25 Sept 2020

Catholic Relief Services International Development Fellows Programme (IDFP) 2021

Application Deadline: 1st November 2020

Eligible Countries: All

About the Award: The Catholic Relief Services International Development Fellows Program, or IDFP, is designed for individuals dedicated to a career in international development. While completing comprehensive training on program management and operations, fellows support CRS’ work in various sectors such as agriculture/livelihoods, health, peacebuilding, emergency response, education, microfinance, or a combination of these.

The fellows’ training focuses on project management, project design and proposal development, partnership and capacity building, monitoring and evaluation, budget and resource management, supply chain and logistics, human resources and security protocols.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: 

  • Graduate degree in field relevant and applicable to international development (e.g. Agriculture, Health, Engineering, Business, Public Administration, Finance, Supply Chain)
  • Fluency in English with strong oral and written communication skills
  • Professional proficiency in a second language (preference given to major languages spoken where CRS works)  
  • At least six months of work or volunteer experience in a developing country (or 5+ years living in a developing country)
  • Able and willing to be based in locations with tropical and infectious diseases and limited access to medical facilities.

Skills Required:

  • Strong interpersonal skills; able to cultivate strong relationships while working with a wide range of individuals in and outside the agency    
  • Effective communicator; able to develop tailored and influential messaging for varied audiences
  • Proactive; willing and able to take on additional responsibility, challenge assumptions and facilitate change
  • Results driven; able to set and achieve ambitious goals and instill confidence
  • Strategic thinker; able to formulate guiding questions, leverage resources and find creative solutions
  • Discerning; able to maintain focus and provide good judgment amidst complexity and uncertainty
  • Develops others; able to listen, coach and mentor
  • Agile; able to operate effectively in a   stressful, fast changing environment      where security could change unexpectedly
  • Aligned; able to support and champion the   mission, vision, and values of CRS     
  • Motivated; interest in a career in   development or emergency relief
  • Flexible; willing to work in various regions and developing countries around the world 

Number of Awards: CRS offers 20-30 fellowships each year.

Value of Award: CRS provides IDFP participants with the following benefits:

  • Great opportunities for professional growth and development overseas
  • Stipend, allowances, and furnished housing
  • Transportation to and from the country
  • Extensive insurance coverage (medical, dental, life, travel/accident, evacuation and personal household effects)
  • Paid vacation, sick and personal leave, and 12 paid holidays
  • Language learning assistance

Duration of Programme: 12 months

How to Apply: We welcome as a part of our staff and as partners people of all faiths and secular traditions who share our values and our commitment to serving those in need.

To be considered for the program, please apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

DIES UNILEAD 2021

Application Deadline: 13th October 2020 11:59 am Central European Summer Time.

Eligible Countries: 

  • South East Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam).
  • Sub-Saharan Africa (Burundi, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda).
  • Latin America (Bolivia, Central America, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru).
  • Middle East (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Yemen).

To be taken at (country): The programme takes place at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany.

About the Award: Young managers at higher education institutions in developing countries can now apply for the DIES UNILEAD course offered by the University of Oldenburg in 2021. The course brings together the topics Project Management, Strategic Management & Academic Leadership and Human Resource Management with individual and practice-oriented change projects of each participant.

UNILEAD is a short, practice oriented learning programme for young University Leaders in the field of Higher Education Management. In 2008 it was developed in cooperation with the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) (DIES programme) and the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elisabeth (South Africa). 

UNILEAD focuses on different topics within Education Management and aims at fostering innovative projects in the area of organisational development and Human Resource Management in higher education institution. The participants acquire techniques and methods, which enable them to effectively and efficiently organise institutional management in their home institutions.

UNILEAD focuses on three key areas:

  • Project Management. This includes courses on Methodology of Project Management and Financial Management in Projects.
  • Strategic Management & Academic Leadership. This includes courses of theoretical basics and practical tools for the Development and Implementation of Strategic Management and Acquisition of Competences in the area of Leadership.
  • Human Resource Management. This includes courses on Instruments of Human Resource Development, Conflict Management and Communication.

Type: Short courses

Eligibility: UNILEAD targets higher education managers from developing countries. The two key criteria are:

  • Applicants have been holding a university management position with managerial and personnel responsibilities no longer than 4 years in one of the following fields:
    o Managers of central university departments (Planning, Quality Management, Human Resources, Continuing Education; excluding academic units such as Deans, Vice Deans, Head of Department)
    o Task force managers for university reform projects
    o Managers of staff development units or programmes
  •  Active and excellent English language skills (speaking and writing) are indispensable. Phone interviews will be organised with short listed candidates to guarantee the requested proficiency.

Further criteria are:

  • Applicants are university leaders preferably between 30 and 40 years.
  • Applicants hold at least a Master’s degree.
  • The provision of international experience will be an asset.

Number of scholarships: 25

Value of Scholarship: Funded

Duration of Scholarship: Using a blended learning approach, UNILEAD is structured in two on-site contact phases at the University of Oldenburg, Germany, and trainer guided online phases.

How to Apply: Click here for the full call for applications with more information and links toward application:

UNILEAD 2021

It is important to go through the application guidelines and FAQ before applying for this Award

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Schneider Go Green Global Student Competition 2021

Application Deadline: 15th February 2021 at 11:59pm (UTC +2).

About the Award: At Schneider Electric we believe that energy is a basic human right and we are dedicated to furthering mankind through new technologies. As a major player in Energy Management and Industrial Automation, we see an urgent need for bold ideas that can re-shape a smarter and more sustainable future for both: our industry and our company. 

