug trade can be regulated and resources diverted to other policies, such as treatment and education, with proven efficacy in reducing addiction and problematic use, it is likely that the types of drug use that impose the largest costs could be reduced.
Negative health and social consequences related to prohibition should be correctly put in the equation when the “tragedy of drug dependence” is weighed.
By: Marisa Felicissimo (with the help of Peter Webster)
P.S.
ENCOD NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT:
Account: 001- 3470861-83 Att. ENCOD vzw - Belgium
Bank: FORTIS, Warandeberg 3, 1000 Brussels
IBAN: BE 14 0013 4708 6183
SWIFT: GEBABEBB
Reply to this article
Sections
* Follow-up of the site's activity Czech (cz, sk)
* Opfølgning på webstedets aktiviteter Dansk (dk)
* Aktivitäten verfolgen Deutsch (de)
* Follow-up of the site's activity English (en)
o Follow-up of the site's activity ACTION APPEALS
o Follow-up of the site's activity AGENDA
o Follow-up of the site's activity BULLETIN
o Follow-up of the site's activity CAMPAIGNS
o Follow-up of the site's activity CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUBS
o Follow-up of the site's activity DOWNLOADS
o Follow-up of the site's activity EU LOBBY CAMPAIGN
o Follow-up of the site's activity MEMBERSHIP
o Follow-up of the site's activity NEWS
o Follow-up of the site's activity PRESS RELEASES
o Follow-up of the site's activity REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
o Follow-up of the site's activity SHOP
o Follow-up of the site's activity STATEMENTS
o Follow-up of the site's activity STUDIES
* Seguir la vida del sitio Español (es)
* Suivre la vie du site Français (fr)
* Monitorare l'attività del sito Italiano (it)
* A honlap életének megfigyelése Magyar (hu)
* De activiteit van de site opvolgen Nederlands (nl)
* Follow-up of the site's activity Norsk (no)
* Prace redakcyjne Polski (pl)
* Acompanhar a vida do sítio Portugues (pt)
* Urmăriţi activitatea site-ului Română
* Follow-up of the site's activity Suomi (fi)
* Follow-up of the site's activity Svenska (sv)
* Site yaşamını izle Türkçe
Follow-up of the site's activity Syndicate the whole site
In the same section
* - BULLETINS 1 TO 26
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 27
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 28
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 29
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 30
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 31
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 32
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 33
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 34
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 35
0 | 10 | 20 | 30
Agenda
* - Thursday 24 June 10:00-15:00 : UN NGO COMMITTEE MEETING, VIENNA [English]
* - Tuesday 6 July 16:00-18:00 : ENCOD MEMBERS MEETING , ENCOD CHANNEL ON SKYPE [English] [Español] [Nederlands]
Latest comments
Most recent forum messages
* - 18 June – UK: DRUGS DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
* - 27 May – US SEEKS CHANGE IN DRUG WAR IN MEXICO
* - 19 May – BERLIN TO RELAX CANNABIS LAWS
* - 20 April – US WAVES WHITE FLAG IN DISASTROUS WAR ON DRUGS
* - 2 April – DUTCH COFFEESHOP CONDEMNED AS CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
* - 20 March – WHEN WILL WE FINALLY SEE AN INTELLIGENT POLICY ON SOFT DRUGS?
* - 15 February – COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS POLICY
* - 12 January – BELGIAN JUSTICE INTENDS TO SILENCE CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUB
Encod Web Site
Encod.org
Encod Österreich
Encod Deutschland
Site Map | Private area SSL NO SSL | WebMail SSL NO SSL | SPIP | Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
Search English
The entire site
Cannabis Social Club
Encod.org
European Coalition for Just and Effective Drug Policies (ENCOD)
Secretariat: Lange Lozanastraat 14 - 2018 Antwerpen - Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)3 293 0886 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +32 (0)3 293 0886 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
E-mail: office@encod.org
Home page > English (en) > BULLETIN > ENCOD BULLETIN 64
* - BECOME AN ENCOD MEMBER
* - CALL FOR SOLIDARITY WITH BERNARD RAPPAZ, SWISS HEMP PIONEER
ENCOD BULLETIN 64
published Tuesday 1 June 2010 10:32, by encod . update Tuesday 1 June 2010 10:32
All the versions of this article: [Deutsch] [English] [Español] [français] [italiano] [Nederlands]
ENCOD BULLETIN ON DRUG POLICIES IN EUROPE
NR 64 JUNE 2010
WOULD LEGALISATION HARM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
Last March, during the CND meeting in Vienna, the head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Antonio Maria Costa warned that developing countries could face a "health disaster if wealthy countries fail to control drugs”.
Costa pointed to a growing drug problem in impoverished nations. He also remarked that the "developing world – already struggling to deal with health, education and unemployment problems – lacks the treatment facilities and law enforcement to control narcotics". And he continued: "Poor addicts– and there are millions of them– have been pushed to the margins of society, deprived of medical attention, often exposed to conditions, including imprisonment, that exacerbate their illness’.
Costa also seemed to have already found the ones to blame for this fatidic destiny: "This seems to have been forgotten by people in rich countries calling for loosening of drug controls," and he concludes: "Why condemn the Third World, already ravaged by so many tragedies, to the neo-colonialism of drug dependence?"
Mr. Costa is speaking to us from an imagined moral high ground, but in fact advocating the continuation of the harmful policies that are the main cause of the misery that he tries to make his opponents feel guilty about.
It is true that developing countries that have important connections with the illegal drug market, as producers or as trade routes, have been struggling with drug related problems for decades and it is also true that many of them have increasing rates of drug consumption. It is also quite obvious that developing countries are expected to have less resources to adequately address drug addiction, and have more aggravating circumstances then developed nations (urbanization, poverty, migration, educational deficits, income inequalities...).
But let’s make one thing clear here: what was exactly the role of “neo-colonialists”or “rich countries” in this “disaster”? Certainly it was not the “loosening of drug controls”. Let’s forget the rhetoric and look at the facts.
The so-called War on Drugs, fiercely pursued by rich nations led by the US, was forcefully imposed to developing nations, and is becoming tougher and tougher each day. It is widely acknowledged now, and even admitted by UNODC, that this policy is also systematically generating immense “unintended consequences” such as a criminal market, displacement of routes, markets and substances, and the marginalization of users. Despite strong indications of failure of this policy, organizations such as UNODC are still encouraging countries to join international drug control efforts.
Having considered the efficacy of the current drug “control" system then how can Costa call for more of the same? How can he claim that this would help developing nations to escape from “drug dependence tragedy”? How exactly can more drug prohibition and counter-drug tactics save poor countries from a “health disaster”?
One thing that probably is worrying Mr Costa is the mythological concept that the cost of drug use to the individual and to the society infinitely outweighs the cost of enforcing prohibition. According to this concept any effort to reduce the availability of drugs is justifiable. However, evidence suggests that the costs of prohibition are, in fact, very high, and evidence on the efficacy of prohibition to reduce drug use is, at best, disappointing.
Even if we admit that the costs of drug use are in fact very high, we can not forget the role that prohibition plays in that. It is certain that criminalization of drugs is behind the majority of health and social problems related to drug use and is also an important factor for the perpetuation of poverty, inequalities, corruption, poor governance and underdevelopment of many nations.
Criminalization increases the negative effects of drug use
1. Prohibition attracts drug traffickers and drug consumption to countries in which drug consumption would otherwise not be prevalent. The costs of distributing drugs inside transit countries is lower, given that traffickers already must build up networks of collaborators to move the drugs through. Even though transit countries are poorer, and drug prices therefore much lower, low marginal costs make these markets highly lucrative. The fact that drug traffickers pay local collaborators in drugs, may explain part of the rise in consumption in transit countries.
