Michael Rubin for the American Enterprise Institute: For several decades, Saudi Arabia has used its oil wealth to spread not only radicalized religious education but also Arabic language education.
Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Arabic, but it does open doors to a huge canon of literature that promotes a radical viewpoint. Recently, I had a conversation with Anna Simons, an anthropologist who focuses on Somalia, about the problem. She noted that the result of the Arabic language outreach is evident in Somalia, where many young Somalis now have Arabic as their first language of education and function in it better than Somali.
She was right to conclude that reinforcing indigenous languages such as Somali may actually help serve as a bulwark against some radicalization by instilling national pride and keeping youth in better touch with their religious heritage. While radicalization among Somalis and al Shabab may today lead Americans unfamiliar with Somalia to associate the country itself with Islamic radicalism, traditionally the Islam practiced in Somalia was much more moderate. Had the United States worked to bolster Somali nationalism and heritage, it might have been much more difficult for others to radicalize Somalis.
The same strategy might also work in places such as Algeria, where the Berber population in Kabylie has been remarkably resilient to radicalization. Perhaps if the United States supported the resurgence of the Berber language (and alphabet), it might create a bulwark against radicalism before the impending Algeria crisis hits. Then there’s Nigeria, where engines of radicalism like Iran and Saudi Arabia now compete. Reinforcing local language and culture might in turn make it harder for radicals to proselytize and convert Nigerians from more traditional practices to Saudi-style Salafism or Iranian-style Shiism. The list goes on.
Put a price on roads
Chad Lonski and Baruch Feigenbaum for the Reason Foundation: Los Angeles commuters spend 104 peak hours in congestion, New York residents spend 89.4 hours, San Francisco commuters 82.6 hours and Atlanta drivers spend 70.8 hours. Not only do these hours spent in traffic waste valuable work and leisure time, but they also waste fuel, slow down delivery services and cut off greater market and regional access.
Traffic is a problem in all parts of metro areas: urban cores, suburban cities and exurban locales. While the SF Gate points toward Uber and Lyft as the root cause of San Francisco’s traffic, the real problem is a handful of non-tolled major expressways and bridges: specifically 101, I-80 and the Bay Bridge. In the New York City region there has been a recent push for narrow streets and “vision-zero” pedestrian-centric planning initiatives. New York also has seen a recent boom in construction, tourism and economic growth, which have brought construction to all-time highs. Both of these elements contribute to the perfect storm nightmare of traffic congestion woes for New Yorkers. It is not surprising that New York City and San Francisco are in need of market-based solutions to traffic congestion, not bureaucratic oversight.
Under our current system, motorists can drive as much as they want, with the price of gasoline as the only limiting factor. Our roads operate as an all-you-can-eat buffet, not as a properly priced scarce public good. Government transportation agencies may invest in added lanes or dream up hypothetical solutions such as a double-decker highway. However, no matter how much we increase the supply of highway lanes or city streets, induced demand, the concept that more lanes will lead to more demand, will always be a factor.
The natural occurrence of induced demand leaves toll roads and managed arterials as the transportation community’s front-line defense against the gridlock that plagues the nation’s highways and arterial streets. If we use natural market forces to control roadway demand, the poor congestion statistics that we experience in major U.S. cities will become an epidemic of the past.
Why property rights matter
Patrick Kelley and Michael Graglia for the New America Foundation: Property rights — the clear articulation of who has what rights to which property — are indispensable for prosperous societies. Throughout history, the implementation of property rights formalization has led to increased economic prosperity, security, societal resilience and environmental protection …
The first step toward prosperity is security. If an individual or family enjoys a formal claim to their land that is protected by the rule of law, they don’t have to guard it physically. While it may seem unthinkable to leave one’s home to return and find it razed or occupied, that is often a reality for 70 percent of the world’s citizens who live in a property to which they have no formal claim. Being tethered to property means the property owner must make a living within proximity to his or her property, leaving little room to enter the formal economy. …
Property rights have a direct impact on agriculture and food security. When subsistence farmers have a formal claim to their land, they are more likely to invest in it with sweat equity by installing irrigation systems and using higher-quality seeds. There is a growing body of evidence of the direct positive impact of land rights on food security, with significant findings like how “in Ethiopia, land certification led to productivity increases of 40-45 percent in the Tigray Region.” When locals farmers demonstrate they see value by investing scarce resources in land formalization, it is clearer that we are on the right track. This is exactly what was seen in Ghana where there are formalization services available for a modest fee and cacao farmers have paid to formalize their plots. When claim to the land is in question, however, farmers often turn to the “slash and burn” technique, which has contributed to widespread deforestation and pollution.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
