The Racial Democracy part n

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

This article addresses (again) the difficulties in using racial quotas in determining higher education admissions in the Byzantine racial mix that is Brazil. A few points….

Racial self-classifications are subjective & personal (some “whites” by phenotype, and even persons of recent and un-mixed European ancestry, are claiming pardo, racially mixed, status)
Many students admitted under quotas are failing (40%-and the interview with an Electrical Engineering student is instructive)
The writer is conflating & mixing & matching American and Brazilian racial terms and paradigms (the former seem to be spreading in Brazil)
The writer did not present the complexity of Brazilian racial classifications-which go beyond a black-white spectrum, to people who have “white” features and dark complexion to those who have a white complexion and black features
The following quote is interesting: “We pay our taxes,” he added, “so why shouldn’t we receive this public service we’re paying for, and which supposedly belongs to everyone?” It reminds me of things I’ve heard from Latino politicians in California and frankly this sort of wrangling makes the case for pragmatic libertarianism (yes, you heard those two words in sequence!) in a racially diverse polity

26 Comments

  1. “The following quote is interesting: “We pay our taxes,” he added, “so why shouldn’t we receive this public service we’re paying for, and which supposedly belongs to everyone?” It reminds me of things I’ve heard from Latino politicians in California and frankly this sort of wrangling makes the case for pragmatic libertarianism (yes, you heard those two words in sequence!) in a racially diverse polity”

    This issue, like AA in America, really is less about right vs wrong. In a democracy, the voters theoretically decide what to do. The vast masses of Brazil that cannot compete academically have simply decided to vote for policies insuring themselves more of the pie. Just like AA is the cost of doing business in America, so will it become the ‘cost’ of doing business in Brazil. Logical, coherent denunciations of this stuff are not going to stop less capable people from doing what is best for themselves at the expense of meritocracy.

    My guess is that more homogenous nations that have less internal strife, like China and possibly other Pac Rim nations, will be better positioned in the global economic market to compete with places like Brazil (and probably America too) in part because they don’t have to incur these ‘costs’.

    BTW, I have no idea why all the “White” Brazilians don’t just labe themselves as pardo given the unfairness of the present system.

  2. BTW, I have no idea why all the “White” Brazilians don’t just labe themselves as pardo given the unfairness of the present system.

    lower social status? the wealthy & connected whites will be taken care of in any case….

  3. Razib:
    “lower social status? the wealthy & connected whites will be taken care of in any case….”

    You check the box for school and can define yourself as whatever outside of school so I don’t see how it would affect your social status.

  4. You know. This is exactly why Libertarianism will never catch on in many countries without massive IQ enhancing GE. The less capable masses in heterogenous countries have no incentive to allow for more open competition from more capable groups. Likewise I think part of the reason Communism never caught on in many heterogenous countries simply because the lesser capable masses didn’t want to admit settling for the ‘worker’ class was the best they could achieve.

    30+ years of cogent arguments against AA have gotten us little to show for it in this country- with no significant Republican even wanting to appear to be completely against the idea and the mantra of diversity for diversity’s sake being promulgated ever more frequently. The debate’s verdict was ‘fixed’ a long time ago.

    BTW, Steve Sailer and other conservatives should really waste less time on an argument they’ve already won if measured purely by logic. The only way to stop these programs is to try to maintain more of a numeric population balance between high achieving and low achieving groups (i.e Sailer’s wall between the US and Mexico is probably a start).

  5. outside of school so I don’t see how it would affect your social status

    well, the article linked to indicated exposes of frauds (ie; polish brazilian claiming he was pardo), so i don’t think one can expect total privacy. additionally, i assume that lula et al. want to expand this outside of academia and into employment….

    also-another point, the argument “we pay for schools with our taxes” might be a red herring-after all, should ethnic group X of percentage % always recieve public goods in proportion to their tax credit to the state? if this is so-in california & brazil, common accounting practices under our capitalist systems indicate that whites-who form most of the mega-wealthy-contribute most of the taxation, and i suspect latinos & “blacks” (whatever it means in brazil) contribute far less-perhaps even in proportion to their representation in publically subsidized higher education controlled for taxation revenue.

    in general, your arguments make good sense…it is a bad combination when the “takings” constituency can be racially or ethnically defined.

  6. >> You know. This is exactly why Libertarianism will never catch on in many countries without massive IQ enhancing GE. The less capable masses in heterogenous countries have no incentive to allow for more open competition from more capable groups.

