Australian media vendetta against worker who questioned tax breaks for wealthy

Patrick Kelly

The beginning of the Australian election campaign this month coincided with a vicious media attack on a vulnerable minimum-wage worker who dared challenge the government’s tax breaks for the wealthy on ABC television’s “Q&A” current affairs program.

Duncan Storrar was one of the selected audience members on the May 9 program who asked a question to the panel, which included the Liberal-National government’s Assistant Treasurer Kelly O’Dwyer.

Storrar, it later emerged, is a 45-year-old living in public housing with his partner in Geelong, a Victorian regional city that has been hard hit by several decades of deindustrialisation. He works part-time as a truck driver, earning $16 an hour, while also receiving a $520-a-fortnight Austudy allowance.

“I’ve got a disability and a low education, that means I’ve spent my whole life working for minimum wage,” Storrar began. Referring to changes to the tax structure in the government’s budget to benefit a wealthier layer, he continued: “You’re going to lift the tax-free threshold for rich people. If you lift my tax-free threshold, that changes my life. That means that I get to say to my little girls, ‘Daddy’s not broke this weekend. We can go to the pictures.’ … Rich people don’t even notice their tax-free threshold lift. Why don’t I get it? Why do they get it?”

O’Dwyer replied with barely concealed contempt. “The critical thing here is that we actually need to grow the pie,” she declared, deriding any suggestion of moving to redistribute the pie to benefit the less well off. She went on to boast of the government’s pro-business measures and cited the example of a café owner being given a tax break that allowed the purchase of a “$6,000 toaster” to boost profits.

The assistant treasurer was backed by another “Q&A” panellist, Innes Willox, head of the big business lobby the Australian Industry Group. Willox declared, “Duncan, I'll be harsh in my message. If you’re on the minimum wage and with a family, you would not pay much tax, if any at all. Would you? You would not pay much tax.”

Storrar stood his ground, answering that he paid tax every time he drove his car and shopped for groceries at the supermarket—a reference to the 10 percent goods and services tax (GST) and other indirect taxes.

Storrar’s questions immediately resonated among ordinary people. His remarks received loud applause from the “Q&A” audience, while social media responded with a popular #IStandWithDuncan hashtag. Deriding O’Dwyer’s defence of government policy, one person set up a crowdfunding website page to buy Duncan a $6,000 toaster. In just over two weeks, ten times that amount was collected, with $60,051 raised from donations from nearly 2,500 people.

Storrar’s intervention on “Q&A” made a significant impact because it provided a rare glimpse, albeit limited and brief, into the harsh reality of everyday life for millions of people in Australian society today. Numerous statements on social media, in letters to newspapers, and on radio call-in shows were made by people explaining their own struggles with raising a family on low incomes.

The major parties have no real policy differences on such matters, with Labor and Liberal both representing the interests of finance capital and the ultra-wealthy. The Greens occasionally posture as opponents of the banks and big business, while representing an affluent upper-middle class constituency and manoeuvring for a ruling coalition with either of the major parties.

The working class is effectively disenfranchised and excluded from any involvement in parliamentary politics. Just as a federal election campaign began, Storrar’s question on “Q&A” threatened to provide an opening for a broader discussion of poverty and social inequality—unmentionable issues as far as the political and media establishment are concerned.

As a result, Storrar was made the target of an extraordinary media campaign, aimed at discrediting if not outright destroying the individual.

The Murdoch press was at the forefront. Both the Australian and the Herald Sun devoted substantial resources to probing Storrar’s employment and taxation situation. After dredging through his private life, both newspapers ran front-page stories on Storrar’s past criminal record. The Herald Sun ’s headline was, “ABC Hero a Villain: Q&A sob story star exposed as a thug as public donate $60,000”. The Australian ran another front-page story featuring an interview with Storrar’s estranged son, who denounced his father as a drug user. Yet more stories accused him of being a “deadbeat dad.”

This media filth continued even after Storrar fled his home, pleading for his family to be left alone, and explaining that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood sexual abuse.

In what amounted to a thinly-veiled threat to any other working class people thinking about challenging the government, the Herald Sun’s editor Damon Johnston declared: “If you put yourself on the public stage, and in, particularly in the middle of an election campaign, questioning government policy, questioning this, I think that you’re entitled to be subjected to a bit of scrutiny. It was all part of legitimate public debate in my view.”

Storrar responded with dignity, issuing a public statement via the ABC’s “Media Watch.” He began by explaining that he saw the main “lesson for Australia in this episode” to be that if anyone shows that “the powers-that-be [are the] out of touch people that they are, they will be dropped, probed and attacked in any way with no thought to the mental wellbeing of their children.”

He added: “My [‘Q&A’] question is still valid and hasn’t been answered, but more to the point there are a whole class of people out there, yes we might have records, yes we might not be perfect but society has forgotten us, the politicians and the media use us whenever they want to show why they need to be elected, but never do anything to help our plight. We are breaking down here and life hasn’t been this hard since before Whitlam for the underclass.”

