28 Sept 2017

More than 52 million Americans live in economically distressed communities

Sandy English

A new analysis of Census data shows that the so-called economic recovery under the Obama administration was an unmitigated catastrophe for the 20 percent of the American population that live in the poorest areas of the United States and that gains of jobs and income have gone overwhelming to the top 20 percent richest areas.
The 2017 Distressed Communities Report,” published by the Economic Innovation Group (EIG), analyzes the census data for 2011-2015 for people living in each of the nearly 7,500 American zip codes according to several criteria.
The EIG’s Distressed Communities Index (DCI) considers the percentage of the population without a high school diploma, the percentage of housing vacancies, the percentage of adults working, the percentage of the population in poverty, the median income ratio (the percentage of median income that a zip code has for its state), the change in employment from 2011 to 2015, and the change in the number of businesses in the same period.
The report divides the findings for zip codes into five quintiles based on these indicators, rated from worst- to best-performing: distressed, at risk, mid-tier, comfortable, and prosperous.
The results show that distressed communities—52.3 million people or 17 percent of the American population—experienced an average 6 percent drop in the number of adults working and a 6.3 percent average drop in the number of business establishments.
“Far from achieving even anemic growth from 2011 to 2015,” the report notes, “distressed communities instead experienced what amounts to a deep ongoing recession.”
Further, “fully one third of the approximately 44 million Americans receiving SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or food stamps) and other cash public assistance benefits (such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)) live in distressed communities.” The report notes that most distressed communities have seen zero net job growth since 2000.
Residents in these zip codes are five times more likely to die than those in prosperous zip codes. Deaths from cancer, pregnancy complications, suicide, and violence are even higher. “Mental and substance abuse disorders are 64 percent higher in distressed counties than prosperous ones, with major clusters in Appalachia and Native American communities where rates exceed four or five times the national average,” the report continues.
One other important and alarming fact which the report highlights is that over a third of the distressed zip codes contain so-called “brownfield” sites—areas which are polluted or contaminated in some way. Not only do these have impacts on real estate and business development, they present a whole array of health hazards to the very poorest Americans.
Distressed communities can be found all over the United States but are concentrated in the South: 43 percent of Mississippi’s zip codes are distressed, followed by Alabama, West Virginia, Arkansas and Louisiana. According to the report, [the South] “is home to a staggering 52 percent of all Americans living in distressed zip codes—far above its 37.5 percent share of the country’s total population.”
After this, the Southwest and Great Lakes region have the largest share. In the Northeast, most distressed communities tend to be found in urban areas and in the South, primarily in rural areas.
The biggest cities with the largest numbers of distressed zip codes are Cleveland, Ohio, Newark, New Jersey, Buffalo, New York, Detroit, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Mid-sized cities with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Youngstown, Ohio, Trenton, New Jersey, Camden, New Jersey, Gary, Indiana, Hartford, Connecticut and Flint, Michigan.
Urban counties with the highest number of distressed zip codes include Cook County in Illinois, with Chicago at its center, Los Angeles County in California, Harris County in Texas, with Houston at its center, and Wayne County in Michigan, encompassing Detroit. Most of these urban areas were once industrial centers and home to the industrial working class.
Zip codes that have a majority of minorities living in them are more than twice as likely to be distressed as zip codes that are majority white. “In total,” the report notes, “45 percent of the country’s majority-minority zip codes are distressed and only 7 percent of them are prosperous.” At the same time there are numerous distressed communities that are almost completely white. A quarter of the total distressed population is under 18.
The report found that the economic benefits of the recovery after the 2008 recessions have gone to the top quintile of zip codes, where the wealthier layers of the population live, including not only the very rich but also the upper middle class.
These areas, which the DCI terms prosperous, and make up roughly 85 million Americans or 27 percent of the US population, have for the most part the economic wherewithal to finance higher levels of education, have the lowest housing vacancy, highest percentage of working adults, and have had the lion’s share of job and business expansion.
“The job growth rate in the top quintile was 2.6 times higher than nationally from 2011 to 2015, and business establishments proliferated three times faster than they did at the national level,” the report notes. “Prosperous zip codes stand worlds apart from their distressed counterparts, seemingly insulated from many of the challenges with which other communities must grapple. The poverty rate is more than 20 points lower in the average prosperous community than it is in the average distressed one.”
The report makes much less of an analysis of the other three, middle quintiles, the at risk, mid-tier, and comfortable categories, but it does note some factors that address the overall trends nation-wide. “A remarkably small proportion of places fuel national increases in jobs and businesses in today’s economy. High growth in these local economic powerhouses buoys national numbers while obscuring stagnant or declining economic activity in other parts of the country.”
One of the more telling aspects of the report is that extreme poverty in the US is presided over by both capitalist parties: Democratic and Republic politicians have equal numbers of distressed communities in their constituencies. Democrats, in fact, “represent six of the 10 most distressed congressional districts.”
Another observation from the voting data, and one of the few that looks at conditions beyond the bottom and top quintiles, is worth quoting in full:
“President Trump accumulated a 3.5 million vote lead in counties that fell into the bottom three quintiles of well-being (equivalent to 9.4 percent of all votes cast in these counties). A vast array of factors determined voting patterns in the 2016 election, but it stands that the ‘continuity’ candidate performed better in the places benefiting most from the status quo, while the ‘change’ candidate performed better in the places one would expect to find more dissatisfaction.”
Broader figures and the historical view of wealth distribution in the US—that one percent of the population control 40 percent of the wealth or the decades-long decline in the percentage of the national income that goes to the working class—are not brought out in the report but the data add to a complete picture of social conditions across the United States, the character and geographical distribution of social and economic conditions in a country of more than 320 million.
The portrait provided by the EIG report is not simply one of increasing misery and poverty for the bottom 20 percent, and not only one in which only a minority of Americans are achieving anything like “prosperity,” but of growing and explosive dissent among tens of millions.
It exposes as a bare-faced lie the claim that President Obama made at the end of his second term, that “things have never been better” in America.

