so what we present here today just -- is collaborative effort and not solely our. i'll go over the slides very briefly. first, i would like to sort of

briefly discuss the key dividing line in the elections of sort of religion of the role of religion in the state. then what -- how did religion factor in to support for the islamist party, then we'll sort of discuss how you can sort of operationalize a critical center along the dividing line of religious and secular parties. and lastly, conclude briefly on the presentation. so in egypt and tunisia, these are two places where we have done extensive post-election studies. both of the studies were conducted last year in november. in libya, we have a post-election study at the moment. but numbers aren't yet -- so in tunisia and egypt, you see --

you see sort of in tunisia you see one party that briefly ennahda and in egypt we have three major parties, or two major parties, the newer party. and this is and then on both sides, we have sort of more secularist, smaller-oriented party. in the election just to establish this, you see in egypt, and we're not talking about -- we are talking the seats the proportional of seats in each of the parliament election. you saw that the islamist party has almost 75%. in egypt while they have 45% in tunisia.

so one -- what we sort of -- one of the defining factors for the success of the islamist parties in these two elections. if you look at sort of how the party lines played out in the election. first, the elections were both devoid by southern public policy. it was very little said about what our solution to the key problems of key economic problems, for example, of tunisia and egypt and so social problems and so on. the debate of the main debate in both of these elections were about what role should religion play in the states. what should be the influence of religion and so on. and this is very well shown on the two graphs. so you have to sort -- the

parties placed on horizontal and vertical axis. the horizontal axis is a short of economic policy. the axis that you see to the left is more socialist policies. to the left more capitalist policies. the vertical axis you seat parties placed on a parties that vote -- voters that move the parties that have sort of that have sort of secular -- more secular parties meaning separation of religion and state. and islamist parties that are do not see this separation. and what is sort of very obvious from this depiction of the placement of the party is that the economic dividing line left

-- sliest, right economic policy is collapsed. and the main sort of dividing line in the elections is this question about the role of religion secular versus islamist parties. you see that in tunisia, you see that in egypt, on the voter's positions but you also see it on the party's position. one key difference between the tunisia and egyptian case is that in egypt you see a much more polarized picture. you see the polarization between islamists and non-islamists parties. it's much greater in egypt than in tunisia. there is also sort of, there's information in term of how the two transitional processes have proceeded. if we look at -- [inaudible] to the two surveys to operationalize, so what is the role of religion in the vote for

the islamist parties? is if because that large proportion of the populations have very religious political values, or because they are very sort of devout muslim making them vote for the islamist party. how does religion play to the election results? so we tried to look at sort of regression analysis on both countries where we have, of course, you have sort of a demographic background, age, gender, and so on. we have looked at sort of three ways of conceptualizing. one way of conceptualizing is to extend that people have religious political values. namely to the extend they feel religion should play a part in the stay. another way of operationalizing

religion is do so you have a religion identity. your first identity is that being a muslim, or is that being an egyptian or tunisia. the third way to operationalize religion is sort of behavioral. how often do you go to the mosque and how often do you pray? that's is a lot of tensive able -- extensive analysis. i'll give you the main. what we see in results from tunisia, some people who voted -- who feel that religion should play a role in the state, clearly voted for islamist parties. and also in the case interestingly not in the egyptian case, the sort of religious behavior of being going to the mosque very frequently and so on had an

influence -- was part of the inclination but not in the egyptian case. it's not a significant variable in the jichtion case. in the egyptian case there was two factors that played a role. again, you can feel that religion should play a role in the state, then you tend to vote islamist. both freedom, justice, muslim brotherhood and the salafi party. and similarly, if you -- your first identity you are muslim before egyptian, you also tend to vote for islamist party rather than a -- rather than a non-islamist party. these are the key things. in the egyptian case we have sort of another distics between

the u nuked and -- muslim brotherhood and the freedom justice party and salafi. they tended to be less educate and -- so what does it tell us about the political sensor in egypt and the political source in egypt and in egypt and tunisia? well, if you look at sort of the variables that work across both countries, mainly -- [inaudible] you see that about 30% both in egypt and too -- tunisia. they feel that religion should have an influence on the state. we have 30% of the population in both countries that feel that religion should have influence on the state. in terms of religious identity,

you see that -- you see that there's a much stronger religious identity in egypt than there is in tunisia. around 42% of egyptians, they identity themselves as religiously. first and then second as egyptian. there is only 21% of them identity with religious before tunisia. if you look at worship, you see a -- in tunisia, you see a very big sensor when the people go to the mosque. sometimes and not other times. in egypt you see a more solid -- a much -- a much distribute. and if you combine effect of

having available across both countries. having what you would call religious value, the fact that you voted -- did not vote islamist. then you get a interesting way of looking at the political landscape of the voters in egypt. you see that -- on the one hand say well, either the voter has secular values, meaning religion should stay out of state. and religious political values. or you have voters that voted for islamist parties and non-islamist parties. you get an interesting picture. you see that in -- you see in tunisia, you have only 20% of the population of what we call consistent islamists. feeling islamists -- played a

role in the state. in egypt by comparison you only have sort of a 24% of egyptians feeling the same way. you have both countries a significant proportion of what you could call the political sensor in these countries where it was all about the religious and the state. you see that in egypt, as -- [inaudible] the population that has a mixed value, they have sort of secular political values. but at the same time vote for the islamist party. that's more than half of the voters. and tunisia, you see that around 35 more% have mixed values. you see secular -- [inaudible] you see in tunisia that a much stronger secular.

stronger support for the secular party, and combined with secular value. you also see in egypt a sort of secular -- what does all of this tell us? i think the key here is to look at the election results in both tunisia and egypt with some caution as to predicting the future and the future elections. in egypt, you have 75% of of the islamist party. you have 45% going to have islamist party. in tunisia, but you don't see a sort of similar proportion of the population having what you would call a religious values.

for all the reasons than sort of having the religious and political values. what we saw in both cases were that sort of the islamist parties in egypt both the salafi and the muslim brotherhood was standing on sort of the shoulder of social movements. had a much stronger operation capacity. were able to go to -- [inaudible] and you saw a similar, but less significant trend in the tunisia case. so just to -- this means that basically that it's a large still of voting in countries that can be on the other way. i would conclude in each of the country. thank you. >> thank you.

>> jakob. >> i'll ask ellen to go on and then answer questions. please. >> thank you. thank you guys for inviting me and finding ways to engage in discussion. i want to continue a bit where he left off and does some of the differences across the trajectory we are seeing in libya, egypt, and tunisia. and think about why it is we have in some ways, i think a very experience right. could say, okay. we have different experiences either because of, you know, libya is very small and has young a fair amount of natural resources and wealth. it doesn't face the same problem with egypt. which is larger, you know, states economic greater economic issue, et. cetera. so part of the reason for the differences that we're also witnessing are being related to

size. the population, the distribution of the population and natural resources and wealth. i want to argue that's not the only -- i would say it's not the primary difference why we see, you know, libya having the kinds of struggle it does that constantly to make it feel it's on the brink of a greater conflict. see egypt, and -- [inaudible] things like, you know, the media, the associations, the sort of whether or not they should be basically sort of row call -- recalled or elections should be held or not. in other words very striking defenses in these experiences. and i think that sort of the difference that we see in terms of this, you know, size economic position and et. cetera is really only a part of the story. i think it's bigger and sometimes overlooked part of the story is to understand the type of cleavage, the type of --

taking place. what is at stake and also to understand why that is at stake. and so i have sort of think the world in two main types. one, you can have maybe a universalistic basis. on the basis where the issue is we are all gipses and the question is are we going have a islamist or secular view. what is the nature of sort of society? what the role of the state in society? what is it the vision in almost sort of a you topic sense. what is the vision we are looking at. sometimes those kinds of cob flicts take -- conflict take grand term. that's part of what is taking place in egypt. the other one. the terms are not simply about who gets right. are the lower classes going give more than the upper classes. they actually start to take place and, you know, should we have a green movement or not a green movement.

it's more a totalizing all encompassing vision. that's a very different kind of conflict. what i'm calling particularistic conflict or -- [inaudible] but these are where the groups are relatively defined. right. so you're thinking about someplace like iraq as well as shia and sunny. -- sunni. same thing when we think of class conflict. i want to use class as a bit of an camp. there's a big example between a. we think of it a communist capitalist structuring l. we have a different vision of the world that we are trying to put in place. that's the issue. and when we think about it. what happens in the case where the stakes are what is the look we're going to -- are the stakes

are the islamist or the secularist. is it communist or capitalist? first of all, i'm concerned, if i'm on either side of the debate, i'm concerned that you are actually able to persuade others to the side. all the sudden it's more game. you can convince somebody to be a communist. you can convince somebody to be a islamist. it might be harder or easier in some cases. the idea are is they are not fixed conflict. they can't say i know how many people we have and it's going to stay within the bounds. in general when we think about particularistic con flingt and ones over distribution is that the group or the region or the set of people should get more or less whether we are talking in class, lower class should get more than the upper classes or not. talk about in term of ethnic con conflict or regional distribution. there's a sense of how many people we have in the east versus how many we have the west. we pretty much know how much are

kurdish, versus shy shia. i try to con for instance people they are one or another. identities can change. but in the short term, i think a lot of what i'm going to be talking about should be understand as what is the tensions and challenges that emerge in the first stages of transition. in the short term people don't think they -- sort of struggle. the result, i would argue, where your -- where the struggle is this broad em compassing struggle freedom of speech and association. the kind of freedom that allow me to convince somebody else or allow somebody else to convince otherwise that would be away from me become very problematic.

