16 Oct 2018

Women In Rural India: The Long Road To Power

Moin Qazi

International Day of Rural Women15 October
The empowerment of rural women and girls is essential to building a prosperous    equitable and peaceful future for all on a healthy planet
— UN Secretary-General, António Guterres
Gender inequality is not only a pressing moral and social issue but also a critical economic challenge. India has a larger relative economic value at stake from advancing gender equality than any of the 10 regions analyzed in a McKinsey Global Institute report, The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can add $12 Trillion to global growth. The report says that if all countries were to match the momentum towards gender parity of the fastest-improving countries in their region, $12 trillion a year could be added to global GDP. India could add $700 billion of additional GDP in 2025, boosting the annual GDP growth by 1.4 percentage points.
Empowering women is the solution to many problems. Societies that take the effort to empower women show better development indices, are better governed; more stable, and are less prone to violence.
In the new development discourse, women have come to be recognized as key participants in efforts to alleviate poverty and achieve social transformation.  Effecting comprehensive change from a woman’s point of view calls for a transformation of gender relations, not merely superficial attention to “women’s needs”. Research suggests that by serving a girl at the vulnerable crossroads of adolescence, development programs can have the greatest impact not only on that girl, but can empower her to be a catalyst for change in her family and community. By ignoring them we have lost the opportunity to impact a generation. However, once that window of adolescence closes, we have opened the doors for another broken generation. One must remember that it is easier to build a healthy generation than repair a broken one. According to a Harvard Business Review study, women in emerging markets reinvest 90% of their earning into “human resources”— their families’ education, health and nutrition — compared to only 30 to 40% of   earnings by men.
In India, the self-help group (SHG) mechanism remains the most popular model to empower village women through financial access and provision of other services. It is almost two decades   old and has transformed the lives of millions of women, several of whom now occupy important positions in village administration.
However, the original concept of self-help groups is being stoked up from the embers and the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) is a powerful program to reposition SHGs as core to India’s approach to women empowerment and poverty alleviation. Unlike in the new microfinance paradigm, where credit is the sole function of SHGs, the emphasis of SHGs in its NRLM avatar is on savings and financial management, loans come later. Savings are integral to poor households’ risk management strategies; they constitute the first line of defense to help poor households cope with external shocks, emergencies and life-cycle events to which they are so vulnerable. The revolutionary initiative connected group members – many of whom had never had a bank account before – to formal financial services.
A typical Indian SHG consists of 10-20 poor women from similar socio-economic backgrounds who pool their savings into a fund from which they can borrow money to buy medicine, start a business, purchase animals, pay school fees, buy clothing, running a retail shop, cattle rearing, zari work, tailoring jobs, making candles, artificial jewellery.   In this way they make money ‘work’ because small amounts can be contributed and made available to everyone to use for their emergency needs. Through the group mechanism, the funds become a collective asset   enabling uplift of the community.
They meet once a month and discuss issues of mutual importance thereby enriching each other. The common characteristics are: Self-selected and unrelated members, small size, and regular attendance at meetings, regular savings by members, peer pressure to enforce repayment of loans and simple and transparent procedures.
Contrary to what many believe, the poor are not too poor to save, that there is enough savings potential within a group to enable people to meet the basic needs within a small community, and that small sums can make a big difference. Once the basic structure of the savings group model is introduced to a rural community by an outside agency – usually a local nonprofit – the groups do virtually everything, including training more groups.
Once the groups have mastered the mechanics of savings and lending, they begin to ask: What’s next? When they have a fair amount of capital, it starts making small loans to its members. Women cross guarantee each other’s debts. They gradually come to believe tomorrow can be different from today.
Women act as their own bankers, create their own loan fund, and approve small loans to each other as savings accumulate and making sure loans are repaid. Astonishingly, few default. By transferring tasks normally done by well-paid bankers to poor people, the cost of administration comes down drastically. Although the value for members is not just in finance, credit remains an important element. You can’t change social dynamics without women’s involvement in the economy.  The phenomenon of ‘regular meetings’ is an important enabling force which gives the woman courage to ‘lean in’, in multiple household and community settings. Dialogue-based education does not require that women know how to read or write, and learning together strengthens and gives confidence to the group. Groups are also a place where people can learn from others, share their experience and seek advice. The disciplined hard work of saving every week and running a group makes them efficient money managers.
By providing a space where members can build relationships and develop a strong sense of identity and belongingness, they create a unique set of relationships and values. They show how managing money involves more than financial management, the creation of significant social value. These groups impart training in areas such as health care, nutrition, and domestic problem solving. These social services   help clients profit from their loan sand also aid in the development of human capital – an important contributor to poverty alleviation.
The women act as their own bankers, creating their own loan fund, approving small loans to each other as savings accumulate, and making sure loans are repaid. Astonishingly, few default. By transferring tasks normally done by well-paid bankers to poor people, the cost of administration comes down drastically. Although the value for members is not just in finance, credit remains an important element.  You can’t change social dynamics without women’s involvement in the economy. The phenomenon of “regular meetings” is an important enabling force which gives the woman courage to “lean in”, in multiple household and community settings. The dialogue-based education does not require that women know how to read or write, and learning together strengthens and gives confidence to the group. The disciplined hard work of saving every week and running a group makes them efficient money managers.
The group is linked to a public bank which supervises it and oversees its money management.  Over time the bank begins to lend to the group as a unit, without collateral, relying on self-monitoring and peer pressure within the group.
The groups grow in size, they save and invest more, and they launch their own initiatives—training groups for their children, buying grain when the price is low to better survive the lean season, and launching collective enterprises as they reach out to other NGO and development programs. With their economic clout, management skills, and group solidarity, they aspire to more. Together the women create a critical mass and change the perception of what women can do. It is an amoeba model — and each group has the DNA within itself to self-replicate.
In the blitzkrieg of the new microfinance movement, these self-help groups have been overshadowed. It is a case of the stars being obscured by the moon. But the beauty of the night skies is never complete without the constellation of the twinkling stars. Despite early success, the growth of self-help groups had slowed in the last few years. The microfinance scene in the nineties was dominated entirely by these SHGs. And they became key a key armour for banks in draining the swamps of poverty before microfinance institutions (MFIs), fueled by international funding led by impact investors started swarming and courting them and made them their darlings for a purely business goal. They introduced a new idea of do-goodism and a touchy feely morality to smokescreen a mega business of making profits off the poor. THE MFIs selectively plucked the most honeyed self-help groups to pad their portfolios and profits. These groups have actually blossomed through the efforts of public banks, government and the not for profits, and sadly no one is talking about it. Moreover, MFIs have hybridized the group mode to reduce the investment of time and manpower that was entailed in nurturing them. Their groups are now just credit groups, called joint liability groups with no place for savings, capacity building and governance.