2. Illegality undermines the usual vehicles of quality control upon which legal markets rely. In this context, overdoses due to uncertain strength and poisoning due to adulteration are both certain to be more frequent.
3. Criminalization of drugs and drug use impedes efforts to treat drug addiction and to prevent the spread of HIV among drug users. Since consumption is an illegal activity in most developing countries and, because of that, drug use tends to take place under less than ideal conditions, the transmission of contagious diseases and overdoses becomes more likely. Access to health care and harm reduction may lessen these problems, but users are still reluctant to take advantage of these when consumption is criminalized and profoundly stigmatized.
Criminalization perpetuates corruption, poverty and inequality.
1. The war against drugs increases the cost of drugs, making drug production and sale more profitable and therefore more attractive - particularly to those living in poverty. More risks, more profits, and even more poor people being recruited to this illegal activity.
2. To achieve and maintain profit goals, traffickers implement strategies to respond to the "challenges" of confronting the state, which include corruption of important officials and policemen and violence against the state and other competing groups. Corruption jeopardizes democratic stability and is a serious obstacle to guaranteeing a countrys’ governablility and national security.
3. An estimated 4 million people depend on income derived from the cultivation of illegal drug crops. In many countries, efforts to wipe out drug cultivation and supply have a high cost to human welfare and lives. For farmers there are few economic incentives for growing alternatives to drug crops. Moreover, a major part of the profits end up in the hands of those who control the later stages of the distribution process (retailers in developed countries).
4. Two other well-known costs of prohibition are the lives lost due to prohibition-induced violence and the productivity losses due to incarceration. The majority of people incarcerated in Brazil due to drug related crime are uneducated, poor, black young men, who where caught selling small amounts of drugs. More people die of drug trafficking related violence then of drug-related diseases or overdose, especially in developing countries.
In summary, despite the research and analyses made so far, social and individual costs of drug use, and the effects of prohibition on consumption are uncertain. Some will argue that it is likely that the relaxation of prohibition would lead to an increase in drug consumption. However, there is much evidence (see for instance the EC Report by Reuter and Trautmann) that the influence of repressive policies on levels of drug use is marginal. In addition, the nature of the “legalization” regime against which prohibition is being compared is not clear. But if drug trade can be regulated and resources diverted to other policies, such as treatment and education, with proven efficacy in reducing addiction and problematic use, it is likely that the types of drug use that impose the largest costs could be reduced.
Negative health and social consequences related to prohibition should be correctly put in the equation when the “tragedy of drug dependence” is weighed.
By: Marisa Felicissimo (with the help of Peter Webster)
P.S.
ENCOD NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT:
Account: 001- 3470861-83 Att. ENCOD vzw - Belgium
Bank: FORTIS, Warandeberg 3, 1000 Brussels
IBAN: BE 14 0013 4708 6183
SWIFT: GEBABEBB
Reply to this article
Sections
* Follow-up of the site's activity Czech (cz, sk)
* Opfølgning på webstedets aktiviteter Dansk (dk)
* Aktivitäten verfolgen Deutsch (de)
* Follow-up of the site's activity English (en)
o Follow-up of the site's activity ACTION APPEALS
o Follow-up of the site's activity AGENDA
o Follow-up of the site's activity BULLETIN
o Follow-up of the site's activity CAMPAIGNS
o Follow-up of the site's activity CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUBS
o Follow-up of the site's activity DOWNLOADS
o Follow-up of the site's activity EU LOBBY CAMPAIGN
o Follow-up of the site's activity MEMBERSHIP
o Follow-up of the site's activity NEWS
o Follow-up of the site's activity PRESS RELEASES
o Follow-up of the site's activity REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
o Follow-up of the site's activity SHOP
o Follow-up of the site's activity STATEMENTS