The Storrar episode is a warning to workers. The savage media treatment of an individual who dared to ask a question about government policy is nothing but a reflection of the ruling elite’s ruthless determination to prevent any challenge to the status quo. There is no longer any constituency for democratic rights within the political establishment—when the capitalist class is confronted with a threat to its property and wealth, it will use every means at its disposal, including outright repression, to try to silence and suppress the working class.

UK White Paper escalates privatisation of higher education

Joe Mount

Britain’s Conservative government is pushing through major attacks on universities as part of the drive to privatize the entire education system.

The attacks were part of the Queen’s Speech announcing Tory plans “to support the establishment of new universities and to promote choice and competition across the higher education sector.” They are contained in a White Paper detailing changes to the higher education (HE) system that, if enacted into law, would fundamentally change the social role of universities and allow private institutions to be given university status.

The main proposals are further counter-reforms that remove any remaining barriers to profit making and facilitate the establishment of private universities. New, for-profit institutions will be able award degrees immediately and earn university status after three years of operation, benefiting numerous niche private institutions.

The White Paper, “Success as a Knowledge Economy,” denies support to the many universities that struggle financially and explicitly rejects bailouts. If struggling, they would face course closures or complete collapse, creating a gap in the market for new colleges. The new universities are given a license to exploit the lucrative “education export market” with courses, mainly in business and high-paying professions, targeting overseas students who pay astronomical fees averaging £12,000 per year and reaching £36,600 for medicine courses.

The government claims the reforms will improve the accessibility and “relevance” of universities. Background notes to the Queen’s Speech boasted of “the biggest supply-side reforms to the higher education sector for a quarter of a century, so that we open more universities and give more young people—from all backgrounds—the chance to succeed.” In reality, it increases the subordination of the HE system to a growing “market” in education, with institutions competing against one other. Far from increasing access to education for all, this can only decrease it and exacerbate social inequality.

The second plank of the paper breaks the link between teaching and research. Under the banner of “diversity,” the HE system will reflect entrenched social inequality, with a range of institutions charging different amounts according to market rates. This will further the proliferation of low-status, teaching-only institutions catering to working class youth while a core of elite universities monopolise scarce research funding. Newly founded universities will offer cut-price courses with shorter duration and lower educational standards, while the rich buy their children a world-class education.

Research resources are to be further subordinated to business interests, with increased focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) subjects. The government’s agenda is revealed by the appointment of John Kingman, a former treasury secretary and banker, to run the new unified research funding body “intended to improve Britain’s record of turning knowledge into cash.”

The changes will worsen students’ financial burden and education quality.

The Tories’ planned Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) is effectively a league table that will intensify competition and encourage the commodification of education. Universities that fulfil “teaching quality” criteria will be allowed to increase tuition fees to keep up with inflation, which will mean £10,000 in standard annual fees within the decade. Various existing fee caps will be lifted, enabling more institutions to charge the present full figure of £9,000 per year. The TEF will become a mechanism to increase academics’ teaching workload.

The Tories’ claims that the measures are aimed at increasing social mobility are exposed by the fact that the universities most likely to fail are former-polytechnics in poor areas that teach the most youth from disadvantaged backgrounds. Graduates typically pursue lower-paid jobs in health care and public services. Prior to its latest raft of attacks, the government abolished maintenance grants that assisted with the living expenses of the poorest students.

The number of mature and part-time students has also fallen rapidly.

The HE proposals will cement Britain’s status as the country with the most corporate-dominated education system, with lower HE spending than any other developed country. Britain now has the world’s highest levels of student debt and worst bursaries provision, according to the “Degrees of Debt” study by the educational charity Sutton Trust, which concluded:

“The typical English student faces debts of over £44,000 at graduation. Even compared with graduates of US private for-profit universities (who graduate with about £29,000 of debt), estimates suggest that English students fare worst.”

Funding constraints have tightened since the 2010 tripling of tuition fees and associated cuts by the incoming Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, forcing universities to rely on fees and placing the financial burden onto the backs of students. The impact on teaching quality was confirmed by a recent leaked government memo admitting universities “do not offer the quality and intensity of teaching we expect for 9k.”

HE is being transformed into a competitive market by spending cuts, sky-high fees and the rapid proliferation of private universities. Hundreds of private institutions are now able to adopt the prestigious “university” title, award official degrees and issue state-backed student loans. Market competition has intensified since the lifting of the student number cap, with the number of students at private universities up tenfold during the last parliament.

The White Paper is central to the ruling elite’s aim of privatising all education provision, initiated under the 1997-2010 Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Labour opened the door to privatization by introducing tuition fees in 1999 and introducing the first private university in 2010.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn verbally opposed the fee hike and launched a petition, stating, “I want to make it clear to the prime minister [David Cameron] that he will not get any support from these benches on raising tuition fees.”

However, Corbyn is supine in the face of the Tory government’s drive to convert primary and secondary schools to privately run academies. Labour, under his leadership, scrapped his pledges to remove fees and reinstate grants, with a member of his shadow cabinet stating these would not “automatically become policy.”

The Labour and union bureaucracy have aligned themselves with the core of the Tory agenda, despite limited policy differences. Jonathan Clifton of the Labour-linked Institute for Public Policy Research openly supported the measures, stating, “The government is right to allow new providers into the higher education system, but it must manage the process carefully.”