    Do you think that massive IQ enhancing GE (*) will make countries more homogeneous? Even if the “less capable masses” become more alike the “cognitive elite” via GE (**) that does not mean that society will become more open to libertarianism (***). People don’t like libertarianism for a variety of reasons (****) and assuming that fear of competition is one of them, then this will certainly not go away as a result of IQ homegenization. Rather, it will be transferred to other areas where humans will remain variable. Indeed, most people don’t fear the ones who are dissimilar to them (i.e., more or less intelligent; more or less beautiful), but rather the ones that are SIMILAR to them, because those are the ones with which they are usually in competition (an accountant is not fearful of a janitor or a rocket scientist, he is fearful of other accountants). Thus, I predict that people will be MORE fearful of competition in a homogenized society.

    (*) An unlikely proposition IMO
    (**) Incidentally, the “cognitive elite” is the one that stands to lose from GE of cognitive ability, so why “cognitive elitists” push for it is a mystery
    (***) The biggest short-term effect will probably be that a lot of the New Intelligent class won’t do the necessary but dreary jobs that stand at the basis of our civilization, creating an economic crisis.
    (****) The fear that they won’t succeed in a competitive environment is only one of them. Indeed, I disbelieve that it will be the intelligent that will necessarily thrive in a libertarian society with property rights and inheritance.

  7. Thus, I predict that people will be MORE fearful of competition in a homogenized society.
    I have to second your position. It seems clear to me that the less difference there is between people in their genetic potential, the greater the importance of chance environmental factors like birth circumstances will be, leading to more socialism rather than less.

    In fact, this is as plausible an explanation for the socialistic tendencies of the scandinavians as most others. If my argument is correct, why anyone claiming to be a libertarian should be clamoring for Steve Sailer’s hypothetical wall* is beyond me.

    (*) By the way, that strikes as a truly nutty idea. Does either of Razib or Sailer have a clue just how great an undertaking it would be to build a WALL (of all things!) strong and high enough to shut off the USA from Mexico? And what happens when the Mexicans begin digging under it? Also, don’t expect any cooperation from the Mexican authorities who would have to sit behind this wall of yours.

    I mean, I support immigration reform too, but this idea of a wall across the Rio Grande smacks of hysteria and desparation.

  8. I wonder how much of this Brazilian situation is the result of US-style PC beedling over via pop culture? Are we creating a worldwide “race consciousness” even among people who never had it before?

  9. Does either of Razib or Sailer have a clue just how great an undertaking it would be to build a WALL (of all things!) strong and high enough to shut off the USA from Mexico?

    I think Sailer has done some back-of-the-envelope cost/benefit analysis (if not him, then someone at VDare perhaps). The cost is of course substantial, running probably to tens of billions of dollars initially and billions more every year to staff such an installation. However, it does not seem prohibitive. Also, it is not necessary that it function perfectly; a reduction in illegal border crossings of 98% would be a smashing success in my opinion. Finally, it might make more sense given modern sensor technology to think not in terms of a large concrete wall, but an array of sensors combined with rapid-response border patrols.

  10. “My guess is that more homogenous nations that have less internal strife, like China and possibly other Pac Rim nations, will be better positioned in the global economic market to compete with places like Brazil (and probably America too) in part because they don’t have to incur these ‘costs’.”

    I’ve long suspected that China will outpace America in my lifetime because their education system will not be gutted via multiculturalism shield the self-esteem of less-capable minorities.

  11. The only problem with the Israel example is that it hasn’t yet been shown to actually work! Just reading Haaretz and the Jerusalem Times, I see all the time that new tunnels have been found between Gaza and Egypt, or Gaza and Israel proper, so why should I believe that something like this would work on a continent-wide scale?

    Then there’s NAFTA to consider – I’m a believer in free trade, and any Israeli-style checkpoint would slow the pace of trade to a crawl, the cost of which isn’t factored into back-of-the-envolope calculations like the one you made. And how do you deal with the environmental implications of slicing the North American continent in two? If people can’t get through, how will the wild animals manage it?

    I think it makes more sense to simply grant Mexicans an easy-to-get guest-worker system, with the proviso that (1) no family members may be brought along, and pregnant workers must either leave voluntarily or be deported (2) no naturalization will be possible (3) they could change employers without applying for permission (to avoid exploitative situations that would drive them back underground), and (4) any violation of these terms would mean ineligibility for 10-15 years.