Why is the far-right benefiting from the crisis of capitalism?

Barry Grey

Sunday’s election in Germany saw the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and collapse of the official left party, the Social Democratic Party. With more than 90 deputies in the incoming parliament, the entry of the AfD will mark the first time since the end of the Third Reich that outright fascists and racists participate in the national legislature.
Far from an exception, the electoral triumph of the neo-fascist party in Germany is part of a pattern being repeated again and again throughout Europe and internationally.
In Britain, the far-right, anti-immigrant UK Independence Party (UKIP) emerged as the leading political force in last year’s referendum vote to exit the European Union. In France, National Front leader Marine Le Pen made it to the runoff in this year’s presidential election and captured 34 percent of the vote, doubling the result obtained by her father in 2002. The neo-fascist Freedom Party is expected to enter the national government following next month’s elections in Austria.
In the United States, the fascistic billionaire real estate speculator and TV personality Donald Trump won the 2016 election, bringing to power the most right-wing government in American history.
These developments raise a critical question: Why has the decade following the greatest crisis of world capitalism since the 1930s, which nearly brought down the entire financial system and ushered in policies of brutal austerity and militarism internationally, seen a steady strengthening of far-right parties? Why have the social democratic and labor parties and the Democratic Party in the US not only failed to win support as a result of the gutting of social programs and impoverishment of broad sections of the working class, but have suffered defeat after defeat?
For the past decade—and beyond that, the past four decades, particularly since the dissolution of the Soviet Union—there has been a complete dissociation of what is presented as left politics from any opposition to capitalism. The British Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the Democratic Party have all abandoned any orientation to the working class or concern with the social issues workers face. They have substituted an orientation to racial and gender identity for class questions, a false and reactionary basis for politics.
The most reactionary political forces have exploited the vacuum created by the absence of any challenge to the capitalist system to come forward as the representatives of the masses. They have worked to divert social discontent along right-wing, nationalist channels. Their populist posturing is completely cynical. These same forces demand even more savage social cuts and bigger tax windfalls for the corporate elite.
It is not that the masses of workers support racist and fascistic policies. The votes for these parties have largely been protest votes against the established parties, which have provided no progressive outlet for social discontent. Moreover, the masses know full well that the “left” parties are directly implicated in imposing the austerity measures demanded by the banks and corporations.
In Britain, the Labour Party under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown continued and expanded the policy of social cuts and anti-strike “reforms” launched by Margaret Thatcher and her Tory successor John Major.
In France, the Socialist Party government of Francois Hollande imposed the first round of labor “reforms” attacking workers’ rights and protections, cut taxes for the wealthy and put in place a permanent state of emergency. His successor, Emmanuel Macron, who has imposed a more far-reaching labor law “reform” by decree and is demanding deeper social cuts, was a minister in Hollande’s government.
In Germany, it was the Social Democratic-Green Party coalition government of 1998-2005 that began the destruction of the post-World War II welfare state with its Agenda 2010 and Hartz laws. In this election, the Social Democratic Party, far from offering an alternative to the AfD, sought to outdo the neo-fascists in calling for military rearmament, sharper attacks on immigrants and the strengthening of the police. The SPD focused its attacks not on the far-right, but on what it called “left-wing extremism.”
The model for the imposition of savage austerity by the “left” is the Syriza government in Greece, which came to power in 2015 promising to defy the European Union’s austerity diktats and promptly rubber-stamped the austerity regime. Next it overrode a popular referendum vote against the cuts and imposed measures more brutal than those of the previous conservative and social democratic governments.
In the US, the Democratic Obama administration, which came to power promising “change you can believe in,” expanded the bailout of Wall Street, attacked social services and health care and oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in US history.
Now, the Democrats have abandoned any defense of immigrants from Trump’s onslaught, remaining silent on his new and expanded travel ban. They have declared their readiness to work with Trump on economic policies, including tax cuts for the rich and new attacks on health care.
As the White House threatens nuclear genocide against North Korea and war against Iran, the Democratic Party is focused obsessively on its McCarthyite campaign against Russia. In this it is allied with the dominant factions of the military/intelligence “deep state,” which demand that Trump pursue a more aggressive policy against Moscow.
Despite mass demonstrations in the US and around the world that greeted Trump’s inauguration (which the Democrats worked to suppress and channel behind their war-mongering anti-Russia crusade), the political initiative today rests with the most right-wing forces in and around the Republican Party.
Trump and his former White House adviser Stephen Bannon of Breitbart Newsare working in tandem to create a base for a fascist movement in America.
This week, in a campaign speech for the far-right Christian fundamentalist Roy Moore, who won Tuesday’s Republican primary for a US Senate seat from Alabama, Bannon gave a fascistic speech in which he appealed to the social grievances of workers and other oppressed layers. The multi-millionaire former Goldman Sachs investment banker denounced the “corporatist, donor, consultant, K Street lobbyist, influence peddler, politician class” and the “economic hate crimes done to working men and women in this country.”
“They’ve gutted this country,” he declared. “They’ve gutted the manufacturing jobs and shipped them overseas.” He linked the opioid addiction crisis to “factories and jobs shipped to China and workers left behind in total despair.”
To the extent that the working class remains subordinated to the Democrats and the two-party system in the US—and to the social democratic and “left” nationalist parties in Europe, Asia and Latin America—there is a real danger of the rise of fascism.
The growth of the far-right demonstrates that the separation of the fight against Trump from the mobilization of the working class in opposition to capitalism is bankrupt. In every country, the same issues are posed with enormous urgency.
Nothing short of a revolutionary socialist movement of the working class can stop the growth of the right wing. One hundred years after the October Revolution in Russia, the perspective that guided that historic event must be revived. The Bolsheviks insisted that the only answer to the imperialist war and the social crisis was a direct assault on capitalism.
Today, as then, the working class must seize the wealth of the financial elite and use it to dramatically reduce social inequality. The major industries and banks must be placed under public ownership and democratic control to provide good-paying jobs, education, housing, health care and a secure retirement for all.