This was the point when the original character of these self-help institutions got destroyed. It is sad that microfinance institutions used this precious social capital built by community volunteers for a narrow commercial agenda. The focus shifted from thrift to credit. It became an irresistible tale of chasing money. Barring some socially conscious players like SEWA and BASIX, most of these institutions lapped on the Bottom of Pyramid bandwagon. Here in lies the nemesis of the great microfinance crisis of Andhra Pradesh and the obituary of the original philosophy of self-help groups.
The classical Indian version of microfinance is far more empowering – it is not just lending money.  The members in the group receive skills and business training, peer mentoring, technical support, on-site follow up and on-going access to   basic inputs in preparing a business plan which provides a basic roadmap for the borrowers to reach   economic goals. t. Group activities allow the women to understand and practice various techniques for running the business collectively. This prepares them for individual entrepreneurship. In a way, the self-help group is a basic entrepreneurial school. Women need privacy, security and control over their financial lives. Depending on the family dynamic, it would be hard to know how much a husband may be influencing or forcing a wife to sign off on something she doesn’t agree with.
The international MFI model is a different ballgame altogether. Here the sponsor is a profit-oriented venture capitalist, who sees the rural credit market as a powerful business opportunity. The MFI apparently brings great professionalism, innovation and technology to its enterprise of venturing to provide loans that banks do not. MFIs form no groups engaged in governance functions. Even when they operate through non-profits, MFIs are primarily concerned with lending and recovering what they lend to cohorts of people, at rates of interest far higher than what banks charge. Basically, the international model is consumerist in approach and is rooted in philosophy of Prahlad which argues that there is enormous wealth at the bottom of the pyramid.
SHGs owe their origin to the self-help affinity groups initiated by the Mysore Resettlement and Development Agency (MYRADA). The National Bank of Agricultural and Rural Development (NABARD) started the same model in 1992 as a pilot project, and later upgraded it to a regular banking program. Over a span of 25 years, the movement has registered tremendous growth, and has 8.5 million active SHG units across the country.
But loans of microfinance institutions to women from these groups have come in for lot of flak. Some borrowers squander money or start businesses that fail. There’s need for strong discipline. Loans can be malignant. Some businesses are too risky. And the temptation is always present to spend the loan on white goods. And the stark truism is that most loans to these women from MFIs are pipelined to their husbands.
Yet done right, microfinance can make a significant difference to the lives of impoverished women, particularly when used as a cover against sudden emergencies and for smoothening consumption.
There are still millions of self-help groups wedded to the original mission and creed. Through them, women are transforming their own lives and that of their communities. The sisterhood is so close knit and persuasive and sorority so intense that women have begun to think of themselves in a different way.
These groups have now become the main locomotives of economic growth in rural areas .SHGs are seen as an entry point for other social activities — school committees to watershed councils. As they mature, the group sparks and spearheads meaningful and enduring changes by addressing community issues such as abuse of women, the dowry system, alcohol, educational quality, inadequate infrastructure.
SHGs are the biggest generators of social capital in rural India. More than just a conduit for credit – they also act as a delivery mechanism for various other services ranging from entrepreneurial training, livelihood promotion activity and community development programs. Best practitioners in communities become community professionals (CPs) and catalysts for mobilization, health, literacy financial management, agriculture, leadership livestock and more. A vast majority of women leaders in Panchayat Raj institutions have come from SGHs and most successful sarpanches have had their grooming in these collectives. It is not that women are purer than men or immune to the pull of greed. But there is almost a certainty that women will channel money into solving more fundamental issues.
Beginning in the benign area of health, women slowly gained confidence and moved on to other social areas. They began asking for change from the bus conductor, introducing new farming practices, saving enough money to engage banks and acquire simple irrigation equipment like water tanks, agitating for an improved road (and getting it) mapping village land and rethinking what’s planted to produce year-round yields and income, demanding the presence of the school teacher, negotiating with local officials for providing services to which they were entitled.
Like termites, they have furrowed the male-dominated power-grid in villages and are pulverizing the whole patriarchal foundation. Where once participation of women in public meetings was an anathema, it has now become a ritual. SHGs have become powerful economic locomotives and have enabled women found new confidence, agency and purpose. Transcending their ascribed roles, they have dispelled the myth that women are good just for homes.
Rebuffing village hierarchies, women in many places hoisted the national flag in their villages, despite opposition from men. Women’s collectives have put an end to brewing of liquor in some villages. SHG women have enhanced their economic position in numerous ways, such as successfully bidding for contracts to fish in village ponds and developing wastelands to grow fruits and vegetables.
The loss of control that village moneylenders have suffered is a common story now in villages where SHGs have taken root. “For four months a year when there is no work, we were forced to take a loan of Rs 300 per month from money lenders at 100 % interest,” women belonging to the Scheduled Castes at Sholapur village told us – “After we formed an SHG, we don’t borrow from moneylenders, but from our own SHG.”
Mangala Dhawas, an SHG leader from Mohbala village in Chandrapur district is one such enterprising group leader. She now works as a market agent for insurance and deposit companies. Her success is manifest in her house as gadgets and improved facilities. The extension to her house has two tenants from a local power company. “My father thought it’s a bold step for a woman to start a business as people think that only men can do it,” she told us ,“He thought women should stay at home, doing domestic chores. He is eating his words today.”
“When women have the support of other women, and when they have income of their own,” say Ela Bhatt, founder of Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), which represents 1.2 million women working in India’s informal sector, “they are able to fight their own battles in their own way.”
Bhatt speaks of a quiet yet persistent strength particular to women: “Once a woman knows what she wants,” Bhatt says, “she’s not afraid to take risks. If we cannot break through, we just find a way around.”
Empowerment has many dimensions–social, economic, cultural, political and personal. When every part is treasured, the good unleashed is greatest. This is the unique philosophy of every self-help group. A membership of a self-help group has transformed women in ways that it has made men alter their perception of women. Men may fret that they lose when women win, but history tells us that when women advance, humanity advances. This lesson is best embodied in the words of Nirmala, a self-help group member for well over two decades and the current sarpanch of Wanoja in Central India, which she keeps repeating whenever I visit her: “My father always believed that it would have been far better if I were born a son. But today he   realizes how lucky he is to have me as a daughter.”

