Most Important Links & Measures

The most important links which should help you to gather the information

Measures of prosperity

GDP OER (official exchange rate) , GDP PPP (purchasing power parity)

Gini-Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Human Devolopment Index, HDI

Happy Planet Index, HPI

a także warto spojrzeć na stronę banku światowego (metoda Atlas nieco bardziej skomplikowana) http://data.worldbank.org/country

Świetne statystki w różnym układzie (dla  poszczególnych krajów, regionów, rankingi)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook

Demography

http://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/informationGateway.php http://data.worldbank.org/country http://www.freedomforum.org/

Strona prof. Angusa Maddisona w fascynujący sposób ilustrująca historyczny rozwój demograficzny i gospodarczy

http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/oriindex.htm http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1,00.html

3 thoughts on “Most Important Links & Measures

  1. And maybe it’s not the very best place to start this kind of discussion, but what I’ve noticed during lectures (and what is also problem of Huntington) is a approach towards so called muslim world and muslim culture. Unfortunately we cannot say about ‚islam culture’ – the differences between countries are enormous – Saudi Arabia is different than Central Asia and islam shamanism and saints (in theory forbidden by islam), Egipt with its tourists is different than Somalia and its war, sunni is different than shyits. And because of these differences muslims are not so unified and there is no reason to be afraid of (instead of Western eurocentrism and ignorance which may cause conflicts).
    Do you feel unity with Colombian Indians with cult of hashish-Holy-Mary because in Polish cult of Holy-Mary-of-Czestochowa? Me – I don’t.

  2. To the most important links I’d like to add this one – of Edward Said lecture ‚The Myth of Culture Clash’, which is an anthropological but also philosophical (now I don’t want to discuss the difference between those disciplines, but I tried to put some emphasis on critique based on fieldwork, local knowlegde and local context and critique based on theoretical approach and reflection on cathegories itself).
    In general how we could describe the fail of Huntington’s describtion of civilizations and their clash? (failure which was described by prof. Zapaśnik „i tak produkt skrajnej ignorancji stał się narzędziem zbrodni” and by prof. Said „clash of ignorance”):
    1. Huntington as main feature of ‚civilization’ defines religion. This is eurocentric, because in other cultures religion has different definition and different place in life, moral regulations ect. It’s the most visible in Europe and for example in Central Asian islam, Shamanism ect. Then – at the very beginning he is wrong.
    2. objectifized notion of ‚civilization’
    3. creating borders talking about things interconnected, fluent and overlaping. Then – there is no ‚real’ clash.

    Prof. Edward Said gives more expamples and deeper interpretation:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6705627964658699201

    http://www.google.pl/books?hl=pl&lr=&id=h1nWVlOdsDwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA333&dq=edward+said+on+huntington&ots=KIlCd6t2CR&sig=ewtwx4d7h74YDFLZLqtE23p9wuk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=edward%20said%20on%20huntington&f=false

    http://www.unipa.it/~mcometa/Said_The%20Clash%20of%20Ignorance.pdf

Skomentuj

Wprowadź swoje dane lub kliknij jedną z tych ikon, aby się zalogować:

Logo WordPress.com

Komentujesz korzystając z konta WordPress.com. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Zdjęcie z Twittera

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Twitter. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Facebook photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Facebook. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Google+ photo

Komentujesz korzystając z konta Google+. Wyloguj / Zmień )

Connecting to %s