if you're interested in democracy. that's a problem. those are the same kind of freedom that help to underpin democracy. the various institution, the parliament, the government sincerity. those become problematic if they think the other side is willing. you're willing to undermine them to establish and maintain what you have. the second part is that the stakes tend to be seen as higher. they don't have to be. but they tend to be seen as much more zero-sum, much higher stakes. it's a hotter bath. the second part, of course, where you have these -- as group conflicts that, of course, we have greater threat of succession. we have group conflict emerging in term of armed conflict emerging. inspect some ways i want to point out that the challenges that are there tend to be different. so the challenge, if you're talking about these kind of universalistic struggle is that, you know, i can undermine you and have an interest in

undermining the institutions that are out there. that's why we here actually people who otherwise think of democrats questioning whether or not the military should step in in egypt. that kind of struggle. that kind of tension that way. where as in, you know, we're looking at the goods of the question of conflict. now i want to think about why we'll get there. so i'm laying out a vision two of different type of conflict. i hope resonates with the way you see the, you know, the progress and the trial and -- but the other question is why is it that we get very different conflict. you can say, okay, there's in some places like iraq you can say there's a major ethnic and sectarian -- that helps to explain and somebody look at what happened in syria you say it's the kind of concern you should expect in the future. if i'm looking at egypt and

libya, and tunisia. it's true there's a higher percentage of conflict and more sectarian in egypt. but in general, we're looking at fairly sort of uniform homogeneous countries. that's particularly true at tee kneesha versus libya. it's not simply about what is the makeup. it's a given that exists. rather i think you there to pay attention to what the farther -- parties do. take parties of actors seriously. and think about the way they are investing. what kinds of struggling are take place, and how people are seeing the struggles; therefore, how they are viewing the institutional change. i want to draw your attention to two kinds of parties. these are not the only parties that emerged on the same. but the two main parties emerge out of the social movement; right? the muslim brotherhood is a great example. it emerge from a social movement. it came in place and gathered roots and fairly deep roots

within society during the period. it's able to form a party the transition. that's one type of party. it's the very important type of party. another type of party, i think is rent seeking party. they were often parties that existed under the sort of, you know, mubarak. but they were parties that never really thought they were going to win because they were able to convince the masses that they had the right position; right. they were actually able in a sense, to gain rent from a state in a return and participating as would citizens and or the parties in the political gain. they are very different. those tended not to have developed strong links particularly outside a urban area. they tend not to have developed these sort of strong position and ties with people. most parties when they come in

to the sort of daylight; right of a transitional period have certain challenges they face. so the social movement-based parties, there again sort of the best example is the muslim brotherhood and the fjp and egypt. they can obviously shift their position and some people would argue they have. they take broad based positions on particularly things they didn't have a clear position to begin with. you can get a wide range of muslim brotherhoods positions with regards to the role of the state in the economy. right. it's fairly broad range. but with regards to the position they were sort of, you know, at stake there. the credibility on the ones that were really at the heart of the movement you can't -- [inaudible] in particular not move when you have people who have essentially given up a great deal on the period. that's can be a part of you. it's the poor -- essentially the

poor constituency matters and hold their position to some extend. at the position that didn't -- it wasn't necessarily the median voter position they are in in account of politics. it was a position they in a sense firmly believed in. the rent seeking party have a different issue or sort of the older authoritarian party have a different problem. that, of course, they don't have very strong ties. and they have also not really -- they don't have strong ties and don't respond very quickly and develop constituencies there. but they also don't really never really place their positions either at the point where they thought the median voter was. they aren't necessarily parties that reflect the position. they are communist parties and socialist. but they are not necessarily of building out and thinking about -- [inaudible] again these are more universal and sort of particularist

cleavages. i would argue there's cleavages in part reflecting these kinds of positions they have taken. [inaudible] what we think -- i want go back to the diagram, at the beginning. i think it's very telling. what we realize is we ask on the left-hand side is saying the voters wasn't the own position with regard to the role of religion in the state. what is your own position with regard to the role of the state and the economy. this is a voter's position. right. you see they are actually fairly centered. they're not that widely distributed. with we asked what position then the voters are now recognizing or seeing the party as more extreme position with regards to -- than they themselves hold. and actually, interestingly

enough, slightly holding less varying positions with regard to the state and economy than think themselves would. part of this, you know, that the dialogue, the position that the party did and especially already taken and therefore other parties took a response to them. is partly being driven where the parties themselves -- it's more clear what we look at the egyptian case. and again, you know, here what we're looking at on the left-hand side is the egyptian voters place themselves -- those who support the different parties. right on the scale of one to nine. and then if we look at the right-hand side you are looking at where they place the party themselves. again, this is what we're seeing is that the parties were, many ways, were extreme and polarized than the voters themselves

were. important when we look at with regards to libya we did a slightly different study here. we are in the midst of doing the survey in libya. we'll be able to look at the same way we have in tunisia and egypt. at the moment we were only able to ask the parties themselves where they place themselves. we asked the parties exactly the same thing. what do you think your position is on the state and the economy. what did you think your position is with regards to the position and the state. and we find that while there's a quite a variation in term where they see themselves with regard to the state and the economy. they also see themselves centered with regard to religion and the state. they don't think they vary much on the measures. at love people -- i think, essentially agree with that. i have no idea what i have done. ah-ha. why is this? again. i think part comes out of the authoritarian strategy itself.

.. and therefore it meant that we tried to stay. of course some of the business coming out of historical cleavages, right. and therefore the great example is libya where the very history of libya has sped up regional

tensions, and those are exacerbated by the ways in which gadhafi had favored regions against each other. the way the parties act in a very particular manner. and then, again, the results of this, sort of we then see this very trajectory of these transitions play at. so in libya they looked at what the jensens are and they tend to be -- they are both over the exclusion law and the question of what you do with those who enrich the revolution. also ovaries' the distributions. the major issues, these

questions about the distribution of speech. the constitution committee. coming from these cleavages. so in many ways. the concern that you move into the transition with all of these questions about, you know, whether not it's not just a big way, but also we can't work on that. these tribes, up one reason becomes another. whereas in tony's yet -- tunisia , there is a lower-level of civilization is a important. the way in which the debate in the cleavages tend to become about these really big questions about what was happening in society and whether or not it is playable and what kind of role

would play has really taken over, and want to make it clear it is not simply becomes -- because that comes from rhetoric. it is also because that becomes the response right of those, what we think of as the dialogue and the debate becoming one in which people feel much more in the sense of state. that is why you see journalists arrested because of statements that are seen as anti islamic. he will seek the pressures on the courts, the presidency, the pressures on the parliament. you see essentially pressure's on, like i said, the kinds of liberal institutions and democratic institutions that essentially are the very ones that are the underpinnings of democracy. >> so final word. think it is probably clear by now that i wanted to be clear if this is not actually about the content. it really is about the nature of

that debate. it is about the extent to which it is totalizing. the way in which they feel it. this is really doing much farther than the distribution of resources like we can fight to bar and get them back. and it is linked to -- we are seeing is a sense that this can be linked to economic systems. >> thank you very much. a lot of questions. i keep them for later. thank you. i was just very encouraged by a the thesis of the study that we should really focus on institutions rather than try to characterize the islamists. and this is especially true in libya case. having just returned there and also having spent time there before the elections of last year, i think it is incredibly

important. let me focus on some observations to complement the excellent analysis that was presented focused specifically on the case of libya. i think it is important that what with -- important with libya to really appreciate the weight of the 42 rule of gadhafi on the transition and obviously it is well known that there is no civil society, political participation. this is really effective in the transition. more importantly was the divisive style of politics by gadhafi. and we go to libya today we look at tribes as this organic grass roots movement, but what happened in the latter stages was you detribalized society. he elevated certain towns and provided them with favors. what you're seeing in the post gadhafi transition is a turning of the tables. you're seeing look tells

trying to reassert themselves. it is creating cleavages that were not there before. and much of it has to do with the struggle for resources, whether economic resources or political resources. from my visits had last week there is a real sense. i have been traveling there. there is a real sense among my friends, people less than a repeated -- repeated basis. on the last visit their is a real sense that it will be very difficult to escape from the highly centralized and personalized way of governing the country. the government however well-meaning reverse to what it knows. and that is the sort of backroom patronage style politics. that creates a vicious cycle because then the revolutionaries and the opposition says this is more of the same. all this has taken place in a

very dire security vacuum. let me speak to the political fault line that we see today in libya. again, i think it is absolutely active that we should not try to impose the liberal divide. it is very different then to meet -- tunisia and egypt. the most important fault line in this country i would argue is really almost a chronological one in terms of where we were during the revolution, what extent we accommodate the gadhafi regime, what we were doing under gadhafi, where we were during the revolution, did you join late, were you in an 11th-hour joyner. these are being sliced out by my new degrees. as llamas were saying, if you're not dead your 17th with us we

should be excluded from government. is really about how revolutionary legitimacy defined as proximity to the old regime. the second major fault line was between the center and the periphery. and it's regionalism. much of this to my again, is an artificial concept. when i talked with visitors they often provide or eliminate that they're country is becoming as volume or another iran. i served in iran in 2003 in the existential fighting that we saw in iran, sectarian and ethics, the idea of libya, certainly eastern grievances about political power, about the oil revenue.

the idea of libya still exists. very territorial identity. that said, there are some different power centers emerging. i mean, a key center of power to follow, then city state, the economic powerhouse of the center of the country where the most vicious battle of the war was fought. they're claiming the mantle of victory and it using the fact that we just deserved the financial and political spoils which is creating a tremendous backlash among other libyans. there is a st. there's a saying that he tried to get -- there is a saying that he tried to get all and failed. and in two years they have done it for themselves. this is a previously repressed town that had not tried to

reassert itself. again, the eastern question is very important. libyans talk about federalism. again, we have to say, what they're really mean by this? and much of the sums from the political immaturity. and they talk about federalism, they're really talking about decentralization, municipal government because everything was so centralized under gadhafi. people had to travel from the east to tripoli just to collect social security benefits, renew their trust -- passports. people want to decentralize local governments, but sometimes this gets expressed a might think, as a settlement. therefore this is not great support. let me talk finally about the islamist dimension. one of the saving graces of this country was the idealized the spectrum of the various parties. very narrow. they define themselves as islamists interests don't have a

real start, divide among the parties. in the run-up to the parliamentary election different slogans, some of the islamist parties were trying to convey of very moderate cents buy it filling woman with the jobs the main muslim brotherhood affiliate's would not involve parses -- it is institutional base. newcomers on the political scene. they then have the kind of grassroots support that their counterparts and elsewhere had. many libyans i spoke to said that the muslim brotherhood were really campaigning. this sort of fad these slogans. they talked about social impropriety and did not realize that there was this push for

fixing the technocratic expertise. and they sort of assume that just because they were this system up party people would vote for them. there was an interesting saying. the moslem brotherhood is maybe thought that just because someone shouted the phrase during the revolution does not mean he will vote as llamas that the polls. and that is very telling. some other factors that came into play was there were tainted by the success of outsiders. this played a huge factor with the party. elected to finance a campaign ads. there is a phenomenon from politics. the residue from the gadhafi era. he drove into people said that political parties are hard for foreign powers in the finest time and time again.

that is a cia front. some sort of outside power. that may not be the case. we are seeing is a lot less exerting themselves. the muslim brotherhood has learned from the election. the informal network. the personality of keefe -- figures. this means is a last observation on elections. elections in this country are still very much the level of personality. why did it when? they have this, but it was because of the popularity. unknown quantity, and other

cases the figures, the people who know him. so, again, this idea of actually campaigning and a program or an agenda has not really reached maturity in this country yet. people still vote along locale, trouble, family lines, and based on personalities. i think will leave it at that. the q&a, i can talk about some of the key institutional hurdles that this country faces in terms of the political isolation law and global constitution. >> thank you very much. i also have very important business. so the other line has shown that basically various new data points, a totally secular

society. i think less than 5%, government to be totally effective. none for religion to create. having said that, there is a new sphere which is that these same people who do not want to a broken center of state also do not want the elected officials to worry about -- they want their officials story about the economy, basically, not about, you know, there are -- the other their is a love drinking are not. so i would like you to comment on this. is this a sign of people who were not our highest people.

again, you have a consistent core support for this kind. probably in most of that. around 20-25 percent of people who consistently work with as long as people today. they identify with the ideas and the these movements. but then you have the enlarged sense. is this, you know, is this electoral support of 20% -- i'm sorry, popular support which is translating into a much bigger electoral support. 70 percent of egypt, 45 percent and tunisia. is this a sign of just a lack of organization i'm part of the secular forces? and how likely are we to see that change with time? a lot of people argue that as these governments into the political circle they're

supposed to deliver results of their people as they, you know, do not deliver results, we are going to see a shift to a secular party. that has not happened. while islamist parties have, indeed, lost support, we are not seeing none support being translated into gains for the secular forces. again, a question partly of organization. but it also might mean, i would like you to go around and check and comment on this, but it also might mean that islamist parties in this country don't care whether they perform correctly or not because if they know they're going to win the election anyway, they don't seem to care. egypt is facing of vesco cliff, but nobody seems to be doing much about it.

tunisia is in a better situation but still facing dire economic conditions. and neither in tunisia, they don't seem to be really that worried about the lack of economic performance. i was very struck by the comment about libyans thinking of themselves as libyans. this concept of citizenship in the arab world. and it is true in egypt and tunisia where we are despite the tensions, where not seen the kind of tensions. live and on, even before the uprising. is this a result of not just sites, the revival, but more importantly, 100 years after in which governments, they sort of gave citizenship attention.

for the next hundred years, it leads to not just tension, but the civil surprise. wonder if that three of you could comment on this. difficult subjects. >> yes. i would think. so in terms of the islamists being so sure of staying in power, but they don't care about the economic policies and solutions and so on, i don't think -- i think that they do care about economic policies, and i do think that they care about providing good economic solutions for the country and, again, speaking primarily in egypt. but i think they also acknowledge that it is that also

to do the necessary economic reforms and so on. and it in egypt right now there is a reconciliation between the parties. extended divided. they know that they need to do reform in order to get that and so on. they would wait until the next election until they do something about substitute and so on. so i do think they care about. i think it is accurate that they do have a sort of a core support of 20 to 25%. maybe even -- maybe even a bit

more. i think, especially in the last election, they conducted a very, very good campaign where they were able to reach above and beyond the call. they engaged in social networks and so on. and this can change. business has not improved. but nothing in the present state that is relatively fragmented, the position was a very liberal platform. a very insufficient sort of platform, and with very importantly, the discussion was still along the lines of religion and not along the lines

of the economic. i think that is my to comments. >> with regards to the economy, one thing i . to which i think is interesting. the question that people have. strange about the economy. they vote on religion. so to some extent this gets back to the point of supply and demand. the supply and differentiation of the two parties. and on the one hand the debate was centered around religion and therefore people in the choosing what they're choosing based upon that. and in some ways a lot of people care about the economy, so much so that so many people you ask them whether you support, 80 percent of people from tunisia say it's a good thing.

the same time you ask them what it is in the great deal of them actually think it means society and economic equality and everyone has a basic standard of living. for them democracy is not about rights and elections and governments. it's about -- people are going to have a little bit of sensation there. so in some ways i guess they care about these things when they want to have economic problems, but there is no great debate over how that should happen. the opposition is that we wanted to be doing something. that is the reason why. and the imf in egypt, the fact that it would require a lot of policies that are going to be asian them popular. so in that debate, that discussion has caused some come but not nearly as much. the question, i think, was an interesting one of whether are not we will see the loss of

support for islamists overtime. of course will we see is quite the opposite. we see that islamists, every hour talking, when we did the poll at the end of last year, to c-span, we asked him did you vote for and did you vote for the same party. and since they the next election. what we find is that those who had voted or much more likely to be returned voters then the other parties work. so other parties are losing, but they were not. the two parties that were most able to go. i think there are two reasons for that. you can say, okay, being in government shows that you have not solve the problems. but nothing we should overlook the fact that these are also country's image people of have a very long experience of one to be close to the government because they can do something for them.

in sent to the extent to which some of the same policies that took place under the mubarak regime does still taking place now. with regards to libya as well. but it is not a surprise that people who find in some way there is an attraction to voting for what they see as the ruling party, and there is not a lot of clarity about to the extent of which that right side of it. so i think these are issues that have to be taken into account. the citizenship issue is an interesting one because i am not sure how to read it. i am not sure it is a great example of fragmentation, break down, and at the moment wants to argue sectarianism is trumping syrian is in. although i'm honestly not sure that that is the only way to read that situation. but even there i am not sure that it means that people don't think of themselves as syrians.

our relationships have come in what context we are in. and so i'm not sure that it is stronger in north africa than it is buried at think that speaks poorly for north africa. i'm not sure. >> i just i guess on libya with regard to citizenship we have to look at this sort of post colonial trajectory in this idea of legitimacy contrasted. i mean, before gadhafi the market rule there had a degree of legitimacy of rule. it was not hoisted upon them in the same way that it was in iraq. the idea of the state, i think, still resonates. the shared experience of combating the italian occupation and then is difficult to sort of quantified. talking to libyan, there is this sense of collective

responsibility that stems from the revolution. this was truly a revolution that everybody participated, perhaps for their own motives, but it was sort of the, you know, the would be a revolution. everyone contributed in content. there was not a single established opposition movement that led the charge like the fplm or the northern alliance and this was really diffuse and from the bottom up. you get this sense from people that from the sacrifices should not be in vain and people should vote. you had a relatively high turnout of voting, 60 percent. and that think this really informs this idea of civic responsibility. you really see this in a lot of the protests that we see against the militias that are besieging the ministries, obviously in the wake of the tragic attack on the outpost in benghazi, this idea of civic actions is very strong to me in society. >> okay. let's open it up.

please. >> who will take we threat -- three questions at the time. if you can identify yourself please, where you come from, and as the question. >> the question is this, i understand that the problem is not so much between religious people. it's also inside. for instance, an example, the distraction against the streams elaborated. >> my name -- in one of the charts you posted, the threat in egypt, military intervention verses islamic common nowadays it's a big argument in egypt whether the military should be involved in working and not. can you give any thought to

that? >> let's take another question. >> thank you very much excellence. there is a sense that most of these are not really fitting and accounts. but what happens to that center as political class, they continue to push for polarizing discourses. i mean, what happens as this continues? are realized that in this transition, the way they're moving despite a bed of motion is still taking place in society ..

even though they were concerned about the issues. what -- the, why -- [inaudible] they the muslim brotherhood is because they delivered services; therefore, were about direction in the end. it's not a question of religion. but that religion it could be religion and distribution are actually -- [inaudible] >> okay. thank you very much. it's a great question. i want to basically step back for a second. your first question; rights. the question of what happens over time. it's an interesting one. that's what illustrates this concern about, you know, are people's positions fixed. or do do they actually change over time. i think that's the crux of the issue in the universal socially

transformative debates. i think it's a great illustration of exactly that that part. people -- is there a distance between the most of the political classes sort of own positioning of the diagram. but also their own concerns. are they actually not more concerned about the big debate and the kind of, you know, these, for example, religious dimension than the labor union than others. i'm never saying that everything is universal. but the transformative -- [inaudible] the question is when it comes to the debate, when it comes to the major debate and the way which -- they have been fighting over things like institutions or what they're trying to mobilize supporters for; right. then part of the question is what is the dominant clef advantage. what is the dominant basis.

it's interesting there are all of these -- [inaudible] source of support for parties that come in and come in and say we're a good party. part is about the short term. what happens in the immediate period transition. it's because the opportunities are out there. what happens if the net -- the organization and the capacity which is more developed with some groups or others such that the voting is about that. it's the economic distribution than the ideology. it doesn't attract the

importance which the ideology shake the debate. [inaudible] those can't go together. there's something about a party that has -- [inaudible] they have know issues which the -- [inaudible] with a problematic party, actually -- [inaudible] it's not as antithetical as we

made out to be. >> can i answer the quick question about the military. when i say military venges intervention. it's about wanting the military. it's -- [inaudible] by imagination of the military coming in and playing a role in that consequence. okay -- [inaudible] identifying those. so a center of -- [inaudible] so on. anyone who has been -- that it is a moderate country and moderate people. the issue is that there is a issue. again, also in the --

[inaudible] just is party move to the center and to the center -- [inaudible] and so on the more sort of radicalism to the -- sort of the political development since the election has just polarized the party. [inaudible] then the question is what then happens to this -- [inaudible] so we can identify among the voters. there's sort of a danger that -- [inaudible] that people are between one two of the sides. they don't have the option of going to the center. and being on one of the sides

the ore event -- [inaudible] you saw that -- where the two candidates -- [inaudible] the two candidates that represent each extreme and the more islamist experiment and contribute to the polarization -- [inaudible] it's a roadway phenom -- real phenomena.