India's Trade Options

Amita Batra


The Indo-Pacific economic space continues to be open to reconfiguration, triggered as it has been by the US withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) earlier this year. There have since been many conjectures on how the region may see a China-led economic order, particularly so as the Japanese attempts for a TPP revival have not yielded any concrete positive outcomes so far. Alternatively, Japan-India relations, that have been in the forefront with Prime Minister Abe’s visit to India earlier this month, are being considered as a possible counter balancing force in the region. It is therefore relevant and worthwhile to examine the relative placement of China and Japan in India’s economic relations and discuss India’s options in the larger regional economic context.
First, while China is India’s top trading partner, Japan is not even among the top ten trading partners for India, and has not been so for almost a decade. In 2016-17, India’s trade with China was US$ 71 billion as against US$ 13 billion with Japan. Interestingly, while India incurs a trade deficit with both countries, it is the deficit with China that attracts attention, even though the deficit with both countries, as a share of total bilateral trade, is almost equal at 70 per cent. With Japan, India has a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) that was signed in 2011. After six years of its implementation, growth in bilateral trade with Japan has been insignificant and in fact the rate of growth of exports registered a significant decline in 2016-17. In contrast, even without a preferential trading arrangement, India’s exports to China have seen a positive growth over the last year.
Importantly, in the pharmaceutical sector, Japan has been insistent on quality and regulatory standards, particularly in respect of pharmaceutical goods which is a major export category for India not just in bilateral but in global trade too. Although China also imposes trade barriers for Indian pharmaceutical exports, a significant difference is to be noted with regard to their membership of regional trade formulations – Japan is a member of both the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the now in-suspension TPP; China, like India, is a member only of the RCEP and not of the TPP. Japan has been very keen to revive the TPP with or without US membership.
A consequence of this differential membership is that Japan, in the spirit of TPP trade rules, seeks higher and World Trade Organisation (WTO)-plus standards in its bilateral trade transactions that would be very hard for India to comply with presently and in the near future. In fact, given that the RCEP is an ASEAN-centred pan-Asian trade arrangement with greater flexibility on trade-related issues, and that India has a differential trade liberalisation offer for its FTA and non-FTA trade partners (including China), it may be in India’s interest to work towards an accelerated finalisation of its negotiation process and to see it emerge as the predominant trade initiative in the region.
Second, growth in global trade for over a decade prior to the global financial crisis was led by trade concentration in regional production networks. Among these, China was the hub of the East Asian production networks, specialising in parts and components trade. In the last five years or so and significantly from 2011-2014, global trade has slowed down, and in 2015 global trade contracted by 10 per cent. For East Asia, the rate of decline in imports has been greater than that in exports. To a large extent this change in trade pattern reflects the consolidation and shortening of global value chains. For China and other regional economies the value chains are getting centred domestically As the East Asian regional integration process deepens, India has the opportunity to strengthen trade with China and ASEAN through the RCEP, and thereby realise its ‘Act East’ Policy. Increased trade liberalisation under the RCEP will allow for India’s integration in regional value chains. The process will involve production up-gradation, manufacturing sector growth, employment and skill enhancement – all the objectives already embodied in the ‘Make in India’ initiative.
Lastly, if the RCEP does not gain momentum it is possible that China may like to push for the Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP), which draws its membership from the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). China proposed a roadmap towards FTAAP at the 2014 APEC summit meeting with the support and commitment of APEC members. India has not been successful, so far, in securing membership of the APEC. Strengthening India’s relations with Japan could help in this regard. However, irrespective of Japanese support, India will have to expedite implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement of the WTO, including the more difficult regulatory and institutional reforms, as the trade facilitation action plans of the APEC have been among its more successful programmes.
It may therefore be in India’s best interest to contribute to an early finalisation of the RCEP negotiations, consolidate its participation in the East Asian regional value chains as also further its export growth with China. The alternatives may be both long drawn out and harder to implement for India.