University College Union (UCU) General Secretary Sally Hunt said of the White Paper, “Despite repeated warnings from UCU about the danger of opening up UK higher education to private, for-profit providers, the government is setting out on a clear course to privatise higher education.”

She did not oppose the Tories agenda in principle, stating instead that, based on international experience of such proposals, including in the US, “lessons must be learned and rigorous quality measures applied before any new provider is allowed to access either degree awarding powers or state funding.”

The UCU and other academic unions, despite professing opposition to attacks on further and higher education, have a record of capitulation to cuts and job losses spanning more than a decade.

The National Union of Students (NUS) verbally opposed the tuition increase, with its president Malia Bouattia stating it will be “fighting with all its strength to demand it ditches this disastrous plan.”

This same organisation systematically demobilised student opposition to the introduction of tuition fees. Accepting their subsequent hiking, the NUS then threw outs its pledge to “oppose further rises in tuition fees.” It did not lift a finger to prevent the maintenance grant cuts.

Students and youth must mount an independent political struggle, turning to the working class as the only social force that can defend education and prevent the dismantling of gains made over generations of class struggle. This is the standpoint advanced by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality.

The El Khomri law in France and the Schröder-Blair Paper

Peter Schwarz

Strikes and mass demonstrations against the El Khomri labour reform law in France have been met with sympathy among workers and young people across Europe.

For decades, so called “structural reforms,” including cuts to social spending and workers’ wages, were portrayed as unavoidable. The French government of François Hollande and Manuel Valls thought it could destroy rights and achievements fought for by generations of workers with the use of force. It was mistaken. When it imposed the hated law by decree, it did not intimidate workers, but only provoked their anger. Since then, strikes and protests have spread and paralyzed the whole country.

The situation in France marks a major development in the international class struggle. A similar mood prevails in many other European countries, in the US and in large parts of the world. It is expressed in the resurgence of the class struggle, including a spike in strikes and protests worldwide.

There is a danger that the movement in France – like other such struggles—will be isolated and strangled, and that the far-right National Front will profit from the resulting disillusionment. To allay this danger, it is necessary to probe the roots of this situation and determine who is responsible for the present attacks.

The French workers are fighting against a government that calls itself “left” and “socialist.” This is neither an accident, nor a misunderstanding. For the last 15 years, it has above all been the social democrats—supported by the unions, the communist parties and their successors as well as numerous pseudo-left groups—who have carried out structural reforms against the workers.

It is worthwhile in this context to look back at the paper published jointly by two social democratic heads of government, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in 1999. Almost all of the social attacks that have taken place since then in Germany, Great Britain, Southern and Eastern Europe, Greece and now in France were outlined there.

In the paper, entitled “The Way Forward for Europe's Social Democrats,” Blair and Schröder call for the transformation of the “social safety net from entitlement to a springboard for personal responsibility.”

As we wrote at the time on the WSWS, the paper is “a list of social atrocities, which have become the standard repertoire of European economic, financial and social policy, is meticulously and approvingly catalogued. The authors take care to invoke every cliché: cuts in state expenditure; criteria of efficiency, competitiveness and performance for public services; adjustment of the social insurance system; encouragement of business; reductions in taxes on employers and property; flexibility ... and more flexibility.”

The chapter “An active labour market policy for the left” demanded, as the WSWS summarized, that “all social and political means are to be employed to encourage individual responsibility. The system of taxation and social payments are to be revamped to 'ensure that it works in the interests of the people'. Low-paid 'probationary jobs' should be subsidized by the government and all those receiving social payments should be evaluated according to their ability to earn their own living. In short, the paper advocates massive state pressure to force the acceptance of low-wage jobs that, in turn, serve to drive down wages as a whole.”

The Schröder-Blair paper appeared at a time when the social democrats ruled almost everywhere in Europe. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the 1990s were characterized by an orgy of self-enrichment by the ruling elite and enormous attacks on the working class. At the end of the decade, workers throughout Europe supported the election of social democrats in the hope that they would adopt a more socially humane approach.

The opposite took place. The Schröder-Blair paper served as a blueprint for the Hartz laws in Germany, and the austerity course in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. In all of these countries, as a rule, the social democrats followed a much stricter austerity course than conservative governments.

The author and namesake of the Hartz laws, Peter Hartz, a German Social Democratic Party and IG Metall union member, travelled to Paris two years ago to advise the French president on social cuts. The El Khomri law is the immediate result of this collaboration.

In the meantime, social democrats across the globe have plunged into free fall. In France, workers are rebelling against the Socialist Party and in Greece against Syriza, which has further intensified the austerity policies. This rebellion needs a conscious political strategy.

It is not just the corrupt social democratic apparatus, the unions and the pseudo-left groups that move in their circles that are bankrupt, but the national program on which they are based. The globalization of production has destroyed the basis of all national social and labour market policies. Today, the social democrats and the unions see it as their responsibility to impose constant attacks on the workers to defend their “own” corporations against international competition.

