Lucrative Ventures: Most Profitable Industries in Brazil
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
The Security Council is powerful because it is responsible for maintaining international peace and security and can authorize military action and impose sanctions, so membership is coveted. The permanent members are today the US, Russia, China, Britain and France and their support is essential for any reform to be adopted (MercoPress, 2011). In 2004, the then US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said to CNN that Brazil is a serious contender for a possible spot on an expanded UN Security Council, due to its size and non- nuclear status (Labott, 2004). In 2009, Brazil was building up an international campaign to secure a permanent seat. Former president Lula made obtaining a permanent council seat for Brazil one of his major foreign policy goals (UPI, 2009). In 2010, Brazil was backed by Britain on the matter.
The British Foreign secretary emphasized that Britain will continue to push for reform in the UN and make Brazil a member of the Council (Rathbone, 2010).
This year, Brazil has together with India, Germany and Japan demanded a reform within the UN Security Council. The UN has since 1979 been talking about expanding the council to reflect the world in the 21st century, not the global power structure after World War 2 when the UN was founded. However, every proposal has been rejected, primarily because of rivalries between countries and regions more concerned about their own self-interests than the improved functioning of the UN (MercoPress, 2011). Earlier this year, US president Barack Obama met with Brazilian president Dilma Rouseff and he heralded Brazils extraordinary rise on the world stage, but stopped short of backing its bid for a permanent seat on the council (Fox Business, 2011). The General Assembly will meet in September this year to discuss if the reform of expanding the council from the current 15 seats, 5 permanent and 10 rotating (Brazil, 2011). In addition to pushing for a seat on the council, a Brazilian has been elected as Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Jose Graziano da Silva was elected in June this year (Castelfranco, 2011). As mentioned in chapter 3, Brazil has one of the most unequal distributions of national income in the world. Income inequality in Brazil remains high by international standards and is rooted in structural causes, such as inequality in educational attainment and land ownership (Clements, 1997). The chart below shows the Gini coefficient for Brazil during the years 1981-2009, and as seen in this chart, the income distribution has been fluctuating since the beginning of the 1980’s. But as one also can see, both poverty and income distribution rates has, since the beginning of the 21st century, been declining. According to Coes, real per capita
income in Brazil has increased significantly during the last two decades. However, relative inequality in the distribution of income has remained high in the country.
The debate about the trends in the Brazilian income distribution began in the 1970’s, with the release of data showing that relative income inequality had worsened between the 1960’s and the 1970’s. During this decade, per capita income increased by over 2 percent at annual rates. Over the same period, however, the Gini index rose from 0.50 to 0.57, making Brazil one of the world’s most unequal countries (Coes, 2005). Since the macroeconomic stabilization program was implemented in Brazil in 1994 with the real plan, the percentage of Brazilians living below the national poverty line has decreased and the income distribution rate has declined, as seen in the tables. In 2004, around 20 million people or about 11,3 percent of the population were extremely poor, living with a monthly family income per capita up to one fourth of the minimum wage. Around 50 million people, or 30 percent of the population, were poor, living with a monthly family income per capita up to one half of the minimum wage. Around 19 percent were living at the national poverty line, according to the chart above (WTO). According to Garbelotti, the problem of income distribution can be seen from two different sides. One derives from capitalism and is related to the personal capacities of each person in their national desire to increase its own level of wealth and well-being. The other derives from what Garbelotti mention as intergenerational poverty, and is related to the fact that poverty tends to be kept over generations (Garbelotti, 2007).
It is interesting to look at factors that cause the distribution of income on the individual level to change.
According to Lopez-Calva and Lustig, these causes can be broadly classified into four categories: i. changes in the underlying distribution personal characteristics (that is, the racial, ethnic, age, gender, health and educational make up of the population) and population’s location (rural or urban areas, for example); ii. changes in the returns to assets, personal characteristics (in particular, the return to human capital) and location; iii. changes in how people use assets (for example, utilization of arable land) and participate in the labor market (for example, active/inactive, self-employment/wage labor and hours worked); iv. changes in transfers, both private (e.g., remittances) and public (e.g., cash transfers or in-kind transfers). State action can modify the distribution of income directly through budgetary or fiscal interventions (taxes and transfers) that change disposable income and purchasing power. It can also do it indirectly through interventions such as transfers of productive assets such as investment in human capital and land reform and policies such as price controls, labour market regulations and import or export restrictions. In the case of Brazil estimates have been made of the role played by public policy and the performance of markets in the evolution of income inequality. Four dimensions have received highest focus: (i) changes in wage differentials by skill level; (ii) changes in labor market segmentation; (iii) changes in government (or public) transfers, and (iv) changes in the minimum wage. Between 2001 and 2007, wage differentials between workers of different skills, living in different locations, and working in different sectors (formal/informal; primary/secondary) narrowed. Also during this period, public transfers rose (both in terms of average benefit and coverage), and the real minimum wage increased (Lopez-Calva and Lustig, 2009).
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment