Iata mai jos cuprinsul unui raport interdepartamental din 2010, care radiografiaza batranii Statelor Unite, identificand un numar de “indicatori ai calitatii vietii”…

(sursa integrala o puteti downloada de aici: http://www.agingstats.gov/agingstatsdotnet/Main_Site/Data/2012_Documents/Docs/EntireChartbook.pdf ).

De ce ar trebui sa constituie o preocupare majora si sa avem pe propria noastra agenda publica romaneasca un asemenea subiect? Pentru ca si la noi exista un “lot de baby-boomers”, care ar incepe cu “decreteii” anului 1967 si s-ar incheia prin 1989, cand s-a “liberalizat” avortul.

Cand vor incepe sa atinga varsta de 65 de ani – adica peste 19 ani, in 2032 – va trebui sa fim pregatiti pentru “impact”.

Iata cum motiveaza, in introducere, nevoia de monitorizare si cunoastere (radiografie sincera) autorii studiului publicat in 2010: “Just last year, the oldest members of the “Baby Boom” generation (that is, Americans born between 1946 and 1964) turned 65. As has been the case since the birth of this cohort, this very large generation will bring important challenges to the systems and institutions that support and enhance American life. Although many Federal agencies provide data on aspects of older Americans’ lives, it can be difficult to fit the pieces together. Thus, it has become increasingly important for policymakers and the general public to have an accessible, easy-to-understand portrait of how older Americans fare.”

Population
Indicator 1. Number of Older Americans
Indicator 2. Racial and Ethnic Composition
Indicator 3. Marital Status
Indicator 4. Educational Attainment
Indicator 5. Living Arrangements
Indicator 6. Older Veterans
Economics
Indicator 7. Poverty
Indicator 8. Income
Indicator 9. Sources of Income
Indicator 10. Net Worth
Indicator 11. Participation in Labor Force
Indicator 12. Total Expenditures
Indicator 13. Housing Problems
Health Status
Indicator 14. Life Expectancy
Indicator 15. Mortality
Indicator 16. Chronic Health Conditions
Indicator 17. Sensory Impairments and Oral Health
Indicator 18. Respondent-Assessed Health Status
Indicator 19. Depressive Symptoms
Indicator 20. Functional Limitations
Health Risks and Behaviors
Indicator 21. Vaccinations
Indicator 22. Mammography
Indicator 23. Diet Quality
Indicator 24. Physical Activity
Indicator 25. Obesity
Indicator 26. Cigarette Smoking
Indicator 27. Air Quality
Indicator 28. Use of Time
Health Care
Indicator 29. Use of Health Care Services
Indicator 30. Health Care Expenditures
Indicator 31. Prescription Drugs
Indicator 32. Sources of Health Insurance
Indicator 33. Out-of-Pocket Health Care Expenditures
Indicator 34. Sources of Payment for Health Care Services
Indicator 35. Veterans’ Health Care
Indicator 36. Residential Services
Indicator 37. Personal Assistance and Equipment
Special Feature
End of Life

… Trebuie sa recunosc ca nu sunt un mare fan al americanilor. Dar avem foarte multe de invatat de la ei, si de aceea – merita respectul nostru!


Kim Jong-un si responsabilitatea linistii in Asia

Se pare ca nord-coreenii au tinut ascunsa vreo doua zile realitatea mortii Conducatorului Iubit. Iar Marile Puteri au tremurat la propriu, caci vorbim de o putere nucleara ramasa temporar fara stapan (leaderless nuclear power).

In paralel, toti ochii sunt atintiti asupra Chinei: nu numai din ratiuni economice – fiind cel mai mare creditor al Planetei -, ci si politic, ca factor de stabilitate al celui mai mare continent. Cum se va implica ea in sprijinul tanarului Kim Jong-un? Se pare ca trebuie sa o faca, pentru a evita incoltirea vreunui gand de unificare sub evidenta hegemonie a Coreei de Sud! Cum s-ar simti China cu un ghimpe american infipt direct in coasta sa?

