Economic incentives for global conservation of wildlife: New international policy directions

Growing economic globalisation by extending the operation of markets is a two-edged sword as far as nature conservation is concerned. In some circumstances, it threatens the conservation of nature and in other cases, it provides economic incentives that foster the conservation of biodiversity. This article shows how global policy directions have altered in that regard. Initially the World Conservation Union (IUCN) favoured bans on trade in endangered species. This view was enshrined in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Subsequently, with the upsurge of support for market-based economic liberalism, IUCN recognised that economic and market incentives, if linked to appropriate property rights, could foster biodiversity conservation. This is reflected in the International Convention on Biological Diversity. While there is conflict between this convention and CITES, its extent has been exaggerated. As explained, in certain cases, trade restrictions of the type adopted in CITES are appropriate for nature conservation whereas the market-oriented policy of the Convention on Biological Diversity can be effective in some different situations. Whether or not the extension of markets in wildlife and wildlife products and growing economic globalisation favours nature conservation varies according to the circumstances.

Education's role in economic development and in assisting the poor

Much faith has been put in the increased supply of education as a means to promote national economic development and as a way to assist the poor and the disadvantaged. However, the benefits that nations can obtain by increasing the level of education of their workforce depends on the availability of other forms of capital to complement the use of its educated workforce in production. Generally, less developed nations are lacking in complementary capital compared to more developed ones and it is appropriate for less developed countries to spend relatively less on education. The contribution of education to economic growth depends on a nation’s stage of economic development. It is only when a nation becomes relatively developed that education becomes a major contributor to economic growth. It is possible for less developed nations to retard their economic growth by favouring investment in educational capital rather than other forms of capital. Easy access to education is often portrayed as a powerful force for assisting the poor and the disadvantaged. Several reasons are given here as to why it may not be so effective in assisting the poor and in promoting greater income equality even though the aim is a worthy one. Also, an economic argument is presented in favour of special education for the physically and mentally handicapped. This paper is not intended to belittle the contribution of education to economic development nor to devalue the ideal of making basic education available to all. Instead, it is intended as an antidote to inflated claims about the ability of greater investment in education to promote economic growth and about the ability of more widespread access to education to reduce poverty and decrease income inequality.

Elephants and polity in ancient India as exemplified by Kautilya's Arthasastra (Science of Polity)

After providing some background on the domestication and use of elephants in ancient India, this article concentrates on the role of the elephant in Indian statescraft as outlined in Kautilya’s Arthasastra, reputed to have been written in the fourth century BC (over 2300 years ago). The body of this essay is presented as follows: first background on the nature of Kautilya’s Arthasastra is provided and then his advice is outlined and discussed about the care of elephants. This care involves the duty of the King, the duties of the superintendent of elephants and the law relating to the treatment of elephants. Subsequently, Kautilya’s views about the use of elephants in war are considered. The essay concludes with an overall assessment of the role of the elephant in the polity of ancient India as portrayed by Kautilya. It is argued that the high use value of elephants to ancient Indian rulers, especially in war, had a significant positive impact on the conservation of Asian wild elephants, and incidentally other wildlife in India as well. Today, the conservation of the Asian elephant depends mostly on its use for tourism and its non-use economic values which reflect human empathy with it and which are reinforced in India by social and cultural values.