o Follow-up of the site's activity STUDIES
* Seguir la vida del sitio Español (es)
* Suivre la vie du site Français (fr)
* Monitorare l'attività del sito Italiano (it)
* A honlap életének megfigyelése Magyar (hu)
* De activiteit van de site opvolgen Nederlands (nl)
* Follow-up of the site's activity Norsk (no)
* Prace redakcyjne Polski (pl)
* Acompanhar a vida do sítio Portugues (pt)
* Urmăriţi activitatea site-ului Română
* Follow-up of the site's activity Suomi (fi)
* Follow-up of the site's activity Svenska (sv)
* Site yaşamını izle Türkçe
Follow-up of the site's activity Syndicate the whole site
In the same section
* - BULLETINS 1 TO 26
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 27
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 28
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 29
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 30
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 31
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 32
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 33
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 34
* - ENCOD BULLETIN 35
0 | 10 | 20 | 30
Agenda
* - Thursday 24 June 10:00-15:00 : UN NGO COMMITTEE MEETING, VIENNA [English]
* - Tuesday 6 July 16:00-18:00 : ENCOD MEMBERS MEETING , ENCOD CHANNEL ON SKYPE [English] [Español] [Nederlands]
Latest comments
Most recent forum messages
* - 18 June – UK: DRUGS DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS
* - 27 May – US SEEKS CHANGE IN DRUG WAR IN MEXICO
* - 19 May – BERLIN TO RELAX CANNABIS LAWS
* - 20 April – US WAVES WHITE FLAG IN DISASTROUS WAR ON DRUGS
* - 2 April – DUTCH COFFEESHOP CONDEMNED AS CRIMINAL ORGANISATION
* - 20 March – WHEN WILL WE FINALLY SEE AN INTELLIGENT POLICY ON SOFT DRUGS?
* - 15 February – COWARDISH POLITICIANS CHOOSE DELIBERATELY FOR A WRONG CANNABIS POLICY
* - 12 January – BELGIAN JUSTICE INTENDS TO SILENCE CANNABIS SOCIAL CLUB
Encod Web Site
Encod.org
Encod Österreich
Encod Deutschland
Site Map | Private area SSL NO SSL | WebMail SSL NO SSL | SPIP | Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
a this Greek other other
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Where are The Women Billionaires?
Where are The Women Billionaires?
She works hard for the money, or so the song says. But despite how hard we seem to work for it, we women just can't seem to crack the top levels of wealth. Forbes takes a look at the number of female billionaires in the world, and comes up with a very depressing number.
14.
Women account for only two percent of the self-made billionaires currently (there are more women billionaires if you count those who inherent their fortunes, but that's not exactly inspiring, is it?), with half of those women coming from China. The rest are a mix of well-knowns (Meg Whitman, Oprah Winfrey, J.K. Rowling) and some non-household names (do you happen to know who Doris Fisher or Rosalia Mera are without resorting to Google?). Of those who are in the elite 14, they still have a long way to climb, with the richest female self-made billionaire ranking 232nd in the top billionaires list (For perspective, the number one woman is worth about $3.9 billion. The top man? $53.5 billion, or nearly 14 times that amount.).
So, why are women still so far behind? Forbes believes they have the answer to that, too.
One explanation has to do with the fact that while women in the United States start their own businesses at roughly twice the rate of men, they are still playing catch-up in most parts of the world. "Women are still at the beginning of their journey to entrepreneurship or higher levels of entrepreneurship," says Sharon Hadary, the former and founding executive director of the Center for Women's Business Research. According to that group, only 20% of all businesses over $1 million are women-owned enterprises.
Another issue is financing. Research from the Kaufmann Foundation shows that women-led tech companies typically launch with capital at levels 30% to 50% less than those led by men. They also raise much less venture capital, accounting for just 8% of invested venture money in 2008. "For whatever the many reasons, women are not participating in this high-growth, wealth creation end of the economic spectrum," says Sharon Vosmek, chief executive of Astia, a nonprofit that advises female entrepreneurs.
Both seem to be very reasonable, very valid points - less women starting up businesses would of course mean less female self-made rich, and less capital would exacerbate the problem immensley.