The El Khomri law, as well as every other attack on the working class, can only by defeated by an independent, international movement of the working class that bases itself on a revolutionary, socialist program. The offensive against the El Khomri law must become the starting point for the building of such a movement.

The unions and social democratic parties all over Europe stand behind Hollande and react with horror to the offensive of the French workers. European workers must stand behind their fellow workers in France, free themselves from the influence of social democracy and the unions and take up the fight for the United Socialist States of Europe.

Warnings of slump in US economy

Nick Beams

Despite an upward revision in the Commerce Department’s estimate for first-quarter economic growth, the US economy continues to show signs of a far-reaching stagnation. The Commerce Department said Thursday that US gross domestic product grew at an annualized rate of .8 percent, up from its earlier estimate of .5 percent.

Even though the upward revision was lower than expected, and pointed to a growth rate almost indistinguishable from stagnation, the result prompted media comments that the American economy appears to be “picking up speed” and the economic situation was “better than had been thought.”

Regardless of such proclamations, key indicators point to deepening trends toward economic stagnation in both the short and long term.

On Wednesday, technology company Microsoft announced 1,850 job cuts in its smartphone division, then on Thursday retailer Sears reported a loss of $471 million, after revenue fell by over 8 percent.

Next month will mark the seventh anniversary of the period of economic expansion that began with the official end of the recession in 2009—the fourth-longest recovery since the end of World War 2. But it is the slowest post-recession expansion in the post-war period.

The main factor is the fall in business investment, the key driver of economic growth in the capitalist economy.

“Spending on some of the building blocks of business—such as machines, computers and steel—is slipping,” an article in the Wall Street Journal noted. “Such expenditures are an important ingredient in improving employee productivity, workers’ wages and corporate profits. A lack of investment risks trapping the economy in a low-growth mode.”

The Commerce Department reported that orders for non-defence capital goods, excluding aircraft, an indicator of business investment, fell by 0.8 percent in April, bringing the total decline since April 2014 to almost 12 percent.

Well-known economic forecaster Diane Swonk told the Wall Street Journal it was “disturbing that businesses’ cash flow has improved dramatically and they have access to cheap debt, but they’ve deployed that on dividends and buybacks instead of investing in the future.”

Earlier this week, a report by Moody’s pointed out that US non-financial corporations were sitting on a cash stockpile of $1.7 trillion, almost one-third of it held by five major hi-tech US companies, a significant statistic given that these firms are regarded as a major driving force of the US economy.

The lack of business investment in the real economy, as opposed to financial speculation, finds expression in productivity data.

In a speech on Thursday, reviewing trends in the US economy, Jerome Powell, a Federal Reserve Board governor, noted that labour productivity in the US had increased by only 0.5 percent a year since 2010, the slowest five-year growth rate since World War 2 and about one quarter of the average post-war rate. He noted that this was a trend that extended across the world economy.

The productivity slowdown is expected to continue, with the Conference Board, a major US economic think tank, warning that it could go negative this year for the first time in more than three decades.

According to Powell, estimates of the long-run potential growth of the US economy have dropped from 3 percent prior to the financial crisis to 2 percent “with much of the decline a function of slower productivity growth.”

A key factor in holding back productivity in recent years, he said, was the meagre growth in the business sector’s capital stock, consistent with “the weak recovery in demand.” But other longer-term factors may also be at work. Powell pointed that the so-called total factor productivity (TFP) growth, regarded as a measure of the impact of technological innovation, was also falling.

“A broad decline in the dynamism in our economy may also be contributing to lower TFP. There is strong evidence that the slowdown in TFP growth in the United States preceded the financial crisis, particularly in sectors that produce or use information technologies,” he said.

In other words, there is a basic dysfunction in the workings of the American economy in which the cycle of business investment in the expectation of higher profits leads to higher productivity, economic expansion, resulting in further investment, has broken down.

Other economists, most notably former Clinton treasury secretary Larry Summers, have pointed to the development of secular stagnation—a situation which characterised the decade of the 1930s—in which the supply of savings continually outstrips the demand for investment, because of diminished profit expectations, leading to low growth, falling productivity and even outright contraction.

While not directly referring to this phenomenon, Powell alluded to it, posing the question: “What if the pessimists are right and productivity growth remains low for another decade, or indefinitely? The consequences would include lower potential growth and relatively lower living standards. Our longer-term fiscal challenges would be significantly greater.”

The long-term slowdown in the US economy is both contributing to the ongoing stagnation in the global economy and is in turn impacted by it. But there is no relief in sight from this quarter and no prospect at all of coordinated action by the major economic powers to stimulate global demand. In fact, the G7 summit meeting, which concluded on Friday, revealed that the divisions among them are widening.

The summit communiqué noted that since the last meeting of the group in April 2015 “downside risks to the global economic outlook have increased” and that “weak demand and unaddressed structural problems are key factors weighing on actual and potential growth.” There were also “potential shocks” of a noneconomic origin—a reference to the increasingly tense geopolitical situation.

But while it noted that risks had increased, the G7 moved further away from trying to combat them.

The G7 communiqué stated that global growth “is our urgent priority” but then laid out a meaningless set of words to cover over the differences between the participants.