27 Sept 2017

GrowthAfrica Startup Accelerator Programme for East African Entrepreneurs 2018

Application Deadline: 15th October 2017 – at midnight
Eligible Countries: Kenya and Ethiopia
To be taken at (country): Zambia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda
About the Award: GrowthAfrica very excited to announce that applications are now open for the 2018 GrowthAfrica Acceleration Programme in Ethiopia, Zambia, Kenya and Uganda. The objective of the programme is to scale ventures, make them investment ready and to develop entrepreneurial leadership. We are targeting ambitious, committed and innovative entrepreneurs.Type: Accelerator programme (Entrepreneurship)
Eligibility: The programme invites applications from ventures that are: and innovative, led by ambitious entrepreneur(s), seeking to grow exponentially, are seeking investments to grow and are in their post revenue (not idea) stage. Needed are ambitious, committed and innovative entrepreneurs whose post-revenue businesses are creating a positive impact in the communities they work in, either through their products or services or business model – particularly if:
  • You already have an innovative product or service in the market and have paying customers
  • You have a team of co-founders with a balanced skillset, who are ambitious, talented, committed and willing to learn from their peers and the GrowthAfrica team
  • Your team have a burning desire to make the business the next big thing and scale internationally and making the business an impactful multimillion dollar success story
Ventures from all sectors are welcome to apply. We do have a soft spot for ventures from the following sectors:
  • Agribusiness
  • Education
  • IT/mobile solutions
  • Fintech
  • Renewable energy
  • Construction and affordable housing
  • Water & sanitation
  • Health
  • Manufacturing/processing
  • Renewable energy
Number of Awards: 12
Value of Programme: The total value of these copious resources is in excess of USD 50,000 per startup – but GrowthAfrica naturally does not expect you to pay this upfront. However, all startups will be asked to pay subsequently by sharing:
  • 1% of your revenue +
  • 2% of your equity +
  • 3% of investments raised
We only expect this from you if we help you:
  • Double your revenue or
  • Triple your profit or
  • Help you raise at least USD 250,000
Duration of Programme: 6 months
How to Apply: To apply for the program, click here
Award Provider: GrowthAfrica

Echoing Green Fellowship for Social Entrepreneurs 2018 – $80,000 + Leadership Development

Application Timeline: 
  • Application Closes: 24th October, 2017
  • Finalists will be announced and interviewed in New York City: April 2018
  • Fellows announced: June 2018
Eligible Countries: all
Offered annually? Yes
About the Fellowship: The Global Fellowship is the twenty-seven-year-old program for smart leaders who are deeply connected to the needs and potential solutions that may work best for their communities. Any emerging social entrepreneur from any part of the world working to disrupt the status quo may apply.
The Black Male Achievement (BMA) Fellowship is the first fellowship in the world for social entrepreneurs dedicated to improving the life outcomes of black men and boys in the United States. The Fellowship was founded and is supported in partnership with the Open Society Foundations since 2012. BMA Fellows generate new ideas and best practices in the areas of education, family, and work, such as initiatives related to fatherhood, mentoring, college preparatory programs, community-building, career and economic opportunities, communications, and philanthropic leadership.
The Climate Fellowship, built in partnership with The ZOOM Foundation, is specifically targeted for next-generation social entrepreneurs committed to working on innovations in mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The threat of global climate change is one of the greatest humanitarian and economic challenges of our time. Our interest is in considering the full spectrum of responses to the climate crisis – from innovative technology in Silicon Valley to community organizing in the developing world.
Type: Social Entrepreneurship
Selection Criteria: Successful applicants not only present an innovative way of addressing social issues, but also explain why they as individuals have what it takes to succeed. Echoing Green is not a grant-making organization. We are a fellowship program because we believe in the importance of the individual social entrepreneur as well as his/her project.  As such, we look at both the applicant and the applicant’s idea.

