This, it turns out, is an important question, because there's a strong correlation between trust in government and overall prosperity (the above chart is via NZZ). The extreme examples of distrust are somewhat intuitive. If, for example, you don't believe that your government will uphold property rights, why would you ever want to risk investing in property?

But it can be even more subtle and insidious:

Trust is central to both stability and development. If citizens have trust in their system, they will be more likely to push for growth-promoting reforms. Moreover, they will be more confident that politicians will actually implement such reforms, and that sacrifices made today will pay off in the future. If this trust is lost, democracies become unstable, and autocratic tendencies are more likely to prevail. However, trust is also important for the transition from an autocracy geared solely toward the extraction of resources and wealth into a progressive democracy. A politically dominant class that governs autocratically will make concessions voluntarily and refrain from repression only if it trusts that it too will benefit from the institutional changes over the long term, and that it will not later be deprived of all opportunities.

All of this forms part of the work of economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics earlier this year. Their research explains why wealth is so unevenly distributed across the world. It's a problem of institutions. But it's also highly relevant to countries that are already rich.

Distrust is on the rise in countries like the UK (57%), France, (51%), Germany (49%), and Italy (47%). The outliers among OECD countries are places like Luxembourg and Switzerland. Only 25% of Swiss people express distrust in the government. That's a good thing for overall prosperity and it shows in their GDP. So how can we be more like the Swiss?

Radical transparency when it comes to decision making and more of a direct democracy (versus a representative democracy) are two places to start, according to the research. People, it seems, trust their government more when they themselves make more of the decisions.

Here's the full NZZ article. It's an illuminating read.

If you’ve ever watched a documentary on food, you’ve probably seen the terrible ways in which chickens are raised and farmed. If you have the means, free-range and organic is the way to go. But I appreciate that some – most according to this Economist article – must opt for whatever is cheaper.

The Economist deals with the unfortunate side of the chicken industry, but it also talks about how chicken became the rich world’s most popular and widely traded meat. Since 1990, beef and pork consumption has remained roughly the same in OECD countries; whereas chicken consumption has increased by some 70%.

Also interesting are the regional preferences when it comes to the parts of the chicken. Here is an excerpt from the article (and yes, I prefer white meat):

Though Westerners prefer lean, white meat; many in Asia and Africa prefer dark meat, which includes legs and thighs. These preferences are reflected in local prices: in America breasts are 88% more expensive than legs; in Indonesia they are 12% cheaper. Differences in the price of chicken feet are even starker. The thought of eating talons is abhorrent to many Westerners, but they often feature in Cantonese recipes. China now imports 300,000 tonnes of “phoenix claws” every year.

I reckon that a lot of this popularity has to do with chicken’s reputation as a healthy meat. That is certainly the primary motivation for me. Though I do get thrown off when I see the size of chickens on antibiotics. The Dutch have a word for this: plofkip. It translates to “exploded chicken.”

I realize that this post has little to do with cities, other than the inference that Hong Kong is likely a major buyer of feet. But if you’re at all curious about the stuff you put inside your body – I clearly am – here’s the full article.

This, it turns out, is an important question, because there's a strong correlation between trust in government and overall prosperity (the above chart is via NZZ). The extreme examples of distrust are somewhat intuitive. If, for example, you don't believe that your government will uphold property rights, why would you ever want to risk investing in property?

But it can be even more subtle and insidious:

Trust is central to both stability and development. If citizens have trust in their system, they will be more likely to push for growth-promoting reforms. Moreover, they will be more confident that politicians will actually implement such reforms, and that sacrifices made today will pay off in the future. If this trust is lost, democracies become unstable, and autocratic tendencies are more likely to prevail. However, trust is also important for the transition from an autocracy geared solely toward the extraction of resources and wealth into a progressive democracy. A politically dominant class that governs autocratically will make concessions voluntarily and refrain from repression only if it trusts that it too will benefit from the institutional changes over the long term, and that it will not later be deprived of all opportunities.

All of this forms part of the work of economists Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson, who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics earlier this year. Their research explains why wealth is so unevenly distributed across the world. It's a problem of institutions. But it's also highly relevant to countries that are already rich.

Distrust is on the rise in countries like the UK (57%), France, (51%), Germany (49%), and Italy (47%). The outliers among OECD countries are places like Luxembourg and Switzerland. Only 25% of Swiss people express distrust in the government. That's a good thing for overall prosperity and it shows in their GDP. So how can we be more like the Swiss?

Radical transparency when it comes to decision making and more of a direct democracy (versus a representative democracy) are two places to start, according to the research. People, it seems, trust their government more when they themselves make more of the decisions.

Here's the full NZZ article. It's an illuminating read.

If you’ve ever watched a documentary on food, you’ve probably seen the terrible ways in which chickens are raised and farmed. If you have the means, free-range and organic is the way to go. But I appreciate that some – most according to this Economist article – must opt for whatever is cheaper.

The Economist deals with the unfortunate side of the chicken industry, but it also talks about how chicken became the rich world’s most popular and widely traded meat. Since 1990, beef and pork consumption has remained roughly the same in OECD countries; whereas chicken consumption has increased by some 70%.

Also interesting are the regional preferences when it comes to the parts of the chicken. Here is an excerpt from the article (and yes, I prefer white meat):

Though Westerners prefer lean, white meat; many in Asia and Africa prefer dark meat, which includes legs and thighs. These preferences are reflected in local prices: in America breasts are 88% more expensive than legs; in Indonesia they are 12% cheaper. Differences in the price of chicken feet are even starker. The thought of eating talons is abhorrent to many Westerners, but they often feature in Cantonese recipes. China now imports 300,000 tonnes of “phoenix claws” every year.

I reckon that a lot of this popularity has to do with chicken’s reputation as a healthy meat. That is certainly the primary motivation for me. Though I do get thrown off when I see the size of chickens on antibiotics. The Dutch have a word for this: plofkip. It translates to “exploded chicken.”

I realize that this post has little to do with cities, other than the inference that Hong Kong is likely a major buyer of feet. But if you’re at all curious about the stuff you put inside your body – I clearly am – here’s the full article.