    Most of these illegal immigrants don’t come to the USA with the intention of staying, if Victor Davis Hanson is correct; they all think they’re going to make a little money, then head home to live large on their savings. A system that made it a lot easier for them to do just that would have a much more beneficial impact on the illegal immigration problem, without any of the destructive side-effects that Sailer’s Wall (can we officially call it that from now on?) would have. Once a thing becomes easy to get, it becomes a lot less alluring.

  12. self-esteem of less-capable minorities.
    And do you have any proof that they are intrinsically “less-capable”? That they are less well prepared to prosper in an academic environment is clear, but until some hard evidence comes in that they are held back by their own innate limitations, I’d rather we refrained from derogatory rhetoric of this sort, if you don’t mind.

  13. I think it makes more sense to simply grant Mexicans an easy-to-get guest-worker system, with the proviso that (1) no family members may be brought along, and pregnant workers must either leave voluntarily or be deported (2) no naturalization will be possible (3) they could change employers without applying for permission (to avoid exploitative situations that would drive them back underground), and (4) any violation of these terms would mean ineligibility for 10-15 years.

    i would rather take the american immigration problem rather than the european one thank-you-very-much. and part of the european problem has to do with “guest workers.” the conditions that you suggest would be objected to as just as barbaric as any wall. additionally, you would create a multi-tiered labor force and probably relegate the left-end-of-the-bell-curve to permenant unemployment & welfare….

    not saying there are any easy answers-but having various laws applied to people of multiple status is in my mind more confusing, and more erosive of equality-before-the-law, than simply separating them geographically….

  14. The European situation* is precisely why I suggested that no spouses be brought along, and that pregnant women be sent home.

    Here’s an alternative, less offensive approach: we could simply stipulate that no more than six months in a row be spent in the U.S, with a break of at least a month between trips. That way, we could screen out those who are already pregnant as unable to work, while making sure that those who get pregnant in America have their bambinos at home – all without having to make the rationale explicit, or even needing to treat the two sexes at all differently (damn, I’m proud of this one!)

    As for the left end-of-the-bell-curve, how many of them do you think would be willing to work as day laborers picking cotton at any rate that would be competitive on world markets? If the Mexicans don’t do these jobs, they simply won’t be done in America, and the farming lobby is a lot more powerful than immigration-reform advocates will ever be. Sailer’s Wall would be a political, economic and ecological disaster, while mine would have the benefit of allowing free trade to continue unimpeded, without any of the drawbacks of a wall. Plus, as a practical political matter, I think my position is far more likely to get the necessary political support for adoption, and politics is the art of the possible, isn’t it?

    (*) I’m thinking of Germany’s Turkish guest-workers.

  15. hanno, i’m not saying there’s any easy answer….

    but-many of the guest workers will start up relationships with natives-especially easy when there are co-ethnics around. as for the idea that no one will do day labor-well, they will if you pay them enough. since no one will, i guess we’ll export cotton growing to the third world (if you keep the day laborers out). we don’t use that argument to allow textile workers to have low wages-we just have tarrifs-which i oppose, better to let the textile jobs go overseas.

    finally-i really think you are underestimating the outcry that the guest worker unequal rights will create among the civil rights crowd. as a libertarian, i cringe a bit at the gov. oversight this program will require.

    you know what i find interesting, i remember reading in the early 90s in national review how swedish socialism is bad because no one would do shitty jobs like shoe shining. i wonder, do the immmigrants do that now? and is sweden better with them doing those jobs rather than having dirty shoes?

  16. “less capable”? Hanno, you’re REALLY splitting hairs here. As for picking cotton, that is already automated. Fruits and vegetables wouldn’t be far behind if unionized stoop labor made the wages high enough to stimulate development of the technology.

  17. was acheson banned for hating the wrong race? perhaps you could offer some guidelines as to which races it’s acceptable to dislike on gnxp. thanks

  18. Fredrik,

    See here. Maybe there’s a thin line between normative and positive statements (or between troll and tact). You tell me. Three deliberate off-hand, off-topic, asides in a row, one of which refers to Jews as “the most evil race”, doesn’t strike me as the latter. (followed by more of the exact same in the four or five (deleted) comments left since then)

    But hell what do I know, has science figured out a way to measure “evil” yet?

  19. Hanno:

    Agricultural workers could be recruited from Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Jamaica, Pakistan, the Philippines, Romania, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc. See
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_agr_wor_mal and http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lab_agr_wor_fem.

    Many people in China and India are agricultural workers. Agricultural workers could be recruited from China and India, as H1-B workers have been recruited from these two countries.