now the gates are open. one islamist said to me. it's blinded. it's disorienting to us. there's so much going on. stake out positions. obviously the two a salafi figure looking ahead to the next election and let the muslim brotherhood make a stab at government and we're going run. the slogan is not we're not muslim brotherhood. those who stay away from politics. i think one function of the

politician is act of violence. as people try to insert themselves. i think the salafi attacks are one symptom of this by this projectionist strand of salafis in libya. there's a great deal of dialogue among the different players. all of them trace the genology back to a prison in tripoli. the prison where georgia gadhafi kept the political prisoner. you see many take different branches. in ben again benghazi. they are waiting to see what the institution looks like before they give up their arms and integrate to the police or the state. i've heard there's delegations coming over from egypt from the north party to talk to it's

possible to preserve your purity and yet participate in the election and the state. these discussions, i think are fascinating -- [inaudible] >> thank you so much. my name is layla. [inaudible] regarding the point, professor,

recording when you ask the egyptian what do you want? they look for more economic welfare. then jakob said -- [inaudible] care about economy [inaudible] they wait until -- [inaudible] the egyptian would wait four years. then you see also if you ask the egyptian the elected muslim brotherhood they would reelect muslim brotherhood again. i don't think they can do that again. they have very -- [inaudible] 40% -- [inaudible] among 40% of egyptians are -- [inaudible] you think they're going reelect the muslim brotherhood if they are suffering more? >> next question? >> yes. >> hi. my name is -- [inaudible]

middle east policy. actually -- [inaudible] [inaudible] on june 30th. and actually, i wonder why -- the near presentation talking about delining so fast. thank you. so one -- just to go in i think

we should -- we should be careful of sort of overestimating -- we use -- we have sort of consistency both in the period -- [inaudible] this would be the opinion of supreme council of armed forces and also similar trends on public opinion. this is the muslim brotherhood a certain discourse of critique and disaffection with the party while you see in the rural areas and so on. you see a more consistent support. egypt facing problems and it needs to be solved to continue to be successful. but one should be careful sort of taking some of the main

intellectual discourse. and seeing that affecting the public opinion of egypt. in terms of -- if a contradictory to say that the brothers will win again and so on. in the short term, i think they are -- especially in term of subsidizes and deficit in egypt and the -- [inaudible] and so on and so forth. problems that any government has to address in a -- a period but in the short term it wasn't because there's no lower house of parliament. i think they are playing a waiting game right now to get

the elections now scheduled to october. and i think before the october elections, i think they are trying to wait it out and win the elections and then possibly enact reforms after the elections. which will be very unpopular. >> the last statement, i think, is the critical issue. the fact that the long-term sort approved in the economy would be a popular thing to do. in turning it around. the short term almost no way to do it without having a lot of constituencies become very much hurt. and the question is okay, how do you you know what do you do? i think the answer for many is nothing. nothing but with the modification of then use some of the sort of techniques that have been used before. with regard to the society, what is interesting; right.

in some ways, both the civil society and also the petition -- demonstration in the egyptian case in what i'm talking about, right. it's the interest of people you think you elect a president, you let a president carry out a temple. a lot of people are signing a petition fundamentally believe in institutions. it's the same time and, you know, in democratic elections and allowing, you know, them to sort of return to democratically. but it seems like state -- stakeses are too high. and the problems are too much. in the cso, at least the week and a half or so the draft in egypt is being heavily criticized. it's considered by many to be worse than what they had under mubarak. it's the same kinds of questions of both sides essentially trying to play and make sure that the other side can't get a fair hearing. you know, it's a little bit

difficult to compare with place like lib jay. they are absent. but that's a different issue. >> just to add in the libyan context. i think civil society has, you know, really stepped in to a certain degree to fill the vacuum of the official state. but up to a point, and again, i think we have to be careful about how we define civil society, especially when we go there attempting to help. i mean, the civil society representatives that are in the hotel lobbies in tripoli are very slice -- civil society in or informal actor and much is still very traditional form of authority, tribes, armed groups

that continue to provide funding, a sense of identity, medical care for a number of these armed fighters in a sense of political identity. that is in fact civil society. they have legitimate it's a very complex situation. but again, i think this idea of people power has been very effective. i was in tripoli and i witnessed the march of protesters moving to confront these armed groups that in front of the ministry and it was broken precisely bolt of the mobilization of people power. i want comment on two questions. one had to do with popular support -- [inaudible]

so you a lot of support. which is different in parliament. on the other hand, of the people who said no, two-thirds of them could not name a person. you know, they would elect in place of president morsi. that, by itself, and all the traditional -- the opposition figures that -- [inaudible] in the presidential campaign have -- 1%. [inaudible] 2%. 3%. [inaudible] you still have, of course, a situation which is, by the way, not unique to that --

[inaudible] took time to organize. to the question of democracy and what does democracy mean, you know, it's true that it's also true that they have corruption very highly. they need to address corruption very highly.

[inaudible] which they care about. would the development of a system of checks and balances, which necessarily means political reform and democracy. if they understand that political reform is the only way that crurption or equity can be addressed in an institution. [inaudible] do we have a lot third final one? please. [inaudible] >> i'm from egypt. the definition of democracy or

definition of civil society or -- [inaudible] institution of reform. my observation is that last year and this year we are asking the same question and trying to understand the same people in the same way. is this something reasonable? is this the nature of the town or the decision makers or the professors? it may take time. but in -- people are not using the communication. it's not a matter of taking --

[inaudible] in order to understand democracy. because i see that this there is a -- [inaudible] standards of democracy or civil society or -- [inaudible] or transparency even the title of this today discussion which is institutional reform. thank you. this is for all the people. [inaudible] >> steve winters, local researcher. i hope i have my facts right. it seems that president morsi met with putin. idea that he might join the group. received any reaction from the pop lis in egypt and economic implications.

one final question. okay. jakob? >> in terms of the democracy and institutions, i think one of the key issues in the process in egypt has been sort of exactly the development in term of the institutional development i think it was a big mistake or for the -- the parliament was -- [inaudible] that has brought a number of discussions that have taken place in a institutional framework on to the streets. so i think it is a key focus instead of focusing on the little. access and so on focus on the processes and the institutions that are going to deliver

democratic outcomes. enthis may also be one of the differences between tunisia and egypt is that in tunisia you had a constituent assembly you had a debate on the institution. you elected a parliament that has not been -- [inaudible] and so on. and while in egypt you were the liberal secular parties did not participate actually didn't have a parliament and so on. so i do think that in term of promoting democracyization or so on. they played a major role in sort of the different trajectory that . >> with regard to your most direct question. if professors like to ask the

same questions over and over again. i guess we do it until we think we have an answer. i think frankly we're far from understanding democratickization. my approach and take is to think it's actually useful to think about institutional reform and packaging of it . when do we get it. what ones don't go under -- what the pressures and challenges and how do those differ. i think it's important to realize that part behalf i'm saying today is obviously about what is taking place in egypt and libya, and tunisia. a bigger part to say if we were to see a change in, you know, yemen a bit more than we have seen so far. or jordon or elsewhere. what kind of questions would we want to ask? my argument is the first thing we want to understand is what are the actors and what is their

position of grassroots do they have. when they enter to the new debate. in a place like libya you didn't have -- you had an open it's capital punishment not only if you were in one. that is a very different institutional environment. but also create very different expectations wheant kinds of cleavages come to the floor. what kinds of implications it has for whether or not there's a lot of struggle over things like the media and association and speech and whether or not they are not the main focus of conflict but other things are. hopefully we get a bit farther. we ask the same questions over and over. i think in the case of libya it's appropriate to define it in term of the institutional terms.

because they see it to the success of the experiment. they did have elections. but everyone know it's not enough. they are looking at the gn c right now that cannot get anything done. the gnc is incapable of forming committees. they lack basic capacity in term of taking minutes. the government, you know, isn't working because there isn't this larger institutional framework. you have well meaning individuals thrust to the position that are completely new. and people are demanding institutions and demanding, you know, processes. and people, i think, are really defining democracy in term of the constitution. they are holding out to this. we talked a lot here about, you know, libya's lack of experience in this area, but libyans themselves remember they had a constitution in 1951. and people are revisiting that and drawing the lessons from that. i think that's very couraging sign.

-- encouraging sign. i have one comment on the question of democratickization, which is that woe had no democracy for a long time. one key issue, i think, that we will need to press again and again it's being asked in several parts. is the issue of the right to be different. i think that's a principle pillar of democracy. that has not yet totally embed in the airplane country. if they -- if they agree to, you know, -- [inaudible] being ethnically or religiously or culturally different. you do get the majority actually in many countries. not overwhelming one.

it's enough to have 55% say i believe in women's right. or i can live next to a christian. unless this fundamental right to be different is not just agreed to but in fact celebrate as a sign of strength, you know. diversity will continue to suffer in the middle east. i think that's something that is going take a very long time. it's going to involve a change in education and systems. it's not something that just because you have evolution. we are seeing -- it's still a battle again all right in the arab world. the islamists are trying to dominate the secular parties are also -- [inaudible] sometimes willing to go through undemocratic means to dpom nate as well. in egypt government behavior. if the elections mean everything, and the secular opposition behavior as if the

elections mean nothing. but that fundamental right to be different and accept that difference is still something that needs a lot of work. >> with that, thank you very much. i truly appreciate your coming. please join me in thanking the panelists for an excellent presentation. [applause] we are featuring booktv on c-span2. addressing partisanship. at 8:00 p.m. eastern after words interview with former senator limp olympia snowe. at 9:00 p.m. a panel on american politics featuring former republican national committee chairman michael steele, and former congressman micky edwards. at 10:00 p.m. david talks about two presidents are better than one. the case for a bipartisan

executive branch. that's all tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. most people will see the health insurance premium go up as a result of president's health care law. first some of their remarks. there already different impacts ending -- depending on you are. averages won't tell the story. the young and the healthy will see big increase. the number for only 197.

very close. these are sharp premium increases. for others they'll actually get relative decreases as a result of the regulatory framework. some people are going get quite a bit of impact. that is important and raises a couple of wild cards i think deserves some further work. we did a seconder is survey, which we put out more recently, last week, that surveyed young americans 18-40-year-olds that have insurance. we actually took the time to find out their monthly premium, and as a result be able to turn to dollars. what happens if the premiums go up 10%, 20%, or 30%? which based on all the work that is done including today are not crazy possibilities under the

aca, and the answers are quite striking. in a group that basically looks at the law and says i like some but don't like parts. it's not an active political or partisan calculation. it's a consumer prizing decision. they look at what happened. they say we're done. and if you look 10% it goes from 100% of the people have coverage. we start with it down to 83%. we lose them. if you raise the payment 20% if t drops to 65% retain the coverage. if you raise it 30% it's down 55%. those are striking results about the price response of this about the young folks who are important parts of the pools that are going to be on a stays-based exchange. that leads me, the final point, which is this is going to depend a lot on money. all right. the way you solve the problem is

easy. you throw money at it. either by having subsidizes in this raises the important of subsidizes jim talked about. you have subsidizes for the young people. the net of subsidizes premium doesn't go up 10, 20, or 30%. they gate smaller increase and they continue to purchase. they stay in the pool. that's one way to solve the problem. or if they choose to exit and left with much more expensive pool, the reinsurance provision of the aca and other ways of subsidizing is surely costly. it will become important. how it plays out, i don't know the answer to it. i think merits a lot more consideration. because it's at the heart of having this be an effective functioning expansion in insurance for americans. you might make a case subsidizes available and so people who have been self-assuring the risk have

an adverse -- break away. now they have subsidies making coverage available. will they respond? won't they respond. will they understand how it works in the extremely complicated bill? that is a question. politics, again is weighing in on this one. i think they could say this. we have taken efforts at voter suppression and moved them to effort enrollment suppression. we have not funded information of getting information out to know maybe subsidize eligible. you have a new shot at affordable coverage. secondly, we have seen with the secretary health and human services reduced, you know, shaking the -- wouldn't sign up

to try and raise privately money to assist the non-profit. been accused of something as dastardly like the iran-type violation of the administration. what is this about? this is really about trying to, first of all, discourage the contributor universe, and discourage in the administration effort to raise privately what they couldn't get funded publicly. to the end that we don't really want people to know about these exchanges because we don't want them. on the one hand, that has been an unfortunate aspect of what we're seeing relative to potential to get as many lives in the pool as possible. you need them in order to keep the premium down. that obviously would be my ding on one side.

my ding on the other side, you know, i think the democrats have to be real. there will be consequences when you expand coverage and you guarantee access and you narrow premium surcharging. of course there's going to be consequences. you might say, well, at least you get more for it. you get assurance and governor and -- and you get better coverage. that's true. a smaller facet, one that jim rates a 4% or maybe 5% relate to no improvement in the policy at all. it's insurance, fees, and taxes newly created under the bill. this happened in the senate, by the way. [laughter] you can't -- the insures are faced with new fees. they can't dededuct them. i think there were some on capitol hill who thought we were going show them they can't

deduct the new cases. the very people that are paying the premium, that cost is passed on, priced out in the cost of coverage. so that is premium driver that doesn't contribute anything in enhanced coverage for the policy holder. so jim ends by saying winners and losers, we see how that turns on -- who, where, how would, how much. who you are, have they had health conditions, gender, where do you live, some states that made the shift already, not that much impact, how would. obviously if you're younger, you lose the rating band limit taxing. if you are older, you win under the rating band limitation. and finally, how much coverage you buy also will vary substantially in term whether there's a rating impact of a premium or not. but finally, i don't think of it as winners and losers.

i don't think we had acceptable health insurance system. one that basically put the dead level best to either keep you out of coverage if you needed the coverage, and did nothing to respond to those who couldn't afford coverage at all. that was a system where, in a way, we were all losers. we have made the middle difficult transition under a complicated redo. i think we're going end up with a stronger health insurance system as a result. you can see all of the discussion on president's health care law tonight. on our companion networking c-span at 10: 15 eastern. a conversation from washington journal about research on microbe. on in the last hour we take a look at recent magazine

articles. this week is the recent edition of smithsonian magazine. here is the coverage. the feature is here. inside the magazine is a piece by richard joining us from new haven, connecticut. the piece here. what are microbes? >> guest: they are the bacteria, the fun guy, the viruses, that live in everything. in particular, they live all around our bodies and in our bodies, and we have never really known before what they do or how they effect us. except in one way, they know they can cause disease. we tend to think of them as the enemy. that's changed.. >> host: how many do humans have? what kind of information do they hold? ? >> guest: people started to research the human microbes over the last ten years.

it's start 8 -- startling. it change our idea behalf means to be human. in our bodies we have about 10 trillion cells that cert fit belie human cells. we have 100 trillion microbial cells. we have 21 genes that are human genes that determine our behavior. but we have 8 million microbe genes. they all have functions. they do things to us. they help us i digest food, they tweak the immune system. they affect us in all kinds of way. >> host: you call it big science in your article. why is that? >> guest: well, so what happened in the late 1990s was that researchers develop this dna sequencing technology that enabled them to identify every microbe in the human body for the first time. before that, they were only able to identify the ones that happened to be happy in a petri dish that could survive in a

culture. suddenly they could look at them all. you're looking at thousands of species in the body, all at the same time, all of them with multiple genes, and try to make sense of that. and trying to make sense of how they interact with each other. so the data that comes out of this is just overwhelming. it overwhelms supercomputers. it's hard to deal with. each individual is also different. >> host: who is. com research. what groups? >> guest: so the thing that has made the microbe a hot topic at the moment is that about five years ago the national institute of health began something called the human microbe project. it was an effort, a collaboration with about 80 universities and other institutions around the country about 400 scientists, and budget of $17 3 million. and the idea was to study, first of all, 300 volunteers, healthy

volunteers, to look at different part of the body. they look at five basic areas. the nose, the skin, the gut, and i missed one -- the skin, i say, yeah. anyway it was the five areas. they created a baseline of sort of what is normal in humans. and at the same time, they also looked at the connections to human health and disease. >> so you write, also, it goes beyond university and government studying this. venture capitalists getting involved. serial companies. why? >> guest: the idea of the research and what the government was hoping to do is what the nih was hoping to do. bring the role of a microbe

biom. they would take this a step further to the point of commercialization and to application in every day human medicine. >> host: what are they trying to achieve? >> guest: once you understand what the microbes do, you can tweak them in all kinds of ways, and get them to opt to the perform you want them to coor prevent others thing you don't want them to do. even if you can just understand what they are -- you can use them in diagnoses. a standard problem, now is that a mom will take her kid to the doctor with a skin rash. the doctor will prescribe an antibiotic. the doctor basically has to guess which antibiotic is going work. it may take two or three different antiby yacht toik get to the right one. meanwhile the kid is offering --

suffering and annoyed and often a lack of compliance. if you can identify exactly what microbe are causing the problem from the start. then the doctor can give the right antibiotic at the right time and get the results more quickly. >> host: and matt smith tweets. interesting fact. the majority of your cells in your body are nonhuman. but other microbe species. >> guest: yeah, that's definitely true. there are about 10,000 microbe species in the human body. they are weirdly distributed. i think there are about 140 different species that live behind the ear. why? i don't know. 444 live inside the elbow. the majority live in the human gut and there for digestion purposes and there to tweak the immune system. all together, they weigh about as much -- that is our microbes all together weigh about as much

as the human brain, about three pounds. >> you say in the article it's going turn around 150 years of medical thinking. why is that? >> guest: well, the germ theory dominated medical thinking since about the 18 80s. that's the idea of path agains makes sick and therefore all microbe are the enemy. that we need to antibacterial we use antibiotic liberally. and given us the idea of ideal antiseptic world. and now we realize that that's a mistake. it's not just -- that microbes are the enemy. they are our essential allies. we have to learn how to live in balance and control the ones that are threats but also encouraging and not destroy the ones that really help us to function. >> host: what is destroying the one that help us? that is function?

what is the role of antibiotic? >> guest: well, it's not just antibiotic. it's all of the bacteria, the antibacterial things putting on the hand lotion every time we walk down the hallway to kill microbes. but one of the most interesting thing out of all of this is an understanding of the destructive role of antibiotic. we have seen antibiotic as our al elevation for the last sixty years since they were introduced in world war ii. and we can understand why we think that way. they save our lives from incredibly destructive diseases. i remember when i was a kid, that everyone mom worried about blood poisoning. people don't think about blood poisoning anymore. it's like it never happened. but the problem is that we have become so dependent on antibiotic. we tend to think of them as a remedy for everything that we use them all the time. and the effect is cumulatively

destructive. the average kid in developing country gets ten to twenty courses of antibiotic by the time they reach 18. and, you know, so we used to think that -- we knew that, you know, that you went to the doctor and asked for an antibiotic because your kid was sick. knew that might be bad for society over the long-term. it would encourage antibiotic resistance. you wanted to have your kid feel good now. we wanted to get the antiboot yachtic. what we didn't realize is we might be harming the kid now. because what happens with the antibiotic is they destroy the body's normal microbe life, and, you know, the microbes don't just bounce back. they actually struggle to come back. when you get those ten or twenty doses over the course of a

childhood, you may seriously impair the microbe . >> according to your article, the most recent research on microbes found that infants exposed to antibiotic in the first six months are 22% more likely to be overweight as toddler. and it deserves central nervous systems in rodent may do the same for children. and starving children lack the right to fix malnutrition. >> guest: yes. that was a study that was done in africa and published this year. it was done in ma low wee. they looked at twins. they lived in the same house hold and raised on exactly the same diet. one kid had a disease, which is a severe form of malnutrition.

the other twin didn't. they fed them the both restorative diet that you give kids that are starving. the kid who didn't have the disease did fine. the other kid didn't. he would do fine for a little while. then go back to being malnourished. what they found was that if you that manipulate the microbes if you give them the right microbe they have a better chance of recovering from malnutrition. >> host: we are talking about microbe research with richard. his piece in the smith smithsonian magazine. charlotte in san diego, california democratic caller. you are up first. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. go ahead. >> caller: i was curious as to how does the body pick up its microbes, and if, you know, we are to -- [inaudible] , you know, by our dna do we carry dna to make the microbes? thank you. >> guest: charlotte, we pick

them up from the world around us. right from the start. one of the most interesting studies has to do with caesar began birth. 30% in the kids are born by c section. they found that kids born that way have a different microbes in the early stages of life. they have a microbe that is dominated by skin bacteria. kids born advantagely, they pick up from the mom's birth canal. and turn out to be healthier as a result because those -- that rich microbe early on in life is essential to a lot of things including the development of the immune system. possibly the development of the brain. the tendency for those kids born by c-section have more allergy and possibly other medical conditions. >> host: lack of certain microbes, germs, he puts puts in paren is -- auto immune diseaseo

they didn't say x causes y. it's difficult to say a lack of a group of them causes a condition. they found lots of correlation, lot of cases where children lacking certain microbes or children through certain things had a higher incidents of things like allergies and auto immunity, obesity, celiac disease, all of those kinds of problems that have become epidemic in society over the last twenty or thirty years. >> host: robert in tennessee. republican caller. you're up next. >> caller: i'm a retired system. university system of georgia. i'm overwhelmed by what i'm hearing this morning microbes and millions or trillions of them. and now, as a young man, i

thought that all reality came about by chance. this is a deeper level of reality than i have ever thought of before. i'm becoming more and more to the conclusion there's a great designer of all of this out there, and i lost my atheism way back there. it is a help to hear the complication on the human body. the microbe i can't grasp. it. i'm grateful for what you're saying. >> host: taunt the -- talk about the complexity of it. >> guest: the complexity of it. let me tell you how i got in to it in the first place. i general write about wildlife and behavior. i was writing a book about the discovery of species in the great age of discovery in the 19th century. i was writing about birds, butterflies, monkeys and that sort of thing. i was hearing about microbe at the same time. i was describing a world of

astonishing discovery, and yet i was completely ignoring this other microbe world. this invisible world. but there was a period of discovery that has been starting in the last ten years. i'm sure it will go on for quite awhile. that is as astonishing as discovering new world in the 19th century. it's -- it's finding the new world inside of us it changes our idea of who we are. >> host: richard has a blog. strangebehavior.com. for those interested in what he's i writing. you can follow him on twitter. we'll go to pa tricia in new york. help me with the name of your town. >> caller: ticonderoga.