Eligible Field(s):

  1. Access to Energy: Enable universal access to energy in an environmentally sustainable manner.
  2. Homes of the Future: Can homes be smarter, more sustainable and incorporate new technologies?
  3. Plants of the Future: Apply IoT, AI, Machine Learning and more to the industries of the present or future.
  4. Grids of the Future: Imagine the future of energy management and distribution!
  5. De[coding] the Future: Envision future approaches to design, engineering and construction of assets and infrastructure.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: Schneider Go Green 2021 is open to two-member teams from anywhere in the world. To take part, you must:

  • Be a Bachelor’s student (at least on 2nd year) or working on Master’s degree
  • Studying Business, Engineering, Marketing and Innovation
  • Team members must be studying in the same Region for the duration of the competition. Being in the same country is highly preferred.
  • In line with our Diversity & Inclusion philosophy, at least one team member must be a woman.
  • Be proficient in English as the final pitch will must be presented in English.

Selection Criteria: Regional judges will review submitted proposals then vote on the top student teams (up to 10 teams chosen per region) to receive mentorship on the following criteria:

  • Innovativeness
  • Feasibility
  • Presentation quality
  • Sustainable impact

Eligible Countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, CAR, Chad, Comoros, Congo, DR Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia (The), Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

To be Taken at (Country): The Competition is mostly held online

Number of Awards: Numerous

Value of Award:

  • Global Finalists: Global winners will be awarded a trip to one of the following cities: Boston (USA)London (UK)New Delhi (India)Paris (France), or Shanghai (China) – visit SE’s offices, network with employees and interact with high level management
  • Regional Finalists: Participants will receive mentorship from Schneider Electric experts to polish their proposals and make it to the Grand Finale!
  • Women in Energy Award: One all-female team will advance into the Global Finals and compete for the top prize!
  • All Participants: Considered for an HR interview and receive content about Schneider Electric’s benefits, job opportunities and early career events

How to Apply: Participate

  • It is important to go through all application requirements & FAQ in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Woodrow Wilson Residential Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 1st October 2020

Eligible Countries: International

To Be Taken At (Country): USA

About the Award: Through an international competition, the Center offers 9-month residential fellowships. The Wilson Center invites scholars, practitioners, journalists and public intellectuals to take part in its flagship international Fellowship Program. Fellows conduct research and write in their areas of interest, while interacting with policymakers in Washington and Wilson Center staff and other scholars in residence.  The Center accepts policy-relevant, non-advocacy fellowship proposals that address key challenges confronting the United States and the world.

Type: Career Fellowship

Eligibility: 

  • Citizens or permanent residents from any country (applicants from countries outside the United States must hold a valid passport and be able to obtain a J-1 visa even if they are currently in the United States)
  • Men and women with outstanding capabilities and experience from a wide variety of backgrounds (including academia, business, government, journalism, and other professions)
  • Academic candidates holding a Ph.D. (Ph.D. must be received by the application deadline of October 1)
  • Academic candidates demonstrating scholarly achievement by publications beyond their doctoral dissertations
  • Practitioners or policymakers with an equivalent level of professional achievement
  • English proficiency as the Center is designed to encourage the exchange of ideas among its fellows

Selection Criteria: The basic criteria for selection are:

  • significance of the proposed research, including the importance and originality of the project;
  • the relevance of the project to contemporary policy issues;
  • the relevance of the project to the programmatic work of the Center;
  • quality of the proposal in definition, organization, clarity, and scope;
  • capabilities and achievements of the applicant and the likelihood that the applicant will accomplish the proposed project;
  • potential of a candidate to actively contribute to the life, priorities and mission of the Center by making expert research accessible to a broader audience.

The Center welcomes in particular those projects that transcend narrow specialties and methodological issues of interest only within a specific academic discipline. Projects should involve fresh research-—in terms of both the overall field and the author’s previous work. It is essential that projects have relevance to public policy, and fellows should want, and be prepared, to interact with policymakers in Washington and with Wilson Center staff and other scholars who are working on similar issues.

Number of Awards: 15-20

Value of Award: 

  • Each fellow is assigned a furnished office around the clock.
  • The Center is located in the heart of Washington, D.C., and includes conference rooms, a reference library, and a dining room.
  • The Wilson Center Library provides loan privileges with the Library of Congress and access to digital resources, its book and journal collections, and to university and special libraries in the area, and other research facilities.
  • Windows-based personal computers are provided, and each fellow is offered a part-time research assistant.
  • Although fellows are responsible for locating their own housing in the Washington, D.C. area, the Center provides written materials to help facilitate the search process.
  • The Center tries to ensure that the fellowship award, when combined with the recipient’s other sources of income (e.g. other grants and sabbatical allowances), approximates an individual’s current level of income.
  • Awards will also include round trip travel for fellows.
  • If spouses and/or dependent children will reside with the fellow for the entire fellowship period, money for their travel will also be included.
  • In addition to stipends and travel allowances, the Center provides 75 percent of health insurance premiums for fellows who elect Center coverage and for their accompanying family members.

Duration of Program: Fellows are expected to be in residence for the entire U.S. academic year (early September through May). Occasionally, fellowships are awarded for shorter periods, with a minimum of four months. Fellowships may not be deferred.

How to Apply: 

Applicants may submit their applications online here.

A complete application must include the following:

  1. the Fellowship Application Form;
  2. a current CV (not to exceed three pages); The Center will only accept the first three pages; please list your publications separately.
  3. a list of your publications that includes exact titles, names of publishers, dates of publication and status of forthcoming publications (not to exceed three pages);
  4. a Project Proposal (not to exceed five single-spaced typed pages, using 12-point type); The Center reserves the right to omit from review applications that are longer than the requested page length;
  5. a bibliography for the project that includes primary sources and relevant secondary sources (not to exceed three pages);
  6. the Financial Information Form;
  7. Two letters of reference.

All application materials must be submitted in English.

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Training Fellowship 2021

Application Deadline: 31st October 2020 23:59 UTC.

About the Award: The partners have long-standing experience in developing capacity to apply agricultural biosciences in Africa. We are aware of the current bottlenecks in scientific research for the improvement of African agriculture, one of which is the lack of skills in biological data analysis. Therefore, in 2018, together with our partners at JIC and EI, we launched the ABCF Bioinformatics Community of Practice (BixCoP), an eight-month residential training which gave 14 early-career scientists from eight African countries the chance to gain and apply critical skills in bioinformatics data analysis, including programming (Linux and shell scripting/Python/R), NGS analyses, quantitative genetics and phylogenetics. We also ran a Train-the-Trainer module to formally prepare the trainees in how to distribute their expertise in their own communities. This training was widely praised for its quality.

The world of genomics is shaken by a revolution brought about by a new generation of portable, versatile, third-generation sequencing devices that are radically upscaling the ability for researchers to generate and analyze high-quality genomic data, inducing a paradigm shift in the way we look at full genomes and their variation. Cognisant of these advances, the BecA-ILRI Hub now proposes a new training program to equip African scientists with the skills to deploy third-generation genomics, particularly for agribiosciences. The training will largely focus on Nanopore sequencing platforms, but a general background on other sequencing platforms will be provided. The training is designed in three phases, the first two phases being residential in ILRI (Nairobi, Kenya), and a third phase being conducted remotely at the participants’ home institutions. Below is a summary of the activities envisioned as part of this programme:

  1. Develop phase: during four months, participants will be exposed to in-depth training modules on molecular biology and bioinformatics skills for 3rd generation sequencing (high molecular weight DNA extraction protocols, Unix command line, Python programming, 2nd and 3rd generation genomics, theory and practice of genome assembly, etc). These training modules will comprise formal lectures and a significant fraction of hands-on sessions. Besides the series of lectures delivered by internationally recognized scientists, a team of tutors (including trainees from the 2018-2020 BixCoP) will provide ad-hoc supervision to trainees during individual and group exercises.
  2. Demonstrate phase: intertwined with the Develop phase and extending for 1.5 month beyond it, this phase will see the trainees engage in project-based learning, building on the skills learnt during the Develop phase, and demonstrate their use in real-life research projects in genomics for agriculture or conservation co-designed with the training team.
  3. Deploy phase: during this last phase of the training, the trainees will return to their home institution, where they will launch a small third-generation genomics unit and implement a research project to address agricultural challenges with direct relevance to their home country or region. Wherever possible, this project will be integrated into research partnerships with ILRI or another OneCGIAR institute in the home country. Trainees will benefit from the support of highly experienced mentors from the BecA-ILRI Hub, its UK-based partners, and the One CGIAR consortium.

This training project will offer a dozen fellowships only: in line with our experience with the Bioinformatics CoP program, we will focus on the quality of the training program and the internal cohesion in the cohort of trainees, rather than on numbers. With support tailored to the trainees all through to the Deploy phase, we expect that this training will have ripple effects, with trainees returning to their home institutions to become emerging leaders in the fields of genomics and bioinformatics: “train the few to impact the many”. Therefore, applications will be rigorously screened, aiming at recruiting the best candidates in the most committed home institutions with the most promising and impactful research projects. Within this framework, reviewers will pay careful attention to achieving gender and geographic balance.

Type: Training

Eligibility: In order to guide potential applicants, we set out the following requirements, listed in no particular order:

  1. The call is open to citizens of African countries affiliated with a research institution on the continent.Applicants will have to demonstrate active support from their home institution. By “support”, we mean administrative and financial support, exempli gratia commitment to discharge the applicants from professional tasks they would have to conduct during the period of the training, financial support to help the returning trainee set up their research project in the Deploy phase, commitment to provide the trainee with a conducive environment for those research activities as well as forthcoming local training activities led by the trainee in coordination with the programme’s managing team, etc.
  2. The applicant’s home institution should already have a minimal molecular biology lab, with basic equipment for DNA extraction and quality checking, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and gel electrophoresis.
  3. The applicant’s home institution should commit to equip itself with a MinION starter pack or any other sequencing device enabling native single-molecule sequencing, as well as commit to support the returning trainee with the other start-up costs for their Deploy project (cf. section “Costs/Funding” above).
  4. Applicants must have a well-thought project in mind, through which they will make use of long-reads genomics as soon as they return to their home institution (Deploy phase)
  5. Applicants must have earned an MSc in biological sciences, genetics, bioinformatics, biostatistics, biotechnology, agricultural sciences, or other related fields.