“Taking into account country-specific circumstances,” the communiqué stated, “we commit to strengthening our economic policy responses…and to employ a more forceful and more balanced policy mix, in order to achieve a strong, sustainable and balanced growth pattern.”

The communiqué allows Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to claim that he secured some movement on his demand for global stimulus measures while enabling Germany and the UK, the main opponents, to point to the reference to “country-specific circumstances” in order to continue their austerity agendas.

It was, as the Financial Times noted, another example of the work of G7 resolution drafters who are “masters at the art of creating apparent agreement where none exists.”

As the summit was taking place, new data from Japan pointed to the global deflationary trends that have increasingly gripped its economy. The consumer price index for April fell by 0.3 percent in the year to April, following a decline of 0.1 percent in March with indications from preliminary forecasts that it will show an even larger decline next month.

Falling prices will put increased pressure on the Bank of Japan to further ease monetary policy and may even lead to direct intervention by government authorities in currency markets to lower the value of the yen in an effort to boost the economy, despite warnings from the US against such action and a declaration in the G7 communiqué that countries should not engage in competitive currency devaluations.

Echoing Green Fellowship for Social Entrepreneurs 2017 – $90,000 + Leadership Development

Dates: 

• Application Open: October 2016
• Application Closed: November 2016
• Finalists will be announced and interviewed in New York City: May 2017
• Fellows announced: June 2017

Brief description: Seeking the World’s Most Promising Social Entrepreneurs, Echoing Green’s Fellowship Programs will offer more than $4.6 million in seed-stage funding and support this year to emerging leaders working to bring about positive social change.

Eligible Field of Study: Social Entrepreneurs

About the Fellowship: The Global Fellowship is the twenty-seven-year-old program for smart leaders who are deeply connected to the needs and potential solutions that may work best for their communities. Any emerging social entrepreneur from any part of the world working to disrupt the status quo may apply.

The Black Male Achievement (BMA) Fellowship is the first fellowship in the world for social entrepreneurs dedicated to improving the life outcomes of black men and boys in the United States. The Fellowship was founded and is supported in partnership with the Open Society Foundations since 2012. BMA Fellows generate new ideas and best practices in the areas of education, family, and work, such as initiatives related to fatherhood, mentoring, college preparatory programs, community-building, career and economic opportunities, communications, and philanthropic leadership.

The Climate Fellowship, built in partnership with The ZOOM Foundation, is specifically targeted for next-generation social entrepreneurs committed to working on innovations in mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The threat of global climate change is one of the greatest humanitarian and economic challenges of our time. Our interest is in considering the full spectrum of responses to the climate crisis – from innovative technology in Silicon Valley to community organizing in the developing world.

Fellowship Offered Since: not specified

Fellowship Type: Social Entrepreneurship

Selection Criteria: Successful applicants not only present an innovative way of addressing social issues, but also explain why they as individuals have what it takes to succeed. Echoing Green is not a grant-making organization. We are a fellowship program because we believe in the importance of the individual social entrepreneur as well as his/her project.  As such, we look at both the applicant and the applicant’s idea.

Applicant Criteria

• Purpose / Passion
• Resilience
• Leadership
• Ability to Attract Resources

Organization Criteria

• Innovation
• Importance
• Potential for Big, Bold Impact
• A Good Business Model

Eligibility: In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the applicant must be:

• Over 18 years old
• Fluent in English
• Able to commit a full 35 hour work week to their organization.

In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the organization must be:

• The original idea of the applicant(s)
• In its start-up phase, usually within the first two years of operation
• Independent and autonomous

There are often some misconceptions about what types of organizations are eligible for the Echoing Green Fellowship. Here is some clarification about organizations that are eligible:

• An organization can be either a non-profit, a for-profit, or hybrid.
• An organization does not only have to be run by one individual. Partnerships can apply for a Fellowship
• Organizations still in the idea phase are eligible

The following types of organizations are not eligible to apply:

• Students, scholarships, or research projects
• Lobbying or faith-based organizations
• Existing organizations which have grown past their start-up phase

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship:

• Fellows will receive up to $90,000, participate in leadership development gatherings
• Fellows will access the powerful network of Echoing Green Fellows, partners, and friends. Echoing Green’s 2015 Barclays Brain Trust Series, sponsored in part by Barclays, is a program of roundtable and mentorship opportunities for Fellows with leading professionals working in marketing, fundraising, business development, and technology.
• Echoing Green will continue to support its Fellow community long after their initial funding period with ongoing programs and opportunities at critical inflection points in their organizations or careers.

The Fellowships are awarded annually to individuals or partners who receive:

• A stipend of $80,000 for individuals (or $90,000 for two-person partnerships) paid in four equal installments over two years
• A health insurance stipend
• A yearly professional development stipend
• Leadership development and networking gatherings
• Access to technical support and pro bono partnerships to help grow their organization and a dedicated Echoing Green portfolio manager
• A community of like-minded social entrepreneurs, public service leaders, and industry leaders including the Echoing Green network of more than 600 Fellows working in over sixty countries all over the world.