But of course, Forbes just couldn't leave it there.
Then there are more fundamental issues related to personal goals. It seems that men more often define success in monetary terms while women focus on vision and mission. "Men tend to start businesses to grow them to be large and to be the boss while women start them to do something meaningful and to make a difference," notes Hadary, who now consults on women's leadership through her firm Sharon Hadary & Co.
"Becoming a billionaire isn't their objective," she adds, "As women, many are less likely to have a goal of generating personal wealth, though we are starting to see more and more of that motivation among the younger generation." Instead they are typically more focused on building companies that reflect their values, provide employment opportunities, do what's important to them and have the opportunity to fulfill family goals.
Ah, as always, when in doubt, Forbes blames inherent differences in each gender's goals. Men are aggressive. Men like to be in charge. Women are more interested in meaning, in things that feel good. And women will always put their family first.
Is it really true that women wanting to "fullfill family goals" and have meaningful experiences somehow hold them back from ultimate wealth? Or is it that the stereotypes are the reason why they are getting less venture capital or getting the other loans and support needed to help them start companies at the same rate as their male counterparts?
Are there less female billionaires because women want it less, or because Forbes assumes women want it less?
Read more: womens rights
quick poll
vote now! thanks for voting!
She works hard for the money, or so the song says. But despite how hard we seem to work for it, we women just can't seem to crack the top levels of wealth. Forbes takes a look at the number of female billionaires in the world, and comes up with a very depressing number.
14.
Women account for only two percent of the self-made billionaires currently (there are more women billionaires if you count those who inherent their fortunes, but that's not exactly inspiring, is it?), with half of those women coming from China. The rest are a mix of well-knowns (Meg Whitman, Oprah Winfrey, J.K. Rowling) and some non-household names (do you happen to know who Doris Fisher or Rosalia Mera are without resorting to Google?). Of those who are in the elite 14, they still have a long way to climb, with the richest female self-made billionaire ranking 232nd in the top billionaires list (For perspective, the number one woman is worth about $3.9 billion. The top man? $53.5 billion, or nearly 14 times that amount.).
So, why are women still so far behind? Forbes believes they have the answer to that, too.
One explanation has to do with the fact that while women in the United States start their own businesses at roughly twice the rate of men, they are still playing catch-up in most parts of the world. "Women are still at the beginning of their journey to entrepreneurship or higher levels of entrepreneurship," says Sharon Hadary, the former and founding executive director of the Center for Women's Business Research. According to that group, only 20% of all businesses over $1 million are women-owned enterprises.
Another issue is financing. Research from the Kaufmann Foundation shows that women-led tech companies typically launch with capital at levels 30% to 50% less than those led by men. They also raise much less venture capital, accounting for just 8% of invested venture money in 2008. "For whatever the many reasons, women are not participating in this high-growth, wealth creation end of the economic spectrum," says Sharon Vosmek, chief executive of Astia, a nonprofit that advises female entrepreneurs.
Both seem to be very reasonable, very valid points - less women starting up businesses would of course mean less female self-made rich, and less capital would exacerbate the problem immensley.
But of course, Forbes just couldn't leave it there.
Then there are more fundamental issues related to personal goals. It seems that men more often define success in monetary terms while women focus on vision and mission. "Men tend to start businesses to grow them to be large and to be the boss while women start them to do something meaningful and to make a difference," notes Hadary, who now consults on women's leadership through her firm Sharon Hadary & Co.
"Becoming a billionaire isn't their objective," she adds, "As women, many are less likely to have a goal of generating personal wealth, though we are starting to see more and more of that motivation among the younger generation." Instead they are typically more focused on building companies that reflect their values, provide employment opportunities, do what's important to them and have the opportunity to fulfill family goals.
Ah, as always, when in doubt, Forbes blames inherent differences in each gender's goals. Men are aggressive. Men like to be in charge. Women are more interested in meaning, in things that feel good. And women will always put their family first.
