Should Corporations Bankroll National Parks?

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/corporations-national-parks-coca-cola/

It seems counterintuitive that private companies playing a role in the National Park Service would be a topic of discussion. National parks are a place to escape from everyday life, and many people are worried about corporations playing a role in these natural spaces. However, the National Park Service is in need of funding, and corporate donations could provide the necessary resources for better trails, facilities, and ranger programs. The debate about corporate funding for national parks has been ongoing for years and recently heightened after concerns that Coca-Cola influenced a plan to stop selling disposable plastic water bottles in parks.

The National Park Foundation, a nonprofit that channels support from companies and donors to parks, faced criticism from the watchdog group PEER over plans to fundraise for an endowment for the Park Service’s centennial anniversary from corporate and philanthropic partners. While the amount of money from these partners is low, it still raises concerns about corporate influence in the parks. The National Park Service has strict guidelines for corporate partners, including Director’s Order #21, a 1998 guidance document that outlines how to deal with corporate partners and does not accept money from companies with significant conflicts of interest or alcohol or tobacco companies.

Avoiding the Curse of the Oil-Rich Nations

https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/avoiding-the-curse-of-the-oil-rich-nations/

It seems counterintuitive that finding a hole in the ground that spouts money can be one of the worst things that can happen to a country, yet oil-dependent countries are often economically troubled, authoritarian, and conflict-ridden. This phenomenon is called the resource curse. Oil is capital-intensive and eliminates jobs across the economy, causing corruption and conflict. Taxes create accountability, but oil revenues decouple the government from citizens.

The big exception is Norway, but the majority of the world’s untapped oil reserves are in the developing world. Todd Moss of the Center for Global Development believes that countries can look to Alaska as inspiration. Alaska has the Alaska Permanent Fund, which puts a quarter of its oil revenues into an invested fund that pays each resident a yearly dividend. This stimulates the economy and reduces poverty, but has also created a disconnection between the government and residents. Some countries, like Mongolia and Bolivia, have started similar programs aimed at improving citizens’ social welfare, but more must be done to address the resource curse.

Disarming Iran Using South Africa Strategy

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iran-sanctions-south-africa_b_1379355

It seems counterintuitive that sanctions have a limited place in international diplomacy or pressure. F.W. de Klerk, the former President of South Africa, believes that in the case of South Africa, sanctions had a negative impact and did not bring about the desired results. Sanctions, according to de Klerk, halted economic growth, harmed the black population more than the white population, and did not help those it was intended to help. De Klerk argues that economic growth and development, not sanctions, were the biggest change agents in ending apartheid in South Africa.

Economist Mats Lundahl also supports this idea, arguing that sanctions depressed the industrial sector and perpetuated the dominance of a skilled labor force led by whites. Similarly, some analysts believe that sanctions against Iran have weakened civil society and strengthened the state, increased poverty, and marginalized the process of transition to democracy. De Klerk warns that unless sanctions can throttle a country, nations will find ways to circumvent them and if sanctions fail within two to three years, a re-think should be considered.