Categoría: Think Tanks Página 7 de 10

Conservatives of the World, Stand Up!

el 21/02/2009

The Obama Presidency is not enjoying the best support from the Conservative think tanks front. In the middle of the crisis, the are afraid of the arrival of a new and stronger version of the damned Welfare State. If we did not know that in fact, the Welfare State has never left us, we firmly will believe their dramatic appeals against the new wave of communism is coming thanks to Mr Obama.

No, the launch of the Stimulus Plan is generating a big resistence from the Conservative economists. In other post I mentioned the economists’ rebellion leaded by the Cato Institute. Now it is the turn of the Heritage Foundation, whose experts prevent us from the socialist disguised in a Democrat.

With the motto The Left is on the March, this outstanding think tank has started a hard campaign to highlight all the decisions Obama Cabinet makes with the aim of returning to the Welfare State and even further.

“The 1996 welfare reform bill changed the way government treated welfare. But last week the Left reverted back to the liberal welfare state in the “stimulus” bill. Hidden in the bill was a massive increase in welfare spending. While the 1996 reforms gave states more money if they moved people OFF welfare, the new policy gives states more money if more people stay ON welfare”.

The analysts say the Government is going to spend $6,700 for every poor person in the United States. According to them this is not a worthwile investment because it perpetuates the aid and do not motivate people to leaving their bad situation. May be they have to ask themsleves who causes that situation. Not everybody is guilty of being a homeless.

People from the Heritage Foundation argues that the growth of welfare is the worst way to recover economy and family income. They remember the year 1996, when the Clinton Administration implemented another protection package that according to their point of view, did not stimulate at all the entrepreneurship and labour maket.

“It seems some bad ideas never die, and the welfare state is certainly one of them. Before 1996 the government heaped benefits on low-income individuals, crippling them in a cycle of dependency, and providing no incentives for state and local governments to help their citizens get jobs. And with last week’s bill, it seems we are turning back the clock and reinstating these failed policies again”.

But what about the opposite? It does not seem that George W. Bush economic policies have been a big success. And traditionally, Heritage, Cato, AEI and other protoconservative think tanks have the inspirers of the Republicans. The used to claim that. May be now they have forgotten the point.

If China is in economic trouble, bad expectations

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 19/02/2009

en Think Tanks

China has been the great icon of globalisation. His powerful economic development was a sign of the prosperity of the decade. Every country made business with China and this country was the huge consumero f economic resources. When the financial crisis started, even the Chinese authorities thought they were going to be free from the economic problems and predicted a growth of a 9 percent of GDP for 2009.

Now we have evidence that China is also facing the crisis. He will grow more than any other developed country, but the effects of the crisis are emerging in his figures. Wing Thye Woo, Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution, explains in China’s Short-term and Long-term Economic Goals and Prospects that

“China’s economic situation in 2009 does not look good. The IMF’s January 2009 projection of growth was 6.7 percent, which was down from its November 2008 projection of 8.5 percent. The February 2009 estimate of the number of jobs lost by migrant workers was 20 million, which was double the estimate of December 2008”.

Several analysts claim that the situation of China will affect to the recovery of the United States, as America needs the financial support of the big country. In fact, if China does not begin structural reforms in his economy, we can see a commercial war between two of the main nations of the Planet. “Some analysts say that the US housing bubble was able to continue only because China prevented the long term interest rate from rising by continually investing its large trade surpluses into Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Bonds”.

The last thing we need is a war, according to the Brookings analista. We have to reinforce the public diplomacy strategy to persuade Chinese officials about the need to increase the reforms towards a more balanced economic system.

“China’s economy has been like a speeding car for almost 30 years. The high-probability failures that could cause the car to crash in the near future could be classified under three categories (1) hardware failure, (2) software failure, and (3) power supply failure”.

These three scenarios show serious problems like a banking and financial crisis, difficulties in Government with the explosion of social protest due to corruption and inequality, or external limitations to the China’s growth: climate change, a shortfall in energy resources and a commercial war with other countries. The author draws a pessimistic future over the best engine of the global progress.

What about food?

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 18/02/2009

en Think Tanks

In the fat Developed countries we did not use to care about food. In general terms, we are having more food sources than we need and we only have to examine statistics on obesity to confirm food was not a matter of serious concern for rich nations. Countrymen have been receiving lots of subsidies, we have been dominating the process of liberalisation of commerce to favour our economies and in the middle of happy times, food was in a secondary position in the public policy agenda. Like other aspects, crisis has also changed the focus on the question.