Centuries ago, a king, while travelling through his domain came across people living in dark caves. He was horrified at the gloom and ordered every family to be given lamps and oil to fuel them. Fifty years later, he visited the area again and found the caves in darkness.  The lamps had been forgotten or were broken. The oil had run out. The king ordered more oil, new lamps. But when he returned to the area the following year the caves were dark once more. The king summoned his minister, a wise old man, and asked for an explanation. ‘Ah,’ said the minister, ‘You gave the lamps to the men. You should have given them to the women.’ The king followed his minister’s advice and the lamps have kept burning ever since!

The IPCC Report: Is There Hope For Our Planet?

Arshad M Khan

Hurricanes and storms on both sides of the Atlantic appeared to encore the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.  It had just concluded the finalization of a special report on the impact of a 1.5 degree Celsius global warming above preindustrial levels.  Meeting in Incheon, South Korea (October 1-5), its three working groups of experts and government officials have huddled and jousted to strike a consensus on what will be necessary to restrict warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius when the globe is already up one degree.  What will earth be like with this level of warmth and what will happen if we fail?
Two earlier versions (January and June 2018) of the report were depressing to frightening.  They were made available for about a month for comment by experts and interested parties.  The real problem is a narrow window because human activity in the world emits 40 billion tons of CO2 per year — about 90 times the emission from volcanoes.  At some point, there will be enough in the atmosphere where the 1.5 degree rise will be a foregone conclusion.  While guesswork to some extent, it appears we have about 12 years before we exhaust the ‘carbon budget’; if we accept a 2C rise the date is 2045.
The tone may have been softened in the second report, but there is ‘substantial’ certainty the 2 degrees C target of the 2015 Paris Agreement, once considered safe, would be dangerous for humanity.  As the agreement also required governments to pursue efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C, the remit to IPCC was to prepare a report comparing the consequences of the two alternatives as well as the feasibility and effort required to limit the rise to the lower figure.  The final report released on Oct 8, 2018 reviews 30,000 publications.
The fact that parts of the earth are already warmer than the 2 degree C figure and the results are observable should be a driver for governments.  In the Arctic, for example, where temperatures have risen up to 3 degrees C, the effort has seen chunks of icebergs breaking off and polar bears having difficulty in catching seals because of fewer blowholes — where they normally wait in ambush.  Current temperatures are higher than they ever have been in the past two millennia.
For low-lying Pacific Islands the 1.5C goal is critical for many there would lose habitat and some islands are expected to disappear under the 2C target.  The Maldives in the Indian ocean are partly under water, and some Pacific islands have already disappeared as average world sea levels rise by 3 mm a year.  Yet Tuvalu has become an exception and its land area, studied from 1971 to 2014, is growing.  Eight of its nine atolls are found to be still rising, increasing the “area by 29 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose by twice the global average.”
Even so the consequences of the earth already being 1 degree C higher than preindustrial times are apparent in the  proliferation of extreme weather events.  Unduly powerful hurricanes as in Puerto Rico or Houston, record-breaking forest fires in the U.S. and Australia, monsoons in South India this year that in Kerala have been the worst in this century, and the record temperatures in northern Europe are a few examples.  Last week the 155 mph Category 5 Hurricane Michael, 5 mph short of Category 6, devastated the Florida panhandle and continued its destruction onward into Georgia and beyond.  It was the strongest to hit this part of Florida since records began in 1881.  On the other side of the Atlantic within a week, storms and hurricanes battered Europe:  Hurricane Leslie in Portugal, storm Callum in Britain and heavy rains in France causing flash floods in the Aude region of south-west France.  All of which can be expected to worsen as the earth’s mean temperature rises increasing in both frequency and intensity.
The IPCC report presents four pathways (p.19 Executive Summary) each with net zero CO2 emissions within the next quarter century.  The least interventionist scenario utilizes only afforestation to remove CO2.  The report is optimistic in demonstrating synergies (p.27) with sustainable development goals.  That CO2 removal technologies known as direct air capture (DAC) are also being developed successfully adds to the optimism.
At the same time the warnings are clear.  All the options require a rapid decarbonization of the fuel s:upply i.e. no fossil fuels — coal just about gone by 2050 and three-quarters of the energy from renewables (p.19 after four pathways graphs).  The risks for fisheries and coral reefs will remain high (p.13) even with the 1.5C scenario and coastal populations and farming will be worse off than now.  Severe weather consequences can be expected to worsen.  But all that is the world to be.  Hence the argument for the most interventionist scenarios where the atmospheric CO2 is eventually reduced.
For all this the need to act now is clear in the facts and numbers.

