A brief explanation of the game before you continue reading my post: http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/users/interculture/pcat6.htm

Before we started playing the barnga game in my LFS 250 class I just thought we were playing cards, I had no idea how interesting the game was going to actually be! I only realized that each person was playing by different rules when I thought I’d won a hand yet someone else took the cards. I understand that the point of this game was to give us a sense of what it feels like for someone to be immersed in a new culture, however, I have never been to a place foreign enough to relate this game to past personal experience. I’ve been all over Canada, the US, the UK and South Africa- which are all fairly similar in terms of the language spoken, popular culture and societal norms. For me personally, the barnga game was intriguing because of the different ways people would react when they thought they’d won, yet someone else would take the cards. Some people would be passive and just let whoever took the cards take then without protest, and on the flip side others would take the cards almost maliciously- knowing that they hadn’t truly won the hand. I immediately thought of the links between this behaviour and the different personality types we learned about through the Type Focus personality assessment.

The insight I gained from this game matters because throughout my career I will have plenty of group work; understanding how, for example, introverts and extraverts interact will be of benefit to me now and throughout my life. I would be interested in doing a study to see if the extroverts tended to also be the ones who’d just take the cards, even though they knew that other people felt like they’d won the hand. Looking at it the other way, I would assume that people with a preference for introversion would be the passive ones who would just let whoever take the cards even though in their minds they won as well. Furthermore, I noticed a couple occasions where there was a dispute (albeit silent) over who had won. I wonder if the disputers both happened to have a preference for extraversion?

The connection I made between the barnga game and personality types is quite compelling to me. I’ve always been interested in psychology but this is the first time I’ve ever experienced it the same way a researcher would- in a controlled environment. In light of this experience I feel like I will be less judgemental of the way people act and perhaps more understanding because I now have a deeper understanding of how we don’t choose our personality characteristics; how people can’t help but act the way they do. To critique my observations, I’d like to point out that my classmates (introverted or extraverted) had little incentive to “fight” for the cards. Everyone knew that the class would end and it wouldn’t matter who ended up at the winner’s or loser’s table. Perhaps a better way of finding out if there actually is a tendency for the winner’s table to be mainly populated by extraverts would be if there was some sort of prize for winning and a penalty for losing.

I did a project this semester on Brasilia’s sudden growth in the early ’60’s which I found particularly interesting, this is a small summary highlighting how the poor were marginalized by this huge project.

The government did not allow the forces of supply and demand to naturally cause Brasilia to grow. Designers went with a shotgun approach and perhaps let their desire for Brasilia to emulate a modern, futuristic city blind them from the economic realities of organic city growth. For example, when the population increases in Vancouver, there is a higher demand for condominiums and thus developers start new projects. Since the state built Brasilia before anyone actually lived there, market forces were ignored with supply set by the government. Evidence of this is how Brasilia was designed to have a maximum occupancy of 500 000 inhabitants but now, including satellite towns, the population exceeds 2.5 million. This is understandable for it is tough to predict how popular and populous a new city will become; however, economists behind the Brasilia project should have realized that and allowed the city to grow naturally with minimal government planning. State-ownership of land was thought to be a more democratic urban spatial strategy; however, irony lies in the fact that only mansions (for the upper class) and condominiums (for the middle class) were a part of the original city plan . There was little thought put into residential planning for the poor, aside from a small number of low-cost housing units for the lower class citizens. This is not surprising given Costa’s utopian plan for an immaculate, modern city without the woes of other Brazilian metropolises.

Lower social classes in developing countries tend to be highly reliant on the informal sector: the part of the economy that is not monitored by any governmental regulatory agencies, and as a result, is not taxed nor included in a country’s gross national product. Spatially, Brasilia does not promote the informal sector. With large boulevards and green spaces, the informal market is mitigated; people simply drive everywhere, which does not permit street-level market interaction. As Ricky Burditt of the London School of Economics states, “[i]t’s got a place where you go to work. There are places where ambassadors have to sleep, and they are extremely unhappy about that because there isn’t a street life.” A lack of street life indicates a lack of the informal sector. Contrasting this with the suburban, organically developed, poorer, outlying areas where street life flourishes- we see a stark difference in the amount of informal economic activity. To critique this argument, one reason why the informal sector may be unnecessary in central Brasilia is the demographics found in this area. Workers in central Brasilia are wealthier (as they work for the government or are professionals) and thus, they do not need the informal sector’s services to provide lower cost products. Perhaps that was the ulterior motive of Brasilia’s planners: to segregate the rich from the poor. If that was not the objective, then why was there such a lack of low-cost housing in the Pilot Plan? Policies to increase the amount of low-cost housing in the central city area, and to reduce the amount of area occupied by parks in this zone would thus promote informal market interaction.