Is it really true that women wanting to "fullfill family goals" and have meaningful experiences somehow hold them back from ultimate wealth? Or is it that the stereotypes are the reason why they are getting less venture capital or getting the other loans and support needed to help them start companies at the same rate as their male counterparts?
Are there less female billionaires because women want it less, or because Forbes assumes women want it less?
Read more: womens rights
quick poll
vote now! thanks for voting!
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Barking and Dagenham Recorder - Families' fury on 'forgotten estate'
Barking and Dagenham Recorder - Families' fury on 'forgotten estate'
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
Text Only Version
Home
News
Sport
What's On
West Ham United
The Daggers
Leyton Orient
Arsenal
Tottenham Hotspur
Browse Classifieds
Place an Advert
Business Directory
Homes
Motors
Jobs
Dating
Feedback
Submit a Story
Distribution
Leaflets
Media Packs
Contact Us
Set as Homepage
Terms/Conditions
Privacy Policy
Share |
Families' fury on 'forgotten estate'
- 30 July 2009
FAMILIES living on a crumbling estate, who say damp and mould are causing health problems in children, are lobbying the council for better homes.
The Leys Estate in Dagenham was supposed to receive a £7million refurbishment in 2008/9, but due to the recession it did not happen.
But residents say they have been forgotten and are furious about having to put up with mould, damp, broken windows, doors which can be opened from the outside, leaks, cracks and nowhere for youngsters to play.
Parents claim some children have developed breathing problems because of the damp in the flats and houses, which let in water when it rains.
Chairman of the Leys Tenants and Residents' Association Michael Pennock presented a petition for better homes to councillors at a Barking and Dagenham Council assembly meeting last week.
Mr Pennock said: "Properties on the estate are in a terrible state. They contain some of the worst housing in London.
"We have surveyed the whole estate 26 times with council officers, councillors and MP Jon Cruddas.
"But still we have doors and windows missing or damaged for years, structural cracks and flats that are a fire hazard because of poor planning.
"Poor housing gives an area a bad reputation and may lead to the breakdown of the community."
Mr Pennock described damp and mouldy houses in Birdbrook Close, where crumbling asbestos has also been found.
He added: "Living in these conditions is a kind of torture. These are real problems that are not being addressed. These people deserve better."
Birdbrook Close on the Leys Estate was built in the 1960s and residents and ward councillors Lee and Phil Waker, say the homes were poorly constructed in the beginning.
Cllr Lee Waker said: "It's about time these issues were brought to the fore. The residents have my support all the way.
"Structurally, the estate should have been built much better and management down there has been poor.
"It either needs major refurbishment or complete redevelopment."
Jeremy Grint, head of spatial regeneration, said: "A programme of works was prepared to bring the homes up to the Decent Homes standard.
"It was to take place in 2008/9, but the resources of the capital planning programme fell short and we had to review the investment programme.
"What we are proposing to do now is to look at the problems over the next couple of months, work with the residents and look at how to find funding.
Barking & Dagenham
» Huge rise in burglary
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
Text Only Version
Home
News
Sport
What's On
West Ham United
The Daggers
Leyton Orient
Arsenal
Tottenham Hotspur
Browse Classifieds
Place an Advert
Business Directory
Homes
Motors
Jobs
Dating
Feedback
Submit a Story
Distribution
Leaflets
Media Packs
Contact Us
Set as Homepage
Terms/Conditions
Privacy Policy
Share |
Families' fury on 'forgotten estate'
- 30 July 2009
FAMILIES living on a crumbling estate, who say damp and mould are causing health problems in children, are lobbying the council for better homes.
The Leys Estate in Dagenham was supposed to receive a £7million refurbishment in 2008/9, but due to the recession it did not happen.
But residents say they have been forgotten and are furious about having to put up with mould, damp, broken windows, doors which can be opened from the outside, leaks, cracks and nowhere for youngsters to play.
