20 Oct 2018

European Union and Rome fight over Italian budget

Marianne Arens

A sharp dispute has broken out between the Italian government and the European Commission over the 2019 Italian budget, which was presented in Brussels by the right-wing coalition of Lega and the Five Star Movement (M5S) last week.
The EU has strongly criticized it because the planned new debt of 2.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) is well above the 0.8 percent committed to by the previous governments under Matteo Renzi and Paolo Gentiloni (both Democratic Party, PD). The 2019 draft budget was “incompatible” with EU directives, complained EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger (Christian Democrat).
EU Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici presented Italian Finance Minister Giovanni Tria with an EU official letter on October 18. It states that Italy’s departure from the Stability and Growth Pact constitutes “a source of serious concern for the European Commission.” In the new Italian debt plans, the EU sees “particularly serious non-compliance” with the obligations of the Stability and Growth Pact. The EU is urging the Italian government to explain its plans no later than Monday noon.
For its part, the Italian government is using the criticism from Brussels to present itself as a champion of the little man against foreign rule by Brussels and powerful financial interests.
Interior Minister Matteo Salvini, the leader of the neo-fascist Lega, ranted, “We say to the gentlemen in Brussels: The Italians will decide for Italy. Let us work.” Brussels, Berlin and Paris had no right to interfere in Italian affairs. At an election campaign meeting in Bolzano, Salvini accused the EU of wanting to “keep Italy in precarious conditions and impoverished.” He said he would bring down the old EU, at the latest in the upcoming European elections in May 2019.
Economics and Social Affairs Minister Luigi Di Maio of the M5S accused the EU Commission of pursuing “market terrorism.” He also threatened that the upcoming European elections would trigger a “political earthquake.”
In this conflict, no side represents a progressive position. As in the case of Greece, the EU Commission clearly takes the side of the banks, stock exchanges and credit agencies. The EU worries that the Italian crisis could affect the capital market throughout Europe and insists that the Italian population be further fleeced.
The Milan Stock Exchange has been falling for days and interest rates on Italian government securities is skyrocketing. The interest rate on 10-year bonds stands at 3.7 percent, 3 percent more than Germany pays. It is the highest level for almost five years. The international rating agencies are already threatening to downgrade Italy.
The planned new debt is below the Maastricht limit of 3 percent. However, with total debt at €2.3 trillion, or 130 percent of GDP, more than twice the 60 percent that the EU had once agreed, Brussels is pushing for a reduction in the debt burden.
The right-wing government in Rome also does not care about the concerns of the Italian people. Its budget plan is really anything but a rebellion against the dictates of the financial markets. Behind the flowery but vague promises of a “basic income” and “pension reform” lie right-wing policies of militarism and harsh attacks on immigrants and the entire working class.
This is exemplified by the budget item for military expenditure. As long as the Five Star Movement was in opposition, it had fulminated against the high military budget. “At least ten billion euros” could be saved in defence spending, M5S founder Beppe Grillo wrote in his blog at that time. In particular, Grillo repeatedly attacked the purchase contract for 90 F-35 fighter jets and demanded “draconian cuts.” The F-35, a stealth fighter jet of the American defence manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is assembled in Cameri, northern Italy, as the only European location.
Barely in power, the Five Star Movement dropped all its promises. In July, the new Defence Minister Elisabetta Trenta, who is a member of the Five Star Movement, pledged to meet NATO’s goal of spending 2 percent of GDP on armaments. The new budget contains just one short paragraph on the armaments targets, which states very generally that “cuts of 500 million euros” are planned, but neither concrete figures nor facts are provided.
Rather, the paragraph gives the impression that the government is covering up a lot here and keeping it a secret. In fact, Minister Trenta has made it clear that she is holding on to the contract with Lockheed Martin; termination would have a negative impact on workers in Cameri and, moreover, it could be more expensive to exit the contract than to fulfil it. At the same time, the media reported that the aircraft carrier Cavour would soon need 22 new F-35 fighter jets to remain operational.
Even under the Lega/Five Star government, militarism is being vigorously promoted. According to figures from the defence ministry, already over 6,700 Italian soldiers are involved in operations outside the country’s borders. Italian soldiers are currently stationed in 12 countries, seven of them in Africa—Libya, Niger, Tunisia, Egypt, Djibouti, Somalia and Mali. Outside Africa, they are present in Lebanon, Iraq and Kuwait, Afghanistan, Latvia and on the Mediterranean.
In any case, the police will receive more funding in the new budget, with €380 million planned for this.
The government is also continuing its racist course against immigrants and refugees with the new budget. Having already blocked the escape routes across the Mediterranean, paralyzing NGO maritime rescue operations and condemning thousands of people to drown, the new budget cuts the amount of money needed to take in migrants by half a billion euros.
On the other hand, the announcements about pensions and the basic income are very vague. The only thing that is clear is that the “unconditional basic income” (Reddito di cittadinanza) will be anything but “unconditional.” It is more reminiscent of Germany’s Hartz IV unemployment benefit, which is used as a cudgel against the unemployed to force needy people to accept any work at all and lower wages generally.
The basic income announced in the budget from March 2019 is pegged at €780 a month, but only for people with an Italian passport. It is also linked to a means test and involves a strict compulsion to work: anyone who cannot find a job is required to perform social service. And those who turn down a job offer twice will probably lose everything—not just the basic income, but also any kind of social assistance.
The government is boasting that it will overturn the hated Fornero pension reform, which raised the retirement age to 67 in one fell swoop. In future, the “formula 100” should apply, according to which someone can retire if their age and the number of years they have paid contribution add up to 100. However, here too the exact details are still unknown. The following restrictions have already been indicated: a minimum age of 64 years and a minimum of 35 contribution years should apply.
The Lega and Five Star government employs militant anti-EU rhetoric to fuel nationalism and divide and paralyze the working class. Without the passive acceptance of the trade unions and the “left” parties, however, it could not stay in office for a single day.
The silence of the mighty umbrella union CGIL, which alone has more than 5 million members, is deafening. The CGIL had responded to the announcement of the budget by previous governments with major demonstrations and at least a one-day national strike, but not in this instance.
In fact, numerous trade unionists and former Communist Party supporters had already supported the Five Star in the election campaign. Today, they share the government’s nationalism and present its propaganda measures about a “basic income” and “pension reform” as progressive. At the same time, they refuse to defend immigrants. So far, not a single effective solidarity action by the unions has been organised in defence of refugees.