>> host: okay. go ahead. >> caller: hi, richard. i wanted to comment on the previous caller. it's comforting to understand there's complexity that we have a lot of questions about as human beings. i am not an advocate of taking antibiotic, inappropriately. i have never taken many of them over my life. a few here and there. this morning there was a report on the news about relief of lower back pain of long standing through the youth of 100-day course of antibiotic. i do not know what antibiotics were being used. i do think that the 100 days is an interesting figure. i think it kind of reflects the complexity of the kind of engineering or tinker or whatever you want to call it that we have to do with the

microbe. i wondered if you would comment on that. >> guest: well, i haven't seen that study. i can't really comment on it. i think what is promising about research in the microbes is the idea that you won't necessarily need to go to antibiotics in the future. they will understand how to encourage beneficial bacteria and bring about a balance between the good and a bad bacteria, and the good bacteria will often be able to control and minimize the effective of the bad one. that's going to be a much more successful and less destructive way of handling a lot of medical conditions. the example that comes to mind is. this is a gut microbe. and when you give a person it

can wipe out the normal microbe life of the gut. the one destructive microbe starts to take over. and causes really severe, unpleasant conditions. chronic diarrhea, and, you know, they try to treat it with other antibiotic. that often makes it worse. and there is a -- treatment for it now that sounds disgusting and yet it seems to work. that is fee vehicle -- fecal transplant. they tick it from a relative and inject to the person's colon and try to introduce a more balanced microbe community to keep it in check. that seems to work where the antibiotic no longer do. >> host: still an individual treat in this. i read autism may be good gut

flora in mom. and unable to recover from inoculation assault. >> guest: yeah. i don't think anybody knows that. mom shouldn't feel guilty about taking antibiotic. i think we have to wait a long time before people get conclusive result about what role microbe may play in autism. it's too soon. >> host: it brings up a point you made in the article. promising too much too soon. >> guest: yeah. there's a researcher at university of california davis who issued an overselling the microbe award. so people are so excited about these discoveries and so excited about the incredible inimplications that they are promising all kinds of things. they are promising that, you know, microbes can prevent stroke or cure autism or do any number of things. ..

people have taken probiotics pretty much forever and they are generally harmless. but people also tend to think back, you know, because the micro-biomet is good and you want to have a rich, diverse microbial community, they taking probiotics is the answer to

everything. they take massive doses of probiotics and they are not carefully regulated by the government. so what you're getting or what effect it's going to have. the idea is one of the scientists i talked to put a something as a cure-all for everything probably means that they care for nothing. so putting too much confidence in probiotics could be dangerous. as people do get to understand how microbes were and do develop beneficial microbes that are precisely targeted to specific conditions at some point in the future will have probiotics you can apply to very specific medical conditions and make a real difference. but were not there yet. poster we are talking to richard conniff, contributor to "smithsonian magazine" about microbes. mr. tranter writes about nature, has a blog. he has written books as well.

the most recent book is the pc speaker, do not pursuit of life on earth as well as david with her opposite reading time, another recent but bypassed. as a medical person i am outraged and refuse to do a throat culture before giving out in a bad acts. democratic collar, you're up next. >> caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. richard, my question is this. over the years we've seen a large rising corporate farming and then received a work granik movement or they are filled with microbes and filled with lace quite frankly. so my question is, is this going

to lead to a more sustainable life for us we sustainable farming? >> guest: that's talk about the corporate side of farming. these large concentrated operations are one of the areas are antibiotics have been used most heavily and indiscriminately so we know not that 80% of the antibiotics got not to medical purposes, not even medical purposes, but to shoot animals and to promote growth, but more particularly to enable animals to stay healthy and crowded conditions and the result is that as we have much cheaper meat than we would otherwise. on the other hand, the result is we have antibiotic resistant pack area on all the meat we buy in the supermarket. so in addition to medical

overuse, i think we are coming to recognize this or cultural overuse of antibiotics is extremely distract it and i will change pretty quickly. consumers are react so strongly against me that is tainted with antibiotic resistant bacteria. >> host: what about the microbes we get from other people? forget from what we? >> guest: well, it depends on how you cook your food, but there's antibiotic resistant salmon à la in bacteria on basically all supermarket meat you get from standard in estoril production method and we have to cook it thoroughly seminole feel the consequences of that. even handling not neat around the kitchen means we are picking

up there's antibiotic resistant bacteria and bacteria do this weird thing instead of passing on the capacity to there are spring the way we do, they can swap from side to side with the microbes around them and they can slap antibiotic resistance within our bodies and the consequences of that are frightening to think about. one of the reasons it such a problem is you have bacteria to resist treatment with antibiotics. we just can't deal with them. you have e. coli in a standard tract infection which is often untreatable or difficult to treat because the multiple antibiotic resistance. ablate e. coli infections kill 800,000 people worldwide. we have in antibiotic resistance crisis in this country at the

number is 63,000 people a year die as a result of antibiotic resistant infections in this country. so those are pretty big consequences from those kinds of giddiness we've had about antibiotics over the last 60 years. >> host: richard conniff, "the body eclectic." sammy, republican caller, go ahead. >> caller: hi, just calling. i have a 21 -month-old daughter. is there a testing that can be done on this? >> guest: i don't think they're doing much testing for individual patients at this point, but the one thing people said to me repeatedly as i was doing this research is let your kid play in the dirt. letcher kba kid. open the windows, go outside. don't try to lock a kid up in

this sanitized world because the consequences for their child's health could be more serious than you imagine. >> host: so to an hour, ohio. republican caller. >> caller: good morning. i think the subject you're going a lot with very important. but i had a question regarding the microbes inside the body and the way the cells decay. i was wondering if the cells regenerating feed off of that in any way? the main question is this, and the blood, the way blood cells destroy -- i can't think of the word. >> host: you are doing fine. >> guest: >> caller: they destroy the bad cells. is there any way they feed off of that and regenerate themselves in now way, you know,

like our body does. also hang on the line. i will have richard conniff respond. >> guest: it seems to me you are asked teen whether the back area are feeding off each other all the time within the body and whether that helps control the bad back area. honestly, i just don't know that. but not very straight to control bacteria like when they do these transplants, they are introducing bacteria to occupy this basis, niches within the body not because they think is that going to go and eat the cbs but i'm not the right person to answer that question. postcode to do pre-penicillin compound at the same negative effects on good microbes? >> guest: you know, i don't know that. the first salsa drugs came in 1935, said they were the only

thing and i don't know if they produce the same amount of resistance, but it's penicillin came in you see antibiotic because of and it's been heavily is it save tens of thousands of soldiers lives from d-day on because antibiotics prevented these horrible infections from what, so people didn't get gangrene. they didn't have their limbs amputated. they didn't die. so you can understand why people were giddy about that and thought it was a great thing to use antibiotics everywhere. to sort of control microbes, to control these enemies, but in fact we realize that microbes

are not the enemy. they are also allies. >> host: marine, democratic caller. >> caller: i was caught because of my daughter was 10, her appendix burst. she was treated with triple antibiotics and then discharged, but returned about 10 days later because of ac disinfection. i have often wondered, because it took her a long time to recover her strength is there any kind of long-term effects? >> guest: i can't help you with that. and it's incredibly debilitating when it happens and it sometimes fatal, but i don't know how it affects people after that over the long-term.

>> host: brother randy says what percentage of bacteria can be cultured what location does this have? >> guest: it was a small percentage decker survived in a petri dish and be studied. when they started to do a dna sequence in all the rest of the things going on in our body, it opened a pretty big new world and we're just finding out what the effects are in our bodies. >> host: we have about 10 minutes left here. what is next in this research? what will we hear about it? >> guest: first of all, the nih has completed the program. they spent $170 million on a five-year pilot program at the idea of bringing the microbiota to the attention of the general public of the pharmaceutical industry and they did bring that

to everybody's attention say research has now taken off and the nih is going to continue with a $15 million program over the next three years and they will be looking at some of the functions of the microbiota him a specific do and you'll start to see that filtering on a tour every day lives. you'll see it in doctor's offices. we have drug companies now researching microbial treatments for diabetes come up diabetes, those will comment by up to 10 years now. you also have an addition to that $15 million now spending on the face of the human microbiota product, you have other parts of

the national institutes of health that it began to ramp up research on the microbiota and they spent $180 million a year. so that is going to bear fruit and show up in all kinds of ways. i think the first thing we will see if people move away from antibiotics because they understand how destructive they are the more cautious about that. it's hard to predict. >> host: toothpaste companies are doing research on this. why is that? >> guest: there are 700 or so, maybe a thousand different microbes. it's establishing a balance within and also the ones that caused cavities are outcompeted by the ones that are beneficial and toothpaste companies are looking to see if they can take advantage of that to make their product more effective.

>> host: a venture capitalists getting in the game. do not much money is being put into this on the private side? >> guest: i don't know the number. i did talk to one particular company out of california that is looking to put a product of the market for ulcerative colitis and they hope to get in on the market or the clinical testing within the next three to five years. they have a $10 million budget and there are three or four other companies also working, startups working on the microbiota. i suspect there's a lot more going on but i just didn't run across in my research. >> host: kevin, keep her spirit, maryland, republican caller. you're on the air with richard conniff, go ahead. >> caller: i'm a little concerned with this because nih is already going to want to make products. is there anything to protect the

universal i.t. out there for this? >> guest: with the nih said not to do with this template for how to do this work said they wanted to create protocols for how you analyze the data, computer programs big enough to handle all that data. but if you are asking people will start patenting microbes in trying to privatize them, i don't think that is the nih valley lake. that is a question for the court and i don't know what's going to happen at that. >> host: bakersfield california. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask if he is aware of all maha. they are radiates all of their

meat so they do not have that problem of e. coli ever getting to the customer. >> guest: i don't own a particular company, but the companies that raised their food animals by more old-fashioned means, without relying on antibiotics get away from this problem pretty easily. it is not inevitable that we have the contaminated with antibiotic resistant back area. it just seems that way because that subindustry chooses to do it at the. >> host: mark, democratic caller. >> caller: in your webpage that is d.c. and new any species that might rhodes mutating species are we losing any species of microbes? we are losing within our own

bodies. one of the things that is most alarming is the microbiota hypothesis and that is the area that in developed countries that have been using antibiotics heavily, the overall diversity of microbes in that god has steadily gone down over the past 60 years and that this may be having lots of negative consequences in terms of allergies and digestive disorders and other things we were discussing earlier. so yeah, there's a kind of possible ecological crisis within our own bodies. that's a real source of concern. >> host: asbestos can our guest comment on recent experience i can stomach bacteria to mood and motivation? >> guest: yeah, a lot of studies suggest that certain gut bacteria can effect to mood. a study of rats suggested that

