For hypermarkets in areas with specialty stores, dedicate more space to groceries, self-service dairy, and gourmet meat and less space to clothing. For hypermarkets in areas where people commute to work, dedicate more space to clothing and audio-video products.

Supermarkets in poorer neighborhoods sold more clothing than hypermarkets, perhaps due to better prices, seasonal promotions, and consumers avoiding specialty clothing stores or hypermarkets. However, in neighborhoods with higher income families, supermarkets and hypermarkets sold less clothing, fabrics, and household goods, possibly due to competition from specialty stores.

Hypermarkets sold less clothing, dairy, gourmet meat, and fish when sited near specialty stores that sold the same products, perhaps due to the inconvenience of the large hypermarkets format or customers perceiving specialty stores to have fresher goods.

A. Verhetsel, Department of Transport and Regional Economics, University of Antwerp, Belgium

As the economic turmoil worsens, the number of people affected by the economy grows.

Dr. Liz Garcia, counseling psychologist for NIU Counseling and Student Development, said the economy has affected many students.

“The economy has impacted students across the entire university,” she said.

Garcia said the downturn in the economy is something that is difficult to avoid facing.

“It’s hard to avoid it when we hear about it in the news and other aspects in the media,” she said.
A main factor, Garcia said, affecting students’ stress level is money.

“Students are dependent on money in terms of paying for school,” she said. “They might be worried about affording tuition, housing and books.”

Garcia said because of this, students turn to employment.

“They are looking for a job or some could be looking for an extra job to help pay off those things,” she said.

Senior geology major Stephanie Vickers said this has been the case for her.

“The economy has affected me by having to work two jobs right now,” Vickers said. “I’m worried about having enough money for when I go to grad school.”

Vickers said because of the two jobs she has limited free time.

“I don’t have time to do anything including leisure activities,” she said.

Garcia said the stress can affect students’ health as well.

“Some might have recurring thoughts about the economy causing them to lose sleep at night,” she said. “This could affect their study habits and their grades.”

Tony Wadas, junior political science major, is one person who has not been stressed out by the economy.

“In terms of stress, I haven’t been affected by it,” he said.

Wadas, however, has been affected in his spending habits.

“I haven’t been able to buy things or go out as much,” he said.

In the last 20 years, Malaysia economy has been transformed from a protected low income supplier of raw materials to a middle income emerging multi-sector market economy driven by manufactured exports, particularly electronics and semiconductors, which constitute about 90% of exports. Since 1970, and the institution of the New Economic Policy (NEP) following deadly riots in 1969 against economically dominant ethnic Chinese, the government’s commitment to the free market has been hedged by its bumiputurna (literally, “sons of the soil”) policies aimed at providing “constructive protection” for Islamic Malays against economic competition from other ethnic groups and foreign investors, particularly in the domestic market. In the Asian financial crisis of 1997, most of the major companies that the government had privatized and reserved for bumiputurna leadership, including Proton, the national car company, Malaysian Airlines, the Renong engineering group, and the Malaysian Resources media group, had to be renationalized to prevent their collapse. A vigorous recovery program mounted by the government that was showing positive results in 1999 and 2000 ran abruptly into the wall of the 2001 global slowdown. Worldwide, foreign direct investment dropped almost 50%, and in Malaysia the decline was an even more precipitous 85%. Gross domestic product growth dropped to 0.7% for 2001, from its usual 7% to 9%. Business in Malaysia remains dominated by non-Malays. Annual growth rates, which had been running 7% to 9%, came abruptly up against a wall in 2001. The government remains generally committed to a policy of free enterprise, although it owns and operates the railway and the majority of the communications systems and has become increasingly involved in certain key industries.