Saudi regime admits Khashoggi was killed in its Istanbul consulate

James Cogan

The Saudi Arabian monarchial regime finally admitted late Friday that dissident Saudi journalist and Washington Post correspondent Jamal Khashoggi was killed on October 2 inside its consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The acknowledgment comes after more than two weeks in which Saudi officials insisted that Khashoggi left the consulate unharmed and that they had no knowledge of his whereabouts.
The admission that Khashoggi was in fact killed was presented by the country’s chief public prosecutor in a statement delivered on national television. It was made in the face of detailed reports by Turkish investigators that a 15-man team of Saudi intelligence agents, with close ties to the heir to the throne and de facto ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was flown into Istanbul to assassinate Khashoggi. The journalist was viewed with hostility by the Saudi regime because of his criticisms of the crown prince and the murderous US-backed war being waged by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
Khashoggi had visited the consulate on September 28 to finalise divorce proceedings from his Saudi wife so he could marry his Turkish fiancée. He returned on October 2 to pick up documents.
Turkish officials say that audio and video recordings in their possession show that the journalist was seized by the hit squad and brutally tortured and murdered, after which his body was dismembered and taken out of the building in suitcases by the Saudi operatives. The remains may have been flown to Saudi Arabia, though Turkish police have been conducting searches in forested areas on the outskirts of Istanbul.
The alternative version of events advanced by the Saudi regime is a fantastic and brazen attempt to substantiate its absurd claim, echoed by the Trump administration, that “rogue killers” carried out the murder without the knowledge of the crown prince or other key figures in the Saudi ruling elite. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held meetings with Saudi King Salman and the crown prince on Tuesday, during which they agreed that an “accounting” of what had happened to Khashoggi would be presented.
The prosecutor asserted that the intelligence team had gone to Istanbul because Khashoggi had indicated an interest in returning to Saudi Arabia. A discussion “developed in a negative way” and “led to a fight and a quarrel between some of them and the citizen.” The fight purportedly “aggravated to lead to his death and their attempt to conceal and cover what happened.” The Saudi monarchy, he declared, “expresses it deep regret at the painful development and stresses the commitment of the authorities in the Kingdom to bring the facts to the public.”
The prosecutor stated that 18 unnamed people had been arrested in connection with Khashoggi’s death. It appears that this group will be the patsies offered up by the regime as the “rogue” elements who carried out the killing and sought to conceal it from the government.
Five top-ranking Saudi officials have been removed from their positions but not charged with any crime. They are the crown prince’s advisor Saud al-Qahtani, deputy intelligence chief Major General Ahmed as-Assiri and three other generals in the country’s military-intelligence apparatus. The official Saudi news outlet reports that the king has ordered an unspecified restructuring of the General Intelligence Presidency, the country’s main intelligence agency.
The commission to pursue the investigation and oversee the reorganization is reportedly to be headed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself.
Almost universally, the Saudi narrative is being dismissed in the US political and media establishment and around the world as a crude attempt at cover-up based on an improbable patchwork of lies.
Ahead of the US congressional elections, the Democratic Party and publications such as the New York Times and Washington Post are seeking exploit the situation to denounce Trump for his well documented financial relations with the Saudi monarchy and his endorsement of its cover-up of the murder of Khashoggi.
Times correspondent Nicholas Kristof wrote in an op-ed piece published this week: “The United States should quietly make clear to the Saudi royal family that the Mad Prince has gone too far— not just with this murder, but also his war in Yemen, his confrontation with Qatar, his kidnapping of Lebanon’s prime minister—and will forever be tainted. A murderer belongs not at state dinners but in a prison cell.”
Such rhetoric from the Democratic Party-linked faction of the American establishment is the height of hypocrisy. The brutal, semi-feudal dictatorship in Saudi Arabia has been backed by US imperialism for over 80 years. The near-genocidal war that Saudi Arabia is waging against the people of Yemen was launched in 2015 with the full support and assistance of the Obama administration.
Moreover, Donald Trump is far from alone in the American capitalist class in reaping benefits from relations with the Saudi royal family. The Clinton Foundation, for example, has received up to $25 million in Saudi donations since it was founded in 1997.
For all the feigned indignation over the criminality revealed in Khashoggi’s murder, the US government and ruling class will come together to ensure the stability of the Saudi regime. It is one of American capitalism’s main assets in the Middle East and among the top international purchasers of American military hardware.
More immediately, the Trump administration intends to rely on Saudi Arabia to increase its oil production to prevent major price rises when harsh new US sanctions go into effect against Iran on November 5, following Washington’s unilateral renunciation of the 2015 “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” under which the Iranian regime curtailed its nuclear program.
Washington will be particularly concerned over any sign that the fall-out from the assassination fuels what is already burgeoning discontent in Saudi Arabia and mounting demands for sweeping social change. Seven years after the revolutionary movement that swept the Mubarak dictatorship from power in Egypt, the oil-rich country looms large as a potential scene of mass political upheaval.
To the extent that calls are made by factions within the US ruling class and the state for token democratic reforms in Saudi Arabia, and even for the sidelining of the crown prince, the sole motivation is fear of a social explosion against the monarchy and a desire to dampen unrest and prop up the regime.