As Pakistan seeks IMF bailout, US intensifies pressure on Islamabad

Sampath Perera

Pakistan’s newly elected Islamic populist government has begun negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on an emergency bailout.
In televised remarks Oct. 10, Prime Minister Imran Khan said that Pakistan’s foreign reserves fell last month to $8.4 billion, which scarcely exceeds the total Islamabad must pay on outstanding government debt in the remainder of 2018, leaving the government no choice but to turn to the IMF. Khan said he would also be seeking financial help from “friendly countries,” which was universally interpreted to mean China and Saudi Arabia.
Washington, meanwhile, has served notice that it intends to leverage Pakistan’s current account crisis to disrupt Islamabad’s longstanding and ever-closer economic and strategic partnership with China, and to pressure Islamabad to bolster its support for the US war in Afghanistan.
According to press reports, Pakistan will request at least $7 billion from the IMF. This is an amount larger than any of the twelve previous loan cum neoliberal economic restructuring agreements that Islamabad has contracted with the IMF during the past three decades.
When in opposition, Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI-Pakistan Movement for Justice) criticized the “humiliating” terms that the IMF dictated to various Pakistan Muslim League and People’s Party of Pakistan (PPP) led governments. But with the aim of winning IMF support, Khan and his PTI brought down a “mini-budget” late last month that was chock-full of austerity measures, quickly putting paid to their populist promises of an “Islamic welfare state.”
Last Saturday, on his return from the annual IMF-World Bank meeting in Bali, Indonesia, Finance Minis­ter Asad Umar warned of coming “painful measures,” saying the population should brace itself for an economic slowdown and price rises. Pakistan’s currency has lost more than 25 percent of its value in US dollar terms over the past year.
The US has dominated the IMF since its founding and has always used IMF loans to pursue its predatory economic and strategic objectives.
What is different today is the extent to which Pakistan’s economic and strategic crises are intertwined, adding a new explosive charge to each.
During the Cold War, Pakistan came to strategically rest on the twin pillars of Washington and Beijing. But over the past decade this has become increasingly untenable. Not only has US imperialism mounted a massive and ever-widening economic, diplomatic and military-strategic offensive against China whose logic is all-out war. Washington has dramatically downgraded relations with Islamabad, long its principal South Asian ally, so as to woo Pakistan’s historic arch-rival India and transform it into a “frontline” state in the US drive against China.
China and Pakistan have responded to the US-India “global strategic partnership” by strengthening their own economic and strategic ties, as epitomized by the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). This in turn has further soured both countries’ relations with Washington and New Delhi.
Washington sees Pakistan’s economic troubles as a choice opportunity to strong-arm Islamabad to distance itself from Beijing, including by leveraging resentments with Pakistan’s venal elite over the distribution of the CPEC spoils and the growing presence of Chinese businesses and exports within the Pakistan economy.
In late July, as Khan and his PTI were preparing to take the reins of power, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned that Washington might block IMF assistance to Pakistan, since China and Chinese investors could stand to benefit. “There’s no rationale,” said Pompeo, “for IMF tax dollars, and associated with that American dollars that are part of the IMF funding, for those to go to bail out Chinese bondholders or China itself.”
Pompeo’s remarks were echoed by US State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert at a news briefing last Thursday. She said Pakistan’s request for IMF support would be closely scrutinized, adding that “part of the reason that Pakistan (has) found itself in this situation is Chinese debt.”
Nauert emphasized that the US has “been tracking fairly closely” the burgeoning economic ties between China and Pakistan.
Since last fall, Washington and the western media have been mounting an increasingly vitriolic campaign against Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which aims to counter the US drive to strategically isolate and encircle China by promoting the development of infrastructure links across Eurasia. A key element in this propaganda offensive is the claim that Beijing is seeking to gain strategic and economic leverage over countries by luring them, with the offer of infrastructure projects, into “debt traps”
The CPEC is an especially important component of the BRI—according to the London-based Financial Times “85 projects worth as much as $90 billion” are “in planning stages, under construction or completed”—and one that has a major strategic thrust.
CPEC’s flagship project is the development of road, rail and pipeline links between the Pakistani Arabian Sea port of Gwadar and western China. Such a corridor would link China to the oil-rich Middle East and help China to partially offset US plans to impose a blockade on coastal China in the event of a conflict.
Washington is insisting on “transparency” about all CPEC projects, including their financing, as a condition for any IMF assistance, and the IMF is already taking up cudgels over the issue. Asked about Pakistan during the IMF-World Bank meeting, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that her organization would insist on “absolute transparency about the nature, size and terms” of all Pakistan’s debts, including those related to CPEC projects.
China has said that it has no objections to the IMF gaining access to the financial details of the CPEC. For his part, Pakistan Finance Minster Umar has said that Washington’s claim that Pakistan is being weighed down by debts to China “is [a] totally wrong narrative.” According to Umar, payments to China account for just $300 million of the current $12 billion hole in Pakistan’s coming loan payments.
Washington’s other major demand is that Islamabad must assume more of the burden in the Afghan War, by eliminating so-called Taliban and Haqqani Network “safe havens” in its territory.
Commenting on his meeting last week with Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, General Joseph L. Votel, the commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), demanded that Islamabad “ensure that there” is “no movement back and forth” across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, and “that fighters can’t come back into Pakistan to get aid or medical care or other things.”
The Pentagon and Trump administration calculate that a ratcheting up of the war by both the US and Pakistan could bloody the Taliban into accepting a “negotiated settlement” on terms favourable to Washington. Thus Votel combined his insistence that Pakistan intensify military operations in its already war-devastated tribal areas with a call for Islamabad to pressure the Taliban to the bargaining table. “They can do this,” said the generally currently in overall command of the 17-year long US war in Afghanistan. “They can put pressure on [the Taliban] to do this.”
With Pakistan tottering on the brink of state bankruptcy and a potential economic collapse, Islamabad’s long-brewing strategic crisis threatens to come to a head, sparking economic and geopolitical shock waves that would reverberate across the region and beyond.