Applicant Criteria

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

Organization Criteria

  • Innovation
  • Importance
  • Potential for Big, Bold Impact
  • A Good Business Model
Eligibility: In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the applicant must be:
  • Over 18 years old
  • Fluent in English
  • Able to commit a full 35 hour work week to their organization.
In order to be eligible for an Echoing Green Fellowship, the organization must be:
  • The original idea of the applicant(s)
  • In its start-up phase, usually within the first two years of operation
  • Independent and autonomous
There are often some misconceptions about what types of organizations are eligible for the Echoing Green Fellowship. Here is some clarification about organizations that are eligible:
  • An organization can be either a non-profit, a for-profit, or hybrid.
  • An organization does not only have to be run by one individual. Partnerships can apply for a Fellowship
  • Organizations still in the idea phase are eligible
The following types of organizations are not eligible to apply:
  • Students, scholarships, or research projects (Students may apply for the Echoing Green Fellowship while they are full time students in a degree program. However, they must have completed their studies by July at the beginning of their fellowship period.)
  • Lobbying or faith-based organizations
  • Existing organizations which have grown past their start-up phase
Number of Fellowships: Several
Value of Fellowship:
  • A dedicated Echoing Green portfolio manager to assist in the development of an Individualized Fellow Plan, access to technical expertise and pro bono partnerships to help grow their organization, and support from Echoing Green chaplains
  • Leadership development, peer mentorship, and targeted networking opportunities
  • A community of like-minded social entrepreneurs, public service leaders, and industry leaders including the Echoing Green network of over 700 Fellows working in sixty countries all over the world.
  • A stipend of $80,000 for individuals (or $90,000 for two-person partnerships) paid in four equal installments over two years
  • A health insurance stipend and yearly professional development stipend
Duration of Fellowship: two years plus ongoing support
How to Apply: Do not mail, fax, or email your application – Echoing Green will not accept it if it is not submitted through the application website. No exceptions! Remember, the application will be accessible online from September 27 – October 25, 2016 here: echoinggreen.org/apply
Sponsors: Echoing Green Fellowship

Curtin Business School Innovation Scholarship for International Students 2018/2019 -Australia

Application Deadline: 17th November, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): Australia
Fields of Study: 
  • Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Systems) single major
  • Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Technology) single major
  • Bachelor of Commerce (Business Information Technology and Systems) double major
About the Award: The CBS Innovation International Scholarship is part of Curtin University’s commitment to innovation and excellence in teaching and research, for the benefit of our students and the wider community. Students applying for the CBS Innovation International Scholarship are required to show insight and creative ideas in relation to their future profession and demonstrate a strong understanding of their chosen course of study.
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility: Candidates must meet ALL of the following criteria to be eligible to apply for the CBS Innovation International Scholarship:
  • International student and hold a valid Student Visa – Higher Education (Subclass 573)
  • Received a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) into an eligible undergraduate degree and major at Curtin University in 2017
Recipients must meet ALL of the following to get and maintain the scholarship:
  • Remain enrolled in eligible course and major and major of study
  • Maintain a full time study load of 100 credits each semester at Curtin University
  • Maintain a course weighted average (CWA) of at least 70 each semester
  • Pass all units attempted each semester
Number of Awardees: 5
Value of Scholarship:
  • A total value of up to $9,000 paid as a cash stipend of $1,500 per semester.
  • The amount can be used at the recipient’s discretion to contribute towards educational related expenses.
  • Payments occur post census date each semester. Payments will be made approximately mid-end April and September each year.
Duration of Scholarship: A maximum of three years (based on a full-time study load of at least 100 credits per semester)
This scholarship is deferrable for up to one year.
How to Apply: Visit Scholarship Webpage to apply
Award Provider: Curtin University, Australia

Margaret McNamara Educational Grants Scholarships for Women from Developing Countries 2018/2019 in US & Canada