19 Oct 2018

Erasmus Mundus Masters Program in Public Policy (MAPP) Scholarships 2019/2021 for Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 3rd January 2019 at 23:59 CET

Eligible Countries: Developing countries (Partner Countries)

A part of Partner Country scholarships are earmarked for applicants coming from the following specific geographical regions:
ENI – EAST:
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine

ASIA – Least Developed Countries:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Nepal

CENTRAL ASIA – Lower or Lower Middle Income Countries:
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan

ACP COUNTRIES:
Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cook Islands, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Federated States of Micronesia, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Niger, Nigeria, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and The Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Democratic Republic of Timor Leste, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe


To be taken at (country): MA in Public Policy, accredited in Hungary, The Netherlands, Spain and UK

About the Award: Mundus MAPP/MUNMAPP is a two-year-long international joint Masters program in Public Policy, offered by  four top-ranked European institutions: Central European University, Budapest (Hungary), International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (the Netherlands), Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (Spain) and the University of York (UK). Established in 2007, the program operates as an Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degree Program funded by the European Commission.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: Mundus MAPP is open to both European and third country national students.
Minimum requirements are:

1)    Educational background
For all tracks of the program, candidates need to have a Bachelors degree comprising at least three years of studies at a recognized university or institute of higher education. Applicants must have obtained at least class 2.2 (Lower Second), B or equivalent but preferably class 2.1 (Upper Second), B+ or equivalent. Normally applicants with a preliminary degree in any of the social sciences or equivalent are given preference. Candidates with a Bachelors degree in Natural Science or Engineering are not eligible to apply.
Further, for CEU tracks (CEU-York and CEU-IBEI) only Bachelors degrees in the Social Sciences and some disciplines in the Arts and Humanities are eligible. Specifically:
  • Applicants with Bachelors degrees in the following fields are eligible to apply: International Studies (incl. International Relations), Political Science, Sociology, Social Studies; Administration Management, International Administration; Applied Economics, Economic Analysis, Public Service.
  • Applicants with Bachelors degrees in the following fields are eligible to apply only if the candidate has at least half a year’s professional or research experience, in the following fields: any other field of the Social Sciences; Legal and Administration Sciences; Economics; National Defense and Military field and Security studies.
  • Other Bachelors degrees in the Arts and Humanities may be eligible on a case-by-case basis, if the Consortium’s admissions evaluators can verify from the submitted transcripts that the applicant has followed courses and/or has done research in the fields listed above.
The fields above are defined broadly, national equivalent degrees or specialized degrees of the above fields (e.g. political economy or international political economy, regional and environmental economics, social policy etc.) are eligible. If you have questions about the eligibility of your degree please contact the consortium.
For IBEI tracks (CEU-IBEI, ISS-IBEI), according to the regulations of the Spanish Ministry of Education, applicants need to have successfully completed an undergraduate degree from a fully accredited institution of higher education (within or outside the European Higher Education Area), provided that this undergraduate degree grants access to master’s level studies in the country in which the undergraduate degree diploma was issued.

2)    High motivation and interest in European and international public policy

3)    Work experience
Applicants with relevant work experience (internships, jobs) will be ranked higher.


4)    Fluency in English
Mundus MAPP does not require a language certificate from applicants from the following countries, provided that they have received a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree taught exclusively in English:
Australia, Botswana, Canada, Gambia, Ghana, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia,
Malawi, Namibia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Philippines, Rwanda (English-speaking region), South Africa, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, UK, USA and Zambia

Applicants from countries other than these may request a waiver from the English language admissions requirement if they completed a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree taught exclusively in English in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, USA, the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland.
All other applicants will need to provide evidence of their English language skills with any one of the following test scores:
  • TOEFL (Paper version; taken on/after January 3, 2017) 580 or above;
  • TOEFL (Internet version; taken on/after January 3, 2017) 92 or above;
  • IELTS – Academic (taken on/after January 3, 2017) 6.5 or above;
  • Cambridge Proficiency Examination (taken on/after January 3, 2014) C or above;
  • Cambridge Advanced English Test (taken on/after January 3, 2014) B or above.
5)    Other
Although Spanish is no longer a requirement for mobility tracks involving IBEI, basic knowledge of Spanish is recommended as some electives will only be available in Spanish.


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Partner Country scholarships consist of the following contributions:
  • a)    Contribution to participation costs (tuition fees): 9,000 EUR/academic year (18,000 EUR in total for two academic years)
  • b)    Contribution to travel and installation costs: up to 7,000 EUR in total for two academic years
  • c)    Contribution to subsistence costs (stipend): 1,000 EUR/month (24,000 EUR for two academic years)
  • d)    The remaining tuition fees (4,000 EUR in total for two academic years) will be waived by the consortium institutions.
Duration of Programme: 24 months

How to apply

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Government of Germany DAAD Scholarships 2019/2020 for Artists and Filmmakers in Developing Countries (Fully-funded)

Application Deadline: 31st October 2018

Offered Annually? Yes

To Be Taken At (Country): Germany         

Type: Short courses/Training, Masters

Eligibility: Foreign applicants who have gained a first university degree in the field of the Performing Arts at the latest by the time they commence their scholarship-supported study programme.
What can be funded?
In this study programme, you can complete
  • a Master’s degree/postgraduate degree leading to a final qualification, or
  • a complementary course that does not lead to a final qualification (not an undergraduate course)
at a state or state-recognised German university of your choice.
This programme only funds projects in the artistic field of the Performing Arts (Drama, Theatre Directing/Theatre Dramaturgy, Musicals, Performance Studies, Dance, Choreography). Other DAAD scholarship programmes are available for applicants from the fields of Theatre and Dance Studies or for artists with a scientific project.


Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • A monthly payment of 850 euros
  • Travel allowance, unless these expenses are covered by the home country or another source of funding
  • One-off study allowance
  • Payments towards health, accident and personal liability insurance cover
Under certain circumstances, scholarship holders may receive the following additional benefits:
  • Monthly rent subsidy
  • Monthly allowance for accompanying members of family
To enable scholarship holders to learn German in preparation for their stay in the country, DAAD offers the following services:
  • Payment of course fees for the online language course “Deutsch-Uni Online (DUO)” (deutsch-uni.com) for six months after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter
  • if necessary: Language course (2, 4 or 6 months) before the start of the study visit; the DAAD decides whether to fund participation and for how long depending on German language skills and project. Participation in a language course is compulsory if the language of instruction or working language is German at the German host institution.
  • Allowance for a personally chosen German language course during the scholarship period
  • Reimbursement of the fees for the TestDaF test which has either been taken in the home country after receipt of the Scholarship Award Letter or in Germany before the end of the funding period
  • As an alternative to the TestDaF for scholarship holders who have taken a language course beforehand: the fee for a DSH examination taken during the scholarship period may be reimbursed.
Duration of Program: 
  • Masters/Postgraduate study programmes: Between 10 and 24 months depending on the length of the chosen study programme or project
  • Complementary studies not leading to a final qualification: One academic year
How to Apply: The application procedure occurs online through the DAAD portal. You are also required to send additional documents by post to the specified application address. 


Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)

PepsiCo Change The Game Challenge 2018 for Innovative Students and Young Professionals (Win trip to New York + Internship)

Application Deadline: 24th October 2018

Eligible Countries:
  • Middle East North Africa (MENA) Region: Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan,  United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
  • Asia Pacific Region: Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Korea ( Nationals & Residents).
  • Indian Region: India
About the Award: Change The Game (CTG) is a 5 stage challenge open to individuals with undergraduate and/or post graduate backgrounds, and working professionals with up to 2 years’ experience, who are keen to make their mark globally.
The main objective of the challenge is to address real issues & spot the brightest spark of talent, and make their ideas come to life.
Do you have what it takes to team you up with PepsiCo on solving this year’s sustainability challenge?
You need to focus your idea around one of the two following scenarios:
  • Coming up with an idea using a new low cost technology that would allow the collection, recycling & the profitable commercialization of plastic waste in emerging markets without the use of child labor or create a hazard to humans.
  • Creating a business model to develop products in our food and beverage categories that are scalable, financially viable and minimize or eliminate plastic packaging.
Type: Contest

Eligibility: The Programme is open to the following participants:
  • Nationals of India, Egypt, Pakistan, Lebanon, Thailand, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)
  • Between the ages of 18 (eighteen) and 30 (thirty) years as on 10th October, 2018 and
  • Students pursuing graduation and post-graduation from any university (could be any year); or
  • Participants who have just obtained their graduate or post graduate degree(s) from any university; or
  • Having up to 3 (three) years of work experience from the date of obtaining the last bachelor or master degree.
Nationals and Residents of the Republic of Korea and Thailand who are
  • Between the ages of 18 (eighteen) and 30 (thirty) years as on 10th October, 2018 and
  • Students pursuing graduation from any university (could be any year) within or outside APAC Region; or
  • Participants who have just obtained their graduate or post graduate degree(s)- from any university within or outside the APAC Region; or
  • Having up to 3 (three) years of experience from the date of obtaining their last bachelor or master degree.
Value of Award: Win a trip to New York, a job offer with our pioneering PepsiCo teams and a $100,000 grant to bring your idea to life for PepsiCo.
  • The top regional winning teams from Asia Pacific, India and the Middle east & North Africa will receive a regional job offer or internship. They will be eligible to go on an all-expenses paid trip to Dubai where they will compete for the finals where they could win an all-expenses paid trip to New York to present their business idea to out Chairman & CEO Indra Nooyi. This will be followed by a yearlong international experience OR a 2 month international internship across one of our locations in Asia Pacific, India and the Middle East & North Africa.
  • Regional first runners up will receive either a local job offer or 1 week shadow experience with our local business leaders.
  • Regional second runners up will receive a local shadow experience for 1 day with a PepsiCo Leader.
How to Apply: Apply in the Program Webpage link below

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: PepsiCo

World Bank #Blog4Dev Essay Contest for Sub-Saharan African Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018

Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African Countries

About the Award:
What will it take to enhance the skills needed to prepare Africa’s youth for the digital economy and the future of work?

Technological progress is constantly changing how we work, from automation to artificial intelligence. With these advancements, firms adopt of new ways of production, helping markets to expand, and societies to evolve.
While advances in technology can eliminate the need for some jobs, the World Development Report 2019 notes that it also paves the way for the creation of new jobs which will require a mix of skills – such as complex problem solving, teamwork and adaptability – to meet the increasing demand in the labor market. Skill building is particularly important in Sub-Saharan Africa, home to the world’s youngest population; every year for the next decade, as many as 11 million young people are expected to enter the labor market.
As noted by World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim in a recent blog, “…the pace of innovation is accelerating, and the jobs of the future – in a few months or a few years – will require specific, complex skills. Human capital will become an ever more valuable resource. In short, the changing nature of work—and how best to prepare people for the jobs of the future—are some of the toughest challenges countries face…”
So, we want to hear from you! In 500 words or less, tell us how you would solve this development challenge in your country: What will it take to enhance the skills needed to prepare Africa’s youth for the digital economy and the future of work?