Parents claim some children have developed breathing problems because of the damp in the flats and houses, which let in water when it rains.
Chairman of the Leys Tenants and Residents' Association Michael Pennock presented a petition for better homes to councillors at a Barking and Dagenham Council assembly meeting last week.
Mr Pennock said: "Properties on the estate are in a terrible state. They contain some of the worst housing in London.
"We have surveyed the whole estate 26 times with council officers, councillors and MP Jon Cruddas.
"But still we have doors and windows missing or damaged for years, structural cracks and flats that are a fire hazard because of poor planning.
"Poor housing gives an area a bad reputation and may lead to the breakdown of the community."
Mr Pennock described damp and mouldy houses in Birdbrook Close, where crumbling asbestos has also been found.
He added: "Living in these conditions is a kind of torture. These are real problems that are not being addressed. These people deserve better."
Birdbrook Close on the Leys Estate was built in the 1960s and residents and ward councillors Lee and Phil Waker, say the homes were poorly constructed in the beginning.
Cllr Lee Waker said: "It's about time these issues were brought to the fore. The residents have my support all the way.
"Structurally, the estate should have been built much better and management down there has been poor.
"It either needs major refurbishment or complete redevelopment."
Jeremy Grint, head of spatial regeneration, said: "A programme of works was prepared to bring the homes up to the Decent Homes standard.
"It was to take place in 2008/9, but the resources of the capital planning programme fell short and we had to review the investment programme.
"What we are proposing to do now is to look at the problems over the next couple of months, work with the residents and look at how to find funding.
Barking & Dagenham
» Huge rise in burglary
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
Text Only Version
Home
News
Sport
What's On
West Ham United
The Daggers
Leyton Orient
Arsenal
Tottenham Hotspur
Browse Classifieds
Place an Advert
Business Directory
Homes
Motors
Jobs
Dating
Feedback
Submit a Story
Distribution
Leaflets
Media Packs
Contact Us
Set as Homepage
Terms/Conditions
Privacy Policy
Share |
MP's stay puts spotlight on 'forgotten village'
- 17 February 2010
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
TOWN HALL chiefs are demanding the government review its legislation after the appalling state of the borough's council housing was highlighted on national television.
In Tower Block of Commons, being aired on Channel 4 on Mondays, Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten swapped life in his leafy Hampshire constituency for the Goresbrook Village estate in Dagenham.
He was horrified to find damp and mould in kitchens and bathrooms during filming of the programme in August.
He said then: "It's been an extraordinary experience.
"I'm exhausted - I have seen mould in kitchens, in bathrooms, I have been sleeping on different sofas.
"It has been a rollercoaster in terms of emotions."
Residents said their flats had been flooded with waste water as a result of burst pipes.
They raised issues about damp, loose window frames, urine and excrement on the stairwells and frequent lift breakdowns.
Sloane Warbrick, 27, and fellow residents, Candy Samuels, 49, Steven Mizen, 23, and Alan Jones, set up The Forgotten Village - a committee in search for answers about the future of the estate.
Barking and Dagenham Council blames the state of the homes on the government's Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which sucks more than £20million out of the council's budget each year to pay off the national housing debt.
Council leader Cllr Liam Smith said: "We are severely limited in how much we can do to improve our housing stock because every year we have to pay back more than £20million of our rental income to the government.
"It's time we got our fair share of housing funding to be able to implement a comprehensive refurbishment programme across the borough.
"If the government scrapped the HRA then Barking and Dagenham could invest serious money in refurbishing homes and building new ones."
He said he would write to housing minister John Healey in the wake of the programme to reiterate this point.
In October, the council's Stand up For Local Housing rally saw campaigners descend upon Westminster in a bid to change the government's housing debt policies.
In January, Mr Healey announced a £3.2million cash boost for 34 new council homes in the borough.
He is due to announce reforms to the H.R.A subsidy system this month.
