22 Dec 2016

Maastricht University Holland High Potential Scholarship for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 1st February 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International students from a country outside the EU/EEA.
To be taken at (country): Netherlands
Field of Study:
About the Award: The Holland High Potential Scholarship consists of a High Potential Scholarship combined with a Holland Scholarship.
The High Potential Scholarship is intended for excellent students from outside the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) who wish to do a master’s or a professional education programme at Maastricht University.
The Holland Scholarship is financed by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in conjunction with Dutch universities and universities of applied sciences. It is aimed at international students from outside the EU/EEA who wish to follow a full degree programme in the Netherlands.
Type: Masters
Eligibility: All candidates must meet the following requirements:
  • You come from a country outside the EU/EEA and meet the requirements for obtaining an entry visa and residence permit for the Netherlands.
  • You are applying for a full-time master’s programme at Maastricht University.
  • You meet the specific admission requirements of Maastricht University.
  • You have never studied at an education institution in the Netherlands.
  • You are not over 35 years of age at the start of the 2017/18 academic year.
  • You obtained excellent results during your prior education programmes, as demonstrated by your latest grade transcript. If several applicants are equally qualified, we will give preference to applicants whose transcript(s) demonstrate that they are among the top 5% of the 2017/18 scholarship programme applicants.
Number of Awardees: Not specified.
Value of Scholarship: 
  • Living expenses: € 10,500
  • Insurances: € 520
  • Visa costs: € 311
  • Tuition fees: € 13,000 or € 17,500
Duration of Scholarship: 
  • 12 months in the case of a one-year master’s programme
  • 24 months in the case of a two-year master’s programme
How to Apply: Interested students can find the steps to apply for this scholarship in the Scholarship Webpage. In the section Application and Selection, you may go through information about how to fill and send the application form. This differs per faculty.
Award Provider: Maastricht University

Royal Holloway University of London Masters Scholarships for International Students 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 14th June, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: International
To be taken at (country): UK
Type: Masters
Eligibility: 
  • Open to new full-time Masters students with International fee status who hold a current conditional or unconditional offer to study at Royal Holloway.
  • Candidates will be selected based on academic achievement and a scholarship statement. It is expected that candidates have achieved, or are on target to achieve, a First Class Honours degree or equivalent.
  • A transcript of current studies will be required as part of the application.
Number of Awardees: 6
Value of Scholarship: Scholarships are offered as tuition fee waivers of £5,000 that come into effect in the first year of a Royal Holloway Masters degree.
Duration of Scholarship: 1 year
How to Apply: Apply using the Royal Holloway online scholarship application form which can be found in your applicant portal once you have received an offer to study at Royal Holloway.
Award Provider: Royal Holloway University
Important Notes: Please note, you can apply for as many scholarships as you are eligible for, but you can only be awarded one scholarship.

Harvard University Middle East Initiative (MEI) Research Fellowships 2017

Application Deadline: 15th January, 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To be taken at (country): USA
Field of Study: Priority will be given to applications pursuing one of these four primary areas of focus:
  1. Democratizing Politics: Establishing durable, accountable democracies not only by focusing on political institutions, but also by empowering the region’s citizens.
  2. Building Peace: Addressing the sources of domestic and interstate conflict and generating durable political settlements.
  3. Revitalizing the State: Reforming the Middle East’s social service delivery systems with a special emphasis on health, education and social protection.
  4. Democratizing Financial and Labor Markets: Working to ensure that the financial and labor markets in the Middle East benefit the entire population, not merely the elite.
About the Award: The Middle East Initiative (MEI) engages public policy issues in the Middle East by convening academic and policy experts, collaborating with regional partners, and developing the next generation of leaders.
Fellows are expected to be physically present at Harvard for the duration of the two-semester fellowship. Pre-doctoral research fellows are encouraged to work on, and ideally complete, their doctoral dissertations. Postdoctoral or faculty fellows may use this fellowship to complete a book or develop other works-in-progress.
Fellows are generally expected to:
  • Complete a 25-30 page Working Paper to be published by the Middle East Initiative
  • Present their research at seminars open to the public
  • Attend seminars of other Middle East Initiative research fellows
  • Participate in Middle East Initiative activities as appropriate
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility:  
  • Eligible candidates include advanced doctoral candidates, recent recipients of a Ph.D. or equivalent degree, and untenured faculty members.
  • Applicants for pre-doctoral fellowships must have passed general examinations and should be in or near the final year of their program.
  • Applications are welcome from political scientists, historians, economists, sociologists, and other social scientists.
  • Applications are also encourage applications from women, minorities, and citizens of all countries.
Value of Fellowship: The Middle East Initiative offers ten-month stipends of $32,000 to pre-doctoral fellows and $50,000 to all other fellows. Interested candidates are encouraged to apply for other sources of funding. All applicants should clearly indicate on their application form whether they are seeking full or partial funding, and indicate other potential funding sources. Non-stipendiary appointments are also offered, but the application process remains the same.
Duration of Fellowship: 10 months
How to Apply: 
  • CV/Resume
  • Unofficial transcript (pre-doctoral fellow applicants only)
  • Research Proposal (3-5 double-spaced pages)
  • Writing sample (less than 50 double-spaced pages)
  • Contact information for three recommenders submitting letters on your behalf
The 2017-2018 application period is now open and will close on January 15, 2017. Recommendations will be due on Wednesday, February 1, 2017. Decisions will be announced by March 31, 2017.
To apply, please complete the online application form.
Award Provider: The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs

Kofi Annan Masters in Management (MIM) Scholarship for Developing Countries to Study at ESMT Berlin, Germany 2017/2018

Application Deadline: 30th May 2017.
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Applicants must be resident in one of the UN’s Least Developed Countries (LDCs) or Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs)
To be taken at (country): Berlin, Germany
Eligible Fields: Candidates from quantitative subject areas like science, technology, engineering, finance, economics or mathematics are especially encouraged to apply, although scholarships have been awarded to candidates with any backgrounds like international relations, social sciences and business studies as well.
About the Award: The Kofi Annan scholarship provides the opportunity for talented and motivated students from developing countries who do not belong to a privileged class and lack sufficient financial means to study management at ESMT in Berlin and graduate from the most international business school in Germany.
Upon return to their home countries, the fellows are expected to contribute to the strengthening of entrepreneurial capacity and the fostering of a stable market economy as an effective catalyst for their country’s development, job creation, and poverty alleviation.Kofi Annan fellowship
Type: Masters
Eligibility: Scholarship seekers should be strong candidates for ESMT’s Master’s in Management program. Scholarships which will be awarded on the basis of academic merit and financial need. The Kofi Annan Fellowship targets candidates from least developed countries.
Selection Criteria: Candidates should show interest in studying ESMT’s core competencies: innovation and technology management and sustainable business and must demonstrate a commitment to responsible leadership.
Number and value of scholarships available:
  • Three full tuition scholarships (value €25.000) including stipend to cover living expenses for Kofi Annan Fellows
  • Four partial tuition scholarships: up to € 10,000 each
How to Apply: MIM candidates should apply for scholarships by completing the online MIM program application form. Candidates should complete the scholarship essay explaining how they qualify for the scholarship. All of these have been made part of candidates’ ESMT online application.
Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details
Sponsors: European School of Management and Technology in co-operation with the Kofi Annan Business School Foundation in The Hague, Netherlands
Important Notes: The purpose of the business school fellowship is to make significant contributions to least developed countries (LDCs) and landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and to strengthen the awareness for responsibility in leadership in developed countries.

American College of Surgeons International Guest Scholarships for International Medical Students 2018

Application Deadline: 3rd July 2017.
Offered annually? No. Bi-annually
Eligible Fields of Study: Medicine-related fields
About Award: The American College of Surgeons offers International Guest Scholarships to young surgeons from countries other than the United States or Canada who have demonstrated strong interests in teaching and research. The scholarships, in the amount of $10,000 each, provide the scholars with an opportunity to visit clinical, teaching, and research activities in the U.S. and Canada and to attend and participate fully in the educational opportunities and activities of the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress.
This scholarship endowment was originally provided through the legacy left to the College by Paul R. Hawley, MD (FACS Hon), former College Director. More recently, gifts from the family of Abdol Islami, MD (FACS), the Stavros Niarchos Foundation, and others to the International Guest Scholarship endowment have enabled the College to expand the number of scholarship awards.
Eligibility Requirement
  • Applicants must be graduates of schools of medicine who have completed their surgical training.
  • Applicants must be at least 35 years old, but under 50, on the date that the completed application is filed.
  • Applicants must submit their applications from their intended permanent location. Applications will be accepted for processing only when the applicants have been in surgical practice, teaching, or research for a minimum of one year at their intended permanent location, following completion of all formal training (including fellowships and scholarships).
  • Applicants must have demonstrated a commitment to teaching and/or research in accordance with the standards of the applicant’s country.
  • Early careerists are deemed more suitable than those who are serving in senior academic appointments.
  • Applicants must submit a fully completed application form provided by the College on its website. The application and accompanying materials must be submitted in English. Submission of a curriculum vitae only is not acceptable.
  • Applicants must provide a list of all of their publications and must submit, in addition, three complete publications (reprints or manuscripts) of their choice from that list.
  • Preference may be given to applicants who have not already experienced training or surgical fellowships in the U.S. or Canada.
  • Applicants must submit independently prepared letters of recommendation from three of their colleagues. One letter must be from the chair of the department in which they hold an academic appointment or a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons residing in their country. The chair’s or the Fellow’s letter is to include a specific statement detailing the nature and extent of the teaching and other academic involvement of the applicant. Letters of recommendation should be submitted by the person making the recommendation.
  • The online application form is structured to assist the Scholarship Selection Subcommittee and assists the applicant in submitting a structured curriculum vitae.
  • The International Guest Scholarships must be used in the year for which they are designated. They cannot be postponed.
  • Applicants who are awarded scholarships will provide a full written report of the experiences provided through the scholarships upon completion of their tours.
  • An unsuccessful applicant may reapply only twice and only by completing and submitting a new application together with new supporting documentation.
Value of Scholarship: The scholarships provide successful applicants with the privilege of participating in the College’s annual Clinical Congress held in Boston, MA, in October 2018, with public recognition of their presence. They will receive gratis admission to selected postgraduate courses plus admission to all lectures, demonstrations, and exhibits, which are an integral part of the Clinical Congress. Assistance will be provided in arranging visits, following the Clinical Congress, to various clinics and universities of their choice. In order to qualify for consideration by the selection committee, all of the requirements must be fulfilled.
How to Apply: Apply online
It is important to go through the Application Requirements and overview before applying.