Offered Since: 2014

Type: Contest

Eligibility: To be eligible for the #Blog4Dev contest, candidate must:
  • Be a citizen of any of the 48 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa
  • Be between the ages of 18 and 28 years of age
  • Currently reside in a Sub-Saharan African country
Selection Criteria: A panel of judges made up of World Bank staff will review the submissions to determine the winning entries.
The winning submissions will be selected based on the following criteria:
  • Originality
  • Innovation and Creativity
  • Boldness
  • Clarity in Writing and Presentation
  • Convincing and Impactful
  • Ideas Must be Implementable
  • Scalability
  • Practicality and Relevance
  • Potential Impact on Development
  • Potential Impact on Jobs
Number of Awardees: 5

Value of ContestWinning authors are eligible for several prizes, including a chance to intern at a World Bank Africa country office, or an opportunity to have your blog published on the World Bank Africa blog Nasikiliza.

How to Apply: Submit your 500-word, original blog detailing your ideas about what it will take to enhance the skills needed to prepare Africa’s youth for the digital economy and the future of work, written in English, French or Portuguese by November 30, 2018.

SUBMIT
Submissions through email or mail post are not acceptable

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: World Bank Group

Are Chinese Municipal $6 Trillion (40 Trillion Yuan) Hidden Debts Posing Titanic Risks?

Gerry Brown

The China Collapse trope is rearing its ugly head again. This time round, the spin is on China’s local government or municipal debts.
The latest narrative goes like this : local governments in China are estimated to have hidden debts of 40 trillion Yuan (or $6 trillion). Those hidden or undisclosed debts, together with outstanding municipal bonds and the Central government debts, “could have reached an alarming level of 60%”. The 60% debt to GDP ratio is hardwired in the Maastricht Treaty with a view to instilling fiscal and financial disciplines among the 28 member states of the European Union or EU 28 for short. The S&P report describes China’s hidden municipal debts as “a debt iceberg with titanic credit risks”!
Now, let’s unpack the opinion in the S&P report.
Estimates of China’s hidden municipal debts range from 8.9 trillion Yuan by Bank for International Settlements and 19.1 trillion Yuan by IMF to 23.6 trillion Yuan by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and 47 trillion Yuan by Tsinghua University Taxation and Finance Research Institute. There are 8 different estimates by 8 different institutions, with the median value of 30 trillion Yuan. S&P didn’t explain or justify its choice of 40 trillion Yuan, which is close to the top outlier of 47 trillion Yuan.
Based on the median value of 30 trillion Yuan in undisclosed municipal debts, the total Central government (13 trillion Yuan) and municipal debts (including the disclosed portion of 16 trillion Yuan) stood at 60 trillion Yuan (about $9 trillion) at end 2017. That works out to 73 % of China’s nominal GDP of 83 trillion Yuan ($12.4 trillion) in 2017.
The 60% debt to GDP prescription in Maastricht Treaty is more honored in the breach. The average debt to GDP ratio of EU 28 by end 2017 is 81.6%. Even the EU discipline master Germany’s 64% exceeds the 60% limit! The financial situation in a handful of EU states is precarious, even parlous. Their debt to GDP ratio is not just alarming, but downright frightening :
Greece      180 %
Italy            131%
Portugal   128%
Belgium    104%
France         99%
Spain            97%
China’s total public debts including those of municipalities are nowhere near distress levels, nor excessive by international standards. Several advanced economies have way higher debt to GDP ratio, in addition to the 6 EU states above :
Japan   224%
US         102% (111% including     municipal debts)
Canada 98%
UK          90%
Unlike most other countries, China has ample assets and funds in the public coffers. Apart from $3.1 trillion in foreign reserves (the most in the world, making it the biggest creditor nation), state-owned enterprises have net worth of another $3 trillion, $2 trillion of which is in the form of SOE shares listed on stock exchanges.
Most of the Chinese municipal debts were incurred to build public amenities and infrastructures to attract and support local and foreign investments. Such productive use of debts will yield a return over time in the form of taxes paid by businesses out of their profits. By comparison, most of the debts of developed countries and their municipalities go towards operating expenditures.
The risk of default by Chinese municipalities on their debts, disclosed and undisclosed, is remote. Most of the loans are from state-owned banks. It’s all in the family.