Cuvantul de ordine – este “pastrarea status-quo-ului” – si nici nu poate fi vorba de aducerea in discutie a unei “primaveri nord-coreene”. Jocul politic al stabilitatii in zona are urmatoarele coordonate simple:  Coreea de Nord are rolul unui vecin periculos, impredictibil, controlat exclusiv de China, gata oricand sa santajeze Sudul (si prin aceasta pe Americani) pentru un bol de orez in plus … China este cea care patroneaza aceasta situatie, fiind singura putere de care Dinastia Kim asculta cu supusenie, in felul acesta avand un rol mediator puternic in Asia!

Harta lumii asiatice: China - Coreea - Japonia

Pentru ca ne intereseaza evolutia democratiei in general dar mai ales in criza, pentru ca anul acesta va ramane in istorie ca anul “revolutiilor arabe”, preluam mai jos un tabel al The Economist Intelligence Unit  interesant de observat ca Romania mai are, la randul ei, pasi importanti de facut pentru ajunge in zona selecta de sus!

Folosind o metodologie care interogheaza cinci atribute ale vietii publice, The Economist stabileste o ierarhie a tarilor in functie de indicele lor democratic … Coreea de Nord este cel mai “autoritar” regim al planetei, dar asta nu pare sa supere (am vazut mai sus de ce) pe nimeni.

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The overall index of democracy, on a 0 to 10 scale, is based on the ratings for 60 indicators grouped in the five categories. The overall index is the simple average of the five category indexes. A three-point scoring system for the 60 indicators is used. The category indexes are based on the sum of the indicator scores in the category, converted to a 0 to 10 scale. Countries are placed within one of four types of regimes: “full democracies” (scores of 8 to 10); “flawed democracies”—scores of 6 to 7.9; “hybrid regimes”—scores of 4 to 5.9; “authoritarian regimes”—scores below 4.

