No. 162, 24 JUNE 2005
Who should pay and how much?
Hardly cricket
A high risk of prison
Maxim to host Harvard professor
Levin Change Agent workshop this Saturday, 25 June
Who should pay and how much?
There has been much debate around scandals at the United Nations in recent years - the "oil for food" programme is one
such example. The US House of Representatives is now considering a bill which may cut the United States financial
contribution to the UN in half.
One of the Congressmen sponsoring the Bill, Henry Hyde, highlighted a key principle behind it: that the government is
responsible to ensure that taxpayers' money is used wisely. The Bill sets out that the UN must be reformed in several
key areas and implement changes including spending cuts in specific projects, or the United States will cut its funding.
The US is estimated to contribute 25 percent of the UN's total budget - something which has itself been the subject of
controversy. The move highlights that when people contribute money, they expect to have a say over how it is spent.
A similar situation arose at the European Union last week. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted changes to the
current farm subsidies, arguing that the way they were allocated meant France gained unfairly from them.
These rows over funding of international organisations such as the EU and the UN remind us that it is reasonable to hold
stewards of public money accountable.
Hardly cricket
The announcement yesterday that New Zealand Cricket has confirmed the Black Caps' tour of Zimbabwe in August was
understandably greeted with disappointment. Many readers will recall the near state of civil war that accompanied the
Springbok rugby tour to New Zealand in 1981. The issue then was the same: the foreign government concerned has an
appalling record of inflicting suffering and misery on its own people.
President Robert Mugabe's crimes are well-documented - adding to the farce is the fact that he is also the patron of
Zimbabwe cricket. New Zealand Cricket warned withdrawal would cost it a penalty of USD 2 million (NZD 2.8 million) under
International Cricket Council (ICC) regulations.
The New Zealand government is taking a responsible position on the decision. While few New Zealanders would favour the
tour going ahead, it is not the government's role to dictate whether sporting tours can or cannot occur. Irrespective of
the corruption and hardship in Zimbabwe, the government has acted rightly in not getting involved. New Zealand citizens
must be free to travel and conduct their business overseas, and Helen Clark and Phil Goff are right in reiterating this
important principle of our democracy.
This in no way condones the decision of New Zealand Cricket, but it does respect the freedom of that body. Concerned New
Zealanders, rightfully upset at the decision, should consider writing to New Zealand Cricket, newspapers and other media
expressing their views.
A high risk of prison
Boys from broken families have a far higher risk of winding up in prison, a study recently released by researchers from
Princeton University and the University of California, San Francisco shows. Tracking the histories of nearly 3,000 young
men throughout the 1980s and '90s, the team found that even taking into account factors such as a parent's low level of
education, urban residence, racial inequalities and poverty, boys from mother-only families were 73 percent more likely
to go to prison than peers from two-parent families.
Boys living apart from their fathers from birth were more than three times as likely to do time in prison as those from
intact families and those whose fathers leave home when they are 10 to 14 years old are 2.4 times as likely.
The researchers were surprised to find, however, that remarriage of a divorced mother did not lessen risk but increased
it: "Youths in step-parent households faced incarceration odds almost three times as high as those in mother-father
families, and significantly higher than those in single-parent households, even though step families were relatively
well-off on average."
Despite the constant advocacy for policies embracing "family diversity", studies such as this continually show that
"diversity" often comes at a high social and economic cost. Fathers matter to their children, and their commitment to
their child's mother must be encouraged in both policy and in culture.
To read the full Father Absence and Youth Incarceration report, click here:
(To view .pdf's, download and install Adobe Reader:http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)
Maxim to host Harvard professor
One of America's leading education academics is visiting New Zealand to share her experiences and knowledge of different
education models. The Education Forum and Maxim Institute are delighted to host Caroline Hoxby, professor of economics
at Harvard University, director of the Economics of Education Program at the National Bureau of Economics Research and a
distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute.
Few issues are more important for parents than their child's schooling. Currently in New Zealand, most parents have
little or no choice over the school their child attends. Many states in America have implemented different models of
education reform, and extensive research exists on the success of these schemes.
Caroline Hoxby was nominated by President Bush to serve on the National Board of Education Sciences. She is the editor
of The Economics of School Choice and a forthcoming book, College Choices.
To read some of Professor Caroline Hoxby's papers, visit:
Levin Change Agent workshop this Saturday, 25 June
For details of this and other events, visit:
THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK - Seneca (A.D. 65)
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten.