Search results
1 – 2 of 2Daniel Schiffman and Eli Goldstein
The American agricultural economist Marion Clawson advised the Israeli government during 1953–1955. Clawson, a protégé of John D. Black and Mordecai Ezekiel, criticized the…
Abstract
The American agricultural economist Marion Clawson advised the Israeli government during 1953–1955. Clawson, a protégé of John D. Black and Mordecai Ezekiel, criticized the government for ignoring economic considerations, and stated that Israel’s national goals – defense, Negev Desert irrigation, immigrant absorption via new agricultural settlements, and economic independence – were mutually contradictory. His major recommendations were to improve the realism of Israel’s agricultural plan; end expensive Negev irrigation; enlarge irrigated farms eightfold; freeze new settlements until the number of semi-developed settlements falls from 300 to 100; and limit new Negev settlements to 10 over 5–7 years. Thus, Clawson ignored political feasibility and made value judgments. Minister of Finance Levi Eshkol and Minister of Agriculture Peretz Naphtali rejected Clawson’s recommendations because they ignored Israel’s national goals. By September 1954, Clawson shifted towards greater pragmatism: He acknowledged that foreign advisors should not question the national goals or make value judgments, and sought common ground with the Ministry of Agriculture. At his initiative, he wrote Israel Agriculture 1953/54 in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. Israel Agriculture was a consensus document: Clawson eschewed recommendations and accepted that the government might prioritize non-economic goals. In proposing Israel Agriculture, Clawson made a pragmatic decision to relinquish some independence for (potentially) greater influence. Ultimately, Clawson was largely unsuccessful as an advisor. Clawson’s failure was part of a general pattern: Over 1950–1985, the Israeli government always rejected foreign advisors’ recommendations unless it was facing a severe crisis.
Details
Keywords
Avital Laufer, Anwar Khatib and Michal Finkelstein
This study aims to explore the link between mental health literacy (MHL) and resilience in two groups: individuals who underwent psychotherapy and a similar group who did not.
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to explore the link between mental health literacy (MHL) and resilience in two groups: individuals who underwent psychotherapy and a similar group who did not.
Design/methodology/approach
The research involved 256 participants from Israeli–Arab and Israeli–Jewish communities. Half of the participants had previously received psychological treatment, whereas the other half had not. MHL was evaluated through the Mental Health Literacy Scale (O’Connor and Casey, 2015), whereas resilience was gauged using the concise Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor and Davidson, 2003).
Findings
The results indicated that participants who had therapy had higher levels of MHL and resilience compared to those who were not in therapy. Being acquainted with mental health disorders was positively associated with resilience, independent of sociodemographic variables and therapy participation. An interaction effect was found, showing a positive association between MHL and resilience among those who had therapy, whereas a negative association was observed among those not in therapy. A negative association was also found between social closeness to mental health patients and resilience for respondents who did not participate in therapy and was unrelated to resilience among those who had therapy.
Originality/value
The findings suggest that having MHL is vital but it does not necessarily translate into personal application or effective coping strategy implementation. In fact, it may be that having knowledge, in the absence of taking any active measures, can even be harmful.
Details