    Prior to World War 2 agricultural workers in Hawaii were from a number of countries, including China, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Portugal.

  20. Duende:
    I’ve long suspected that China will outpace America in my lifetime because their education system will not be gutted via multiculturalism shield the self-esteem of less-capable minorities.
    Well, ya never know. China and Taiwan both already have AA for some indigeneous minorities (special scholarships and extra points on entrance exams as is also given to foreigners, and Taiwan’s been promoting bilingual ed for their aboriginals). And due to the shortage of females, Taiwan’s in the middle of a mini immigration wave — mostly not “guest workers” like in the West, but mail-order brides marrying, largely, the dregs of society who couldn’t attract a girl locally. In either case, they’re joining the underclass.

    Their kids will grow up poor, some of them, e.g. of Indonesian or Filipino ancestry, looking rather racially distinct from the Chinese majority. If they feel oppressed and downtrodden, they’ll likely follow the tactics of the Taiwanese aboriginals, who are already busy trying to reform popular vocabulary to be more politically correct, asking for expansion of bilingual education, etc.

    Look for a similar phenomenon to be duplicated on the mainland in a few decades. I’m sure those of a more eugenicist bent in the mainland government wanna let those men just die out without passing on their genes, but the trouble is all the rioting and general criminal behavior tens of millions of unemployed, unmarried men might engage in before they die out will threaten stability and the almighty FDI flow. So they’re not gonna be able to avoid giving the thumbs up to mail-order brides.

  21. Dienekes:
    “Do you think that massive IQ enhancing GE (*) will make countries more homogeneous? Even if the “less capable masses” become more alike the “cognitive elite” via GE (**) that does not mean that society will become more open to libertarianism (***). People don’t like libertarianism for a variety of reasons (****) and assuming that fear of competition is one of them, then this will certainly not go away as a result of IQ homegenization. Rather, it will be transferred to other areas where humans will remain variable. Indeed, most people don’t fear the ones who are dissimilar to them (i.e., more or less intelligent; more or less beautiful), but rather the ones that are SIMILAR to them, because those are the ones with which they are usually in competition (an accountant is not fearful of a janitor or a rocket scientist, he is fearful of other accountants). Thus, I predict that people will be MORE fearful of competition in a homogenized society.”

    Your point is not really counter to mine. It may be that just because a society is filled with mostly high IQ individuials this will not be SUFFICIENT to foster Libertarianism. However, it is probably NECESSARY. I don’t know of one country that is ‘hetereogenous’ (i.e. in culture, race, IQ…) that is Libertarian. Indeed all ‘heterogenous’ countries I’m thinking of seem to be getting more and more Socialist from an economic and legal perspective. I realize that there are many countries that were fairly homogenous (i.e. many nations of the EU about 50yrs ago) that subsequently turned to Socialism. However, I can think of two countries, Taiwan and Hong Kong, that are realtively homogenous (compared to America or Brazil, for example) and high IQ that are probably as close as any country currently is to Libertarianism. I’m not saying they are Libertarian- just that they are more ‘open’ from an economic and legal sense than, for example, France and probably America.

    PS: Razib, I think there should be some way you could ‘re-post’ an article whose thread is still active to the top of your page. Some people miss a lot of the comments b/c they don’t scroll down, and the site gets filled with newer articles (that may or may not have as active threads). Just a thought.

  22. Razib, actually, trying to post the an old article again seems somewhat wierd. But, maybe you could just have a section up top linking people to the 3-5 most active articles (and ideally how stating many comments each of the most active articles have). Nobody else is doing this in the blogworld so you’d be the first.

  23. Dienekes:
    “Thus, I predict that people will be MORE fearful of competition in a homogenized society.”

    The problem I have with this argument is that most people don’t go around thinking they can’t beat the ‘other guy’. Even when they don’t do well, they’ll rarely pin the blame on their own inferiority- instead pinning the blame on ‘outside factors’. ‘Victimisation’ is rampant in America among the minorities.

    I’m not suggesting that there aren’t other factors for why Libertarianism isn’t catching on, just that I don’t think this idea of high IQ people in homogenous countries having a great deal of fear of competition is a significant one.

    See this interesting article from Andrew Sullivan on how too much self esteem is more of a problem than too little:
    http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021007

  24. >> I don’t know of one country that is ‘hetereogenous’ (i.e. in culture, race, IQ…) that is Libertarian.