Application Deadline: 15th January 2018
Offered annually? Yes
Accepted Fields of Study: Any field of study
To be taken at (country): United States (US) & Canada
About the Award: The Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG) provides grants to women from developing countries to help further their education and strengthen their leadership skills to improve the lives of women and children in developing countries. About $15,000 Education grants are awarded to women from developing and middle-income countries who, upon obtainment of their degree, intend to return to or remain in their countries, or other developing countries, and work to improve the lives of women and/or children.
Offered Since: 1981
Who is qualified to apply? Applicants must meet the following eligibility criteria:
  • Be at least 25 years old at time of application deadline (see specific regional program application below);
  • Be a national of a country listed on the MMEG Country Eligibility List (listed below);
  • Be enrolled at an accredited academic institution when submitting application; and plan to be enrolled for a full academic term after award of the grant by the Board;
  • Not be related to a World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund or Inter-American Development Bank staff member or spouse;
Number of Scholarships: Not Specified
Scholarship benefits: Approximately $15,000 per scholarship recipient
Duration: The grant is a onetime award to last for the duration of study
Eligible African Countries: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Rep., Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep., Congo, Rep, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt , Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Madagascar, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Other Countries:
Afghanistan, Ecuador , Macedonia, FYR of , Albania, Arab Rep., Serbia, El Salvador, Seychelles, Malaysia, Antigua and Barbuda, Eritrea, Maldives, Solomon Islands, Argentina, Armenia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh , St. Kitts and Nevis, Belarus, Georgia, Mexico, St. Lucia, Belize, Micronesia, Fed. Sts , St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Grenada, Bhutan, Guatemala, Moldova, Suriname, Bolivia, Mongolia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Montenegro, Syrian Arab Rep., Guyana, Tajikistan, Brazil, Haiti, Bulgaria, Honduras, Myanmar, Thailand, India, Timor-Leste, Indonesia, Nepal, Cambodia, Iran, Islamic Rep. of, Nicaragua,Tonga, Iraq, Trinidad and Tobago, Cape Verde, Jamaica, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Palau, Turkmenistan, Chile, China, Kiribatii, Panama, Colombia, Korea, Republic of, Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, Comoros, Kosovo, Paraguay, Uruguay, Kyrgyz Rep, Peru, Uzbekistan, Lao PDR, Philippines, Vanuatu, Costa Rica, Latvia, Poland, Venezuela, RB, Lebanon, Romania, Vietnam, Croatia, Russian Federation, West Bank & Gaza, Yemen, Rep, Dominica, Samoa, Dominican Republic, São Tomé and Principe
How to Apply:  Apply via Scholarship Webpage link below.
Remember to read the Application Checklist & FAQs before applying, and when applying (after signing up), select “US-Canada program” in the first question of the application. If the programme name does not appear, the programme may be closed to new applications.
Sponsors: Margaret McNamara Educational Grants (MMEG)
Important Notes: Please make sure to submit ALL documents as listed. Only complete applications will be accepted. Decisions will be announced by April.

McGill University Canada – MasterCard Foundation Scholarships for African Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 10th December, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Sub-Saharan African countries
To be taken at (country): McGill University Canada
About Scholarship: McGill University and The MasterCard Foundation are pleased to offer The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at McGill University for the academic year. This prestigious scholarship recognizes students who are residents and citizens of Sub-Saharan African countries (including French-speaking students), who come from the most challenged socioeconomic backgrounds and who show outstanding academic and leadership abilities.
Thanks to a $27 million financial commitment from The MasterCard Foundation over the next decade, the Program will provide academically talented, economically disadvantaged young people from Africa with access to quality university education.McGill University Canada McGill will welcome 91 Scholars from Africa over the next ten years, some of whom will be coming from French-speaking countries.
In addition to financial support, Scholars are provided with a comprehensive support network that includes an array of mentoring and support services to ensure each student’s academic success, community service engagement and transition to socially relevant employment opportunities, when they return to Africa at the conclusion of their studies.
Eligible Field of Study: Development related courses.
Please note that the following programs are not eligible for funding from the Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program:
  • Dentistry,
  • Medicine,
  • Law,
  • Theology,
  • Farm Management,
  • Physical and Occupational Therapy,
  • Music, and
  • Programs from the School of Continuing Studies.
Offered Since: 2013
Type: Undergraduate
Eligibility:
  • You must qualify academically for admission to McGill University. Please note that admission is competitive.
  • You must be a first-time applicant to university (transfer applicants are not eligible).
  • You must be a resident and citizen of a Sub-Saharan African country. French-speaking applicants are welcome.
  • You must have an exceptional record of service and activity in your school and/or community.
  • You must have the potential for meaningful future service to your community as a leader engaged in dynamic local and global social change.
  • Your financial status must be in the lowest two quintiles of your country.
Selection Criteria:
Admission to McGill University
  • Academic achievement and potential – academic admissibility is determined based on the applicant’s academic record.
Acceptance to The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program
  • You must demonstrate an exceptional record of service and leadership in your school and/or your community. This may include organizing youth programs, assuming leadership roles in school activities, participating in clubs and teams, taking on responsibilities at home, advocacy and/or volunteering in your community.
  • You must be committed to returning to Africa after graduation to continue to give back to your community and country.
  • You must be from a low-income background. Your financial status will be verified.
To be considered for The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program at McGill University, you must demonstrate academic potential, exceptional records of service and activity in your schools and communities and/or the potential for meaningful community service through engagement as leaders in dynamic local and global social change efforts.
Number of Scholarships: Over the next ten years, McGill will welcome 67 MasterCard Foundation Scholars at the undergraduate level and another 24 at the Master’s level, for a total of 91.
Value of Scholarship: The MasterCard Foundation Scholars at McGill will receive a holistic set of financial, social, and academic supports throughout their education and during their post-graduate transitions.
Duration of Scholarship: four years duration of the undergraduate degree
How to Apply: Because applicants to The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Program do not have to pay the $107.50 application fee, you must follow a special application procedure.
You will find detailed instructions on this special procedure, and complete information about applying to McGill as a MasterCard Foundation Scholar, from the link below.
Sponsors: MasterCard Foundation