“National crisis” facing UK National Health Service as deficits grow

Ben Trent

In the latest quarterly report of NHS Improvement (NHSI), the combined forecast deficit of NHS trusts stands at a staggering £519 million.
NHSI is responsible for overseeing foundation trusts and NHS trusts, as well as “independent providers” operating within the NHS. This figure has been deemed “unaffordable” by NHSI. Trusts across England were already at a total deficit of £814 million at the close of June, roughly £80 million worse than the same time last year.
NHSI has noted that providers, for the first time, are carrying an underlying deficit of around £4.3 billion, if the non-recurrent “provider sustainability fund” is discounted.
The report details how successful trusts have been in trying to mitigate the continued cutting back of resources and the challenges faced—especially the continuation of the three-year trend in increased demand of an ageing population. The report details a 3.7 percent increase of A&E [Accident and Emergency] admissions from the same quarter in 2017/18.
Despite claims that two thirds of providers met budgeted targets last year, the deficit at the end of 2017/18 came in at £966 million. With the declaration by NHS Improvement that the current target is insufficient, the report states, “NHS Improvement and NHS England regional colleagues have been working with the most challenged health economies to identify actions to close the residual local planning gap.” In other words, already punitively reduced services need to be cut back even more.
The Kings Fund charity has demonstrated the impact of austerity measures on the NHS since they began to take effect in the financial year 2009-10.
The think tank reported that in financial year 2010-11 only 5 percent of NHS trusts overspent their annual budget. In 2015-16, an overwhelming 66 percent of trusts were overspending their annual budgets. The figures throw into sharp relief the true impact of the austerity measures on the NHS. An additional £1.8 billion was made available to the NHS in 2016-17 in the form of the Sustainability and Transformation Fund, but 44 percent of trusts still posted deficits for the following two financial years.
Acute hospitals comprised almost 90 percent of those in deficit. The latest predictions would see an increase of trusts reporting “overspending,” affecting up to 49 percent of all trusts.
Any minuscule funding given by the Tories to the NHS is massively offset but the spending cuts. By 2021 under the government’s Forward View, the NHS must save £22 billion in “efficiency” savings. Moreover, most of the cash granted in the provider sustainability fund, currently set at £2.45 billion, is allocated to acute trusts providing emergency care, but receiving it depends on them agreeing and meeting stringent financial and performance targets.
NHSI suggests ways to make further cuts by considerably reducing long-stay patients (those in hospital for over 21 days) in acute hospitals. NHSI has called for a 25 percent reduction of long-stay patients by December 2018. This was a reaction to the crisis at the start of the year—brought on by government cuts—whereby collectively the country’s 137 trusts were reporting an average bed occupancy rate of 91.7 percent (above the recommended safe level of 85 percent).
In January, 68 senior doctors issued a letter declaring that they had “insufficient hospital and community beds and staff of all disciplines.” In addition, cuts in social care means patients who could be looked after in the community have to stay in hospital.
The report includes an operational performance overview, revealing that against all the principal metrics that NHS England/NHS Improvement are measured against, the bodies are underperforming. This is with an exception of the 31-day wait from diagnosis to first treatment. These indices highlight the inability to process patients in sufficient timeframes.
Another revelation in the report is the almost 10 percent increase in NHS staff vacancies across this quarter. By the end of June, a total of 107,743 vacancies existed out of the 1 million staff employed by the NHS. According to predictions, this number will continue increasing throughout the financial year. With a staggering 41,772 nursing vacancies alone, the NHS is on a verge, as expressed by Siva Anandaciva of the Kings Trust charity, of a “national crisis.” The last three months alone saw an increase in nursing vacancies by 17 percent.
Royal College of Nurses (RCN) director Tom Sandford declared, “This report paints a bleak picture of rising demand and unsustainable workforce shortages, and betrays a huge over-reliance on bank and agency staff in England.”
The continued reliance on agency and bank staff is due to the rapidly increasing number of vacancies that are left unfilled. The use of agency staff is a major contributor in the overspending of acute hospitals. As NHS Improvement notes, “The overspending against pay budgets was caused by increases in temporary staffing with bank staff overspending against plan by £102 million and agency staff by £32 million. This continues the trend identified in 2017/18 of increasing use of temporary (especially bank staff) by trusts to manage workload in the face of increased demands, high levels of vacancies, sickness/absence and staff turnover. As a result of these pressures, overall spending on bank and agency staff is up by £134 million (11 percent) on the same period in 2017/18.”
A recent letter submitted by an anonymous nurse to The Plymouth Herald gives some indication why nursing staff are leaving the NHS in droves. It describes the experiences and the pressures felt by nursing staff. The nurse explains why she moved into the occupation and her love for the job, but that “something has changed within the NHS, community beds have been lost, smaller hospitals have been closed, mental health services have been starved of funding and jobs cut, funding has been cut year on year, these are just a few examples I can give. The numbers of acutely unwell patients coming into the emergency departments is increasing but the services and facilities available to us is [sic] declining.”
The letter continues, “You inform management about the unsafe nature of the unit and they give you a sympathetic look, there is nothing they can do, every ward is exactly the same, there is no one to help.”
She adds, “You have no time to eat or even go to the toilet as your colleagues are just as busy as you are and they cannot cover your work load or cope with any emergency situations whilst you leave the unit, this has an effect on your own physical and mental health.”
The viciously cyclical nature of the predicaments facing the NHS and its workers are not merely symptoms of mismanagement. They are the outcome of a systemic attack on a public health service provider with the intent of bringing the 70-year-old institution into private hands. Huge chunks of NHS provision are already in private hands such as those under Richard Branson’s Virgin Care, which has won over £2 billion in NHS contracts.
The unions have not only proven ineffective in combatting attacks on the NHS but are complicit in them. As the WSWS reported, the “best deal in eight years” touted by the unions was a fraud. The subsequent anger and rebellion by NHS staff at the blatant sellout pay deal resulted in the resignation of the RCN’s chief Janet Davies, after an initial apology failed to placate hostile rank-and-file members. But the resignation and resulting standing down of the RCN’s leadership—after a no confidence vote in them by the membership—is simply an appeasement maneuver. The leadership insisted that it would not reopen a pay agreement that sees NHS workers forced to undergo an effective pay cut for a further three years.
The fight to defend the NHS cannot be conducted within the constraints of bureaucratic unions but must be organized independently of these appendages of management. Health workers should contact NHS FightBack to discuss taking this fight forward through the building of rank-and-file committees, independent of the unions and the development of a socialist programme to defend the right to free, high-quality health care for all.

Slashing of welfare spending forces millions into poverty in UK

Dennis Moore 

After a decade of severe austerity imposed on millions of people across the UK, by the year 2021 there will be £37 billion spent less on working age social security compared to 2010,
This is the estimation of a report produced by the House of Commons library. The figures were obtained by Frank Field, the former Birkenhead Labour MP, who now sits as an Independent. They reveal the staggering level of cuts to welfare benefits that have pauperised millions, including the most vulnerable in society.
Half of these cuts will come from the freezing of working age benefits that has occurred since 2016 and will deliver cuts of nearly £16 billion.
They include cuts to disability benefits, including Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) that together will have been cut by £5 billion, or 10 percent, since 2010.
Other cuts include: Universal Credit, (£3.6 billion), Tax credits, (£4.6 billion), Child benefit, (£3.4 billion), Housing benefit, (£2.3 billion), disability benefits, (£2.8 billion), ESA, and Incapacity benefit, (£2 billion).
The cuts to welfare spending come at a time when costs for the poorest families have risen, leaving many having to spend a greater amount of their income on food, child care and housing.
A study carried out this year by the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (Feantsa) found that for the some of the lowest earners in Britain, the cost of a home has risen faster than anywhere else in Western Europe, increasing homelessness. Freek Spinnewijn, the director of Feantsa, said: “Housing exclusion and homelessness have taken on dramatic proportions in the UK.”
The Europe-wide investigation found that the costs of housing for those earning an average £16,000 a year increased by 45 percent, between 2010 and 2016. This is compared to just 10 percent for low earners across Europe. On average poorer households in the UK spend 47.4 percent of their average disposable income on housing costs.
Spending above 40 percent of one’s income on housing is defined as housing cost overburden, and is generally accepted as the benchmark above which general welfare and standard of living is threatened. This number falling into this category has increased by 70 percent since 2010.
A study by the Social Metrics Commission (SMC) think tank found that more than 14 million people, including 4.5 million children, are now living below the breadline. Up to 50 percent of those have been trapped in persistent poverty for years.
The SMC is a cross-party body that works alongside representatives from charities and the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It was founded by Conservative Party member Baroness Stroud. It has developed a more accurate measure of material disadvantage in the UK. The SMC defines poverty as “the extent to which people have the resources to engage adequately in a life regarded as the norm in society.”
While devising a more accurate system of measuring poverty, Stroud is now documenting the terrible levels of poverty she and her party were instrumental in causing. With the election of the Tories in 2010, Stroud was appointed as a Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, tasked with creating and ensuring the imposition of the Tories scorched earth policy on welfare spending. Another of the SMC commissioners is David Laws, who played a central role for the Tories’ coalition partners in that government, the Liberal Democrats, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Schools Minister and Cabinet Office Minister from 2010-2015.
The system developed by SMC takes into account factors such as the impact on a household of a disabled child, the impact of poverty in one parent family households, and a household where no one works, or where a household is dependent for income on irregular hours or zero hours contracts.
The system includes measuring core living costs such as rent and childcare costs and recognises that even a family described as living on a relatively comfortable income has no guarantee that they will be able to meet basic material needs, if it is consumed by unavoidable weekly outgoings.
The measurement examines the depth and severity of disadvantage, concluding that 12 percent of the total UK population is in persistent poverty, defined as having spent all or most of the last four years living below the breadline.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the numbers of children living in poverty will rise to 5.2 million over the next five years, as government welfare cuts take effect, reversing any progress that has been made in the last 20 years.
The cuts to welfare spending and the implementation of Universal Credit (UC), due to be rolled out nationally next year, have had a catastrophic effect on some of the most vulnerable in society.
The National Audit Office report on UC published earlier this year paints a damning picture of the benefits system. Eight years in development, UC has already consumed £1 billion of public spending in its implementation. Many have tried and failed to claim UC. Many who have been able to make a claim have faced huge problems, with figures showing that 113,000 UC benefit claimants were paid late in 2017.
The attacks on the poorest people are having a devastating impact. Recently published figures by the Office of National Statistics show that Britain’s improvement in life expectancy has slowed down at the fastest rate of any leading industrialised nation, excluding the US. Since 2011, the rate of improvement for women has collapsed by over three quarters.
Earlier this year a number of academics demanded a public inquiry into the worst slowdown in life expectancy improvements in the last 120 years.
An article published last year in the British Medical Journal Open concluded that severe public spending cuts in the UK were associated with 120,000 deaths between 2010 and 2017.
The collective impact of welfare spending and budget cuts to services at the local authority level is leaving many areas of Britain resembling areas of the US—where there was no comprehensive welfare state historically—with the decimation of essential services.
Knowsley, a working-class and impoverished area in the city of Liverpool, has seen its budget cut by nearly half. Liverpool has suffered cuts of nearly two thirds, representing its largest source of discretionary funding. Many other areas of the UK have seen similar cuts.
CEO of the Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said, “Cuts and freezes have taken family budgets to the bone as costs rise and there is more pain to come as the two child limit for Tax credits and universal credit, the bedroom tax, the benefit cap, and the roll out of universal credit push families deeper into poverty.”
After the financial crash of 2008, those in power were telling everybody “we are all in this together,” even as they handed over a £1 trillion to bail out the banks at the expense of the public purse. As all figures attest, 10 years on, the cost of this exercise in mass theft has been paid for through the imposition of austerity and impoverishment of millions of people.