The Ten Big Lies of Traditional Western Politics

Erik Molvar

Public lands managed by the federal government loom large in western politics, a defining topic dictating the political debate. Corporate interests – logging, grazing, and mineral extraction most prominently – have often succeeded in dominating that debate through their good-old-boy network of legislators, county commissioners, lobby groups, and captive agencies. This powerful group largely controls the imaginary “custom and culture” of the West, a myth which reflects an attitude of dominion over nature, an anti-regulation mindset, and an obsession with economic profit regardless of social or ecological consequences. But in reality, westerners in large numbers don’t actually share these values. With the influx of tech companies and professional workers from other regions, this extraction-centric worldview is becoming a tinier and tinier minority viewpoint in a West that increasingly prizes unspoiled scenery, abundant wildlife, and recreational values above extractive uses of public lands.
As they sense their deathgrip on the public debate slipping, those seeking to maximize exploitation and marginalize conservation on western public lands are becoming increasingly strident in their insistence on a variety of fictional assertions about the West. Here is a list of some of the most outrageous misinformation being peddled through the media and via political channels.
1) Industrial oil and gas drilling is compatible with healthy wildlife populations
Big Oil has been trying for decades to sell America on the idea that it is not a dirty industry, and that whatever its latest environmental disaster happened to be, it was a rare occurrence that will never happen again. Drilling rigs, pipelines, and the spiderweb of dusty access roads can exist side-by-side with abundant native wildlife, they assert. But we know better. An onslaught of scientific studies demonstrates conclusively that converting undeveloped habitats into industrial oil and gas fields decimates sage grouse and mule deer populations, interferes with pronghorn migrations, and harms native wildlife from the tiny sage sparrow to the majestic golden eagle. It no longer matters how many slick paid television ads show pumpjacks against the backdrop of purple mountains’ majesty, the public – from hunters to wildlife viewers to local westerners worried about their deteriorating quality of life – just aren’t buying it anymore. And this spatial incompatibility doesn’t even begin to address the broader problems of burning those fossil fuels and adding to climate change’s impacts on native wildlife species.
2) Nobody wants to see the sage grouse (or anything else) listed under the ESA
The Endangered Species Act is one of the nation’s most popular laws, enjoying 90% support from American voters, but that doesn’t seem to deter anti-environmental interests from claiming that nobody wants to see it used. Sen. Barrasso (R-WY) is currently pushing legislation to gut the ESA by turning over key decisions to states that don’t want the law enforced, while the Trump administration is trying to change the regulations to loosen protections for our rarest wildlife.
It just isn’t true that, “No one wants to see the sage grouse listed under the Endangered Species Act,” no matter how many politicians or bureaucrats say it. While it’s true that most sentient beings are opposed to extinction and don’t want to see species plummet to the level of ESA listing, the majority of westerners do want to see highly-imperiled species like sage-grouse gain federal protection under the law. A 2004 Central Colorado College survey found that on the conservative West Slope of Colorado, 68% thought the Gunnison sage grouse ought to be listed under the ESA. The Gunnison sage grouse was listed as a ‘threatened species’ in 2014, and a 2016 poll of West Slope voters found that 66% thought the bird should continue to be listed under the ESA until they are fully recovered. A 2014 poll commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife found that 67% of westerners supported listing the related greater sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act, including 57% in Wyoming, traditionally considered an anti-ESA state. So, when western good-old-boys say that nobody want to see endangered species listings, they’re speaking for themselves, not for westerners.
3) Logging, grazing, or fuelbreaks can stop big fires
This Big Lie started with Smokey the Bear and his Forest Service admonition, “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.” This myth, assuming all fires are human caused and unnatural, has been spreading from forests to deserts to grasslands ever since. The reality is that fire is often a natural event, and most western conifer forests naturally burn as hot, uncontrollable conflagrations every 200 to 700 years. Lodgepole pine – a colonizer forest type that the timber industry deliberately re-establishes for through clearcutting – is actually fire-dependent and burns even more frequently.
Out in the western deserts, overgrazing has created vast monocultures of cheatgrass, an invasive weed that destroys habitat values for wildlife and burns as often as every 5 years, and this is unnatural. In both forests and deserts, the really big fires happen during the driest, windiest weather, when wind can carry burning embers a quarter mile or more, and even interstate highways and the mighty Columbia River have been jumped by advancing flames. For both fires within their natural range of size and intensity, and those that are unnaturally large or frequent, it is foolish to think we can “control” them.
On arid rangelands, federal agencies and local conservation districts propose “greenstrips” a few hundred yards wide in the face of flying brands that carry for a quarter mile or more to start spot fires ahead of the flame front, in full knowledge that the “greenstrips” will be brown and combustible by the late-August peak of fire season. Federal and state agencies are fond of funneling millions in taxpayer dollars into fuel breaks in the backcountry despite science showing serious environmental impacts and a complete absence of reliable evidence that they work, for the political purpose of saying “we did all we could” and securing plausible deniability when uncontrolled fire inevitably burns into residential communities. The same is true for logging in forested backcountry – it just doesn’t work to stop or slow fires. Once a fire gets started and local topography and wind direction are understood, fuel breaks can be a very useful tactic. Instead of pretending they can control fire on the open range or in fire-adapted forests, officials would be better off focusing prevention efforts on defensible space immediately next to homes and communities, and educating the public on fire-wise methods to make homes as flame-resistant as possible.
4) Wild horses are the real threat to western rangeland health
Western public lands are so uniformly overgrazed that the degradation seems normal. The livestock industry likes to blame this abuse on wild horses. But in reality, most of the West has no wild horses at all. For example, only 12% of sage grouse habitats have any wild horses. Wild horses are a rare sight, so for the overwhelming majority of lands that are in poor condition, the domestic livestock are the cause when land health and wildlife suffer. Even where wild horses do occur, the impacts of horses are vastly outweighed by the damage caused by the domestic livestock that graze on public lands, which outnumber wild horses on the range by more than 36 to 1. Like any herbivore, wild horses can damage their habitats when overpopulated, but given the aggressive program of federal roundups, horses rarely reach these densities.
5) Ranchers are the real environmentalists
Ranchers vary in the degree to which they damage public lands and native ecosystems. The worst of the worst are fond of trumpeting the Big Lie that livestock are actually good for the environment. If the environmentalists would just leave ranchers alone, according to their logic, they would naturally do what is best for the lands and wildlife, forsaking their own profit motive. If ranchers were such great stewards, why are there so many endangered species on western public lands where cattle graze? Even the idea that ranchers protect open spaces is a myth: Virtually every rural subdivision ever built started with a rancher selling land to a developer. Yes, Virginia, there are real environmentalists: And they are not the commercial livestock operations pushing non-native invasive cattle and sheep into the remotest backcountry, but the nonprofit environmental professionals who enforce federal and state protections for lands and wildlife. These laws were written after over a century of abuse by the same industries and emerged in direct response to unmitigated disasters like the Dust Bowl and species extinction. Those who cannot learn from history….