Danish Government Cultural Agreement Scholarships for International Students 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 1st March 2018

Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: 
  • China
  • Japan
  • Egypt
  • Russia
  • Republic of Korea
To be taken at (country): Denmark
Eligible Field of Study: All
Type: Masters and PhD
Eligibility: Scholarship will only be considered if the student fulfils the following requirements:
  • Is a citizen of a country outside the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA)
  • Does not have permanent residence in an EU or EEA country
  • Is NOT studying in Denmark through an exchange programme or any other study agreement which is tuition fee waiving
  • Has shown good academic results previously from former studies or passed exams
  • Has passed an English language test, preferably an IELTS test with a score of 6.0 or similar recognised test with a high score provided for academic studies
  • Scholarships are only available to master’s and PhD-level students. However, bachelor’s degree students wishing to study Danish language and literature can also apply if they have studied the Danish language for two years.
  • scholarships are only offered to students enrolled in full-degree studies at higher education institutions in the countries listed above.
  • PhD students must likewise be employed at, or affiliated with, higher education institutions in the above-mentioned countries.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Scholarship: Danish Government scholarships programme covers 30-50% of the tuition fees, which means that the rest must be paid by the student. Students who are awarded a scholarship from UCN may under certain circumstances also receive an additional partial monthly living costs scholarship.
Duration of Scholarship: Danish Government Scholarships may be awarded for the entire duration of a study programme or for single semesters.
How to Apply: To be considered for a scholarship, the applicants must:
  • Fill in the scholarship application form including a motivation letter stating the reasons for applying to UCN and the reasons for applying for the specific programme in question
  • Apply and be accepted to one of the English-taught study programmes which UCN offers
Furthermore the students must attach:
Award Provider: The University College of Northern Denmark, Danish Government

EDCTP-AREF Preparatory Fellowships for Early Career Researchers in sub-Saharan Africa 2018

Application Deadlines: 
Stage 1 Closing Date: 13th October 2017, 17:00
Stage 2 Open date: 12th January 2018, 17:00
             Closing date: 14th March 2018, 17:00.
Eligible Countries: sub-Saharan Africa
About the Award: Many aspiring African researchers lack the mentorship, intellectual challenge and rigour that well-funded established institutions in the North can offer to their early postdoctoral researchers. Africa accounts for 15-20% of the world’s population and a disproportionately large share of disease burden, yet scientific publications by African researchers account for less than 2% of the total academic journal output. The challenge is therefore to enable African researchers to enhance their competitiveness for international funding opportunities early in their careers while retaining them in Africa, working on Africa’s health challenges and priorities.
The purpose of the EDCTP-AREF Preparatory Fellowships is to enhance the competitiveness of up and coming post-doctoral African scientists and clinicians aspiring to win international /regional /national fellowships or grant support, such as the EDCTP Career Development Fellowships, through short-term placements at a host organisation in EU Members States, in countries associated to Horizon 2020 or in Sub-Saharan Africa which will be contracted by the home organisation to host the fellow.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: 
  1. The applicant must be an organisation with an established legal entity in sub-Saharan Africa (the applicant legal entity).(2)
  2. The fellow must be employed or have guaranteed employment by the applicant legal entity (the home organisation) where they intend to remain working for a minimum of two years after the expiration of the grant.(2)
  3. Fellows must:
  • be a post-doctoral scientist;
  • have been awarded their doctorate within 3 years before submission deadline of the AREF-EDCTP Preparatory Fellowship application;
  • have been either a PhD student or MD, and have been active researchers for up to three years following award of their doctorate;
  • be resident of or be willing to relocate to a sub-Saharan African country;
  • not have been funded under this fellowship scheme before.
  1. The requested EDCTP contribution per action shall not exceed €70, 000
  2. Placements sought shall be for a period of at least 3 and up to 9 months, following which there will be a re-integration period of up to 3 months. The maximum fellowship duration shall be 12 months.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: 
  • The call budget is €800,000.
  • The requested EDCTP contribution per project should not exceed €70,000.
  • The funding level is up to 100% of eligible costs.
Duration of Program: Successful applicants must use the funding for a 3 to 9 months placement at a host organisation legally established in an EU Member State, a country associated to Horizon 2020 or in a Sub-Saharan African country which will be contracted by the home organisation to host the fellow. The fellow will spend a re-entry period of up to 3-months at their home organisation, making a total training period of up to 12 months.(1)
How to Apply: The application must be submitted online via EDCTPgrants
Interested candidates should go through the Submission guidelines on the Program Webpage (See Link below) before applying.
Award Providers: European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), The Africa Research Excellence Fund (AREF)