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be Taken at (Country): Nairobi, Kenya

Number of Awards: 12

Value of Award:

  • Thanks to funding from the UK’s Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and Department for International Development (DfID, now FCDO), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Oxford Nanopore Technologies, all costs pertaining to the residential training (Develop and Demonstrate phases) will be met by the program, including return flight tickets from the country of residence, accommodation costs in Nairobi and a monthly allowance covering subsistence costs.
  • Costs falling outside the residential training period (i.e. Deploy phase) will not be covered by the training program. 
  • It is expected that the trainees’ home institutions will demonstrate their involvement in the training program by making a formal commitment to support the returning trainee in establishing a minimal third-generation sequencing platform based on the Oxford Nanopore MinION system (or any other third-generation sequencing technology) throughout the Deploy phase. The initial setup costs of this will depend on the focus and scale of the platform, but are likely to be in the range of US$ 5,000 to 10,000, not including staff costs.
  • Please note these are funds the applicant’s institution (together with its potential collaborators and partners) commits to invest in their own research platform, NOT a fee to be paid for the applicant to participate in the programme. These funds do not need to be available yet at the point of application, but a commitment letter signed by the relevant authority within the applicant’s institution must be enclosed.
  • Applicants are advised to start the process of getting this commitment from their institutions early enough to get it approved in time for the application deadline. 
  • We encourage developing collaborations with in-country projects led by ILRI or another OneCGIAR institute, to tackle research questions with direct impact of third-generation sequencing technologies on agricultural production. Such type of work include projects on the development of genetic resources for underutilized crops and breeds, on in-field disease diagnostics, on the discovery of genomic structural variations linked with disease or productivity traits, etc.

Duration of Award: 8 months starting April 2021

How to Apply: Applications will be received online only. Applicants are asked to fill in the form at (URL)[1]  and upload the following supporting documents:

  1. A curriculum vitae (maximum 3 A4 pages: please be aware that we will only read the first three pages in case the uploaded file is longer).
  2. Transcript of the highest degree earned in any of the fields named in item (6) of the list in the previous section
  3. A personal cover letter (maximum 1 A4 page) addressed to Head of Capacity Development highlighting key features of the applicant that make them the right fit for this programme
  4. A support letter (maximum 1 A4 page) signed and stamped by a senior person from the home institution, e.g. a director, head of department or group leader able to commit research funds, indicating support as exemplified in item (2) of the list in the previous section.

In case of any questions that are not addressed by the present application guidelines, potential applicants can direct such questions to (provide an online Q/A space through which potential applicants can post questions and we reply “in the open”) 

Visit Award Webpage for Details

Why Modi’s Government is Not Up to the Task

Prabhat Patnaik


A striking aspect of the 24 percent decline in India’s GDP in the first quarter of 2020-21 compared to the previous year’s first quarter is the decline by 10.3 percent in public administration, defense, and other public services. This is a sector where the GDP is estimated not by the “output” of the sector but by the government expenditure incurred under these heads. The decline in the GDP originating in this sector therefore means a decline in public expenditure. This is surprising for two reasons: first, it shows that government expenditure, instead of being “counter-contractionary” has been “pro-contractionary”; second, during the lockdown caused by the pandemic, one would expect government spending on health care to go up, and thereby raise the overall government expenditure, instead of the fall we are actually observing.

When there is a lockdown, and output contracts, it is incumbent on the government to increase its expenditure. The rise in expenditure reduces the degree of contraction; and it puts purchasing power in the hands of the people so that many of them can maintain their consumption without getting into debt. Even if the government is timid enough not to increase its expenditure, at least it must maintain its expenditure to limit the contraction in GDP; but a fall in government expenditure during the period of a lockdown, which accentuates the overall contraction, is just the opposite of what the government should have done.

True, in such a period, there is a fall in government revenue; but to reduce government spending because of this, so that the fiscal deficit does not increase, is the height of folly. It worsens the contraction of the economy and greatly increases the sufferings of the people. This, however, is exactly what the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has done.

What is more, the Modi government is persisting with this folly. Some may find this accusation strange since on the very first day of parliament the government has come with a supplementary demand of around $32 billion, which, it may be thought, represents substantial additional expenditure. But this impression is wrong. These supplementary demands are meant to cover the expenditure that the government had already announced earlier to cope with the pandemic, which was over and above the budgetary provisions. This already announced expenditure, we know, was quite trivial, amounting altogether to no more than about 1 percent of GDP. True, these supplementary demands will revive India’s flagship program for rural employment scheme under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005. This program had come to a virtual standstill because of lack of funds, but such revival will only entail what has already been promised, not any further expansion.

This 1 percent of GDP being earmarked for relief during the pandemic is about the lowest among all the major economies of the world. In the U.S. even Donald Trump had announced a relief package amounting to 12 percent of GDP; in Germany, it was 5 percent, and in Japan even more. The Modi government’s stinginess is astounding, and that too at a time when hunger deaths are being reported from various parts of the country, despite ample food stocks.

This stinginess goes against the almost universal agreement among economists in the country, cutting across ideological lines, on the need for larger government spending. In fact, there has rarely been as much agreement among economists as on this issue. True, there was equally broad agreement among them against demonetization, but that was a specific measure, no doubt of amazing thoughtlessness; it did not, however, represent a policy direction.

The ideological differences among economists on the current issue relate to two points: what should be the areas where additional expenditure should be undertaken; and how this additional government expenditure should be financed. On the first point, while the left position would be that such expenditure must entail a universal cash transfer to every non-income-tax-paying household, apart from covering investment on infrastructure, including social infrastructure like health care, the orthodox economists would only emphasize investment on physical infrastructure.

With regard to the second point, immediately, of course, the additional expenditure has to be financed by a fiscal deficit, in which borrowings from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) will have to be the main source. Indeed many economists believe that the central government can and should spend approximately an additional $136 billion over and above what was budgeted earlier this year, and finance it immediately by enlarging the fiscal deficit to about 9 percent of the GDP compared to the 3.5 percent that was targeted in the budget. But, as the economy recovers, measures of additional resource mobilization will have to be undertaken to bring down the fiscal deficit. Here the left position emphasizes wealth taxation, which is virtually non-existent in India, as the means of doing so, while orthodox economists talk of the need to sell public sector assets including land that is in the possession of public enterprises.