African Leadership Academy (ALA) Fellowship for Young African Leaders 2017

Application Deadline: 17th February, 2017
Eligible Countries: African countries
To be taken at (country): South Africa
About the Award: ALA Fellowships are two-year posts for young professionals who have completed their undergraduate studies within the past five years. ALA Fellows work closely with talented and passionate students from across the African continent through teaching and/or professional staff supporting roles. Teaching Fellows collaborate with exceptional educators and mentors, teaching courses in areas of expertise and gaining broad practical experience in  teaching and learning. Staff Fellows assist in areas such as strategic relations or admissions, developing skills in project management. All Fellows participate actively in student life as resident advisors and coaches overseeing extracurricular activities, bringing energy and cultivating a vibrant culture of leadership, innovation, and international cooperation on campus. Fellows receive housing, a stipend to cover living expenses, and are eligible for a grant to enable one professionally relevant travel excursion during the course of the Fellowship.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: An ideal candidate (is):
  • Creative and passionate about the field of education
  • Celebrates opportunities to interact with people from very diverse cultural and social economic backgrounds
  • Embraces a culture of leadership, international cooperation and excellence
  • Open-minded and willing to share expertise and experiences, and to learn from others
  • Loves to take on challenges and not afraid to work hard
Selection Criteria: 
  • BA or BS degree from a leading university, with an excellent academic transcript and record of outstanding citizenship.
  • A track record of leadership and results in extracurricular or professional activities.
  • Experience working with young people in a mentoring, teaching, or coaching capacity.
  • Experience developing strong relationships with people from a variety of different ages, cultures, religions, and socioeconomic groups.
  • Experience in a boarding school or as a university Residential Advisor is a plus.
  • Fluent in English. Fluency or proficiency in other languages spoken broadly on the continent (French, Portuguese, Arabic, Swahili, Yoruba, etc.) is a plus.
Number of Awardees: Not specified
Value of Fellowship: Fellows will receive housing on campus and a stipend payment to cover living expenses. Fellows are also eligible for a modest Summer Exploration grant to enable one professionally relevant travel excursion during the course of Fellowship tenure.
Duration of Fellowship: Fellowships will begin in August 2017 and last for two years.
How to Apply: To watch a video about working at ALA, click here. To apply, complete the form in the link below and attach your CV, cover letter and writing sample. Applications will be accepted through February 17, 2017.
Award Provider: African Leadership Academy