Big Institutions—Immunities, Impunities and Insanities

Ralph Nader

One of the first times I used the phrase “institutional insanity” was in 1973 to describe the behavior of scientist Dixy Lee Ray, chairperson of the presumed regulatory agency, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). I pointed out that her personal and academic roles were quite normal. But her running of the AEC—pressing for 1,000 nuclear plants in the U.S. by the year 2000 (there are 99 reactors left in operation now), and going easy on a deadly, taxpayer subsidized technology that was privately uninsurable, lacked a place to put its lethal radioactive wastes, a national security risk, replete with vast cost over-runs, immunities and impunities shielding culpable officials and executives, should a meltdown occur and take out a city or region (all to boil water to produce steam to make electricity)—was a case study in “institutional insanity.”
Both the AEC and its successor, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), captured by the atomic energy industry, operate this way to this day, no matter the near misses, the spills, growing corporate welfare outlays, and the inadequate maintenance of aging nuclear power plants.
Our moral and ethical codes and our civil and criminal laws were originally designed to hold individuals accountable. The kings of yore operated under a divine right of being above the laws.
With the rise and proliferation of ever more multi-tiered governmental and corporate bureaucracies, methods of immunity, impunity and secrecy were built into these structures to shield them from moral/ethical codes and laws. Increasingly, we are ruled by no-fault big corporations and their no-fault toady governments.
Some comparisons are in order. If your neighbor entrusted you with her savings and paid you a fee for doing so, you then purchased stocks for her account while you’re selling them for your account, deceiving the cheated neighbor in the process, would you escape the law? That is just some of what the Wall Street Barons did on a massive scale about ten years ago. No one was prosecuted and sent to jail for this corporate crime wave.
Suppose you hired a security person for your defense who, at the same time, wasted your money and couldn’t account for your payments because his books were unauditable. Would you keep doing business with him? Wouldn’t you demand an audit? Well on a hugely larger scale, this is the Pentagon contracting system and your tax dollars. Why not demand that the defense department stop violating federal law, as it has since 1992, and provide Congress with auditable information so that its accounting arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) can audit the notoriously porous Pentagon books.
Suppose the head of your neighborhood association kept sugar coating problems, kept lying to you, kept describing conditions that weren’t so and kept doing things that would enrich himself in conflict with his duties. Would you keep supporting him in that position? Probably not. Well, that is your President, day after day.
What if your neighbor kept dumping polluted water and solid waste pollutants on your lawn and all around your house? Would you demand that your town or city stop this contamination, or sit quietly and accept this abuse because you don’t believe in regulation? Well, Trump’s EPA wrecker, Scott Pruitt, is busily going weakening environmental protections and even taking away environmental crimes investigators and forcing them to be his personal security guard.
Let’s say your farmers’ market vendors sensed that you were very dependent on the food they provide and they proceeded to triple the prices, it’s not difficult to predict your reactions. Yet that is what the drug companies have done with many of your important medicines over the past 10 years. Yet where are the outraged demands for the government to have the power to negotiate volume discounts, facilitate generics, restrain prices for drugs rooted in your taxpayer funded research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and allow imported competition from Canada?
You get into a bus or cab and the driver regularly cheats you into paying several times more than you should pay and then covers it up. When you find out about it, all hell breaks loose next time you confront him. What about Wells Fargo bank—they knowingly created unauthorized, false credit card and auto insurance accounts, wrongly billing customers millions of times. Imagine: no criminal prosecutions yet, no wholesale resignation of the well-paid Board of Directors, and very few customers are leaving the bank. Wells Fargo keeps reporting great profits while hassling victims into settlements. What’s one takeaway? The bigger the crook, the bigger is our surrender. Too big to fail or jail!
The neighbor in charge of the rural, communal drinking water well knows it’s being contaminated by a party that was his previous employer and expects to be hired back by his old boss. Your children as well as their parents are at risk. Well, welcome to Trump’s deregulations of food, drug, auto pollution, and workplace investor safety. They’ve come from the industries’ payroll and expect to come back with a big raise.
There are just a few contrasts between individual and institutional crimes and wrongdoing and our different responses toward them. Facebook, Google and Equifax can misuse your personal information to your perceived disadvantage and they repeatedly get away with it.
The White House under Bush/Cheney can unconstitutionally ignite wars, lie to the people about the reasons, produce millions of casualties and untold destruction of innocent peoples’ homelands, get re-elected and later retire with huge speech fees without being chased by the “sheriffs.”
It is doubtful whether you would allow your hamlet’s political leaders to get away with such violent assaults, even if they wanted to do so.
If our moral/ethical/legal codes cannot reach up to the tops of these institutions on behalf of wronged, injured individuals and communities and societies, we’ll get what we’ve been getting, which is worse and worse immunities/impunities with each passing decade.
Isn’t this a fault/no fault paradox worth thinking about?