rats that don't have a rich, diverse microbiota in the early stages of life can have an alteration of serotonin levels in the brain and not alteration may be permanent for life. and so, that is scary stuff and needs to be studied. but we can do about it now, how we can change our lives is not known. it still needs to be researched. >> host: dawn indo pak sukkot, independent collar. >> caller: good morning. thank you very much. which deals with our digestive system and how it works. are you familiar with that particular work? and the second question i have is there's been a recent study done on children who have

pacifiers and the way the mothers deal with those pacifiers, when they drop to the ground whether they pick them up and give them to the child or whether they put them in their mouths and then gets into the child and introduced that bacteria in their children. are you familiar with that study? >> guest: yeah, that was in "the new york times" the other day. this is a classic case of split personalities about microbes. the normal impulse is to take that pacifier and put it under hot water immediately and cleaning up and yeah, it may be healthier to put it in the mouth rinse it off and give it back to the baby. this idea of the mom and child exchanging microbes earlier on in this be an important thing for the child to develop microbial diversity. when i was visiting the scientists, research in the story, all of them a talk about how important it was to have a rich and diverse microbiota and

in the hallways outside their offices, they would all have those peer all dispensers for antiseptic washing hands. so we have to split personality that we have to sort it had passed and have to learn to think of microbes is a much more subtle and state in the way we thought about them in the past. >> host: sheila, independent collar, you are up next for richard conniff. >> caller: hello, richard. my question is about probiotics. my doctor is good with me. he lets me get away with getting off of them at anytime because they get all the side effects. so i put myself in a knows about on this probiotics that introduce friendly bacteria into the system. i was wondering if it is subject ourselves by doing this because there's so many antibiotics out there and years ago i came upon

a book, worse pills, best pills and cindy wolfe is one of the contributors. i call it my bible. i don't have access right now, but i have to get another one. antibiotics say it's can't cause different gangs like tendinitis -- not tinnitus, but tendinitis and different things with your bones. i'm very leery of antibiotics. i put myself on probiotics and i wonder if people take one of those introduced that to the system every day, would that be helpful. >> host: richard conniff, if i cannot do that because there's an e-mail that says any validity that taking probiotics faces the good bacteria in the human guide providing the probiotics has been manufactured and preserved, refrigerated or encased in omega-3 oil. >> guest: i don't know that

about omega-3 oil at all. regarding the other thing, you're not going to hurt yourself taking probiotics, but i don't think you can expect it to cure you of things either. in the article, i describe the microbiota has been the case in any. there are all these different parts interacting and playing together and adding the probiotic is like playing the piano solo with your elbows. on the other hand, introducing an antibiotic is playing the piano solo with a two by four. you are doing damage and destruction, so avoiding that is certainly a good thing if you can. circumstances or you can avoid it, but where you can you should. do not hurt yourself with probiotics and eventually probiotics can be a real help. the most recent addition it is

the future is here. richard conniff, thank you for talking with our viewers this morning. appreciate it. >> guest: thank you, greta. >> more now from "washington journal" looking at child care in the u.s. >> host: we are looking at america by the numbers that are focused, child care in the united states. we want to welcome barbara gault at the institute for women's research and linda laughlin at the u.s. census bureau. thank you for being with us. let's begin with a look at child care in the u.s. 12.5 million children under the age of five is some type of childcare arrangement and the demand has grown in out-of-pocket costs for childcare, nearly doubled in the last 25 years.

>> guest: childcare is an important issue for american families the number sought to highlight how childcare issues are important not only to parents the two providers, policymakers and researchers. the information were sharing today will be highlighting variations in different types of childcare and how much families pay for childcare. >> host: a greater amount of money is two or three working two or three jobs. >> guest: in 2011 a family below the poverty line could expect to pay about 30% of their monthly family income on child care. childcare continues to be a burden and this has been in historical trend since the 1980s. >> host: ask about this cry for those who pay for childcare and a perspective from the 1980s about $84 a week now up

to about $143. when we looked at these numbers, it still seems low. >> guest: a test booklet when it's a bit misleading in a way because this is for people using any amount of childcare. this includes people paying for childcare five hours a week as well as people using full-time care. if you look at the cost of full-time, full-year care, the numbers are much, much higher. they can range anywhere from $4000 a year in some states to $16,000 a year in others. the cost of care, especially former childcare centers is really quite high. this just represents the average of what those who pay for anything our pain. >> host: if you are a working parent, the numbers 202585 or d. 880.

if you are childcare provider to numbers (202)585-3881. for all others, 202-58-5382. in tweets at c-span wjr join us at they spoke. the percent of families pay for childcare decline while the percentage of family income on childcare. >> guest: this is on this very interesting. we have families, how much do you pay by arrangement? the information determines who makes go back to 1985 and we've seen that has gone up in the 1997 we saw 42% of families reported a paid something for childcare. could be 1 dollar, could be $100. about 32% in 2011. the more interesting part of that is for families paying for

childcare is a pretty constant, around 7% of the monthly family incomes but it's been pretty consistent from there. part of it is for families to pay childcare in our survey have higher income than households, so it doesn't make as much of an impact on a monthly family income is other costs like food, gas, transportation, et cetera. >> host: there's so many different variables. grandparents or siblings. you have the more formal day care for some of these certified. you have worked place facilities. how do you gather that information and try to decipher who is doing what? >> guest: it is a very complex system we have in the u.s. senate is a complex issue for families because most families are trying to piece together a number of different sources of

childcare. truly, that is one reason why this report has been the spirit does is so critical and everyone has always childcare really rely on this to have an understanding of who is providing the care, what kind of care people are using and how they piece it together. but it's difficult to track because so much of it is happening. >> host: barbara gault at the institute for women's policy research and linda laughlin at demographer for the u.s. census bureau and one of those day care providers is larry from tampa, florida. good morning. >> caller: yes, good morning. my wife is a childcare provider. thank you so much for bringing up the subject. my life as are many providers not just in florida but originally from chicago put in much more than 40 hours the

normal worker and curriculums, first since handing out at the heavier pictures in just a tremendous amount of creativity and time, not just her, but a lot of providers put in. my point is it is a very, very unique and demanding profession and very important profession. statistics are there and whatever but when you -- i have a masters in medicine counseling various -- you have to take your hat off to many people who put in so much time and creativity. i don't know if that is true to statistics and governments and agencies that there's the human factor of the love and commitment of providers for these kids.

>> host: thank you for the call. linda laughlin to respond. the childcare market itself is really made up of a lot of different factors. several to-do starting childcare rebate here on providers, childcare centers, so it talks about the complexity of the people caring for america's children. there is a site earlier about 49% of children are cared for by relatives, but that's only one half of the bigger market were talking about. we know 25% of children are cared for in an organized childcare center. 22% are cared for by the father or mother of work was sometimes the mother while she's working ourselves. 13% are cared for by other non-relatives. so though it be not the family day care. we've seen a decline in that type of arrangement.

in 1885 it was around 24% -- 28% and decline to 13% by 2011. we don't have a lot of explanation, so it could be people who operate those facilities may have found higher paying jobs elsewhere because certainly we know from other economic data we have this sense is that the state produced stagnant since the 1990s. >> host: going back to the issue of those in poverty and pain for childcare, looking at government childcare, 12% below poverty, another 3% at or above. >> host: the survey and come programs were a collection of care data receive anyhow paying for care and so one source of help they can get is that the government in the form of a

childcare subsidy or they're kind of state programs. we don't get to the specifics, but it's a government source, so we know for families in poverty, the more likely they receive other below the poverty line. >> host: joining us from the plato, missouri, good morning. are you with us? good morning, you're on the air. >> caller: good morning. we need to look more towards personal responsibility. why have children if you can't take care of them yourself, number one. number two, but still, the government for anything. the government is not in the childcare business. people are a little too selfish if they have children. >> host: what about working parents? >> caller: i am a working parent and my wife took care of our children. we worked different schedules and decided to sacrifice to have

children, so we had to work at a situation where we could watch our children and raise their children in a responsible manner, which we have done in our children are pretty much on their own now and have done very well with a really solid family unit. >> host: what do you tell it. that isn't as fortunate as you and your wife. what should they do? >> guest: i tell them this. we sacrificed in order to have children. we planned to have children. we are not raising children that they want parents to money which 70% of families are doing and find out the responsibilities eventually on the individual and not on the government are anybody else. i'm tired of people crying about wanting everything and not taking care of themselves. >> host: barbara gault coming your response. >> guest: i think just like a scholar, many families are working hard to take care of their kids and trying to piece

it together while working different shifts in now with just intend scheduling becoming more prevalent, it's getting harder for families to make that work. some will argue that invest in early care and education, just like we invest in k-12 education is a part of the country's economic developer strategy. most other countries to invest more in terms of the total% of gdp spent on early care and education and much of the research we see as children's cognitive outcomes are outcomes in terms of ability to later work to get higher education, to avoid the criminal justice system are connected to excellent high-quality early care and education experiences in childhood. i think even if we are to expand the assistance available,

parents are still working hard to try to piece it together. >> host: new castle, indiana. call co-good morning. i work for a head start in indiana and we work very closely with our childcare partners in trying to make sure we are able to provide services for parents working full day in full-year and the lady who just spoke is absolutely on target. near the number for every number we invest in programming whether it's childcare, pre-k, if better. we throw around $7, but it's closer to 13 to $20. for folks that the gentleman who called in earlier who said he feels like everyone should be responsible for their children,

i hope probably in the conversation he would finally agree we need to look at this as we all take care our children. these young children right now are our future and the individuals who are educating our children, providing medical care, working and hopefully they won't be incarcerated, wille graduated. one of the things that is exciting right now is to move across the country for quality ratings systems so that parents can actually look into the quality of their child's early childhood program and in indiana we are proud of the fact her path to equality is highly recognized as a way to syndicate the quality of early childhood program in. need to be educated and be able to look into their community and see if it's a level one, level two to level three which is a

reflection the program is accredited. i have to agree these ladies. i appreciate the hard work they do focusing on these issues because they think it is something we all need to support and really understand the administration currently. i don't agree with every direction they are taking, but in the early childhood arena i do believe they absolutely understand the importance of early childhood education whether it's childcare, preschool, whatever. >> host: thank you for putting those issues on the table. here we are joined by linda laughlin from the census department and barbara gault at the women's policy search. just go childcare is not just an issue for working families, but we've also seen in greece in the use of childcare among nonworking moms. which you have in front of you