Democracy Index 2011
Country 2011 rank 2011 score 2010 rank 2010 score 2011 regime type
Norway 1 9.80 1 9.80 Full democracy
Iceland 2 9.65 2 9.65 Full democracy
Denmark 3 9.52 3 9.52 Full democracy
Sweden 4 9.50 4 9.50 Full democracy
New Zealand 5 9.26 5 9.26 Full democracy
Australia 6 9.22 6 9.22 Full democracy
Switzerland 7 9.09 8 9.09 Full democracy
Canada 8 9.08 9 9.08 Full democracy
Finland 9 9.06 7 9.19 Full democracy
Netherlands 10 8.99 10 8.99 Full democracy
Luxembourg 11 8.88 11 8.88 Full democracy
Ireland 12 8.56 12 8.79 Full democracy
Austria 13 8.49 13 8.49 Full democracy
Germany 14 8.34 14 8.38 Full democracy
Malta 15 8.28 15 8.28 Full democracy
Czech Republic 16 8.19 16 8.19 Full democracy
Uruguay 17 8.17 21 8.10 Full democracy
United Kingdom 18 8.16 19 8.16 Full democracy
United States 19 8.11 17 8.18 Full democracy
Costa Rica 20 8.10 25 8.04 Full democracy
Japan 21 8.08 22 8.08 Full democracy
South Korea 22 8.06 20 8.11 Full democracy
Belgium 23 8.05 23 8.05 Full democracy
Mauritius 24 8.04 24 8.04 Full democracy
Spain 25 8.02 18 8.16 Full democracy
Cape Verde 26 7.92 27 7.94 Flawed democracy
Portugal 27 7.81 26 8.02 Flawed democracy
South Africa 28 7.79 30 7.79 Flawed democracy
France 29 7.77 31 7.77 Flawed democracy
Slovenia 30 7.76 32 7.69 Flawed democracy
Italy 31 7.74 29 7.83 Flawed democracy
Greece 32 7.65 28 7.92 Flawed democracy
Botswana 33 7.63 35 7.63 Flawed democracy
Estonia 34 7.61 33 7.68 Flawed democracy
Chile 35 7.54 34 7.67 Flawed democracy
Israel 36 7.53 37 7.48 Flawed democracy
Taiwan 37 7.46 36 7.52 Flawed democracy
Slovakia 38 7.35 38 7.35 Flawed democracy
India 39 7.30 40 7.28 Flawed democracy
Cyprus 40 7.29 39 7.29 Flawed democracy
Lithuania 41 7.24 41 7.24 Flawed democracy
Timor-Leste 42 7.22 42 7.22 Flawed democracy
Trinidad and Tobago 43 7.16 45 7.16 Flawed democracy
Jamaica 44 7.13 44 7.21 Flawed democracy
Poland 45 7.12 48 7.05 Flawed democracy
Brazil =45 7.12 47 7.12 Flawed democracy
Panama 47 7.08 46 7.15 Flawed democracy
Latvia 48 7.05 49 7.05 Flawed democracy
Hungary 49 7.04 43 7.21 Flawed democracy
Mexico 50 6.93 50 6.93 Flawed democracy
Argentina 51 6.84 51 6.84 Flawed democracy
Bulgaria 52 6.78 52 6.84 Flawed democracy
Croatia 53 6.73 53 6.81 Flawed democracy
Suriname 54 6.65 54 6.65 Flawed democracy
Colombia 55 6.63 57 6.55 Flawed democracy
Peru 56 6.59 63 6.40 Flawed democracy
Sri Lanka 57 6.58 55 6.64 Flawed democracy
Thailand 58 6.55 58 6.55 Flawed democracy
Romania 59 6.54 56 6.60 Flawed democracy
Indonesia 60 6.53 60 6.53 Flawed democracy
El Salvador 61 6.47 61 6.47 Flawed democracy
Paraguay 62 6.40 62 6.40 Flawed democracy
Mali 63 6.36 79 6.01 Flawed democracy
Serbia 64 6.33 65 6.33 Flawed democracy
Lesotho =64 6.33 77 6.02 Flawed democracy
Moldova =64 6.33 66 6.33 Flawed democracy
Papua New Guinea 67 6.32 59 6.54 Flawed democracy
Namibia 68 6.24 69 6.23 Flawed democracy
Mongolia 69 6.23 64 6.36 Flawed democracy
Dominican Republic 70 6.20 70 6.20 Flawed democracy
Malaysia 71 6.19 71 6.19 Flawed democracy
Zambia =71 6.19 91 5.68 Flawed democracy
Macedonia 73 6.16 73 6.16 Flawed democracy
Montenegro 74 6.15 68 6.27 Flawed democracy
Philippines 75 6.12 74 6.12 Flawed democracy
Benin 76 6.06 72 6.17 Flawed democracy
Guyana 77 6.05 75 6.05 Flawed democracy
Ghana 78 6.02 78 6.02 Flawed democracy
Ukraine 79 5.94 67 6.30 Hybrid regime
Hong Kong 80 5.92 80 5.92 Hybrid regime
Singapore 81 5.89 82 5.89 Hybrid regime
Guatemala 82 5.88 76 6.05 Hybrid regime
Bangladesh 83 5.86 83 5.87 Hybrid regime