    I don’t know any country that is Libertarian. What I do know is that the philosophy of libertarianism is mostly produced in societies that are not homogeneous, like the USA. This is because the common culture in such societies is limited, hence emphasis is placed on individuals. Additionally, in such societies people disagree about many things hence the likelihood that government policies will rub people the wrong way is significant.

  25. “I don’t know any country that is Libertarian”

    As I’ve indicated in the other post, I was basically using Libertarianism as a one word proxy for economic and legal openness. In that sense, Hong Kong (pre- Chinese takeover) and Taiwan rank much more favorably than America, Latin America, the EU, Africa…

  26. below is the index of economic freedom….

    Overall
    rank Country Year Overall
    Score Trade Fiscal
    Burden Government
    Intervention Monetary
    Policy Foreign
    Investment Banking/
    Finance Wages/
    Prices Property
    Rights Regulation Black
    Market
    1 Hong Kong 2003 1.45 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.5
    2 Singapore 2003 1.50 1.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
    3 Luxembourg 2003 1.70 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    3 New Zealand 2003 1.70 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    5 Ireland 2003 1.75 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5
    6 Denmark 2003 1.80 2.0 4.5 3.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
    6 Estonia 2003 1.80 1.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.5
    6 United States 2003 1.80 2.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5
    9 Australia 2003 1.85 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    9 United Kingdom 2003 1.85 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.5
    11 Finland 2003 1.90 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    11 Iceland 2003 1.90 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    11 The Netherlands 2003 1.90 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0
    11 Sweden 2003 1.90 2.0 4.5 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0
    15 Switzerland 2003 1.95 2.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0
    16 Bahrain 2003 2.00 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
    16 Chile 2003 2.00 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5
    18 Canada 2003 2.05 2.0 4.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0
    19 Austria 2003 2.10 2.0 4.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5
    19 Belgium 2003 2.10 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0
    19 Germany 2003 2.10 2.0 4.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.5
    22 The Bahamas 2003 2.15 5.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
    22 Cyprus 2003 2.15 2.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
    24 Barbados 2003 2.20 3.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
    24 United Arab Emirates 2003 2.20 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0
    26 El Salvador 2003 2.25 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.5
    27 Norway 2003 2.30 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 1.0
    27 Taiwan (China, Republic of) 2003 2.30 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
    29 Italy 2003 2.35 2.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
    29 Lithuania 2003 2.35 2.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    29 Spain 2003 2.35 2.0 4.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
    32 Portugal 2003 2.40 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
    33 Israel 2003 2.45 2.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.5
    33 Latvia 2003 2.45 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
    35 Botswana 2003 2.50 2.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5
    35 Cambodia 2003 2.50 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0
    35 Czech Republic 2003 2.50 3.0 4.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5
    35 Japan 2003 2.50 2.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
    35 Uruguay 2003 2.50 3.0 3.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
    40 France 2003 2.55 2.0 4.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
    40 Kuwait 2003 2.55 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0
    40 Thailand 2003 2.55 4.0 2.5 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.5
    43 Trinidad and Tobago 2003 2.60 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
    44 Armenia 2003 2.65 1.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    44 Bolivia 2003 2.65 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
    44 Costa Rica 2003 2.65 2.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    44 Hungary 2003 2.65 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
    44 Madagascar 2003 2.65 2.0 2.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
    44 Panama 2003 2.65 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.5
    44 Qatar 2003 2.65 3.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0
    44 South Africa 2003 2.65 3.0 4.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    52 Korea, Republic of
    (South Korea) 2003 2.70 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
    52 Malta 2003 2.70 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 4.0
    52 Namibia 2003 2.70 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.5
    55 Belize 2003 2.75 4.0 3.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    56 Greece 2003 2.80 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    56 Guatemala 2003 2.80 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    56 Jamaica 2003 2.80 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    56 Mexico 2003 2.80 2.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
    56 Oman 2003 2.80 3.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0
    56 Peru 2003 2.80 4.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
    62 Jordan 2003 2.85 5.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    62 The Philippines 2003 2.85 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    62 Slovenia 2003 2.85 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.5
    62 Uganda 2003 2.85 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5
    66 Poland 2003 2.90 3.0 4.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.5
    66 Slovak Republic 2003 2.90 3.0 4.5 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
    68 Argentina 2003 2.95 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.5
    68 Morocco 2003 2.95 5.0 4.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
    68 Saudi Arabia 2003 2.95 4.0 2.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    68 Tunisia 2003 2.95 5.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
    72 Brazil 2003 3.00 4.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
    72 Colombia 2003 3.00 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.5
    72 Malaysia 2003 3.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    72 Mali 2003 3.00 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0