Bavaria state election delivers major blow to Germany’s grand coalition

Johannes Stern

The result of the state election held in Bavaria on Sunday is a major blow to the grand coalition (Christian Democratic Union/CDU, Christian Social Union/CSU and Social Democratic Party/SPD) that rules Germany. After the conservative Union (CDU and CSU) and SPD achieved their worst results in the post-war period in the general election in September 2017, these parties suffered an even worse defeat in the first state election to be held this year, losing collectively more than 21 percent as the electorate registered opposition to the government’s right-wing policies.
The CSU, which has governed the state of Bavaria since 1957, gained just 37.3 percent of the vote and failed to gain an absolute majority. It was its worst result since 1950. At the last state election in 2013 the party won 47.7 percent.
The SPD lost even more votes than the CSU and received just 9.5 percent—a fall of 11.1 percent and its worst result in a state election in post-war history. At a federal level, the Social Democrats are now polling at 15 percent, a historic low.
“We could not convince voters and that is bitter,” said the visibly aggrieved SPD chair Andrea Nahles on election night. One of the reasons for the miserable result was the “poor performance of the grand coalition” in Berlin. The SPD had been unable to “liberate itself from the political disputes between CDU and CSU.”
The result in Bavaria confirms the deep-seated hatred on the part of workers and young people for the SPD—the party that introduced the anti-social Agenda 2010 policy, which has plunged millions into poverty and created Europe’s largest low-wage sector. The SPD’s “performance” in the grand coalition has consisted in intensifying the policy of militarism, the build-up of the police and intelligence agencies and social cuts, based on the support of the most right-wing forces.
The CSU chairman and federal interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has only been able to implement his “Master Plan for Migration” (largely based on the policy of the far-right AfD) with the backing of the SPD. The same applies to the still-current domestic intelligence agency (BND) president Hans-Georg Maassen, who works closely together with the AfD and far-right circles. When thousands of neo-Nazis marched through the city of Chemnitz at the end of August, chasing migrants and leftists and attacking a Jewish restaurant, both Maassen and Seehofer expressed solidarity with the right-wing mob.
Popular opposition is mounting as the SPD cements its relations with the far-right. One day before the election in Bavaria, a quarter of a million people took to the streets of Berlin to protest against the AfD and the right-wing agenda of the federal government and the opposition parties. Despite an increase in voter turnout of nearly 10 percent in Bavaria compared to 2013, this sentiment could find only a distorted expression within the existing party system.
The main party to profit was the Greens, who received 17.5 percent of the vote, about 9 percent more than five years ago. According to the election research institute Infratest dimap, the main increase in votes for the Greens came from former voters of the SPD (210,000) and the CSU (180,000). In addition, about 120,000 former non-voters gave their votes to the Greens this time round.
Some may have voted for the Greens with the notion that the party is less aggressive when it comes to refugee policy than other parties. But that is an illusion. After the former Green pacifists backed Germany’s first post-World War II military intervention (in Yugoslavia) in 1999, in the face of fierce popular opposition, the party also shifted far to the right in the sphere of social and refugee policy. Wherever the Greens are involved in government they back police-state measures and the brutal deportation of refugees. In the state of Hesse, the ruling coalition of the CDU and Greens, headed by Volker Bouffier (CDU), has set new records for deportations. Nearly 600 men and women were deported in the first four months of this year alone—50 percent more than in the same period in 2017. Germany’s next state election will take place in Hesse in just under two weeks.
In Bavaria, the Greens are preparing to form a coalition with Seehofer’s CSU and enforce its far-right political line against growing popular resistance. The party’s leading candidates in Bavaria, Ludwig Hartmann and Katharina Schulze, both expressed their support for an alliance with the CSU, along with leading Green politicians based in Berlin. Green Party spokeswoman Franziska Brantner stressed, “Following the negotiations over a Jamaica coalition (a coalition of the conservatives, Greens and neo-liberal Free Democratic Party) at a federal level, we are prepared to go all the way, we want to take part constructively, and to this end show we are also more determined than the SPD.”
Immediately after the election, however, there were indications that the CSU is seeking to form an administration with the state-based Free Voters (FW), which received 11.6 percent of the vote (gaining 2.6 percent). On the night of the election Bavarian Premier Markus Söder (CSU) declared the CSU had a “clear government mandate” and sought a “civic alliance” with the Free Voters. FW chairman Hubert Aiwanger announced he would “put feasible proposals on Söder’s table.”
The FDP enters the new parliament with 5.1 percent of the vote while the Left Party, with 3.2 percent, failed to clear the 5 percent hurdle for representation. The Left Party is widely regarded by workers and young people as a political foe rather than an alternative. In those administrations where the Left Party governs in alliance either with the SPD or Greens, it administers austerity policies with disastrous consequences. In the sphere of refugee policy, the party propounds extreme right-wing and nationalist views.
Last week the head of the Left Party’s parliamentary faction, Sahra Wagenknecht, spoke out openly against the mass demonstration which took place on Saturday in Berlin. “When we talk about open borders for all, then we refer to a demand that most people find unreal and completely alien, and they’re right,” she explained, echoing the AfD. It is already clear that her newly founded movement “Stand Up” is nothing other than a right-wing and nationalist movement aimed at opposing the growing resistance to racism and xenophobia.
Wagenknecht and the Left Party are worried about the growth of social and political opposition and have adopted the right-wing, xenophobic propaganda of the AfD. She promptly won the acclaim of AfD leader Alexander Gauland. Gauland, who just a few days ago published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung largely based on a speech by Hitler in 1933, praised Wagenknecht as a “courageous voice for reason.”
Although the ruling elites in Germany and their leading media and parties systematically promote the AfD and legitimise its noxious policies, the right-wing extremists received fewer votes than expected. The AfD result of around 10 percent was lower than its total in Bavaria for the federal election in September 2017 (12.4 percent).
This is no reason for complacency, however. No matter which government is formed in Bavaria, it will invariably shift further to the right and orient itself even more to the program of the AfD. The threat from the right can only be stopped by the independent mobilisation of the working class on the basis of a socialist program. The building of the Socialist Equality Party (SGP) is therefore of crucial importance.