Duration of Fellowship: two years plus ongoing support

Eligible Countries: all

To be taken at (country): Not restricted

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply: Apply on the webpage

Visit fellowship webpage for details

Sponsors: Echoing Green Feellowship

Enter the 2016 Syngenta Photography Awards. Up to USD40,000 In Awards

Application Deadline: 22nd of August, 2016

Offered annually? Not stated

Eligible Countries: Global

To be taken at (country): Online

Brief description: The Syngenta Photography Awards is inviting photographers of different calibre to visually explore the theme of the Award through compelling images in a series of two(2) competitions:

• Professional Commission
• Open Competition

About the Award: The Syngenta Photography Awards is an international competition that seeks to create conversation around key global challenges through powerful photography. This year’s theme is Grow-Conserve. As the world’s population continues to increase, so does the the growing need for food, energy and resources and the protection of the planet. How can we manage economic, social and technological growth in a way that supports the needs of today as well as for future generations? Can we do more with less? Bold and transformative action is needed.

Photographers, whatever their approach, are invited to submit images that explore the theme of Grow-Conserve and tell stories about the relationship and trade-offs that exist between these two forces that are shaping the sustainability of our planet.

Offered Since: Not stated

Type: Photography Contest

Eligibility:

• The Professional Commission invites professional photographers to explore the theme of the Award through a compelling series of 5-10 images and a creative project proposal of a maximum of 500 words that considers the theme in a more in-depth way for a commission worth $25,000.
• The Open Competition invites photographers aged 18 or over – whether amateur, professional, or student – to visually explore the theme of the Award through compelling images. Photographers are asked to submit between 1–3 images.

Selection Criteria: The jury selects 3 finalists from each competition based on the quality and technique of their work and the interpretation of the theme.

Number of Awardees: Six (6)

Value of Award: 

Three prizes are awarded in the Professional Commission category:
• First prize: US$15,000, plus up to US$25,000 for the commission project
• Second prize: US$10,000
• Third prize: US$5,000

Three prizes are awarded in the Professional Commission category:
• First prize: US$15,000, plus up to US$25,000 for the commission project
• Second prize: US$10,000
• Third prize: US$5,000

The winners will have their work featured in showcased at an exhibition in early 2017.

How to Apply: All entries are judged by a distinguished international panel, chaired by the author and curator William A. Ewing. Go here to apply

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Syngenta

Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) – Masters, PhD for Developing Countries 2016/2017

Application Deadline: 5th of July 2016

Brief description: Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) 2016/2017 is open for Masters, PhD and Short Courses applicants from Developing Countries

Accepted Subject Areas: The NFP offers candidates three sub-programmes to choose from:

• Master’s degree programmes
• Short courses
• PhD studies

About Scholarship: The Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP), funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the budget for development cooperation, are designed to promote capacity building within organizations in 51 (previously 62) countries by providing training and education to mid-career staff.

The overall aim of the NFP is to help alleviate qualitative and quantitative shortages of skilled manpower within a wide range of governmental, private and non-governmental organizations. This is done by offering fellowships to mid-career professionals to improve the capacity of their employing organizations.

Scholarship Offered Since: Not Specified

Selection Criteria: Priority will be given to candidates who:

• live and work  in Sub-Saharan Africa;
• are women;
• belong to a priority groups and/or are from a marginalised region as defined by the Dutch embassy in your country. You can find these priorities on the embassy’s website.

Eligibility: To be eligible for an NFP fellowship, candidate must:

• be a mid-career professional with at least three years’ relevant work experience;
• be a national of, and working and living in one of the countries on the NFP country list (see below) valid at the time of application;
• be nominated by your employer, who pledges to continue paying your salary and guarantees that you will be able to return to the same or an equivalent position at the end of your fellowship period;
• have been unconditionally admitted by a Dutch institution to one of the Master’s degree programmes or Short courses on the 2016-2017 course list, or have agreed upon a PhD research proposal with the Dutch institution.
• not already have received an NFP fellowship for a master’s degree programme or a PhD fellowship.
• not be employed by:
  – a multinational corporation
  – a large national and/or commercial organisation
  – a bilateral donor organisation
  – a multilateral donor organisation
  – an international NGO.
• have completed and submitted an NFP PhD study, master’s degree programme or short course application, including all the required documentation, before the applicable fellowship application deadline;
• be employed in an area to which the study will make a relevant contribution;
• be full-time available for the entire period of the programme or course and be physically and mentally able to take part in the entire programme;

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The fellowship is a supplement to the candidate’s salary and a contribution towards the expenses related to the course or study programme.

Duration of sponsorship: for the period of course

Eligible African Countries: Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Burundi, Tanzania, Kenya, Cape Verde, Uganda, Mali, Zambia, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Egypt, Namibia

Other Developing Countries outside Africa?

Afghanistan, Eritrea, Nicaragua, Albania, Armenia, Georgia, Pakistan, Autonomous Palestinian Territories, Peru, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Philippines, Bhutan, Honduras, Bolivia, India, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Iran, Suriname, Jordan, Cambodia, Thailand, Kosovo, Colombia, Macedonia, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Yemen, Cuba, Moldova, Mongolia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nepal

To be taken at: Netherlands

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply

Visit scholarship webpage for details on how to apply for NFP

Sponsors

The NFP is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs under the budget for development cooperation.