    72 Mauritius 2003 3.00 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
    72 Mongolia 2003 3.00 2.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0
    72 Nicaragua 2003 3.00 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    72 Swaziland 2003 3.00 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0
    80 Central African Republic 2003 3.05 5.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    80 Honduras 2003 3.05 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    80 Ivory Coast 2003 3.05 4.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    80 Senegal 2003 3.05 4.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    80 Sri Lanka 2003 3.05 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
    85 Dominican Republic 2003 3.10 5.0 1.5 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
    85 Guinea 2003 3.10 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    85 Kenya 2003 3.10 4.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.5
    85 Mauritania 2003 3.10 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    89 Cape Verde 2003 3.15 4.0 4.5 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0
    89 Croatia 2003 3.15 3.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
    89 Gabon 2003 3.15 5.0 4.5 2.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0
    92 Guyana 2003 3.20 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    92 Moldova 2003 3.20 2.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
    94 Algeria 2003 3.25 5.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0
    94 Burkina Faso 2003 3.25 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    94 Lebanon 2003 3.25 5.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    94 Macedonia 2003 3.25 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    94 Mozambique 2003 3.25 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    99 Djibouti 2003 3.30 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    99 Gambia, The 2003 3.30 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
    99 Indonesia 2003 3.30 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
    99 Pakistan 2003 3.30 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
    99 Paraguay 2003 3.30 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    104 Albania 2003 3.35 5.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    104 Azerbaijan 2003 3.35 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
    104 Benin 2003 3.35 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    104 Bulgaria 2003 3.35 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
    104 Cameroon 2003 3.35 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.5
    104 Egypt 2003 3.35 4.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
    104 Kyrgyz Republic 2003 3.35 4.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    104 Lesotho 2003 3.35 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    104 Tanzania 2003 3.35 5.0 2.5 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    113 Chad 2003 3.40 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    113 Fiji 2003 3.40 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
    113 Georgia 2003 3.40 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    113 Ghana 2003 3.40 4.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
    113 Niger 2003 3.40 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    118 Ecuador 2003 3.45 4.0 2.5 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    119 Bangladesh 2003 3.50 5.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
    119 Ethiopia 2003 3.50 5.0 3.5 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
    119 India 2003 3.50 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    119 Kazakhstan 2003 3.50 4.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    119 Nepal 2003 3.50 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    119 Turkey 2003 3.50 3.0 4.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
    119 Venezuela 2003 3.50 4.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    119 Zambia 2003 3.50 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0
    127 China, People’s Republic of 2003 3.55 5.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.5
    128 Equatorial Guinea 2003 3.60 5.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    128 Haiti 2003 3.60 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    128 Togo 2003 3.60 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
    131 Malawi 2003 3.65 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5
    131 Rwanda 2003 3.65 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
    131 Ukraine 2003 3.65 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    131 Yemen 2003 3.65 3.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    135 Congo, Republic of 2003 3.70 5.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    135 Russia 2003 3.70 4.0 3.5 2.5 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    135 Vietnam 2003 3.70 5.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
    138 Romania 2003 3.75 4.0 4.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
    139 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003 3.80 2.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    140 Nigeria 2003 3.85 5.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    140 Sierra Leone 2003 3.85 5.0 3.5 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    142 Guinea-Bissau 2003 3.90 4.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    143 Suriname 2003 3.95 4.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
    143 Syria 2003 3.95 4.0 4.5 4.0 1.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    143 Tajikistan 2003 3.95 3.0 2.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    146 Iran 2003 4.15 3.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    146 Turkmenistan 2003 4.15 5.0 2.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0
    148 Burma 2003 4.20 5.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    149 Uzbekistan 2003 4.25 5.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0
    149 Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of (Serbia-Montenegro) 2003 4.25 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
    151 Belarus 2003 4.30 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0
    151 Libya 2003 4.30 5.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    153 Laos 2003 4.40 5.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    153 Zimbabwe 2003 4.40 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0
    155 Cuba 2003 4.45 3.0 4.5 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0
    156 Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of
    (North Korea) 2003 5.00 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
    N/R Angola 2003 - - - - - - - - - - -
    N/R Burundi 2003 - - - - - - - - - - -
    N/R Congo, Democratic Republic of
    (formerly Zaire) 2003 - - - - - - - - - - -
    N/R Iraq 2003 - - - - - - - - - - -
    N/R Sudan 2003 - - - - - - - - - - -

a