Access to potable water remains one of the most enduring problems around the world. Today more than 1 billion people do not have access to improved drinking water sources. This leads to 1.6 million deaths from diarrhea each year, the vast majority occurring in children younger than 5.

Multilateral development agencies have been working for decades to improve this situation. Early water projects were well-intentioned engineering gifts. The SCANWATER project, for example, simply installed gas-powered water towers on the highest hills around Cameroon. Because these projects didn’t develop local capacity to train technicians or to collect money for expensive maintenance, most of these water towers rapidly fell into disrepair.

So the key to sustainability is access, simplicity, good design and minimal maintenance. Two promising products are the Playpump and LifeStraw. As you can probably guess from the compound names, these products combine simple existing concepts with water sanitation development goals.

PlayPump is a water pump powered by children who play on a merry-go-round. The pumps are often located near
primary schools to take advantage of abundant free “labor.” Many primary schools in Sub-Saharan Africa have more than 100 students per class, so classes are taught in shifts. During this downtime, children can play on the merry go round ensuring a regular supply of water.

The PlayPump also takes advantage of the demographics that characterize developing nations, where half the population is under the age of fifteen.

In villages where girls are most often assigned the chore of fetching water, the PlayPump has the potential to reduce the distances walked for clean water, increasing the likelihood that girls can go to school.

Playpumps cost about $5000 each and can produce up to 1400 liters (370 gallons) per hour, enough water for 2,500 people. The water towers also can accomodate up to four billboard advertisements, two of which are normally reserved for public health messages, and two for revenue generation that provides for maintenance expenses. Currently a South African company is installing them with some help from the World Bank.

The second product is LifeStraw, which is produced by the Danish company Vestergaard-Frandsen. The LifeStraw is basically a lightweight handheld filtration device that can be worn around the neck. Any time someone need a sip of water, they can use this device to automatically filter out contaminants. The LifeStraw doesn’t require any spare parts, and it lasts for about one year or 700 liters. They retail in the developing world for $6, or about 1.6 cents per day. The company that produces LifeStraw has ambitious sales goals. The creator, Torben Vestergaard-Frandsen, said that, “We will be disappointed, if we do not sell at least 10 million LifeStraw a year.”

At less than a cent per liter of water filtered, LifeStraw is competitive with other water filtration systems in the developing world. That cost should come down as they ramp up production and realize economies of scale.

And lest you get the idea of ordering a LifeStraw for your homeland security kit or for camping, it’s still being reviewed by the EPA, so it’s not yet available in the U.S. One other caveat: it does not protect against Giardia, a nasty little parasite that Statastico really recommends avoiding.

What other ideas are waiting to be combined into a life-saving innovation? How about an electrical generator powered by soccer players? A playground slide that doubles as solar power? With more than 1 billion people around the world without access to clean water, invention is indeed the mother of necessity.

Sources: Statastic research, WHO, United Nations

Today the New Economics Foundation ranked Vanuatu the happiest place on earth. To their credit, the innovative Happy Planet Index (HPI) tries to takes into account how well humans turn their resources into what economists like to call “utility” (or “happiness” to the rest of us).

The winner has a great location to be sure, and something in common with others in the top ten happiest countries: massive inequality. Most of the top fifteen happiest countries were in near the bottom of income inquality as measured by the Gini coefficient. You’d think that those folks would’ve noticed the disparity, but perhaps this is a new type of underclass that is just too busy “convert(ing) the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens.”

.

*Notes: World Rank in Income Equality is based on the Gini Index available for 124 countries as ranked in the 2005 United Nations Human Development Report. Additional sources were used for Vanuatu, St. Lucia, and the Grenadines. No data was available for Dominica (#4 HPI) or Cuba (#6 HPI).

Today Wimbledon will crown a new women’s champion, either Amelie Mauresmo from France or Justine Henin-Hardenne from Belgium. Two things are certain: the winner will speak French and the winner will take home less than her male counterpart.

Wimbledon is the last remaining Grand Slam tennis championship to pay different purses to the men’s and women’s champions. The Gentlemen’s Champion will receive £655,000 ($1,212,469) while the Ladies’ Champion will receive £625,000 ($1,156,936). Why the $55,000 difference? Don’t men and women compete equally? Not really. In Grand Slam tennis tournaments, men play best of five sets, while women play best of three. Sports writers, sports feminists, even proud economists, have spilled (or typed) much ink on this subject. But is it even fair to compare wages when men and women are playing a fundamentally different games?

Let’s have a look at the statastics. Over the past five years (2001-2005), Wimbledon Men’s Champions - usually Roger Federer - have played 53% more sets (and 66% more games) en route to the championship than the women’s champions during the same period. If the averages hold up for 2006, the Gentlemen’s Champion will have earned $51,376 per set played while the Ladies Champion would take home $75,126 per set played at Wimbledon. There you have it: women earn 46% more than men at Wimbledon. It is, perhaps, one of the few examples outside the adult film industry where women earn more than men.