The Scandal of Vast Inequality in Retirement Pay

Lawrence S. Wittner

Cato the Elder, a Roman senator and historian, once remarked:  “Cessation of work is not accompanied by cessation of expenses.”  For centuries, retirees have been aware of this unfortunate fact, which led them to demand and, in many cases, secure old age pensions to help provide financial security during their “golden years.”  But as indicated in a recently-released report by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), the financial security of retiring corporate CEOs is far, far greater than the financial security of average Americans.
According to the extensively researched IPS report, A Tale of Two Retirements, 100 corporate CEOs possess company retirement funds totaling $4.7 billion―an amount equivalent to the entire retirement savings of 41 percent of U.S. families (50 million families, including 116 million Americans).  The retirement funds of these 100 CEOs are also equivalent to those of 75 percent of Latino families, of 59 percent of African-American families, of 55 percent of female-headed households, and of 44 percent of white working class households.
Indeed, the top 100 CEO nest eggs, if averaged, would generate a $253,088 monthly retirement check to these 100 individuals for the rest of their lives.  By contrast, workers who had 401(k) pension plans at the end of 2013 had only enough in these plans to pay them an average monthly benefit of $101.  Of course, these were the lucky ones.  Among workers 56 to 61 years old, 39 percent had no employer-sponsored retirement plan at all, and would likely depend on Social Security, which pays an average of $1,239 per month, for retirement security.
Of course, these are only averages.  When one looks at individuals, the contrasts are even starker.  Glenn Renwick, the Progressive Insurance Company’s CEO who retired in 2016, receives a monthly retirement check from his company for $1,035,733.  Among Walmart’s 1.5 million employees, fewer than two-thirds have a company-sponsored retirement plan and, if they do, it will pay them, on average, only $131 per month.  But Walmart’s CEO, Doug McMillon can expect to receive at least $360,000 per month―more than 2,700 times the amount a typical Walmart worker with a 401(k) account can expect.  And there’s also CEO David Cote of Honeywell―a company that has locked out its workers from its factories in Green Island, NY and South Bend, IN for seven months for rejecting a contract that eliminated workers’ pensions―who receives a monthly retirement check from the company for $908,712.
Or take the case of John Hammergreen, CEO of the McKesson corporation, a drug wholesaling giant.  A few months after Hammergreen arrived at McKesson in 1996, the company froze its employee pension fund, closing it to workers who came there in 1997.  Even so, the company launched a lavish Executive Benefit Retirement Account that enriched Hammergreen’s pension with an average of $22,000 a day for the next 20 years.  Thus, today he receives a monthly retirement check from the company for $782,339.
Things were not always like this.  From 1946 to 1980, a combination of union action and government policy led to the expansion of pension benefits for American workers.  By 1980, 46 percent of private sector workers were covered by defined benefit pensions.  But, in the following decades, declining union strength, corporate attacks on pension funds, and government action resulted in a severe erosion of worker retirement security.  By 2011, only 18 percent of private sector workers were covered by defined benefit plans.
As demonstrated by the authors of the IPS report, the growth of economic inequality in retirement provisions resulted from rigging things in favor of CEOS through new rules for pensions, taxes, and executive compensation.   “Since more than half of compensation is now tied to the company’s stock price,” the authors note, “CEOs have a powerful personal incentive for slashing worker retirement benefits in order to boost the short-term bottom line.  Every dollar not spent on employee retiree security is money in the CEO’s pocket.”
Although changes in public policy could close the widening pension gap, such changes do not seem likely to occur while a zealously pro-corporate party controls the White House, Congress, and the courts.  Indeed, as the authors point out, thanks to the shielding of enormous CEO income in tax-deferred accounts, Fortune 500 CEOs will see very substantial gains in their retirement checks if President Trump succeeds in implementing his plan to slash the top marginal income tax rate.
It’s possible that, in the long run, the rising tide of retirement insecurity will spark a revolt challenging the severe economic inequality between corporate CEOs and their American workers.  Until then, however, it’s tempting to propose updating Jonathan Swift’s eighteenth century satirical suggestion, made in A Modest Proposal, that poverty among the poor might be alleviated by selling their babies as food for the rich.  Perhaps, in twenty-first century America, retirement insecurity might be alleviated by selling elderly workers to the corporate rich, who could use them for the burgers sold by their fast food companies.

Scorning The Dead: The Berlin Truck Attack And The Refugee Question

Binoy Kampmark


The hard-nosed neo-cons were certainly showing little interest in linking arguments, examining evidence, or even considering elementary logic in the aftermath of the Berlin truck attack near the Gedächtniskirche.  With the bodies fresh in the morgue, former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, peered into the mind of the everyday German, and found teeth chattering fear.
“Many Germans feel as though they’ve lost control of their country – it’s not a feeling that’s unknown elsewhere in Europe.” For it was Chancellor Angela Merkel who had been “the biggest symbol across the continent of somebody that is open to this policy – it’s aroused a lot of resentment.”
Fittingly, Bolton decided to reference Europe’s self-assumed populist, Viktor Orbán (“the controversial president of Hungary”) who wanted it put on record that he did not intend paying “for Germany’s mistake.”
The German political classes were certainly turning black and blue attempting to explain the slaughter in Berlin.  Rather than putting it down to plain criminality, it had to be twinned with other causes.
Would this effort be a triumph of mind over matter?  Chancellor Merkel did what she has always done: reiterate, remind and calm.  “We will find strength for the life we want to live in Germany – free, united, and open.”
She did add one vital qualification, a note soured by the deadly events at the Christmas market.  Setting out the vision of openness was one thing; the corpses, however, had suggested a modification of tone, a possible bitterness. It would be “particularly difficult for all of us to tolerate a situation in which the perpetrator had come to Germany as a refugee.”
It would be “particularly repulsive with respect to the many Germans who are engaged daily in providing assistance to refugees and with respect to the people who really need our protection and who are doing their best to integrate.”
The other side of populism, one blackened by fear and anticipation, is certainly coming into full view.  Much of the groundwork had already been laid by the attacks in Würzburg and Ansbach during the course of the summer.
Horst Seehofer, the governor of Bavaria and also leader of the Christian Social Union, had little time for any analysis that urged provident reaction or a steady approach.  “We owe it to the victims, their families and the entire populace to rethink and readjust our entire immigration and security policies.”
A close reading of Seehofer’s mine-deep angst gives a sense that he wants to survive – badly. The grieving families do count on some level, but so does his political position in Bavaria against the nibbling advances made by the far right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
Much of the reasoning behind embroiling refugees and immigrants in a criminal matter was not very sound (Merkel’s own CDU colleague Klaus Bouillon even referred to the attack as part of a “state of war”), but Frauke Petry, chairwoman of the AfD, came up with a brutal, if simple response.  “Germany is a divided country on the question of immigration.  Terror will unite us.”  Immediate steps included closing the mosques with jihadi preachers, and stopping uncontrolled immigration.
German MEP Marcus Pretzel, who has previously urged the use of armed fore against asylum seekers, also joined the party of condemnation.  “When will the German rule of law strike back?  When will this cursed hypocrisy end?  It is Merkel’s dead!”
Police accounts have been altering rapidly, making any immediate assessment by critics of Merkel’s policy premature.  First, the driver was supposedly arrested at another venue, only to then be released. He was said to be a Pakistani asylum seeker – only he wasn’t the one driving the truck.  Attention has now shifted to a Tunisian suspect, Anis Amri, who had piqued the interest of authorities for having suspected ties with Islamic State.
In an environment where the next ridiculing hashtag, or chattily gormless Facebook post, takes precedence over investigative groundwork, any announcement of progress is bound to become a political weapon.  Key words are highlighted for gain: “Islamic State”; “asylum seeker”; “refugee”.  Cobbling them together in speech negates the need for a sensible refugee policy.
One murderous asylum seeker (and of this, we know little of yet) is taken to tarnish all refugees and condemn a policy that is not only sagacious for Germany’s demographic future, but humanitarian.  Ergo, such refugees should have remained in static putrescence, harbouring in camps in Jordan, already awash with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, not to mention other refugee groups.  The modern refugee dilemma is one of unequal treatment and unequal distribution, clouded by demagogy.
The moral of such spellbindingly erroneous arguments is that it is better to stay in a dangerous home, be killed, gassed, tortured and raped, rather than journey with the cloak of international protection to other countries. If you do decide to leave a destroyed city or state of total impoverishment, be of perfect ethical disposition mirroring the recipient country, channelling their values. If Muslim, convert; if Christian, well, stay as you are. Orban would like you to.