In 1970, a government holding company, Perbadanan Nasional (PERNAS), was created to encourage Malay-controlled businesses; in 1975, the government attempted, through PERNAS, to strengthen Malaysian interests in the tin-mining sector. Also in 1974, the government established the National Oil Co. (PETRONAS), with the overall aim of acquiring majority control of the country’s petroleum operations. The Industrial Coordination Act of 1975 attempted to accelerate indigenous Malay participation in the economy by setting limits on foreign participation in the processing, domestic distribution, and export of local raw materials. In 1971, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was adopted, with the aim of channeling a greater share of future economic growth into Malay hands. It specifically called for raising the level of corporate ownership by Malays to 30% by 1990, reducing corporate ownership by other Malaysians (i.e., Chinese and Indians) to 40%, and restricting foreigners to ownership of no more than 30%. Short-term investment strategies are set forth in a series of economic plans. The fourth Malaysia plan (1981–85) proposed a level of development spending of M$42.8 billion and called for acceleration of the NEP goals for Bumiputra economic participation. Major industrial and infrastructural development projects included a M$900-million bridge between Pulau Pinang and the mainland and a M$600-million automobile-manufacturing plant, both of which opened in 1985. Recent economic planning has stressed a “look East” policy, with Malaysia attempting to emulate the economic successes of Japan and the Republic of Korea by importing technology from those countries. In response to deteriorating prices for oil and other exports, the fifth Malaysia plan (1986–90) has moved away from the goals of the NEP, aiming instead at promoting foreign investment, particularly in export industries.

The year 1990 marked the culmination of several economic development plans: the fifth Malaysia plan (FMP), 1986–90; the conclusion of the first outline perspective plan (OPP1) 1971– 1990; and the completion of the new economic policy (NEP) 1971–1990. The FMP emphasized industrialization. Specific targets were formulated to ensure that the distribution of ownership and participation in the commercial and industrial sector would be characterized by ethnic group participation, 30% bumiputra—Malays and other indigenous peoples of Malaysia, 40% other Malaysians (Chinese and Indian descent), and 30% foreign. The government provided funds to purchase foreign-owned shareholding on behalf of the Bumiputra population, increasing their equity to 20% by 1990. These policies are part of the new national development policy, although specific targets and time tables have been dropped. A post-1990 NEP defined Malaysian economic strategy for full development by 2020. Three ten-year outline perspective plans, which included a new development plan and six five-year plans, made up the NEP. A second outline perspective plan (OPP2) 1991–2000 aimed to sustain growth momentum and to achieve a more balanced development of the economy. The sixth Malaysia plan called for an average annual growth rate of 7.5%, and expenditures on infrastructure were included to ensure prospects for further development. Development trends are toward privatization, encouraging the spread of industry throughout the country, increasing manufacturing in the free trade zones, and providing financing for industry through the establishment of specialized financing institutions.

A five-year development plan announced by Dr. Mahathir on 6 May 1996 forecasted average growth of 8% per year from 1996 to 2000. But it also tackled issues that bothered skeptics of the Malaysian economy: low rises in productivity, a skills shortage, and a gaping current-account deficit. In 1997 and 1998, these issues, along with a global financial crisis based in Asia caused the downturn that skeptics expected. Prospects for continuation of the second industrial master plan for 1996 through 2005 seemed grim, although the economy began to rebound in 1999. Massive capital and infrastructure projects have attracted foreign investment and international respect.

     ” The food crisis appeared to explode overnight, reinforcing fears that there are just too many people in the world. But according to the FAO, with record grain harvests in 2007, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone-at least 1.5 times current demand. In fact, over the last 20 years, food production has risen steadily at over 2.0% a year, while the rate of population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not outstripping food supply. “We’re seeing more people hungry and at greater numbers than before,” says World Hunger Program’s executive director Josette Sheeran, “There is food on the shelves but people are priced out of the market.”

Eric Holt-Giménez and Loren Peabody, From Food Rebellions to Food Sovereignty, Institute for Food and Development Policy, May 16, 2008

To understand why people go hungry you must stop thinking about food as something farmers grow for others to eat, and begin thinking about it as something companies produce for other people to buy.

• Food is a commodity….
• Much of the best agricultural land in the world is used to grow commodities such as cotton, sisal, tea, tobacco, sugar cane, and cocoa, items which are non-food products or are marginally nutritious, but for which there is a large market.
• Millions of acres of potentially productive farmland is used to pasture cattle, an extremely inefficient use of land, water and energy, but one for which there is a market in wealthy countries.

The problem, of course, is that people who don’t have enough money to buy food, simply don’t count in the food equation.