6) Predators are killing our wild game (or our profits) and their numbers need to be “managed”
The eradication of native predators goes as far back as Manifest Destiny and the drive to tame the wilderness. The settlement of the West caused many species of native wildlife to become extinct, including big carnivores, as the West was domesticated into a landscape more suitable for “civilization.” Native wildlife incompatible with the livestock industry’s business model – from large predators that eat the occasional calf or sheep to prairie dogs, elk, and bison that compete with cattle for grass – were driven out. Today, large carnivores are making a comeback. They are territorial and occur at relatively sparse population levels, and there is little evidence that they limit or depress populations of elk and other hunted animals. Emerging science shows that the killing of predators in response to livestock losses may actually make those losses worse in the future. Today, more and more westerners are demanding healthy ecosystems in which native predators are a key component and in which ranchers are expected to coexist with native wildlife instead of wiping it out. The livestock industry’s war on native wildlife, led by the USDA’s cynically-named “Wildlife Services” (which killed 2.3 million animals last year, the majority of them native wildlife), is under increasing scrutiny, and the entire program is ripe for elimination.
7) When the next boom hits, the good times will return
Westerners have short memories when it comes to boom times. Oil and gas production runs in cycles of boom and bust driven by fluctuations in commodity prices. When prices are high, out-of-state corporations flood western states to make their millions, and then pull out when prices drop again. With booms come spectacular crime waves, social disruption, and financial stress as communities struggle to provide services and laborers to the temporarily ballooning population. As prices inevitably collapse, local governments are left holding the bag for pricey development projects, jobs disappearyoung people emigrate, and whole towns dry up and blow away. This cycle of boom and bust has led economists to label western states as resource colonies, akin to developing nations that are stripped of their natural wealth to enrich a handful of billionaires in faraway cities. Where economic diversification takes root, communities thrive. Communities that stake their existence on the economic scourge of natural resource exploitation are doomed to die out.
8) Ranching is the cornerstone of western rural economies
Dating back to the 1800s, when big ranching operations were established by the second sons of British nobility who by law couldn’t inherit the family estate back home, the livestock industry has cultivated the self-serving mythos that it is the cornerstone of western economies. But if you run the numbers, you get a far different picture. University of Montana economist Thomas Powers did a West-wide assessment and found that the livestock industry accounted for only 0.1% of western economies. That’s not all that surprising when you consider that western state economies include metropolitan areas that are major engines of growth, including California’s Silicon Valley and its budding clones in other western states. Even in Wyoming, the least populated state in the West, all agriculture put together makes up only 1.5% of the gross domestic product, according to state statistics. Explorer John Wesley Powell called America west of the 100thmeridian “the Great American Desert,” and Powell had it right. Western mountains and basins are so arid and unproductive for cattle that only 1.9% of America’s beef ever sets foot on western public lands, despite the cowboy myth that pervades western culture. The biggest contributor to western local economies? Investment income, often from retirees, according to Headwaters Economics compilations of U.S. Census data.
9) The oil, timber, and livestock industries have the right to extract private profits from public lands
Back in the 1800s, the public domain was a free-for-all where anyone could mine, log, or graze their livestock on any lands they could control at the point of a gun. But local westerners grew frustrated with big corporations that logged off their mountains, grazed their basins down to dust, and polluted their water supplies with massive mining operations. Starting in the 1890s, westerners successfully lobbied for federal agencies to manage the public lands. By the 1950s, after prioritizing extractive uses for many decades, the public pressed Congress to enact a series of environmental laws to steer these agencies toward sound and sustainable land stewardship. Under these new laws, and the regulations developed to implement them, agencies were required to manage most public lands under a “multiple use” mandate that includes wildlife habitat, watersheds, historical features, and public recreation among the key uses. No longer would the almighty dollar rule the public lands, at least in theory. Agencies were granted the option (but not the obligation) to lease public lands for livestock grazing, to lease underground minerals for oil and gas extraction, and to contract with logging companies to cut down tracts of forest, as long as environmental standards are met. With some exceptions, these same agencies have full legal authority to halt granting these leases and sales of public resources at any time, for any reason. In reality, federal public lands are managed in trust by federal agencies for the landowners – all Americans – and with that responsibility comes the obligation to put the public interest writ large ahead of the profit interests of any one corporation or industrial sector.
10) Local control would result in better management of western public lands
Every time there is an election, you’ll hear more and more of these dishonest statements baked into the talking points of politicians hoping to sway enough votes to get elected. But this Big Lie isn’t told exclusively during limited to election season. It can be heard year-round from corporate lobbyists, county commissioners, Cliven Bundy and his ragtag band of armed militants, and sometimes even from well-intentioned conservationists who don’t know any better. But for the past century and a half, state and local governments have controlled the development of private land and the management of wildlife populations. If states and counties were so great at land stewardship, why is there urban sprawl in rural areas? Why are there so many endangered species? And when you look at the water and air pollution that dominated America in the 1950s and 1960s, it took federal laws and regulation to clean up the problem, after state and local governments failed to address the poisoning of their own residents. The fact of the matter is that state and local governments, due to their smaller size, are easier targets for big money interests and big polluting corporations to bully into submission. Many state governments have been captured by the industries that exploit public lands for their own private gain, and cannot be trusted to own or manage federal public lands.
Deconstructing the Big Lies
It would be easy to conclude that if you catch a politician, a community leader, or anyone else repeating one of these Big Lies, that makes them a liar. While that’s often true, it’s not always so simple. There are plenty of people out there who aren’t in a position to know any better, but are vocal with their opinions nonetheless. Repetition is the way the big lies are adopted as truths: Tell the same falsehood 26 times, according to advertising industry research, and the audience will accept it as common knowledge. Beware the Big Lie in western political discourse. Everyone in the West – and every owner of western public lands (in effect, each American citizen) – should do their part to bring daylight to these falsehoods and to ensure that political decisions that affect us all are driven by realities rather than distortions. 