Statastico would like to see equal pay for equal play. This is not to suggest that they should cut women’s purses at the Grand Slams. Give us more tennis! Women and men run the same distance in marathons, swim in the same Olympic pools, and play on the same sized soccer fields. Pay them identical purses and let the women also play best of five sets at the Grand Slams. That is true equality.

Source: Statastic research

The Internet has been available in the developing world almost as long as it’s been here in the U.S. Internet cafes were popping up in Cameroon in the mid 1990s before the local Peace Corps volunteers even knew how to use them. Penetration rates, however, lag predictably behind the richer countries in the north. But the lack of telecommunications infrastructure is something of a blessing in disguise: developing nations have the potential to leapfrog technologies. Cell phones and VOIP prove easier than installing costly land lines, and there’s no need for telephone poles and copper cable if governments can create WiFi and WiMAX zones around burgeoning urban areas.

Wired Magazine recently featured a map with average prices for one hour of online access in Internet cafes around the world. Statastic used the average hourly price as a percentage of daily wages to provide a glimpse into the state of Internet access in a selection of low to middle income countries.

The chart below begs several questions. Could lowering the cost of public Internet access lead to higher usage rates? What is the demographic profile of the average Internet user in the developing world? Should multi-lateral donors subsidize the cost of public Internet access?

Among this small sample, D.R. Congo, Nigeria and Kenya are the three most expensive places for locals to access the Internet, relative to income. They also have some of the lowest usage rates. But these countries have several other characteristics in common: low literacy, high rates of corruption, and a high level of inequality. These countries may simply have a limited number of Internet cafes that cater to tourists, corrupt officials and the wealthy locals who are lucky enough to have an education and a job.

Brazil’s usage rates are surprisingly high. Perhaps Brazil’s high inequality can help explain how 14% of Brazilians have regular access to the Internet despite the fact that one hour in an Internet café costs nearly one sixth of average daily wages. Just who are those fortunate 14%?

Sources:
http://internetworldstats.com
WIRED Magazine, May 2006

Six teams remain in the World Cup, but one stands head and shoulder above the rest: Brazil. Unfortunately, Brazil’s beautiful game is not what deserves our attention. Brazil is among the most unequal nations on earth. The wealth concentrated in the richest 10% of the population is 68 times greater than in the poorest 10%. Income distribution in the two nations favored to take home the World Cup couldn’t be more different: Brazil’s wealth is ten times more concentrated than Germany’s.

Source: United Nation’s Development Programme Report

“Republicans Cut Minimum Wage by 21%” – or – “Do-Nothing Congress is Something of a Misnomer”

This week, Democrats are threatening to block a bill that would give members of Congress a raise until the minimum wage is increased. While I applaud the Democrats in Congress for re-opening this issue, minimum wage should not be subject to political winds. Since 1938, the annual minimum wage (based on working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year) has ranged from $6,807 to $18,621 in 2006 dollars. During that time minimum wage has ebbed and flowed, creating instability and unpredictable incomes for the poorest American workers.

Much of this instability is masked by inflation. Inflation silently eats away at minimum wage when Congress is in a do-nothing sort of mood. In 1981, the Democratic Congress raised the minimum wage from $3.10 to $3.35 where it remained for 8 years. Unfortunately, that same $3.35 in 1981 was only worth $2.46 by 1989. Effectively, inaction on minimum wage cut worker pay by 27% between 1981 and 1989.

Not to be outdone, the Republicans increased minimum wage from $4.75 to $5.15 in 1997, where it has remained ever since. Unfortunately, that same $5.15 in 1997 only buys $4.08 of goods in 2006, a reduction of 21% due to inflation.

The Democrats have proposed raising minimum wage by $.70 per year until 2009 when it would top out at $7.25/hour. This would raise minimum wage by about 15% annually. While this proposal does rescue minimum wage – and Congress – from the ignominy of falling below the poverty level for the first time since 1949, it is a sudden increase for those who employ minimum wage workers.

Inaction (or sudden action) on minimum wage creates wage cost volatility for employers. Jarring increases in the wage costs make it more difficult for businesses to plan.  These infrequent and unpredictable increases in minimum wage can also create a political backlash from small business owners.

The solution is to create an automatic, annual increase of the minimum wage based on either the federal consumer price index, or some fixed percentage over the federally-determined threshold for poverty. Make minimum wage more transparent to employers and the working poor, and let do-nothing Congresses get back to their flag burning amendments.

*Historical Minimum Wage assumes working 40 hours/week, 50 weeks/year and is adjusted by the CPI.

^#U.S. Census Bureau 2005 Poverty Threshold for single person under 65, adjusted upwards by 3% for 2006 estimated inflation.

^6.27.06 - Reuters reported a Democratic proposal in Congress to raise minimum wage by $.70 per year until 2009 when it would top out at $7.25/hour.