Bolivia 84 5.84 81 5.92 Hybrid regime
Honduras =84 5.84 88 5.76 Hybrid regime
Malawi =84 5.84 85 5.84 Hybrid regime
Albania 87 5.81 84 5.86 Hybrid regime
Turkey 88 5.73 89 5.73 Hybrid regime
Ecuador 89 5.72 87 5.77 Hybrid regime
Tanzania 90 5.64 92 5.64 Hybrid regime
Nicaragua 91 5.56 90 5.73 Hybrid regime
Tunisia 92 5.53 145 2.79 Hybrid regime
Senegal 93 5.51 95 5.27 Hybrid regime
Lebanon 94 5.32 86 5.82 Hybrid regime
Bosnia and Hercegovina 95 5.24 94 5.32 Hybrid regime
Uganda 96 5.13 98 5.05 Hybrid regime
Venezuela 97 5.08 96 5.18 Hybrid regime
Liberia 98 5.07 97 5.07 Hybrid regime
Palestine 99 4.97 93 5.44 Hybrid regime
Mozambique 100 4.90 99 4.90 Hybrid regime
Cambodia 101 4.87 100 4.87 Hybrid regime
Georgia 102 4.74 103 4.59 Hybrid regime
Kenya 103 4.71 101 4.71 Hybrid regime
Bhutan 104 4.57 102 4.68 Hybrid regime
Pakistan 105 4.55 104 4.55 Hybrid regime
Sierra Leone 106 4.51 105 4.51 Hybrid regime
Kyrgyz Republic 107 4.34 106 4.31 Hybrid regime
Nepal 108 4.24 108 4.24 Hybrid regime
Mauritania 109 4.17 115 3.86 Hybrid regime
Niger 110 4.16 128 3.38 Hybrid regime
Armenia 111 4.09 109 4.09 Hybrid regime
Iraq 112 4.03 112 4.00 Hybrid regime
Burundi 113 4.01 110 4.01 Hybrid regime
Haiti 114 4.00 111 4.00 Hybrid regime
Egypt 115 3.95 138 3.07 Authoritarian
Madagascar 116 3.93 113 3.94 Authoritarian
Russia 117 3.92 107 4.26 Authoritarian
Jordan 118 3.89 117 3.74 Authoritarian
Nigeria 119 3.83 123 3.47 Authoritarian
Morocco =119 3.83 116 3.79 Authoritarian
Ethiopia 121 3.79 118 3.68 Authoritarian
Kuwait 122 3.74 114 3.88 Authoritarian
Fiji 123 3.67 119 3.62 Authoritarian
Burkina Faso 124 3.59 120 3.59 Authoritarian
Libya 125 3.55 158 1.94 Authoritarian
Cuba 126 3.52 121 3.52 Authoritarian
Comoros =126 3.52 127 3.41 Authoritarian
Gabon 128 3.48 133 3.29 Authoritarian
Togo 129 3.45 124 3.45 Authoritarian
Algeria 130 3.44 125 3.44 Authoritarian
Cameroon 131 3.41 126 3.41 Authoritarian
Gambia 132 3.38 129 3.38 Authoritarian
Angola 133 3.32 131 3.32 Authoritarian
Oman 134 3.26 143 2.86 Authoritarian
Swaziland =134 3.26 141 2.90 Authoritarian
Rwanda 136 3.25 134 3.25 Authoritarian
Kazakhstan 137 3.24 132 3.30 Authoritarian
Qatar 138 3.18 137 3.09 Authoritarian
Belarus 139 3.16 130 3.34 Authoritarian
Azerbaijan 140 3.15 135 3.15 Authoritarian
China 141 3.14 136 3.14 Authoritarian
Cote d’Ivoire 142 3.08 139 3.02 Authoritarian
Vietnam 143 2.96 140 2.94 Authoritarian
Bahrain 144 2.92 122 3.49 Authoritarian
Congo (Brazzaville) 145 2.89 142 2.89 Authoritarian
Guinea 146 2.79 144 2.79 Authoritarian
Zimbabwe 147 2.68 146 2.64 Authoritarian
Djibouti =147 2.68 154 2.20 Authoritarian
United Arab Emirates 149 2.58 148 2.52 Authoritarian
Yemen 150 2.57 147 2.64 Authoritarian
Tajikistan 151 2.51 149 2.51 Authoritarian
Afghanistan 152 2.48 150 2.48 Authoritarian
Sudan 153 2.38 151 2.42 Authoritarian
Eritrea 154 2.34 152 2.31 Authoritarian
Democratic Republic of Congo 155 2.15 155 2.15 Authoritarian
Laos 156 2.10 156 2.10 Authoritarian
Guinea-Bissau 157 1.99 157 1.99 Authoritarian
Syria =157 1.99 153 2.31 Authoritarian
Iran 159 1.98 159 1.94 Authoritarian
Central African Republic 160 1.82 162 1.82 Authoritarian
Saudi Arabia 161 1.77 161 1.84 Authoritarian
Equatorial Guinea =161 1.77 160 1.84 Authoritarian
Myanmar =161 1.77 163 1.77 Authoritarian
Uzbekistan 164 1.74 164 1.74 Authoritarian
Turkmenistan 165 1.72 165 1.72 Authoritarian
Chad 166 1.62 166 1.52 Authoritarian
North Korea 167 1.08 167 1.08 Authoritarian
Source: Economist Intelligence Unit.