Homeownership rates at historic lows for young people in the US

Nick Barrickman 

Recent reports on the US housing market have revealed that homeownership levels in the US have dropped to record lows in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
A report released last week by the Pew Research Center shows homeownership rates are at the lowest level in over 20 years, while US Census data evaluated by real estate firm Trulia show that young people aged 18-24 are living with their parents in numbers not seen since 1940, the year after the Great Depression officially ended.
According to the data accumulated by Trulia, and reported by the Wall Street Journal, the share of young people living with parents in the US in 2016 was nearly 40 percent. Noting that homeownership “is closely correlated with housing affordability and income,” the Journal states that the only other period in which comparable rates were seen was over 75 years ago. In contrast, only 24.1 percent of young people were living with their parents in 1960.
Those 18 to 24 years old, known as “millennials,” have surpassed Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) as the country’s largest living generation. However, the Journal notes a Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies report, which found that despite the number of people under the age of 30 increasing by over 5 million since 2006, there are less than 200,000 new homeowners within this group today.
A report released by Pew provides a more detailed breakdown of the loss in homeownership affecting broad sections of the working class. In 2004, homeownership in the US hit a modern peak of 69 percent. By contrast, the homeownership rate had fallen to 63.5 percent in 2016. Current homeownership rates have sunk to levels lower than in 1994, the period prior to the “dot-com” boom, when home values began their rapid growth.
Significantly, the Pew study shows that young people have suffered the most under today’s conditions. In 2004, 43 percent of people under the age of 35 owned homes. Today, that number has fallen to 35.2 percent, a drop of 18 percent from 12 years earlier. Homeownership for people age 35-44 declined by 16 percent in this same period.
When based upon income, the collapse was also stark. The report notes that homeownership for people with household incomes lower than $44,000 fell from a high of 52.9 percent in 2005 to 47.1 percent in 2015. This was in contrast to better-off homeowners, making yearly incomes of between $44,000 and $132,000, and high-income homeowners making over $132,000, who saw a drop from 73.8 to 68.3 percent and from 86.6 to 80.3 percent, respectively.
The Pew report found that African Americans were the hardest hit racial group in the US, with homeownership rates falling from a peak of 49.1 percent in 2004 to 41.3 percent today. Whites and Hispanics also saw their homeownership rates plummet, from 76 percent to 71.9 percent and from 48.1 percent to 47 percent, respectively. In addition, the number of loan applications has collapsed since 2004. According to Pew, housing loans for whites have fallen by 45 percent; 77 percent for African Americans and 76 percent for Hispanic residents.
The 2008 collapse of the housing market precluded millions of people from ever obtaining ownership of a home, an aspiration long-associated with the “American Dream.” The report notes that nearly 72 percent of all renters wish to own their homes, but are blocked from doing so by stringent rules put in place to curb the illegal lending practices that occurred in the lead-up to the housing collapse.
A report released two weeks ago by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that life expectancy fell for the entire US population for the first time in over 20 years in the period from 2014-2015, the last year on record. A recent study produced by economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman show a vast growth in total income inequality in the US since 1980, with the top 1 percent obtaining the same percentage of income today that the bottom 50 percent of the US population held in 1980.
A study released in early December by economists from Harvard, Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley found that the percentage of Americans making more in income than their parents had collapsed from over 90 percent in 1970 to only 51 percent in 2014.
These reports and others released in the recent period further undermine President Barack Obama’s claim that Americans are doing “pretty darn great” thanks to his administration’s policies. The decline in support from people 18-29 was among the key factors in the November 8 defeat of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who had promised to continue the policies of the Obama administration.