IDB Scholarships for Muslim Communities in Non-Member Countries 2016/2017

Application Deadlines: 

• May-July: Deadline for submission to the IDB (for abroad studies)
• June to December: Deadline for submission of applications to the IDB  (for in-country studies)
• January: Announcement

Offered annually? Yes

Brief description: Islamic Development Bank offers the IDB Scholarship Programme for Muslim Communities in Non-Member Countries (SPMC) for Undergraduate studies

Eligible Field of Study

• Medicine
• Engineering
• Agriculture
• Other fields related to above disciplines

About Scholarship: The objective of the Programme is to improve the socio-economic conditions and to preserve the cultural and religious identities of Muslim Communities in Non-member Countries through developing their human capital resources. The Programme provides scholarship to the academically meritorious but financially needy young Muslim students to pursue undergraduate or first-degree study in professional courses.

The concept of the Programme is to build a team of professional and committed Muslims as a tool for the improvement of the socio-economic conditions of their communities. Under this Programme, the scholarships are given as interest-free loan to the students but grants to the communities to which they belong. After graduation and gainful employment, all graduates are obliged to repay their loan amount to the community (IDB Local Trusts) for recycling and awarding additional scholarships to the local needy students.

Scholarship Offered Since: 1983

Scholarship Type: Undergraduate studies

Selection Criteria: Each year, the Programme follows the following selection procedures:

• The Counterpart Organization announces the Programme in the country and invites applications from potential candidates who fulfill the criteria of the Programme.
• The Scholarship Selection Committee (SSC) conducts the interviews of eligible candidates and recommends them through the Counterpart Organization to the IDB.
• The IDB makes the final selection and informs the Counterpart Organizations.

Eligibility: To be eligible for this scholarship, the student/applicant must be able to meet the following basic criteria:

• Age not over 24 years.
• Completed senior secondary / pre-university education with good grades in major science subjects and language of instruction.
• Secured admission in one of the disciplines covered under the Programme at a recognized college or university in their own countries (for in-country study).
• Not in receipt of any other scholarship.
• Committed and needy Muslim.
• Recommended by the Counterpart Organization.

Number of Scholarships: Several

Value of Scholarship: The Programme covers all relevant expenses during students’ study period, including tuition fees, health and living costs as determined by the IDB.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

Eligible Countries: developing countries

To be taken at (country): Consistent with the concept of the Programme, students must get admission or be in the first year in their own countries.
On exceptional basis and where admissions in professional courses are not possible or not available in any particular country, the IDB assists to place students from these countries in IDB member countries, which have been generous enough to provide places for the IDB students in their universities.

How to Apply

In countries, where the Programme is being implemented, inquiries can be made and application form obtained from Counterpart Organization in the country.

In a country, where the Programme has not yet been implemented, inquiries may be directed to the Scholarship Division, Department of Communities in Non-Member Countries, IDB.

Visit scholarship webpage for more details

Sponsors: Islamic Development Bank

Important Notes: To help students prepare themselves for their future leading role in the development of their communities and countries, the IDB also provides them with extra-curricular activities under a special programme called Community Development Programme comprising the following three components: Guidance and Counselling Activities, Post Study Activities and Capacity Building Activities.

Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe

Daniel Raventos & Julie Wark

Barcelona.

In the last few months basic income—an unconditional cash payment to every member of the population—has been getting more and more attention in the media and social networks. Three items are especially interesting.

First, Yanis Varoufakis, the able Greek economist, Minister for Finance in the first Syriza government and well known for his trenchant opposition to Troika austerity measures bashing the poor and already vulnerable majority of the population, has become such a media star that every time he gives an opinion on political economy, some theoretical aspect of economics or economic policy, his words are widely disseminated. Hence, his remarks on basic income, which he described as “a necessity” at the Future of Work conference in Zurich on 5 May 2016, are of no small import.

In a filmed talk lasting half an hour Varoufakis, incisive and original as always, reframed the debate. He overturned the long-entrenched capitalist narrative, pointing out that we have been led to believe that wealth is created in the private sphere and then generously distributed in the public sphere. The reality is the opposite. Continuing along the lines of a public conversation he had with Noam Chomsky in April this year, in which Chomsky noted that most medical discoveries are only possible because of research carried out with public money, Varoufakis gives another example of public-funded corporate development and profit-making, citing the iPhone, every part of which is created by a government grant. Hence, this process of profit-making presently enriching just a few individuals should benefit society as a fair allocation of aggregate wealth whereby each citizen would have the means to aspire to a dignified existence and, in turn, make his or her contribution to society, individually or as a member of a well-founded economic community. A basic income would be a dividend and not a government grant.

Another essential point Varoufakis makes is that the separation between market and state is illusory. Without a market there can be no state and, then again, all markets are shaped politically, with laws and regulations which benefit some and not others. And, as the capitalist system shows ever more aggressively and blatantly, it basically works for the rich against the poor. A well-functioning market, Varoufakis states, requires that not only bosses but workers too should have the right to say no, which is one of the basic conceptual pillars of basic income: workers would have a much better negotiating position than they have at present. Taking a normative stance—freedom in action requires a basic income—he presents basic income not as a welfare measure to keep the poorer members of society afloat but, at a time of fast-moving robotization and mechanization of jobs, as a way of enabling people to be productive citizens. A basic income would allow for creative work, to replace routine tasks, which are being replaced anyway.