shows -- >> host: that may explain my spirit of the top the top and in some others employed at the bottom is the mother not include. >> guest: we've seen organized care, enrollment in nursery schools and not just an issue for employed others but not employed mothers of families regardless of work status of the individuals are taking a damage of using organized facilities for the education opportunities. >> guest: the collar points to several interesting trends. one is there has been a big growth in recent years in state-funded preschool around the country and that has been actually a bipartisan issue -- a bipartisan cause that we've seen leaders in the private sector, business leaders investing significant dollars into building preschool programs and

because of the economic data showing the investment really pays off. another positive trend in terms of early care and education system is the growth of quality rating improvement systems, which is the way to raise different banners on evidence-based quality indicators of the consumers who really do pay the majority i've childcare expenditures in this country know more about what they are getting when they buy what is very expensive childcare. it costs a lot of money. salaries are high, given my level skills required and expertise, we have a lot to do to improve our system, there've

been some positive gains than those have come about because of support on both sides of the aisle. >> host: a peer, good morning. welcome to the program. >> caller: but i have to say is the minimum life of a two income family we finally had no choice but to use day care facilities. one simply because my friend needs pre-k schooling. it turns out most of my income ends up having to go to pay for that day care and it still doesn't even compensate for all the time we need to have the children watched. we still are using both of our parents and they still have to pay other people sometimes just to make sure we have the hours made up for the time that we need. >> host: russ, thanks for the

call. >> guest: right, so i would say families operate within a limited framework of options that may make the childcare choice and certainly a lot of different factors come into play. you know, work schedules of parents, with available in your area, cost, hours, a lot of factors to take into consideration. we find on average children spend about 36 hours per week and this is preschoolers. so that's almost enough to cover a 40 hour workweek, but not the time to commune travel and pick up kids. reduced in general employed families need more hours of care and families who have been unemployed mom and me as an organized facility, 33 hours on average in that facility per week in the same at the family day care, 32 hours per week. when used in organized facility for me certainly is therefore

more hours than a frontline on the relative in your home to cut down a number of hours. they translate into more hours you have to pay for, which can be a burden for a lot of families. >> host: one of our viewers looking at single parents, reporting half of the kids are born to single parents, colin that financial suicide. >> guest: it is tough. it is tough financially to raise a child alone. it is a reality that the structure of our family has changed quite a bit and that doesn't seem to be going anywhere and necessarily, so i think that we need to adjust our expectations in systems of support to account for the fact that a large number of kids are not two income families. >> host: today we are focusing

on childcare. our guest, linda laughlin of the census bureau and barbara gault at the institute for women's policy research. caroline from hyattsville, maryland. every tear childcare provider. is that correct? >> caller: yes, good morning, how are you? like i was telling the person i talked to earlier, when i was a day care provider, i'm trying to take it back up to 40 years out, when i had the kid that was then day care, i try to send them out and a lot of people came to me with vouchers and when they cannot vouchers, they didn't have enough to cover the day care. it is open from 6:00 to 6:00, which is 12 hours. a lot of times they were taken their welfare checks and money and giving me the majority of the money the state was giving

them to pay the extra amount they needed to pay for day care because they needed all that time to have the kids in daycare because when they leave in the morning they had trampled on the road and stuff like that. that depends where they're coming from. then traffic would be backed up when they came in. a lot of times they really don't have the money. they're asking him to look for jobs. minute to look for jobs or welfare, you know, the money is going straight to day care. so they don't have the money. they want them to work. how can you work when you take the majority of the money in u.s. retailers in the the father to go to court for child support of the people is not paying child support court -- the parents is not paid for

childcare. i'm sorry, did a little anxious here. >> host: that's all right. you make an important point, one of the first things we talked about but only touched on it, so give us a chance to focus on this/psychologists and it's been a great portion of their income on childcare and of course another big factor are the so-called deadbeat dads who don't pay child support that is often used to pay for childcare. >> guest: we don't focus on the child support data. we do have child support received. you can find that on our website. we do ask in terms of if you receive how paid for childcare and a government source or some other stories that sometimes be another family member or someone outside. we do know is that further down the shows differences in

childcare payments by those married and those married. [inaudible] going to be sort of small for you. but we know that a married household, they are paying about $157 on average per week versus 111 if you're unmarried. >> host: 112. >> guest: 112. so even within -- even others of different and the amounts being paid, they are both still over $100, a significant cost for single parent households. >> host: a grandmother says my children's children were my responsibility for their first year where both parents work. how many still have this kind of hope? so many different layers of childcare options for parents. some good, some not so good.

>> guest: yeah, we are likely to see a decline in extended family members ability to provide help when people need to be in the workforce earning money in what used to be their retirement years. and if we have fewer pension programs and less reliable retirement income sources, how many grandparents are really able to make a sacrifice to provide low cost or possibly free care. >> host: parents of children under five pay more. parents of children between five and 14 goes down. >> guest: younger children usually require more hours, so that is why we see a higher payment for them. families with children whom have children under the age of five on average pay $179 per week. remember, these are nationally

we can't capture a difference by various markets across the united states. but if you're a household with children five to 14, average payment of $93. >> host: why do mothers with a college degree pay more for childcare? >> guest: a combination of a couple different factors. they're more likely to be working so they need our hours per day. there's also a desire to enroll children in programs of educational opportunities and they probably have a higher in homes to afford programs. mothers who have college degree on average pay about $178 per week versus mothers paying about $111. sort of similar to the single parent household. >> host: america by the numbers. sherry is joining us lynchburg,

virginia. welcome. >> caller: hi, this is all well and good to talk about all this. it really is. however, we don't have any answers because the government wants us. they want us to depend on them and it is ridiculous. the more children resend early look at a lot of our kids about the inverse condition and that's the reason they want to start these things and pay your way, pay your way. i don't need the government. the government is supposed to protect us, not indoctrinate us. >> host: thank you for the call. next, a day care provider from kentucky. >> caller: good morning. this is mary. ima grandparent and i have never -- [inaudible] post on how many grandchildren do you have?

kolko also great-nieces and great nephews. if anybody needed me to take care of their child, i brought them into my home. i do not have a high school graduation certificate. ima delinquent addresses for your collar. but i can use a chainsaw, do electrical work. i can do plumbing because i was taught hance. >> host: marry, are so still with us? good luck, mary. another grandmother daycare provider. >> guest: yeah, i think she is pointing to an interesting debate in early care and education circles about the qualifications for family, friends and neighbor provided care. think about all the skills the areas able to teach her grandchildren that have nothing to do with formal education.

and even the caller before that alluded to you what your children to be in a setting where their cultural values are similar to year-round. since i'm in the field think we need to pay more attention to that sort of thing can simply just a promise that a caregiver has going into the work. although much of the research on quality does suggest that on average base is the higher levels of education a provider has are an educator has come at a higher quality experience for children are likely to be having. but in this case, those kids are in great hands. >> host: let me ask you about the so-called latch key kids. order children, more likely to be in care. we talk about those between the ages of 12 to 14. not old enough to drive, but early teen years.

>> guest: at our data we have families if there's any time for any amount of time for him or herself for any reason. this could range from an hour every day after school to a full day. we do know that an average about six hours of care per week and self-care is more prevalent among older children, so here we see about 25% of children 12 to 14 are in some unsupervised situations during the week. >> host: by 5%, which may be viewed as high between the ages of five to 11. >> guest: right, so it is sort of hard to keep apart because we only had one survey question what that really means. it could mean the next-door neighbor is aware of checks occasionally. some parents may feel guilty if they've done it for one half hour in the regular week and

report on that. >> host: next call is mike turner from grand rapids, michigan. how many children do you have, might? >> caller: i have two children and five grandchildren and 90 do babysitting for them also. i want to talk about the idea that head start and people agreed on it, but democrats and republicans agree on childcare. i don't see that. here in michigan and around the country, the thing that childcare does as progress in the first three years or so and after that it doesn't do any good, so we should cut it. my son's girlfriend is a head

start teacher and they ended their school year now, like four, five, six weeks early. so i am concerned about the attack conservatives, an attack that doesn't do any good. the other thing i want to mention his and 68 years old and i don't understand since the tea party has come into a lot of control, the government is against me. why should we depend on the government to do anything? it seems to me to attack government for doing things for people. so in michigan, for example, the attack on the poor has been on believable by governor snyder --

[inaudible] >> host: okay, so your question is what? >> caller: my question -- i don't know that there is a joint effort by both parties to do anything about head start and education for the poor. >> host: okay, i'll stop you there. >> guest: when i spoke about bipartisan efforts that the state level i was speaking about state-funded preschool, which has seen quite a bit of bipartisan support in the recent decade or so. there has been controversy are as you said, criticism of the head start program and many would say that's unjustified and the head start program has contributed a huge amount to helping especially low-income children's entertainer curtain ready to learn. but i think is absolutely correct that has been a debate. >> host: question from one of

our viewers. how has sequester affected day care programs nationwide? do we have any anecdotal evidence? >> guest: redon because our data is from 2011. we will be collecting childcare data and see some of those effects and hopefully report on that. >> host: howard is a foster parent from alabama. good morning. >> caller: good morning. and mostly just have a statement. i was a foster parent for 15 years and i watched a lot of babies of irresponsible parents. the whole system is not going to get any better because you can take anybody if they are a little bit irresponsible and take one of their responsibilities away, they just become more irresponsible. the people that work in the day care system promote heavily because it helps secure their

job. the government just keeps taking our responsibilities for a minute. i have old enough now i don't have anything. our kids were all grown in the house was empty and we decided to take foster kids and we took care of them for 15 years. almost all of them are just red irresponsible parents. it's not going to get any better. >> host: howard, thanks. barbara gault >> guest: some of the most interesting models for new approaches actually provide educational support and work related support for parents at the same time they are providing high-quality early education for the children. the thinking there is said to really help a family get out of poverty permanently, you can't just focus on the children. you need to help the parents as

well to get the skills and education that will get them out of a cycle of dead-end jobs that really leads nowhere. >> host: lynda laughlin, the author of this, "who's minding the kids," what one thing has to go through the status of praise the most? >> guest: this goes back to talking about self-care is the decline in the number of children with single employee parent. so we saw a decline from about 24% of children with a single employee parent in 1997 declined to about 14% in 2011. our speculation is that working parent has been able to find jobs at better mirror the school day so they ought take advantage when a child is enrolled in schools that they have a job that matches that schedule every now for the 19 name is with increases in afterschool funding

for children in particular might be taken advantage of that. it's a sort of this idea, this myth that children with a single parent and not have as many resources of the month to look after them. we did see a decline in the support of self-care of those children. >> host: lynda laughlin with the u.s. census bureau and barbara gault, vice president of the institute for women's policy research. thank you vote for being with us. >> guest: thank you.

.. she is interviewed by a guest host a.b. stoddard associate editor of the hill. >> host: we are here today to talk