Funding cuts across almost all UK schools

Tom Pearce 

Conservative Education Secretary Justine Greening has unveiled proposals for a new “fairer funding” formula for UK schools. This was originally promised by former Prime Minister David Cameron, but was delayed by his resignation in the aftermath of June’s referendum vote to leave the European Union.
In the Theresa May government’s autumn statement, Chancellor Philip Hammond made no attempt to address the funding crisis wracking schools. Instead he pledged £240 million to expand grammar schools on the basis that selective education helped poorer children.
Under conditions in which many schools are struggling with declining revenue and increased class sizes, some are taking desperate action to avoid closure. Still, thousands of struggling schools are set to lose further money from their budgets as a result of the government’s changes.
The new funding formula was announced on the same day the National Audit Office warned that schools in England were facing an 8 percent real-terms cut in funding per pupil by 2019-20 as a result of £3 billion worth of cuts. The proposals show the government’s shakeup of school funding is just another attack in a long line of cuts to education. Rather than providing more money and bolstering budgets, the government’s proposals shift funding from one county or city and redistributes it to other parts of the country.
More than 9,000 schools in England will lose funding, with money moving from London and other urban centres that have been well funded in the past, to schools in areas that receive less money.
It therefore means substantial cuts in funding across England. The cuts will be felt most in Inner London, where there is to be a -2.4 percent change in per-pupil funding. However, even the increased funding is miniscule, with the North-west of England gaining a paltry 0.1 percent, the West Midlands 0.3 percent and the North East and outer London 1.0 percent.
The areas that are set to “benefit” still only receive the smallest of increases in funding. These are in Yorkshire & Humber and the East of England at 1.5 percent, the South-west at 2.2 percent, the South-east at 2.3 percent, and the East Midlands gaining 2.5 percent more per pupil.
In her statement, Greening said, “Our proposed reforms will mean an end to historical unfairness and underfunding for certain schools.” However, the impact of these changes actually means, according to Adrian Prandle, director of economic strategy at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), that “around 90 percent of schools would see a real-terms cut to their funding.”
Even in areas that are receiving a marginal increase, there are disparities, with schools in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, and Knowsley, Merseyside looking set to gain slightly while the large cities of Manchester and Liverpool will have an average cut of 2.2 percent per pupil. Calculations by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the ATL show that in the city of Salford in the North-west of England, school budgets face real term cuts of over £9 million by 2020. A loss of 252 teachers and £320 per pupil is forecast.
The government proposals come in the wake of a crisis of funding that has already had a detrimental impact across every aspect of education. Thousands of smaller primary and secondary schools in England are becoming financially unviable.
Last month, the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) released a statement that one-form entry primaries and secondaries with 600 pupils or fewer will “fall off a cliff” financially unless new funds are found. Malcolm Trobe, interim general secretary of the ASCL, said, “At some smaller schools, the funding will become such that they would not be able to support their teaching infrastructure. They will not be financially viable.”
Schools across the UK have already cut support staff to balance budgets. In addition, the profession is struggling to hold onto new teachers. Schools Minister Nick Gibb revealed in a written parliamentary answer that almost a third of new teachers had left the sector between 2010 and 2015.
A joint statement from heads’ and teachers’ unions—ASCL, the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT), NUT, ATL and Voice—reiterated the situation, saying that schools “urgently need additional investment.”
“We are already seeing job losses, increased class sizes and cuts to courses in our schools and colleges,” it read, and schools “urgently need additional investment.”
So fragile is the situation in some areas that several school leaders have suggested they might find solutions to funding issues by sharing specialist teachers with a group of neighbouring schools. Alternatively, they might choose to share some of their support services. Some local authorities are considering moving to a four-day week in order to keep their schools operating.
In response, the Department for Education continued spouting the fiction that education budgets have been protected. It stated, “[T]he schools budget has been protected and in 2016-17 totals over £40bn, the highest ever on record.”
It claimed the “fairer funding proposals will ensure that areas with the highest need attract the most funding and end the historic unfairness in the system.”
The NUT and the ATL have mapped the changes to school funding with an interactive programme that shows the effect on every school in England and Wales. The research, based on published school funding data for 2016/17 and 2014/15, shows that 83 percent of UK schools are worse off in real terms since the Conservatives took office.
GHYPERLINK "https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/planned-la-and-school-expenditure-2016-to-2017-financial-year"government statistics on planned local authorities and school expenditure for the next financial year show that, even without considering inflation, levels of funding per pupil have dropped since 2012.
Last month, the NUT and the ATL held a special conference to amalgamate the two unions to form a new body called the National Education Union. The decision will now be put to the members of both unions for approval in ballots to be held in the spring term.
However, the fight for fairer funding for schools cannot be won through the existing trade unions or by creating new ones. The teachers’ unions, including the NUT and the ATL, have overseen the decimation of education by successive governments. Cuts to pensions, the introduction of performance related pay and the academies programme—which have rapidly privatised education—have proceeded without opposition from the unions.

Massive explosion kills 31, injures scores at fireworks market in Mexico

Genevieve Leigh

At least 31 people have been confirmed dead from a massive chain-reaction explosion which tore through the San Pablito Market, one of the largest fireworks markets in the country, in Tultepec, Mexico on Tuesday. The town lies just north of the capital and is considered part of Greater Mexico City.
The explosions, which took place in an area containing over 300 tons of fireworks, left the bodies of the dead so badly burned that neither their ages nor genders could be determined on site. Among the few bodies which have been identified so far are seven adolescent boys, a three-month old baby, and a 12-year-old girl.
In addition to the dead, over 70 people were injured in the explosions, including three children whose injuries are so severe they have been sent to Galveston, Texas for specialized treatment. Some of the injured were admitted to the hospital with severe burns covering as much as 90 percent of their bodies. As of this writing, 47 people remained hospitalized, among them 10 children.
The market was especially well stocked with fireworks at the time of the incident due to the high demand around the holidays. The market, which regularly holds over 300 vendors, was expected to sell 100 tons of fireworks by the end of its season, which lasts from August through December. More than 80 percent of the 300 stalls at the market were destroyed by the explosions, according to state officials.
In addition to this immense loss of life, the tragedy also spells a serious crisis for the surrounding area. The San Pablito Market was a vital part of the local economy, sustaining a large portion of the region’s population. With its destruction, more than three-quarters of the town’s residents, who are in some way involved in the pyrotechnic industry, will be affected. One source estimated that sales from this market provided sustenance to over 40,000 families.
While the immediate cause of the explosion is still unknown, the head of Tultepec emergency services, Isidro Sanchez, has speculated that a lack of safety measures was the likely cause of the blasts.
If the cause is proven to be the result of poor regulation, the tragedy will represent one more major scandal for the Mexican government. The market was inspected by safety officials only one month prior to the incident, and no irregularities were reported. In fact, San Pablito Market was described by the head of the local pyrotechnics association to the online publication Animal Politíco just last week as one of the safest markets in all of Latin America with stalls having “sufficient space so that there is not a chain reaction in case of a spark.”
While this explosion is among the worst fireworks tragedies in the country's history, it is not the first. Mexico has experienced many deadly explosions caused by poorly controlled and often illegal fireworks markets over the last few decades. A 1988 blast in Mexico city’s La Merced market killed 68; In 1999 an explosion of illegally stored fireworks left 63 people dead; and in 2002, 29 were killed at a market in Veracruz.
The San Pablito Market itself has had at least two other explosions over the last decade alone. After a series of near deadly incidents, more safety precautions were added to the market including provisions that all structures must be built of brick and concrete and fireworks had to be kept beneath glass out of reach of customers. Firefighters were also stationed on site.
Despite these measures being officially in place, some employees reported to the Mexican daily La Jornada that there had been frequent violations. Among those reported were things such as neglect of a 15 meters distance between the premises and the parking lot.
The newspaper also quoted workers at the market saying that merchants had overstocked and improperly stored fireworks. According to these accounts, a bundle of rockets known as “brujitas” toppled over and ignited from friction with the pavement, setting off the disastrous chain reaction. Whether or not this was the cause is still to be determined.
The most devastating feature of such frequent tragedies like the one in Tultepec, Mexico is how easily they could have been prevented. Poor regulation of such a volatile industry, the lack of advanced safety resources and the fact that there is an entire region of a country racked by immense poverty and forced to rely on fireworks sales as a means of survival, are all the result of a dysfunctional socio-economic system which fails to protect, sustain, and least of all fulfill, its population.

Trump’s election fuels foreign policy debate in Australia

Peter Symonds

The election of Donald Trump as US president has generated heightened uncertainty and tensions throughout the Asia Pacific region with his promises to scrap the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and implement trade war measures against China, as well as threats to abandon military alliances with Japan and South Korea unless they bear the costs.
The concerns were further exacerbated when Trump this month called into question the so-called One China policy that has formed the linchpin of relations with China, not only for the United States but countries throughout the region. Under the policy, Washington recognises Beijing as the sole legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.
In Australia, Trump’s election has intensified the ongoing debate in the political and military establishment over the basic dilemma facing the ruling class: how to balance between China, the country’s largest export market, and the United States, the country’s longstanding strategic partner. The divisions, which run through both the ruling Liberal-National Coalition of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the opposition Labor Party headed by Bill Shorten, are being intensified by the worsening economic position of Australian capitalism and the growing danger of conflict between the US and China.
Trump’s victory has prompted those critical of the Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot to Asia” against China to once again call for a more independent Australian foreign policy—one that safeguards trade and investment with China.
Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating last month publicly blasted those who treat the Australian alliance with the US with “a reverential, sacramental quality.” He declared that Australia had a “more or less tag-along foreign policy” with the US and “it’s time to cut the tag.” Speaking later in November at the University of Melbourne, he declared that under Trump, the US would be “refocussing on themselves, not alliances” and that Australia needed “a dexterous, mobile, clever foreign policy.”
Former Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary Richard Woolcott commented that Trump’s election “may well be good for Australia” by forcing the forging of “a more independent foreign policy” focussed on the Asia Pacific region. Moreover, “the Trump presidency will hopefully bring an overdue end to our misconceived and ineffective operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq.”
The Washington Post this month noted the debate that Trump had triggered in Australia, pointing to the remarks of Labor’s foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong who called for consideration of “a broader range of scenarios” than previously contemplated and declared that Trump’s views ran “counter to what are core values for more Australians.”
The call for Canberra to focus more on the Asian region has been the longstanding catch cry of the Greens party, even as it tacitly supported the US-led war in Afghanistan. Greens leader Richard Di Natale declared last month that Trump’s views represent “an ally’s worst nightmare” and called for “a fundamental reassessment” of the US alliance. “We need to recognise that the alliance has served us well; it’s served us poorly at times, but there are grave concerns now that the alliance with the US represents a security threat to Australia,” he said.
None of those pressing for a more independent foreign policy focussed particularly on Asia is openly advocating an end to the US alliance. Rather their call for a more agile foreign policy expresses the deep concern in ruling circles about the economic impact of the US confrontation with China and the potential for Trump’s extreme right-wing militarist views to provoke popular anti-war opposition.
The room for manoeuvre is narrowing, however. In 2010, Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was ousted in an inner-party coup by party and trade union powerbrokers, who, it was later revealed in WikiLeaks cables, were “protected sources” of the US embassy in Canberra. Rudd had alienated the Obama administration by suggesting that the US reach a modus vivendi in Asia with China, right at the point when it was preparing to confront Beijing.
Rudd’s replacement Julia Gillard provided the Australian parliament as the platform for Obama to announce his “pivot to Asia” in November 2011 and signed a deal for the basing of US Marines in northern Australia. Over the past five years, under both Labor and Coalition governments, the Australian military and intelligence apparatuses have been more closely integrated into the Pentagon’s planning for war against China.
Australia is already central to the US military’s operations around the world, with key facilities such as the Pine Gap spy base essential to its intelligence, communications and missile targeting systems. Since 2011, the US has obtained growing access to Australian military bases, not only for its Marines but its warships and planes. Admiral Harry Harris, head of US Pacific Command (PACOM), revealed this month that the most advanced American fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor, would start operating out of northern Australia next year. Nuclear-capable bombers already fly in and out of northern bases.
The integration and “interoperability” of Australian forces with the American counterparts extends to the embedding of Australian officers in PACOM headquarters in Hawaii. Harris pointedly paid tribute to the fact that Australian Major General Greg Bilton is deputy commander of US Army Pacific and Australian Navy Commodore Ian Middleton is a senior advisor for strategic planning and policy.
While Prime Minister Turnbull was critical of the “pivot” when it was announced, his government has continued to strengthen Australia’s integration with the US military. After protracted haggling, Canberra reached an agreement with Washington in October to share the costs of upgrading Australian bases to bring US Marines in Darwin up to a full complement of 2,500 and to provide for US air force and naval deployments.
Last month Turnbull publicly endorsed Trump’s plans for a vast expansion of the military, including the expansion of the US navy from 274 ships to 350 and their more extensive deployment in the Asia Pacific. “A stronger United States means a safer world,” he declared, and berated Labor spokeswoman Wong for wanting “to move away from our most trusted, most enduring ally, move away [and] put our country at risk.”
Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne has enthusiastically embraced Trump’s plans for a military expansion as a possible boon for Australian military industries. Referring to Trump’s criticism of Japan and South Korea for not paying enough toward US bases, he declared last month that “we are not strategic bludgers” and foreshadowed greater defence spending. The close integration of Australia and US is underscored by the decision of the huge American defence contractor, Lockheed Martin, to establish a research lab at the University of Melbourne next year, the first of its kind outside the United States.
Sections of the Australian political establishment have responded to the uncertainty generated by Trump’s election by calling for even closer ties with the US. Former Labor leader and ambassador to Washington Kim Beazley hit out at Keating’s remarks, declaring he was “right off the beam.” Beazley said Canberra had “to use the influence we have [in Washington] to try and mitigate the effect of policy changes” in the region, including Trump’s trade war measures against China.
Peter Jennings, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, advocated a doubling down of Australian military commitments to the US to send a signal to Trump that Canberra was fully on board. He called for more Australian troops to be dispatched to Iraq and suggested allowing the US navy to base an aircraft carrier in Western Australia. The remarks reflect the prevailing view in strategic policy circles that Canberra should remain firmly wedded to the US alliance as the means for prosecuting its own economic and strategic interests in Asia and internationally.
The debate highlights the increasingly precarious balancing act facing the Turnbull government, which has backed the “pivot” and the US military build-up in Asia, while attempting to avoid antagonising China and risking economic retaliation. It has so far not carried out a “freedom of navigation” operation—sending a warship into Chinese-claimed waters—despite pressure from Washington. Last week Turnbull also made clear that his government was not about to change its One China policy as Trump has threatened to do.
The debate in Australian ruling circles will only intensify after Trump is inaugurated as US president next month and proceeds to implement his aggressive agenda against China. The disputes in Canberra undoubtedly reflect discussions taking place in capitals throughout the region as each seeks to defend its economic and strategic interests. This in turn will only intensify geo-political rivalry in the Asia Pacific and heighten the dangers of trade war and military conflict.