Barking & Dagenham
» Huge rise in burglary
» Drink drive killer jailed
» New council homes for the summer
» East London Transit runs every six minutes
» Council tax freeze
» Ford factory film hits cinemas in October
» Prison plan axed
» MP's stay puts spotlight on 'forgotten village'
» Barking and Dagenham's booze shame
» 'Mercy killing' mum guilty of murder
COMMENT:Make all doors secure with extra-bolts & door-chain & use it always.
After 5:00pm if you don't want to answer the door that's alright,at anytime
if you don't feel that you would like opening the door, then don't if anytime.
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
MEMBERSHIP
» Log in
» Sign Up
» Forgotten password
ADVERTISEMENTS
Copyright © 2010 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditions | Disability Policy Statement | RSS News Feeds rss news feed
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
Text Only Version
Home
News
Sport
What's On
West Ham United
The Daggers
Leyton Orient
Arsenal
Tottenham Hotspur
Browse Classifieds
Place an Advert
Business Directory
Homes
Motors
Jobs
Dating
Feedback
Submit a Story
Distribution
Leaflets
Media Packs
Contact Us
Set as Homepage
Terms/Conditions
Privacy Policy
Share |
MP's stay puts spotlight on 'forgotten village'
- 17 February 2010
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
Mark Oaten at Dagenham Village
TOWN HALL chiefs are demanding the government review its legislation after the appalling state of the borough's council housing was highlighted on national television.
In Tower Block of Commons, being aired on Channel 4 on Mondays, Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten swapped life in his leafy Hampshire constituency for the Goresbrook Village estate in Dagenham.
He was horrified to find damp and mould in kitchens and bathrooms during filming of the programme in August.
He said then: "It's been an extraordinary experience.
"I'm exhausted - I have seen mould in kitchens, in bathrooms, I have been sleeping on different sofas.
"It has been a rollercoaster in terms of emotions."
Residents said their flats had been flooded with waste water as a result of burst pipes.
They raised issues about damp, loose window frames, urine and excrement on the stairwells and frequent lift breakdowns.
Sloane Warbrick, 27, and fellow residents, Candy Samuels, 49, Steven Mizen, 23, and Alan Jones, set up The Forgotten Village - a committee in search for answers about the future of the estate.
Barking and Dagenham Council blames the state of the homes on the government's Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which sucks more than £20million out of the council's budget each year to pay off the national housing debt.
Council leader Cllr Liam Smith said: "We are severely limited in how much we can do to improve our housing stock because every year we have to pay back more than £20million of our rental income to the government.
"It's time we got our fair share of housing funding to be able to implement a comprehensive refurbishment programme across the borough.
"If the government scrapped the HRA then Barking and Dagenham could invest serious money in refurbishing homes and building new ones."
He said he would write to housing minister John Healey in the wake of the programme to reiterate this point.
In October, the council's Stand up For Local Housing rally saw campaigners descend upon Westminster in a bid to change the government's housing debt policies.
In January, Mr Healey announced a £3.2million cash boost for 34 new council homes in the borough.
He is due to announce reforms to the H.R.A subsidy system this month.
Barking & Dagenham
» Huge rise in burglary
» Drink drive killer jailed
» New council homes for the summer
» East London Transit runs every six minutes
» Council tax freeze
» Ford factory film hits cinemas in October
» Prison plan axed
» MP's stay puts spotlight on 'forgotten village'
» Barking and Dagenham's booze shame
» 'Mercy killing' mum guilty of murder
COMMENT:Make all doors secure with extra-bolts & door-chain & use it always.
After 5:00pm if you don't want to answer the door that's alright,at anytime
if you don't feel that you would like opening the door, then don't if anytime.
Barking and Dagenham Recorder
MEMBERSHIP
» Log in
» Sign Up
» Forgotten password
ADVERTISEMENTS
Copyright © 2010 Archant Regional Limited. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditions | Disability Policy Statement | RSS News Feeds rss news feed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)