• In other words, if you don’t have the money to buy food, no one is going to grow it for you.
• Put yet another way, you would not expect The Gap to manufacture clothes, Adidas to manufacture sneakers, or IBM to provide computers for those people earning RM1.00 a day or less; likewise, you would not expect ADM (“Supermarket to the World”) to produce food for them.

What this means is that ending hunger requires doing away with poverty, or, at the very least, ensuring that people have enough money or the means to acquire it, to buy, and hence create a market demand for food.

- Richard H. Robbins, Readings On Poverty,Hunger,and Economic Development

        As price for gasoline increase and motorist-voters grow more angry,government is  considering numerous counterproductive policies.They pointed out that the price increase is due to the normal functioning of supply and demand in a situation where demand has increased, and that allowing the full functioning of the market will lead to increased supplies and other beneficial effects.Moreover, consumers and voters do not understand this issue and the reaction of politicians is in response to pressures from voters.

       Gasoline prices peak every few years and voters are always irate. A standard response is to have the Federal Trade Commission investigate possibilities of collusion; after a few years of study by its Bureau of Economics, the FTC will announce that there was no wrongdoing. Additionally, Congress will subpoena industry executives to hearings where they will be castigated for high prices and high earnings. And the media will dutifully document the public’s anger at “Big Oil.”Why do we have the same reaction from consumer-voters each time? To understand this reaction, it is necessary to go beyond simple economics and to consider the origin and nature of beliefs about economics-what has been called “folk economics.”

       This requires consideration of the environment in which humans evolved and in which our intuitions about economics were formed.Our instincts about economic issues were formed in the long period our ancestors spent as hunter-gathers. Humans have existed as humans for 50,000-100,000 years and our prehuman ancestors were around for millions of years before that. We have spent only about 10,000 years in settled communities. This is too short a time for much of an effect on our evolved preferences, so at some level we still have the instincts of hunter-gatherers. As Hayek has said, “Man’s instincts were not made for the kinds of surroundings …in which he now lives.”

Descriptions of the 12 Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators

• Education Indicator summarizes the quantity, quality and distribution of education in the U.S. defined as life-long learning and contributes to the broader dialogue on who learns what, where, when, and how throughout the life cycle.
• Employment Indicator describes the structure of employment in the U.S. as developed by the government and amended by private research efforts and helps clarify basic questions as to what constitutes “employment” and “unemployment” and what it means when figures fluctuate over time.
• Energy Indicator describes how much and how efficiently energy is consumed in the U.S. and provides feedback to the public on what can be done to reduce the environmental impact of energy consumption.
• Environment Indicator presents detailed information on the health of our environment with a special emphasis on the production-consumption process. A research focus on water and air quality offers data of primary interest to the general public.
• Health Indicator initiates a discussion on what constitutes “health” and examines the overall state of health of the people in America by age, race and gender.
• Human Rights Indicator examines the degree to which the Bill of Rights is protecting U.S. citizens and the level of citizen participation in the electoral process.
• Income Indicator focuses on changes in the standard of living as reflected in monetary measures of family income. The indicator examines and explains trends in the level and distribution of family income and wealth along with stagnant and unequal wage growth over the past 25 years.
• Infrastructure Indicator explains the importance of the physical infrastructure to our economy and provides an example of how to supplement our national accounts with an improved asset account to monitor our physical stock.
• National Security Indicator explains the process our nation takes to achieve a state of national military security beginning with the President’s National Security Strategy through the Congressional Budget Process. This includes both a diplomatic strategy and a military strategy, all of which are affected by public opinion and the perceived threat to security.
• Public Safety Indicator examines how effectively our society promotes private and public safety when faced with complex interrelationships between personal decisions, public actions, risks, and hazards in the environment that result in deaths from injuries.
• Re-creation Indicator provides a novel approach to identifying the myriad ways that Americans chose to re-create the self, to be revitalized in body and mind, and to reestablish social contacts through leisure and/or recreational activities. 
• Shelter Indicator explores the type of housing Americans have access to, the level of affordability of that housing, and how housing in turn affects broader social outcomes.

This is the Calvert -Henderson Quality Of Life Indicators book  which can give me some knowledge about the indicators for quality of life…..:)