Brexit impasse at European Union summit

Robert Stevens

British Prime Minister Theresa May held a further round of talks with European Union leaders in Brussels Thursday, after the deal she agreed with her cabinet in July was formally rejected Wednesday night.
Talks on the terms of the UK’s exit from the EU broke down—primarily over the status of Northern Ireland during and after the transitional period to full Brexit beginning on March 29 next year.
In what has now become a routine humiliation, May was allowed just 15 minutes to speak Wednesday night before the EU-27 broke for dinner and more internal talks on Brexit. Prior to May’s arrival, the EU had already said not enough progress had been made to warrant calling an extraordinary summit slated for November 17 and 18 to finalise a deal.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that the talks had reached a deadlock and May had to come back with “new ideas.” A diplomatic source said that she had insisted that the EU “hold firm” against the UK in the coming weeks. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz declared that any progress could take “weeks or months.”
May is running out of time. A final meeting in December is possible, but if that is ruled out, the deadline for a March exit is impossible, as any deal has to be signed off by the 27 EU member parliaments.
There is open discussion that Britain’s post-Brexit transition period, planned for 21 months ending December 31, 2020, will be extended by a year. In a desperate attempt to placate the Tory “hard-Brexiteers”, who reject such moves, May said, “It would be for only a matter of months, but the point is this is not expected to be used, because we are working to ensure that we have that future relationship in place by the end of 2020.”
A hard-Brexit outcome in which the UK stands to lose all access to the Single Market and Customs Union is opposed by the dominant sections of business. The Confederation of Business Institute employers’ organisation said, “The need for compromise on both sides to agree the withdrawal agreement and secure the transition period is long overdue... If extending the transition period makes the withdrawal agreement easier to agree it should be welcomed.”
May’s backers presented the possible extension as a concession by the EU, but it is a poisoned chalice. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the former euro group president, this week advocated an extension on the basis that the political divisions within May’s ruling Conservatives are intractable. His call was explicitly linked to the prospect of allowing “for new elections or a second referendum [in Britain] if the deal gets rejected in the medium term, which still seems pretty likely.”
Phillip Stephens wrote in the Financial Times, “[T]he threat of a no-agreement, cliff-edge Brexit might well see parliament force the prime minister’s hand. An extension would also be needed were paralysis to result in Mrs May’s departure and/or a general election. That, in turn, would open the possibility of a second referendum.”
Six of the most prominent Brexiteers—former Brexit Secretary David Davis, former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, and backbenchers Jacob Rees Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Paterson and Priti Patel, signed an open letter to May opposing any concessions:
“We were all elected on a manifesto to gain full independence by leaving the customs union and single market,” they insisted. Northern Ireland and the UK could not remain in any transitional “backstop” arrangement based around regulatory alignment with the EU. Instead, a “super Canada free trade deal” should be negotiated for “the whole of the UK... Only by doing this can we seize the prize of the wide range of trading opportunities available outside the EU and free ourselves from the EU’s regulatory burden.”
Intervening on behalf of the Remain wing of the Tories, Father of the House Ken Clarke warned that due to divisions in parliament, “you can’t get an agreement in Brussels which can get a majority in the Cabinet or can shut up the Brexiteers... Both parties [Tories and Labour] are shattered and hopelessly divided—they can’t agree even among themselves.”
Wednesday saw the publication in German daily Die Welt of a joint appeal by former Labour leader Tony Blair, former Liberal Democrats leader Nick Clegg and pro-EU Conservative Lord Michael Heseltine for the EU to stand its ground against May.The joint statement declared: “Our domestic debate is far from over and, even at this late hour, many of us are continuing to make the case that the British public need to make the final decision once we are in possession of all the relevant facts.”
In January, Blair advocated, via the same newspaper, that a second referendum be held. This time Blair and his Tory and Liberal Democrat allies wrote three days before a planned rally in London in support of a second referendum, or “People’s Vote.”
Blair was also answering Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s appeal for unity with the Labour right based on securing a Brexit deal that will maintain access to the Single European Market and customs union.
The joint statement decried “unrealistic hopes in Britain of not just a ‘last minute’ major concession by the EU side in the current negotiations, but of something even more delusional: that once the UK has left and is in the transition period, the 27 remaining member states will capitulate on the principles of the Single Market and give Britain access to the Market without abiding by its rules.”
Corbyn framed his appeal to Labour MPs this week as a rejection of May’s assertion that the only choices on offer were her negotiated deal or a no-deal hard Brexit—which she has made the basis of an appeal for Labour MPs to defy the party whip and back her. Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab warned that that there would be no opposition amendments allowed in the promised “meaningful” parliamentary vote on a Brexit deal. MPs would have to vote for her deal or against it and therefore for a hard Brexit. There will be no second referendum, May insisted.
Appealing directly to UK big business and the EU, Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell declared that it was in the national interest and that of the EU powers to work towards a Labour government, as “We think we can get a [Brexit] deal done fairly quickly” that would “transform the atmosphere, and it would be on the basis of mutual benefit and mutual interest…”
The failure to reach any agreement over Brexit is the product of escalating national antagonisms. This accounts for the EU’s hard-line stance on the issue of the post-Brexit Irish border and the advanced plans made for the UK crashing out of the EU by Germany and France. On Wednesday, Merkel warned German deputies, “It is only fitting as a responsible and forward-thinking government leadership that we prepare for every scenario—that includes the possibility of Great Britain leaving the European Union without an agreement.”
The Trump administration made a direct intervention, seeking to exacerbate divisions within the EU. Yesterday US trade representative Robert Lighthizer wrote to Congress, “We intend to initiate negotiations with the United Kingdom as soon as it is ready after it exits the European Union on March 29, 2019.”
The working class must oppose the Remain and Leave factions of the ruling class. Neither offers any alternative to a future of escalating national tensions and the danger of trade and military conflicts. They envision only a ramping up of the exploitation of working people and deeper austerity in order that the corporations can compete internationally. Workers and young people must oppose to the plans of the ruling elite their own strategy, based on the unification of workers across borders through the United Socialist States of Europe.