Canada’s dairy system runs on supply management whereby each farm is only allowed to produce a certain quantity of milk depending on the amount of quota they have, even though milk producing productivity has increased drastically in the past half century. This economic policy does not allow the market to act freely and thus causes inflated prices for consumers as well as a deadweight social loss for society. The very high quota price, along with all other costs involved in starting a dairy farm, gives low incentive for someone to start a new dairy farm. For those lucky enough to have a share of the quota pool (especially farmers who were given free quota when the system was first implemented), they are unable to increase market share through marketing or innovation. Rather they have to save up to buy more quota on which they will only see a profit many years down the road. Larger milk producers have bought up quota from smaller producers resulting in only 16% of dairy farms accounting for a whopping 45% of farm gate sales in BC. These domestic policies affect all Canadian dairy farms.

The BC Dairy Marketing Board sets the milk price well above the world market price which acts as a tariff to protect the domestic market. This issue has been the source of much controversy regarding US-Canada trade relations. Since domestic producers reach the quota themselves, there is no need for more milk products in the Canadian market; any imports over and above the quota maximum are heavily tariffed as a means of inhibiting imports. The US argues that Canadian quota tariffs are overly extreme and that they in fact contradict NAFTA which specifies that tariffs on all US exports be reduced to zero. Canada went to the NAFTA Dispute Settlement Panel regarding the US’s complaint and claimed that GATT rulings, which allow a slower reduction in tariffs worldwide, override NAFTA.

Canada’s persistence on this matter arose due to the relative size of the US dairy market compared to theirs. Since production costs decrease as output rises, and the US has much higher output (and therefore sells their milk to consumers for considerably less), Canadian dairy farmers fear that domestic prices will fall to US levels if the tariff was not in place. Alas this tariff actually protects Canadian dairy farmers.

The desire for achievement is a natural human precondition. Individuals seek to add value to their lives and communities through the realization of success and a lasting legacy. This capacity is engrained in the human psyche.

While handouts can provide individuals with crucial short-term necessities like food and water, they do not address the root causes of poverty. Whether rich or poor, people want to wake up in the morning with a purpose; they want to further themselves in life. Underprivileged individuals are at a disadvantage because they lack the ability to ’spend money to make money.’ For example, university students borrow upwards of $20,000 per year for education and living expenses because they know these high costs will result in long-term gains. The poor have the human capital to succeed, but they lack the finances necessary to transform their intellect into cash.

This is where micro finance comes in. Lending an impoverished person a small amount of money with a very low interest rate can help them progress economically in a much more efficient way than a simple handout. For example, a small loan for a woman in the Third World to buy fabric can help kick-start her small clothing business in the informal sector. This small risk is well worth the reward.

Reasons for the need of effective low-interest loans to the poor are abundant. Exploitative moneylenders in rural parts of developing countries charge excessive interest rates, which prevent smallholders from investing in more sustainable, profitable, and efficient agricultural practices. This is partly due to a lack of property rights, as poor farmers have no land titles to borrow against. In turn, smallholders have to forfeit their land to lenders which effectively turns them into landless labourers; they essentially become slaves to ’loan sharks’ in order to pay back not only the loans, but the absurdly high interest associated with them.

Global stratification of social classes is a key reason for worldwide social inequality. The Grameen Bank and other micro lending firms realize this so they have come up with an unorthodox method of closing the gap between the rich and the poor. In effect, they are helping to upgrade people’s social statuses from poor to middle class. While there remains much controversy around the Bank’s practices, it is evident that they have excellent intentions coupled with a proven model. They should undoubtedly be encouraged to continue on their mission to reduce global inequality.

A famous 19th century British proverb sums up the message that the Grameen Bank is trying to convey quite nicely: “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”