Monday, June 22, 2020

Black Life Matters: Impact on the upcoming Presidential Elections in the US

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Aditi Mohta

Article Title

Black Life Matters: Impact on the upcoming Presidential Elections in the US

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

President Trump at Tulsa

President Trump at Tulsa | Source: AP via Wikimedia

George Floyd, 46, a black man died after a white police officer, named Derek Chauvin, held him down by lodging him down by a knee on his neck for almost nine minutes. He lapsed into unconsciousness saying, “I can’t breathe” and died shortly afterwards. His death came as the latest one in the line of killings of African-Americans by American law enforcement personnel. This incident sparked nationwide protests over systematic racism, unequal treatment of Black Americans and police brutality.

These protests are expected to impact the upcoming Presidential elections in the USA which is due in November 2020. The race issue in US Presidential elections has now become equally important as health care and the economy. According to a CNN poll, “With 42% of Americans calling race relations significant to their vote for president this fall”. There is a demographic split in the votes, where 61% black voters in 2020 say that it is imperative to prioritize race relations which is a jump from 34% in 2015. The opinion also varies between the followers of political parties as 60% of the Democrats and democratic-leaning independent voters and 18% of the Republicans and Republic-leaning voters have said that race relations are extremely important. 

President Trump opposed the protests very strongly and even threatened to send federal troops into the states to curb the protests. He came up with a series of tweets on the protests which shocked the young people of America into action and went global very soon. One of these tweets read: “Get tough Democrat Mayors and Governors,”. Referring to Biden, he added: “These people are ANARCHISTS. Call in our National Guard NOW. The World is watching and laughing at you and Sleepy Joe. Is this what America wants? NO!!!”. 

President Donald Trump will have a formidable opponent in former Vice President Joe Biden who is Democratic Party candidate in the Presidential elections. Joe Biden has a good following among the Black-American voters  Recently, in an interview, Biden said: “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” 

The tweets and other statements of Trump invoking the spectre of lawlessness and turmoil are seen as a ploy to get back suburban voters who were disgusted by his handling of the pandemic by. A law and order crisis also allows Trump to go back to his 2016 campaign, where the campaign video reads “President Trump’s not always polite. Mr Nice Guy won’t cut it.” Trump has arguably benefited from the fact that his mishandling of the pandemic was pushed out of the picture with the media coverage of protests and riots.

On the other hand, Joe Biden, in his speech said “I won’t traffic in fear and division. I won’t fan the flames of hate. I’ll seek to heal the racial wounds that have long plagued our country, not use them for political gain. I’ll do my job, and I’ll take responsibility — I won’t blame others”. Biden is also promising to address the lack of racial equality under the law, which might give his potential presidency a reform, and something that could unite the Democratic Left fully behind him. 

At the moment, there is a rise in Voter registrations, volunteer activities and donations for groups that are linked to democratic causes. The surge in registration could be beneficial to the Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden. However, the presidential election is still over four months away and Trump’s campaign is well-funded with the backing of conservative media and loyal followings. To keep up the current narrative and build on the support on its back is going to be a herculean task for Biden’s campaign team.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:52 PM

Randomised Control Trials and the Alleviation of Poverty in India

Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo won the 2019 Nobel Prize in Economics for their “experimental approach in alleviating global poverty”. Their experimental approach encompassed a variety of novel methods to understand and analyse interventions and Randomised Control Trials (RCTs). Their research has been used by policy makers to make informed policy decisions to best help the marginalised.

What are RCTs?

To understand the effect of a policy, intervention, or medicine, decision makers try to measure the efficacy of the treatment. Do deworming pills given to children improve test scores? Does providing chlorinated water improve the health and economic outcomes of villages? These are some causal (read causal, i.e. caused by, not casual) questions researchers are interested in. The best way to analyse causal effects is to randomise the selection of people in the treatment and the control group (for example: children who are given deworming pills versus children who are not given the pills). This random selection of the two groups removes many statistical biases that might affect the results.

RCTs in India:

Many of the RCTs performed by Banerjee and Duflo were in India. They involved short- and long-term impact assessments of various interventions, policies, models, and treatments. We look at a few RCTs implemented in India:

Teacher absenteeism rates:

Troubled by the low attendance rates (or high absence rates) of public-school teachers in India, Duflo assessed the impact of financial incentives on the absence rates of teachers in Rajasthan. The study monitored teacher attendance by cameras, which was tied to a financial incentive if the attendance was high. From a baseline absence rate of 44%, teacher absenteeism in the treatment group fell by 21%, relative to the control group. High teacher attendance caused child test scores to improve too.

COVID-19 and health-seeking behaviour:

In the context of COVID-19, Banerjee tested the effect of sending messages via SMS that promoted health preserving behaviour. The results were very positive. By sending a short, 2.5-minute clip to 25 million randomly selected individuals in West Bengal, the intervention i) found a two-fold increase in symptom reporting to village health workers, ii) increased hand washing rates by 7%, and iii) increased mask-wearing by 2%. While mask-wearing rates increased only marginally, the spillover effects (wearing a mask stops the virus from infecting more people) were moderately high and positive.

Asset Transfers and the Notion of Poverty:

An RCT by Banerjee in West Bengal involving a productive asset transfer accompanied with training found large and persistent effects on monthly consumption and other variables. The treatment group reported 25% higher consumption levels relative to the control group, who did not receive the asset transfer and training. Implications of such RCTs are huge. The notion that the poor are lazy and unwilling to perform strenuous labour is falsified by this RCT. Often, what the poor lack are opportunities that are hard to come by, given their financial status. A small nudge, like the asset transfer, can cause large and positive effects on their well-being.  

Salt fortification to reduce anaemia:

RCTs also help rule out less cost-effective interventions. Duflo and Banerjee evaluated an RCT which distributed fortified salt in 400 villages of Bihar, to reduce the prevalence of anaemia. However, this intervention found no statistically significant impact on health outcomes like anaemia, hemoglobin, etc.  Thus, while RCTs help introduce novel methods of impacting the lives of the poor, they also help in ruling out in-effective measures. A policy maker might try other alternatives to reduce the prevalence of anaemia.

Are RCTs the gold standard?

Maybe. Extrapolating results from a regional RCT to national policies could present problems. Contextuality matters. A study that indicates positive gains for one region might present different, and rather adverse effects for another region. Nation wide effects might not be as prominent as regional results of a single RCT. The good part is that Banerjee and Duflo have a solution. Just perform more RCTs!

Read More