Second, a Europe-wide survey based on 10,000 interviews in 28 countries and in 21 languages, carried out last April by the Berlin-based company Dalia Research shows that 64% of Europeans would vote in favour of an unconditional basic income if there was a referendum. Only 24% said they would vote against it, and 12% stated they wouldn’t vote. More interesting, the results reveal a correlation between levels of awareness about basic income and support for it or, in other words, the more people know about the idea, the more they are likely to support it.

A breakdown of the results shows that the six leading EU states voted as follows: Kingdom of Spain 71%, Italy, Germany, Poland and Great Britain more than 60% and France 58%. The data from Spain coincides neatly with an earlier GESOP survey carried out in Catalonia in June 2015 in which 1,600 telephone interviews (with a sampling error of ± 2.5% and a confidence level of 95.5%) obtained a positive answer from 72% of the population to the question, “A basic income is a cash payment of 650 euros per month made to members of the population as a right of citizenship and financed by tax reforms which would mean a redistribution of income from the richest 20% to the rest of the population: would you more or less agree or disagree with this measure being introduced in Catalonia?” Given that the Dalia Research and GESOP polls were conducted completely independently of one another and almost a year apart, the congruity of the results is, to say the least, remarkable.

Third, on 5 June Switzerland will be the first country in the world to hold a referendum on basic income (with a proposed $2,500 a month for adults and about $625 for minors). After 126,000 valid signatures were obtained, the text of the Federal Initiative for an Unconditional Basic Income was published in the Feuille Federal on 11 April 2012. Citizens will vote on the following modification of the Constitution:

Art. 110a (new) Unconditional basic income

1) The Confederation shall ensure the introduction of an unconditional basic income.

2) The basic income shall enable the whole population to live in human dignity and participate in public life.

3) The law shall particularly regulate the way in which the basic income is to be financed and the level at which it is set.

Five weeks before the referendum 40% of the population stated they would vote “Yes”. But a comparison of data from the beginning of this year and today confirms the principle that more awareness equals more acceptance because support for the proposal has almost doubled in these few months. Moreover, a majority of the country’s French speakers are in favour. Pressure from banks, politicians and bosses against basic income is considerable. Mainstream commentators keep spouting the discredited drivel that if they had a basic income people would stop working but, once again, the response was surprising. A recent survey showed that only 2% would stop work if a basic income were introduced. Only 7% said they would reduce their working time, 7% said they would look for another job, 34% said their work choices wouldn’t be affected and 15% said they would spend more time with their families.

The referendum will be a cliff-hanger. But one major victory has already been won. A grassroots citizens’ initiative has managed to open a nationwide debate on the value of work, its relation with wealth accumulation, consumerism, economic inequality, insecurity, what kind of society people want, and the right to a dignified and fulfilling existence.

The three basic income stories are very different yet they all concur in emphasizing the basic principle of guaranteeing the material existence of the entire population, in particular after the economic crisis which began in 2008 and the harsh austerity measures that followed it, not so much to stabilize economies as to strengthen the hold of the rich on their unproductive wealth, largely acquired by means of dispossession of the majority. Basic income is essentially a people’s initiative, reclaiming basic human rights, justice, freedom and dignity. As one organizer of the Swiss referendum said, “All the inhabitants of our country know that their right to an income sufficient to guarantee a dignified existence is legitimate and recognized.”

Meanwhile, basic income has enemies of several hues, quite apart from the rich who are evidently loath to part with their riches or give more freedoms to the exploited multitudes. Any good idea in tune with its times and coming from the people will always bring out naysaying academics and politicians who want to joust with it, as if the world hasn’t changed since the onset of the present crisis, and even as if it could be taken back to the good old days before the neoliberal counterreformation of the 1970s. One recent example is yet another article by the ubiquitous Vicenç Navarro. Not only does the piece clearly express the usual misunderstandings and confusions regarding basic income but his assertion that basic income is “not the best public intervention to reduce poverty or income inequality”, though decorated with a few welfare buzz-words, offers no numbers, data or studies to back up his case. The “evidence is strong” he says, but what evidence? Is it too much to ask him and like-minded cavillers to try to refute with facts and figures all the studies on financing a basic income which contradict this stand, for example the detailed study which was published in Spain a few months ago? For many people, having their material existence guaranteed is pretty well a matter of life and death. You only need to look at the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor to understand this. If we’re going to have criticisms of basic income, let them be constructive, well founded and seriously argued. This is a matter requiring, in ethical and intellectual terms, a decent level of debate.

The goal—a measure that will guarantee the material existence of entire populations—may, at first sight, shock a few. But the basic argument is clear and most poor people are more than well aware of it, every minute of their daily lives: they will be denied freedom as long as there are great inequalities of wealth and power. It’s an uphill battle but basic income is now showing its moxie.