The difference between these two positions is quite basic and needs to be understood clearly. A fiscal deficit entails borrowing by the government that puts claims upon the government in the hands of the private sector (we are assuming that foreign borrowings do not increase), and since these claims accrue to that segment of society that undertakes savings, a fiscal deficit increases the magnitude of wealth in the hands of the rich. If the fiscal deficit is eliminated by additional resources mobilized through the imposition of a wealth tax, then private wealth remains where it was before the deficit-financed spending occurred. Wealth taxation, in short, does not bring down existing wealth inequalities; it only prevents a further accentuation of such inequalities through a larger fiscal deficit. The left proposal, therefore, amounts to increasing government expenditure without increasing wealth inequalities.

By contrast, the orthodox proposal, such as the one put forward by Dr. Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the RBI, does not eliminate the increase in wealth inequalities caused by a larger fiscal deficit; by transferring physical assets—land or equity—it only substitutes in the hands of the rich physical assets (land) or ownership (equity) of public sector banks or of public sector enterprises, instead of claims upon the government. It basically changes the composition of the wealth in the hands of the rich, but does not negate its enhanced magnitude.

Notwithstanding these basic differences, however, there would be broad agreement among economists of different hues on the need for larger government expenditure to prevent the economy from getting into a deep and prolonged recession. But the government remains unmoved for reasons that are not obvious. Raghuram Rajan appealed to the bureaucrats in the government to wake up to the seriousness of the situation. But bureaucrats hardly determine policy within the Modi regime; it is the PM and his coterie who determine every policy, including economic policy. If the government’s utter indifference to the disaster that awaits the economy is to be explained, if its unconcern about the massive unemployment that faces the people (which some have estimated to entail the loss of an additional 122 million jobs by April-end) is to be understood, then it is to the Modi mindset that we must turn. And here we find a combination of supreme naivete with supreme confidence.

The naivete consists of imbibing some absurd propositions from a particularly outdated version of bourgeois economics. His repeatedly calling big capitalists the “wealth creators” is an example of this. He has been told, and he believes, that these “wealth creators” will sooner or later undertake adequate investment to get the economy out of the problem it is facing. On this thinking there are no crises except occasional blips; the “wealth creators” are always there to usher in a new boom if for some reason the economy loses steam. The fact that the Great Depression of the inter-war years lasted almost a decade and might have continued but for the intervention of World War II does not figure in this thinking, which misses completely the dependence of investment on the state of demand.

The confidence consists in the belief that no matter how impoverished the people are, no matter how extreme the hardships they face, their electoral support can always be won by promoting Hindutva and effecting a communal polarization. It is an utterly cynical view, but then, the present dispensation represents the acme of cynicism.

Time to Put an End to the Nuclear Age

Olivia Alperstein


On September 26, 1983, Soviet military officer Stanislav Petrov got an alert that a U.S. missile attack was imminent.

Faced with the choice of whether to launch a submarine nuclear missile, Petrov made the split-second decision that the alert must have been an error. His choice not to launch a nuclear weapon saved the world from the dreadful prospect of nuclear war.

In Petrov’s honor, the world marks September 26 as the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

In 2020, we’ve dealt with everything from gender reveal parties sparking deadly wildfires to locust swarms, murder hornets, and a global pandemic. So it may feel like talking about nuclear weapons is just the radioactive frosting on an apocalyptic cake.

But nuclear weapons pose one of the gravest threats to human survival, and there are concrete actions world leaders can take right now to make sure they’re never used again and eliminated for good.

One such measure is for the United States to officially enact a “No First Use” policy, which would mean that the United States would never launch a nuclear weapon first in a nuclear conflict.

It’s far from a symbolic gesture.

In the time that it took me to type those first few paragraphs, a sitting U.S. president could unilaterally decide to launch a nuclear weapon on a whim, without anyone else’s authority or approval.

Our current president has gleefully expressed his willingness to use nuclear weapons against both foreign adversaries and hurricanes. He’s also expressed a desire to take the nuclear arms race to a new, deadlier stratosphere.

Most Americans don’t spend a lot of time worrying about nuclear weapons, even though millions of us live near nuclear facilities or even missiles themselves.

Right now, the risk of nuclear war is the greatest it has been since the height of the Cold War. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is set at just 100 seconds to midnight, the closest we’ve ever been to a nuclear apocalypse in the clock’s history.

It doesn’t help that President Trump has withdrawn the United States from most of the international arms control agreements that have deescalated tensions and prevented nuclear conflict — including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (aka the Iran Deal), the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty.

He’s also planning to let the New START Treaty between Russia and the United States expire in February 2021. To top it off, the Trump administration has even reportedly discussed conducting live nuclear tests for the first time since 1992.

Nuclear weapons put us all in danger. We’ve all got a stake in ensuring that the one planet we’ve got isn’t destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Even just the smoke and soot from a nuclear war would plunge the world into darkness, causing plummeting global temperatures and the end of life on the planet.

Like Stanislav Petrov, we can save the world from the prospect of nuclear war.

Not everything in the current state of global nuclear weapons policy is doomsday and gloom. We’ve made some incredible progress in the past couple years.

The historic UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, known as the nuclear ban treaty, was approved by 122 nations in 2017. To date, 84 nations have signed the treaty, and 45 have ratified it. Once 50 nations have ratified the treaty, it officially enters into force.

In honor of Stanislav Petrov, atomic veterans, and survivors and victims of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and nuclear testing all over the world, let’s make 2020 the year when we eliminate nuclear weapons, for good.

Does It Really Matter Who Wins the Election?

