6,577
edits
Kiravian Development Executive: Difference between revisions
Kiravian Development Executive (view source)
Revision as of 12:57, 14 December 2023
, 14 December 2023→Inclusive Development Office
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
Inherited from the Kiravian Union as the Interior Development Office, the IDO has been a political (if mostly rhetorical) lightning rod in the larger public debate about the policy significance of ethnic/caste/communal groups under liberalism. The [[Shaftonist-Republican Alliance]], grounded in the ''[[Glossary_of_Coscivian_Terms#Dh|dhianbrikorisēn]]'' of the [[Renaissance Party]] and increasingly perceived in recent decades as representing higher caste interests, has often railed against the agency but has not moved to abolish the IDO despite its long-term political dominance. The [[Coscivian National Congress]], which has a strong voter base among the lower castes, has defended the IDO and its budget from SRA cuts even as a coalition partner. Customary leaders, Urom activists, traditionalist commentators, and some socialists have criticised the IDO's development philosophy and rating criteria as reflective of urban, bourgeois, and upper-caste biases and denigrating towards manual labour and traditional economies. | Inherited from the Kiravian Union as the Interior Development Office, the IDO has been a political (if mostly rhetorical) lightning rod in the larger public debate about the policy significance of ethnic/caste/communal groups under liberalism. The [[Shaftonist-Republican Alliance]], grounded in the ''[[Glossary_of_Coscivian_Terms#Dh|dhianbrikorisēn]]'' of the [[Renaissance Party]] and increasingly perceived in recent decades as representing higher caste interests, has often railed against the agency but has not moved to abolish the IDO despite its long-term political dominance. The [[Coscivian National Congress]], which has a strong voter base among the lower castes, has defended the IDO and its budget from SRA cuts even as a coalition partner. Customary leaders, Urom activists, traditionalist commentators, and some socialists have criticised the IDO's development philosophy and rating criteria as reflective of urban, bourgeois, and upper-caste biases and denigrating towards manual labour and traditional economies. | ||
====CDRI==== | |||
The IDO's most well-known function is producing the quinquennial '''Communal Development Rating Index''', which assesses the socio-economic situation of identifiable population groups according to various metrics, evaluates the extent of discrimination and other social barriers to improvement, and assigns groups numerical ratings and class designations based on these findings. The ratings and designations in the report are used by other federal and provincial agencies to allocate state aid and other benefits. | |||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;" | |||
|- style="font-weight:bold;" | |||
! Classification | |||
! Illustrative Examples | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#34cdf9;" | '''Elite''' or '''Market-Dominant'''<br />Oppress everyone | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Eight High Lineages, Eshavians (in Kirish states), Ligerans, | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#afc8da;" | '''Advanced'''<br /><br />Oppress the Backward castes and below. | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Taństans, Kaltans, Santhans, Ardónians, Purgónians, Kerēgulans, Insdans, Kuatans, Hisrovans, Líkutrans, Kirkayasthans, <br />Demareśti | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#dae8fc;" | '''Midstream'''<br />Not Forward but not in special need of gov’t assistance either.<br /> | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Ærans, Paisonic Coscivians, Engrians, Krinstans, Ískans, Idekans<br />Érhuans, Skithanawites | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#ecf4ff;" | '''Laggard'''<br />Below-average communities without overwhelming impediments to development, such as invidious discrimination or unreachability factors (e.g. geographic remoteness, itinerance)<br />Directly oppress lower castes. | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Iforians, Yarans, Kirkir, Kelkar, Kaskans, Saskans, Skōrdans, Tharysans, Xorsyakavs, Qihuxians, Okutrans, <br />Azikorians, Rhūniks | |||
|- style="font-weight:bold;" | |||
| colspan="2" | ⇧ Not Actively Monitored ⇧<br /> ⇩ Actively Monitored ⇩ | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#ffce93;" | '''Marginal''' or '''Threatened'''<br />Backward castes at risk of becoming more backward; or otherwise in need of the IDO’s closer attention than other Backward classes. Generally they are the smaller and more insular of the Backward castes.<br />Subproblematically to mildly oppressed. | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Pine Swamp Coscivians, Ossiryans, Fulmarines, Kayaki, <br />Salyar, Wastani, <br />Five Civilised Tribes<br />Enochites, Abrigalast sets, | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#ffc702;" | '''Vulnerable'''<br />Communities not necessarily at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but nonetheless subject to significant social exclusion and economic deprivation, with low access to opportunity by local/regional standards.<br />Moderately oppressed | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Sea Coscivians, Hoppers, Fever Swamp Coscivians, Eulugians, Meadowland Tribes<br /> | |||
|- | |||
| style="background-color:#f8a102; color:#000000;" | '''Depressed'''<br />Communities perpetually trapped at the bottom of their local social hierarchies.<br />Heavily oppressed | |||
| style="text-align:left;" | Harsitem, Yakavem, Ginger Dalits, Salters and Colliers<br />Caoi (Caoi may not actually be ranked because they can’t be studied)<br />Defeated Tribes, Urbanised Urom, Landless Urom<br />Midget colonies | |||
|} | |||
===Land Bank of Kirav=== | ===Land Bank of Kirav=== | ||