15 Oct 2018

HEC Paris/Eiffel MBA Scholarships for Developing Countries 2019/2020 – France

Application Deadline: Within 1 week of admission. No essay required
  • For those admitted and confirmed after 1/01/18: March 2019
  • For those admitted and confirmed after 1/01/19 : March 2020
Eligible Countries: EIFFEL is offered for candidates working in emerging countries

To be taken at (country): HEC – Paris

About Scholarship: Launched in January 1999 by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministère des Affaires Etrangères), the Eiffel Scholarship is designed to bolster international recruiting by French schools of higher education, at a time when competition to attract top foreign students is growing among developed countries. HEC reserves the right to submit only those candidates it feels best qualify for the Eiffel Scholarship as the award is particularly competitive and prestigious. Note that applications from students currently studying outside France will be given priority over those from students already studying in France.

Type: MBA

Selection Criteria and Eligibility: The HEC MBA Program applies on behalf of admitted eligible students. In order to be eligible the candidate must:
  • Be aged 30 years old or less in the selection year.
  • Only admitted candidates can apply for this scholarship.
  • Have a single nationality from a developing country deemed an ’emerging country’ by the French state department, especially those in Asia and Latin America, for example, currently under-represented among the student population in France.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: The Eiffel Scholarship provides participants with a monthly allowance of approximately €1,100, and covers additional expenses including travel, health insurance and cultural activities. Tuition fees are not covered by the scholarship.

Duration of Scholarship: for the period of study

Offered annually? Yes

How to Apply: Interested candidates should first apply for admission into the HEC Paris MBA programme in order to get this scholarship.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for Details

Sponsors: French Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Commonwealth Scholarships 2019 (Fully-Funded Masters & PhD) in UK for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 19th December 2018 16:00 (GMT)

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Developing commonwealth countries

Subject Areas: All subject areas are eligible, although the CSC’s selection criteria gives priority to applications that demonstrate strong relevance to development.

Levels of study: Masters and PhD

About Scholarship: Each year, Commonwealth Scholarships for Master’s and PhD study in the UK are offered for citizens of developing Commonwealth countries. These scholarships are funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID), with the aim of contributing to the UK’s international development aims and wider overseas interests, supporting excellence in UK higher education, and sustaining the principles of the Commonwealth.

Offered Since: 1959

Type: Masters (one-year courses only) and PhD

Who is qualified to apply? To apply for these scholarships, you must:
PhD
  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2019
  • By October 2019, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree)
  • NOT be registered for a PhD, or an MPhil leading to a PhD, at a UK university before September/October 2019
  • NOT have commenced and be currently registered for a PhD, or an MPhil leading to a PhD, in your home country or elsewhere
  • Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship
Masters
  • Be a citizen of or have been granted refugee status by an eligible Commonwealth country, or be a British Protected Person
  • Be permanently resident in an eligible Commonwealth country
  • Be available to start your academic studies in the UK by the start of the UK academic year in September/October 2019
  • By October 2019, hold a first degree of at least upper second class (2:1) honours standard, or a second class degree and a relevant postgraduate qualification (usually a Master’s degree). The CSC would not normally fund a second UK Master’s degree. If you are applying for a second UK Master’s degree, you will need to provide justification as to why you wish to undertake this study Be unable to afford to study in the UK without this scholarship
The CSC promotes equal opportunity, gender equity, and cultural exchange. Applications are encouraged from a diverse range of candidates.

Selection Criteria: Applications are considered according to the following selection criteria:
  • Academic merit of the candidate
  • Quality of the proposal
  • Potential impact of the work on the development of the candidate’s home country
Selection process
Each year, the CSC invites selected nominating bodies to submit a specific number of nominations. The deadline for nominating bodies to submit nominations to the CSC is 25 January 2019.
The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to be awarded a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by other nominating bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.

Number of Scholarships: Approximately 300 scholarships are awarded each year. The CSC invites around three times more nominations than scholarships available – therefore, nominated candidates are not guaranteed to get a scholarship. There are no quotas for scholarships for any individual country. Candidates nominated by national nominating agencies are in competition with those nominated by universities/university bodies, and the same standards will be applied to applications made through either channel.

Duration of Scholarships: 12 months for Masters and up to 36 months for PhD

Value of Scholarships: Each scholarship provides:
  • Approved airfare from your home country to the UK and return at the end of your award (the CSC will not reimburse the cost of fares for dependants, nor usually the cost of journeys made before your award is finally confirmed)
  • Approved tuition and examination fees
  • Stipend (living allowance) at the rate of £1,084 per month, or £1,330 per month for those at universities in the London metropolitan area (rates quoted at 2018-2019 levels)
  • Thesis grant towards the cost of preparing a thesis or dissertation, where applicable
  • Warm clothing allowance, where applicable
  • Study travel grant towards the costs of study-related travel within the UK or overseas
  • For PhD Scholars, fieldwork grant towards the cost of fieldwork undertaken overseas (usually the cost of one economy class return airfare to your fieldwork location), where approved
  • For PhD Scholars, paid mid-term visit (airfare) to your home country (unless you have claimed (or intend to claim) spouse and/or child allowances during your scholarship, or have received a return airfare to your home country for fieldwork)
  • Family allowances, as follows (rates quoted at 2018-2019 levels):
    • If you are accompanied by your spouse but no children: spouse allowance of £233 per month
      for a maximum period of nine months, if you and your spouse are living together at the same
      address in the UK (unless your spouse is also in receipt of a scholarship; other conditions
      also apply)
    • If you are accompanied by your spouse and children: spouse allowance of £233 per month
      and child allowance of £233 per month for the first child, and £114 per month for the second
      and third child under the age of 16, if your spouse and children are living with you at the same
      address in the UK (unless your spouse is also in receipt of a scholarship; other conditions
      also apply)
    • If you are accompanied by your children but no spouse: child allowance of £465 per month for
      the first child, and £114 per month for the second and third child under the age of 16, if your
      children are living with you at the same address in the UK
To be taken at: UK Universities

