How to live well

Some interesting ideas from Alex Evans about the importance of building a movement

"Rich and I set out the need for a different theory of influence. Many of us who work in the fight for development, justice, and sustainability have I think been feeling the limits of theories of change that rely primarily on ‘insider lobbying’. We take that here as our starting point for asking what an alternative approach might look like: one that places much more emphasis on how we build new grassroots coalitions, transform values, and tell each other much deeper stories about where we are, how we got here, where we might choose to go next, and who we really are."

and then what those movements should do

We argue that it starts with the changes that all of us need to make in our own lives. This is partly because of the direct impact that such changes can have, of course, but we think the main issue here is something to do with the quality of intention that movements exemplify. Wherever movements not only demand but live out the change they want to see in the world, there’s a raw power there that can exert the kind of non-linear effect on politics that progressives so urgently want to see.

and from the full report

In practice, we think there are five areas that each of us needs to think about, which we describe in more detail below:

1. Live within our fair share of the world’s resources and environmental limits
2. Respond to poverty and inequality with radical generosity
3. Speak out prophetically
4. Use our power as a voter, a citizen and a consumer
5. Live restoratively and prioritise relationships

All of this is in a report for Christian Aid and supported by references to the bible rather than econ journals. Personally I’ve shifted somewhat from a Dawkins atheist to a de Botton atheist, and think there are important lessons here too for emerging secular congregations.

The solution to Britain's housing crisis

I just had a great idea inspired by David Goodhart. Clearly the reason that poor countries have monstrous governments is that all the smart liberal citizens who might have otherwise overthrown them have chosen to use their exit rather than their voice and left the country, so we should force them all to stay.

Similarly, the reason that Britain has absurd policies, such as the housing policy that leads to the smallest and most expensive houses in Europe, is that everyone who might otherwise have complained has left - about 1 in 10 Brits or 5-6 million people live abroad. So there's a simple solution, ban emigration from Britain, forcibly repatriate the 5 million, and all our political problems will naturally be solved. The "post-liberal" political solution. Sounds great huh?

Bigot of the Year

Britain's most senior Catholic has been named "bigot of the year" by Stonewall for writing that gay relationships are "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing of those involved," that gay marriage is "madness" and a "grotesque subversion" of a human right, and making a bizarre analogy between the introduction of gay marriage and the reintroduction of slavery.

All of which is pretty disgusting, but I'm such a nerd that I'm almost more annoyed when he explicitly uses the word "evidence" when I'm pretty sure there is no such evidence.

All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father; the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal. It cannot be provided by a same-sex couple, however well-intentioned they may be.

Cardinal, that's a step too far. It's also personal - I managed without a father just fine thanks for your concern Cardinal. All children deserve love but the gender of their parents is irrelevant, and that is an evidence-based statement.

Research has shown that the kids of same-sex couples — both adopted and biological kids — fare no worse than the kids of straight couples on mental health, social functioning, school performance and a variety of other life-success measures. 

In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences [my emphasis] between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents.

Is there an award for evidence-abuser of the year?

Gay rights and economic growth

Why are we obsessing with gay rights in the middle of an economic crisis?

Because gay rights are human rights. And if you really need a reason beyond that, Daron Acemoglu lays out in detail how the "rights revolution" over the last century has driven technological innovation that has delivered economic growth.

Alex Tabarraok highlights some more recent evidence that also supports this view (one of the authors, Charles Jones, literally wrote the book on economic growth);

Public and private discrimination diminish a person’s ability to individuate and develop, an ability that drives innovation and growth in the artistic, economic and scientific realms. In India the caste system binds many people to the lives of their ancestors regardless of desire, talent or will. In parts of the world half the population is subjugated and bound to a limited vision of their life, a vision which is not of their own making. Similar if less extreme forces have limited women and blacks in the United States. 

In a pathbreaking paper, The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth, Jones, Hsieh, Hurst, and Klenow connect a micro allocation model to a macro growth model to estimate that the lifting of much discrimination in the United States since 1960 has had a large effect on economic growth: 

In 1960, 94 percent of doctors were white men, as were 96 percent of lawyers and 86 percent of managers. By 2008, these numbers had fallen to 63, 61, and 57 percent, respectively. Given that innate talent for these professions is unlikely to differ between men and women or between blacks and whites, the allocation of talent in 1960 suggests that a substantial pool of innately talented black men, black women, and white women were not pursuing their comparative advantage. This paper estimates the contribution to U.S. economic growth from the changing occupational allocation of white women, black men, and black women between 1960 and 2008. We find that the contribution is significant: 17 to 20 percent of growth over this period might be explained simply by the improved allocation of talent within the United States.

Up to a fifth of growth due simply to getting rid of pointless discrimination. Most of these economic opportunities have now been taken in the liberal west, but there are potentially huge economic gains across the developing world. How much is homophobia hurting African economies?

Why oh why can't we have a better head of state

28 April 2025

UK immigration rules tightened to keep out human rights abusers

29 April 2025

Bahrain despot says Yes to the Queen’s Jubilee lunch invitation

Why Rwanda is like Apple?

Andrew Mwenda, who has been fierce advocate for democracy in Uganda, seems to be quite a big fan of Kagame;

Rwanda/Kagame has been branded by its achievements as a successful case of post conflict reconstruction. The more the positive Rwanda brand has grown, the more it has attracted opportunistic groups that want to ride on it to enhance their own brand. By attacking an attractive brand, you are able to generate attention to your own brand. Human rights groups therefore have little incentive to focus on some obscure - even though murderous regime like Equatorial Guinea - because it will not make them visible in the human rights advocacy market. 

Assume you have a consumer protection advocacy organization and you want to build your global brand. It does not give you sufficient visibility if you focus your campaign on some obscure company called Filiopa Cranta (what a difficult name!) that manufactures drugs and sells them in the rural areas of Papua New Guinea. However, if you can pitch your case against GloxoSmithKline, Novartis or better still Microsoft or Apple, you are likely to attract a lot of attention even if your case is weak. 

Rwanda’s greatest asset in this war is actually the people of Rwanda whom these groups claim to speak for. In all opinion surveys by the most respectable polling organizations like Gallup Poll and World Values Survey, Rwandans say they feel free to speak, associate and express themselves by a margin of 85% - as good as one finds in democracies like Norway and Sweden. It will be humbling to see the advocates for freedom in Rwanda being told by ordinary Rwandans that they are actually free.

Ouvrez Les Frontières

"I wrote 'Ouvrez Les Frontières' ("open the borders") to make clear that no matter what is going on in Africa, Africans should have the right to travel just like Europeans or Americans do. It's a question of human rights."  

Tiken Jah Fakoly, who played in Central Park last weekend.

An anthem for the open borders movement? 

Today I am proud to be British

At least a part of my open-border enthusiasm is personal. My grandmother fled Nazi Germany as a teenager just before the outbreak of World War II. This commemorative plaque sits in the House of Commons.

On Wednesday more history was made as the British Supreme Court passed a ruling allowing gay and lesbian asylum seekers to remain in the UK if they fear persecution in their home country. The ruling was welcomed by the Conservative Party home secretary. Yes that Conservative Party. The right-wing, socially conservative one.

Britain, you rock.