David Rosen


The clock is ticking down to the presidential election of November 3rd and, sadly, it appears that the outcome seems more a toss-up than had earlier been predicted.

A Trump victory would be horrible for the country, imposing a proto-fascist regime with near-dictatorial powers on a restive nation facing a deepening social and economic crisis.

A Biden victory will likely institute a modified Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama neo-liberal regime, one offering only moderate, band-aid solutions to the structural problems facing an increasing two-tier society marked by ever-growing inequality.

Whoever wins the election, the next president will confront the Covid-19 pandemic and how the two candidates deal with it will likely be fundamentally different. Nevertheless, no one knows when it will finally be contained. One consensus suggests that a proven vaccine will likely be available and dispensed in the U.S. during 2021. Thus, American society may reach a “new normal” in 2022 or 2023.

Whatever politicians say, socio-economic recoveries take longer than initially projected. The Great Depression started in 1929 and recovery did not begin until 1933 and then dragged on the early-40s and world war. The Great Recession of 2007-2009 dragged on even with massive federal intervention bailed out the financial sector, mortgage holder and ordinary people suffered and relative full employment didn’t return until 2015 and 2017.

But what if, after the coronavirus pandemic is contained, the economy takes much longer to recover, and social stagnation drags on? What if the recovery is a not a stepping-stone forward to a promising “new normal” but a step backward? What if America’s great ideological glue – the belief in opportunity – is frozen into a postmodern system of social relations with ever-decreasing economic mobility, one that signals the end of the American Dream? It appears that neither candidate anticipates this possibility.

***

Symptoms of the economic and social crisis are mounting. As of August, the unemployment rate was at 8.4 percent, while far less than the 14.7 percent in April when Covid-19 first took its toll, it is double the 4.4 percent in February. Homeless is increasing; HUD reports that as of January 2019 the national homeless level reached 567,715 people and some project that, by January 2021, could increase by 40-45 percent possibly reaching 800,000 due sustained unemployment and the coming wave of evictions.

These factors are compounded by the burden of personal or household debt. The Federal Reserve of New York estimates that total household debt for the first quarter of 2020 hit $14.3 trillion, up from $12.7 trillion in the third quarter of 2008. Personal debt includes (i) household mortgages and (ii) non-housing debt (e.g., student debt, auto loans, credit cards). Deepening despair is leading alcohol abuse, drug overdoses and increases suicides. Sadly, the lifespan of the average American is declining, and the death rate is increasing.

One key factor driving the deepening structural crisis is the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, cutting its relative share of total employment and promoting the lower-wage service economy. Paul Krugman assesses the pivotal decline in manufacturing during the 1997-2005 period:

Does the surge in the trade deficit explain the fall in employment? Yes, to a significant extent. … But a reasonable estimate is that the deficit surge reduced the share of manufacturing in GDP by around 1.5 percentage points, or more than 10 percent, which means that it explains more than half of the roughly 20 percent decline in manufacturing employment between 1997 and 2005.

The St. Louis Federal Reserve reports that “gains from globalization have been quite large and have taken many different forms, specifically, lower prices, higher profits, and increased product variety.” One outcome had significant consequences: “The decline in manufacturing jobs had a rippling effect throughout society. It led to what a “decline in workers’ bargaining power leading to slower wage growth and rising income inequality.”

The Fed goes further, noting “the direct impact of declining wages (real and relative) and increasing healthcare costs will likely outweigh the more indirect benefits.” Compounding this development, increased debt – for a home, college, rent, medical and simply getting by – replaced wage gains so the illusion of prosperity continued.

While globalization led to a decline in wages for manufacturing and other hourly workers, it fueled an enormous increase in executive compensation. A study by researchers from the University of Colorado–Boulder and Williams College (MA) of the compensation of thousands of U.S. corporate executives between 1993 and 2013 concluded that “recent globalization trends have increased U.S. inequality by disproportionately raising top incomes.”

These findings are corroborated by other studies. For example, a 2015 study by the Economic Policy Institute found executive pay had grown by 997 percent between 1978 and 2014, while the average compensation for a private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker increased by just 10.9 percent. In 2015, the Pew Center calculated that upper-income households saw their pay rise 47 percent between 1970 and 2014. Middle-income households enjoyed a median gain of only 34 percent over that window, while lower-income households posted a 28 percent gain.

In a 2016 publication, “What We Know About Economic Inequality and Social Mobility in the United States,” the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) identifies some of the profound changes that, over the last half-century, have eroded notions of the American Dream. It concludes on a very pessimistic note:

The rise in economic inequality over the past four decades calls into question the notion that anyone, regardless of the status of their parents, can achieve the American Dream. Recent studies imply that America is a less mobile society than in the past and confirm that the U.S. has less social mobility than comparable industrialized nations.

What if ever-deepening economic inequality comes to define the new normal?

This possibility is anticipated by Harvard’s Raj Chetty, of the Opportunities Insights group, who recently wrote, “our research shows that children’s chances of earning more than their parents have been declining. 90% of children born in 1940 grew up to earn more than their parents.” He concludes, “Today, only half of all children earn more than their parents did.”

Sadly, the two presidential candidates have comparable post-victory short-term plans. Trump and the Republic Party did not offer a new electoral platform but only readopted his 2016 agenda that led to ever-increasing upper-class wealth. Biden offers a broad neo-liberal agenda that addresses many critical issues but calls for increased military spending and opposes Medicare for All. Most troubling, in the face of the uptick in police shooting of unarmed demonstrators and others, he called for cops to “shoot ’em in the leg.”

However, if the coronavirus is contained but the economic recession stalls out, the deepening social crisis might well get more disruptive. If Trump is reelected and the Democratic regain control of the Senate, and continue as the majority in House, a bitter, drawn-out showdown could be in the works.

The New York Times reported that in the weeks following the killing of George Floyd on May 25th, between 15 million to 26 million participated in protest demonstrations. The protests peaked on June 6th when half a million people turned out in nearly 550 places across the country. The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project reports that in the three months between May 26 and Aug 22 protests took place in 7,550 places throughout the country.

The increasing bitter social environment has led to a fundamental split in the Trump administration. Trump and Attorney General William Barr are promoting a return to 1950s McCarthyism. Trump has railed against the “left,” those he identifies as Antifa, socialists, communists and anarchists; Barr has gone so far as to call upon local federal prosecutors to invoke the sedition conspiracy act.

However, testifying before the House Homeland Security Committee, FBI Director Christopher Wray identified White nationalists as a grave threat. “Of the domestic terrorism threats, we last year elevated racially motivated extremism to be a national threat priority commensurate with homegrown violent extremists,” Wray added.

Surely, if Trump wins in November, we can expect a further abridging of democratic rights. What Biden would do under increased social conflict remains to be determined.

COVID-19 and Sliding Indian Economy: What’s the Way Out?

Kavaljit Singh


India has become the world’s new hotspot for the COVID-19 pandemic as infection cases have surged in recent weeks. On September 22, the total number of confirmed cases surged past 5.6 million. If the current trend continues, India may soon become the world’s worst-hit country, surpassing the US. With more than 90,000 people succumbing to COVID-19 infection so far, India’s death toll is the third highest in the world after the US and Brazil.

More worrisome is that the coronavirus is fast spreading to rural and remote areas of the country that lack testing, treatment, and tracing infrastructure. While the world is currently witnessing the second wave of infections, India has not been able to flatten the first wave curve.

Unparalleled economic blow

The abrupt nationwide lockdown imposed across India on March 24 was the biggest in the world, forcing 1.3 billion Indians to stay indoors. The lockdown restrictions were imposed without any preparation or coordination with states. Except for some essential services and activities, the rest of India’s $2.9 trillion economy remained shuttered during the lockdown period. The lockdown had devastating impacts on an already slowing economy and people’s livelihoods as shops, eateries, factories, transport, services, and business establishments were shuttered. Consequently, the Indian economy contracted by 23.9% in the April-June quarter of this fiscal year.

India’s GDP contraction was worse than any of the world’s biggest economies including the US (9.1%) and Italy (17.7%) ― two countries severely hit by the coronavirus pandemic. For the Indian economy, private consumption and investment are the two biggest engines for growth. During the first quarter of 2020, private consumption ― accounting for 59% of India’s GDP ― declined by 27%, while investments by private businesses fell by 47%. India’s net exports turned positive due to sharp compression in imports. During the quarter, government spending increased by 16%, but it was not adequate to compensate for the decline suffered by other engines of growth. Except for agriculture, all the major sectors of the economy were badly hit.

More woes lie ahead

There is still worse ahead. The business activity and consumption will remain subdued in the coming months due to a continued rise in virus cases across the country. Since July, several state governments have imposed localised lockdowns to curb the spread of infections.

The relief packages announced by the government since March are not aiding faster recovery because the direct government spending component is modest. The bulk of relief measures consists of indirect support such as credit guarantees and liquidity infusion and have proved to be ineffective in generating higher credit growth. The credit offtake from banks will remain muted in the near term because of subdued credit demand. What’s the point of massive liquidity injection when there is no demand for credit from businesses and consumers?

The contraction in the Indian economy would continue into the next three quarters and a recession is inevitable. Since Independence, India has faced a recession only thrice: 1958, 1966 and 1980. Economists, rating agencies and international financial institutions have revised their forecasts and their current projections show India’s GDP could contract in the range of 9% to 18% this fiscal year.

Both private consumption and investment demand will take a long time to recover. The discretionary spending on non-essential goods has declined drastically due to rising unemployment and worries about likely job losses in the future. In the absence of domestic demand, businesses will not undertake fresh investments, which in turn would curb employment and overall economic growth.

What is urgently needed is a robust fiscal stimulus by the government to spur domestic demand and to sustain investment without being over-concerned about the fiscal deficit. The primary focus of fiscal stimulus should be on the informal sectors, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs), the self-employed and casual workers that have been the worst casualty of the COVID-19-induced lockdown and subsequent disruptions.

Growing stress in the banking sector

Without a doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the existing vulnerabilities of India’s banking sector. Since April 2020, not only has credit growth of banks slowed down, but more importantly, their asset quality has also deteriorated sharply. Consequently, nonperforming loans pertaining to retail and MSME segments are on the rise.

In its Financial Stability Report (July 2020), the Reserve Bank of India has estimated that under a very severe stressed scenario, the gross non-performing assets of the banking sector could rise to 14.7% by March 2021 from 8.5% in March 2020. The rise in non-performing assets would result in higher credit costs, which in turn would adversely impact banks’ loss-absorbing buffers and profitability.

Capital shortages: myth or reality?

India, like the rest of the world, is facing an acute “scissors effect” of decreasing tax revenues due to subdued economic activity and rising expenditure due to a higher demand for health and social protection in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tax revenues have fallen steeply since the virus outbreak. The same is the case with non-tax revenues. Needless to add, fiscal deficits are rising in India and elsewhere.

Is there a way out? Yes. There are ways and means to raise additional financial resources to fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. One option is to seek grants and loans from bilateral development agencies and multilateral financial institutions to meet rising health and social protection expenditures. In May, the World Bank approved a fast-track $1 billion support to provide social assistance to poor households. India could also seek similar concessional loans from other development banks and IFIs to finance health and social protection programs.

A second option is to issue rupee-denominated government bonds as both Central and state governments heavily rely on this instrument to meet operational and developmental expenditures. If need be, the Central government could also issue rupee-denominated debt instruments (COVID Bonds) in offshore markets and use the proceeds to finance health and social protection measures in India.

A third option is to introduce a wealth tax and impose higher taxes on the super-rich individuals. We have discussed elsewhere how substantial revenues could be raised fairly and efficiently by introducing wealth taxes on wealthy individuals to meet COVID-19-related costs.

The proposal made by Indian Revenue Service Association to introduce an additional one-time COVID-19 relief cess of 4% on taxable income of over Rs 1 million is worth considering as the Central government could mobilise an additional revenue of Rs 150 billion ($2 billion) on this account.

Further, nothing stops the central government from rolling back its recent decision to reduce corporate taxes that entails huge revenue loss to the exchequer. In the same vein, the government can re-introduce the enhanced surcharge on super-rich individuals that was withdrawn under pressure from foreign investors in August 2019.

Another option for the Central government is debt monetisation, under which the Reserve Bank of India would buy bonds directly from the government. Given the profound economic effects of the pandemic, many governments around the world are considering such unconventional measures. Given the medium-term risks involved, India could pursue a debt monetisation strategy at least for the short-term with a firm exit strategy. It is equally important that debt monetisation must be strictly linked to health and social sector spending and carried out in a transparent manner.

The increased level of government borrowing could raise potential debt sustainability issues, but a well-designed fiscal response will stimulate a strong recovery that will produce higher GDP growth in the near future, which in turn will reduce the debt-GDP ratio over time.

An opportunity to overhaul public health infrastructure

As economic recovery depends crucially on how quickly the health crisis is tackled, India’s unequipped healthcare infrastructure needs a complete overhaul, not tinkering around the edges, to effectively respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Leave aside coronavirus, the country’s health infrastructure is grossly unequipped to deal with the most common vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.

The pandemic has exposed the vulnerability of India’s public healthcare system. India’s public healthcare system is one of the most underfunded in the world. India’s public expenditure on health is less than 2% of its GDP. Even much before the COVID-19 pandemic, Indian public hospitals were facing an acute shortage of beds and healthcare workers. Although the private healthcare industry has boomed mostly in urban areas, affordability remains an important issue.

There is an urgent need to increase public health spending in India. The financial allocations made for the public health sector under the Rs 20 trillion relief package are inadequate to meet the health challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Vaccine delivery: the next big challenge

At present, no one knows when a coronavirus vaccine will be available in India. Most health experts believe that a vaccine may be developed by the middle of 2021. Now is the appropriate time for the Central and state governments to develop partnerships with other stakeholders for the production and distribution of a vaccine once it is developed and approved.

Thanks to the homegrown generic pharma industry, India has the capacity to produce hundreds of millions of doses coronavirus vaccine. But India’s real challenges lie elsewhere. Administering a vaccine to 1.3 billion people would be a challenging task because India currently lacks logistical infrastructure (such as refrigerated storage and transport facilities) to deliver coronavirus vaccines at subzero temperatures across the country, especially in rural and remote areas. Besides, India also faces a severe shortage of healthcare personnel. It could take more than a year to get every Indian vaccinated for coronavirus.

The fair and equitable distribution of the vaccine is equally important. The government must bear the entire expenses of distributing vaccines for poor citizens. If need be, price controls should be introduced to make it affordable by everyone.

Safeguarding livelihoods

The hastily imposed lockdown resulted in the loss of millions of jobs and triggered a mass exodus of internal migrants from urban centres to rural areas. As far as job losses are concerned, the COVID-19 pandemic has no parallel in the post-independent India. The Consumer Pyramids Household Surveys carried out by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy show a sharp rise in unemployment rates in the range of 8.35% to 23.52% during April-August 2020.

As a large number of micro and small enterprises have started shutting their businesses, the biggest worry is that millions of jobs could be lost permanently, which in turn, will dampen consumption and will have a knock-on effect on the whole economy.

Out of work and facing an uncertain future, an estimated 10 million migrant workers returned to their native places after the imposition of lockdown. What is shocking is that neither the Central government nor state governments have data of migrant workers who lost their jobs or lives during the lockdown.

To support the livelihoods of the rural poor, the government must strengthen the rural employment scheme ― the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Generation Scheme (MGNREGS) ― by allocating more funds and increasing workdays guaranteed under the scheme. After the outbreak of coronavirus, the demand for MGNREGS works has increased due to disruptions in the agricultural supply-chains and the return of migrant workers to their native villages. As a result, the funds allocated for the scheme have dried up.

Along the lines of MGNREGS, India desperately needs a nationwide urban employment scheme for poor people living in urban India. Close to 90 million people in urban areas live below the poverty line. By guaranteeing hundred days of wage employment in a financial year to an urban household, such a scheme could provide livelihood security to those who are struggling to find re-employment quickly in the post-lockdown period.

Spend billions to save trillions

There is still time for a course correction. The Indian government must act fast and boldly in developing a coherent economic recovery strategy aimed at stimulating domestic demand by raising wages of those who at the bottom of the economic pyramid besides strengthening health and social protection systems to mitigate the social and economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The government should commit to spending billions of dollars to better fight the health crisis and to fast-track economic recovery from the COVID-19-induced recession. Injecting billions of dollars into the economy now to save a $2.9 trillion economy is the most effective way out of this crisis.