How to Apply: You must apply to one of the following nominating bodies in the first instance – the CSC does not accept direct applications for these scholarships:
  • National nominating agencies – this is the main route of application
  • Selected universities/university bodies, which can nominate their own academic staff
  • Selected non-governmental organisations and charitable bodies
All applications must be made through one of these nominating bodies. Each nominating body is responsible for its own selection process and may have additional eligibility criteria. You must check with your nominating body for their specific advice and rules for applying, their own eligibility criteria, and their own closing date for applications.
You must make your application using the CSC’s online application system, in addition to any other application that you are required to complete by your nominating body. The CSC will not accept any applications that are not submitted via the online application system.

All applications must be submitted by 16:00 (GMT) on 19 December 2018 at the latest.

Application will be available soon.
You are advised to complete and submit your application as soon as possible, as the online application system will be very busy in the days leading up to the application deadline.
Your application must include the following supporting documentation, by 16:00 (GMT) on 4 January 2019 in order for your application to be eligible for consideration
  • Proof of citizenship or refugee status – uploaded to the online application system
  • Full transcripts detailing all your higher education qualifications (with certified translations if not in English) – uploaded to the online application system
  • References from at least two individuals – submitted directly by the referees to the online application system (referees will be sent an email request)
  • Supporting statement from a proposed supervisor in the UK from at least one of the institutions named on your application form – submitted directly by your proposed supervisor to the online application system (supervisors will be sent an email request).
The CSC will not accept supporting documentation submitted by nominating agencies or outside the online application system.

Visit PhD Scholarship webpage for details. Read carefully for guidance.

Visit Masters Scholarship webpage for details. Read carefully for guidance.

Evolution of Religion

Kary Love

Science answers many questions but not of morality or wisdom. Human judgment is responsible there.
But morality began with evolution. It was useful work that people did that had survival value. So, the tribe recognized that those who carried their load and were able to contribute above their need were desirable members of the tribe. They were selected for mating and their genes reproduced. Whatever gene copy accounted for this was, over time, inbred. People did for others really for their own benefit. To be selected for reproduction. And so, the circle goes. Until doing for others is part of the DNA, the gene pool, the selection process.
It becomes “second nature.” Instinctual. To do good work. It is human nature.
Human observation discerned the positive response to doing good work and found it good. Human curiosity sought to explain such goodness in an often bleak and unforgiving world. Nothing in the world seemed to explain it, so speculation arose it came from beyond this world. Over time, this speculation became religions.
Religions made sense in the face of insufficient knowledge. With the advent of scientific knowledge, the borders of the “out there” explanation becomes smaller and smaller. Human responsibility increases exponentially with every scientific advance. Surely, we know enough by now to realize “out there” is not coming to save us from ourselves. The science of nature’s god is astonishing. Our ability to use it stupefying. This god gave us a miraculous gift! But, our capacity to use it for self-destruction is not only appalling but insulting. It is the ultimate sacrilege in both religion and science.
To continue good works, this is the human imperative. Not all get it, there are mutations. But if this great good work is to go forward, there must be humans to do it. Given our creation of nuclear weapons, given our military’s massive consumption of fossil fuel and thus production of planet-killing greenhouse gases, rejection of war and violence has now become a species imperative. Lucky, we have been. Statistics and mathematics suggest that luck will run out. Human judgment alone stands in the way. Our second nature—to do good, to be kind—must become First Nature.

Corporate Debt Scares

Dean Baker

As we mark the 10th anniversary of the peak of the financial crisis, news outlets continue to feature pieces how another one, possibly worse, is just around the corner. This mostly shows that the folks who control these outlets learned absolutely nothing from the last crisis. As I have pointed out endlessly, the story was the collapse of the housing bubble that had been driving the economy. The financial crisis was an entertaining sideshow.
There is one story in the coming crisis picture that features prominently — the corporate debt burden, as discussed here. (This Bloomberg piece is actually well-reasoned.) The basic story is a simple one: corporate debt has risen rapidly in the recovery. This is true both in absolute terms, but even in relation to corporate profits.
The question is whether this is anything that should worry us. My answer is “no.”
The key point is that we should be looking at debt service burdens, not debt, relative to after-tax corporate profits. This ratio was was 23.1 percent in 2017, before Congress approved a big corporate tax cut. By comparison, the ratio stood at more than 25 percent in the boom years of the late 1990s, not a time when people generally expressed much concern over corporate debt levels.
It is true that the burden can rise if interest rates continue to go up, but this would be a very gradual process. The vast majority of corporate debt is long-term. In fact, many companies took on large amounts of debt precisely because it was so cheap, in some cases issuing billions of dollars worth of 30-year or even 50-year bonds. These companies will not be affected by a rise in interest rates any time soon.
But clearly, there are some companies that did get in over their heads with debt. There are two points to be made here.
First, with the stock market at extraordinarily high levels (this is true even with the selloff of the last two days), companies can still raise a large amount of capital by issuing new shares. If their debt burden poses serious risks to the company, presumably they will go this route. In many cases, companies will have subsidiaries, land, or other assets that they can use to raise money if it is needed to pay off its debt.
Second, some companies will undoubtedly face financial distress and need relief from creditors, either through renegotiating debt or bankruptcy. The question here is, so what? Companies are always going bankrupt. Our laws are designed to allow companies to continue to operate through a bankruptcy. Creditors are forced to take a loss on their loans, the size of which will depend both on the financial shape of the company and where they stand in line as a creditor.
So let’s say that a substantial portion of the $1.3 trillion of speculative debt cited in the Bloomberg piece faces a credit downgrade, with some of it going into default. This means that some investors lose money. We have a $20 trillion economy. If the losses amounted to 40 percent of these bonds (which would be huge), that still only amounts to $520 billion, or 2.6 percent of GDP. The impact of this loss would barely be felt in the economy as a whole.
In short, even in the really bad story here, we are not talking a major financial crisis or a second Great Depression. Some investors get hit as a result of making some bad picks. This may be a serious problem for them, but it’s not the sort of thing the rest of us need to worry about.