The worst news is for Developing Countries which have huge problems to assure food supplies to population. We are very busy with our financial crisis and may be you have read or watched that thousands of persons are dying because they lack of the food basics. But the negative wave is also affecting to fat nations. As pointed out by a report from the Chatham House of the United Kingdom,

Over the next few decades, the global food system will come under renewed pressure from the combined effects of seven fundamental factors: population growth, the nutrition transition, energy, land, water, labour and climate change. The combined effects will create constraints on food supply and if action is not taken, there is a real potential for demand growth to outstrip increases in global food production. Effects on developing countries would be devastating. Developed countries will be affected too. Expectations of abundant and ever cheaper food could come under strain.

Authors of Food Futures, Rethinking UK Strategy argue that Developed Countries are also going to suffer from the reduction of food supplies. What does it mean? The same situation than in other essential resources, like energy. We cannot be confident of depending on the international commerce. We have to promote our own food industry in all levels and establish strong links with our providers in other nations. The way is not only a certain return to economic nationalism (there is no choice) but also to working in a more balanced commercial relations with other actors, and specially with the main producers, Developing countries.

In this environment, ‘business as usual’ models could at worst fail, and at best be poor preparation for the coming period. EU/UK food supply arrangements will be required to operate profitably around a significantly higher price norm, one that reflects the true cost of resources and incorporates wider social and ecological considerations. A system that is able to reconcile the often conflicting goals of resilience, sustainability and competitiveness and that is able to meet and manage consumer expectations will become the new imperative.

The experts already think that the EU is the best framework to operate in. But I do not know if a model based on quotas and subsidies is the best way to increase the quality and competiveness of the food industry in the continent.

Will the EU model survive?

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 17/02/2009

en Think Tanks

Every country is very busy triying to cope with its economic and financial difficulties. For this reason, there are issues that have lost their prominent position in the political agenda. It seems to be the case of the European Union project, which is living in a nightmare from the last three years, when some countries rejected the Constitution.

But despite big problems, before the crisis everybody agreed that the EU was an outstanding model of economic development and transnational cooperation. In fact, with the exception except those countries that wanted to live isolated, the waiting list to become a member of the Big Europe was very long. Even we can remember the discussions over the integration of Turkey. What happened? That Europe only exists for the Eurocrats. The European project is not leading any great economic transformation and does not play any role as a superpower. And in the middle of the crisis, several countries think seriously on the utility of being a member of the EU.

This happens to a majority of the new members of the European countries, the Central and East nations which have been integrated recently. A brief from the Centre for European Reform has analysed the question and offers worrying conclusions. “The EU’s new member-states have been hit hard by the credit crunch and collapsing export markets. The Central and East Europeans sense that their post-Cold War growth model – consisting of liberalisation and EU integration – is broken”.

In New Europe and the Economic crisis this think tank considers that the integration has left those countries in a poor situation and that the EU authorities do not have credibility to helping in the recovery. The revival of the State economy is contrary to the principles proposed by the Lisbon Agenda. This strategy is oriented to “liberalise and modernize economies”, but now governments are struggling to maintain their statu quo. “The legal framework for the single market is under threat of being weakened”. According to the report, Eastern countries need more support from the big Western European nations and feel “they do not pay sufficient attention to their concerns, for example about Russian bullying of neighbouring states or the costs of meeting EU climate change targets in poorer countries”.

What does it mean? Disenchantment on the European dream is extending. Several political leaders in East and Central Europe are returning to isolation and reject the growth model they have followed sin the 1990’s. This situation adds more argument to euroskeptics who defend that the EU is only an artificial entity created by enlightened politicians who were afraid of a third World War. As political stability is grounding in the old continent, may be we will not need the EU anymore.

Women in management: a convenient trend

por Carlos Sotelo Enríquez

el 17/02/2009

en Think Tanks

The Copenhagen Institute for Futures Studies offers another interesting article on the future of work. In this occasion, it focuses on the arrival of women to management tasks, but not as a fashionable momentum. On the one hand, the failure of an economic system governed by men has offered an opportunity for women. Although they were even more able to play a key role in company boards, the main posts have been in the hands of male managers. Now, as men have failed in avoiding the crisis (If they are not guilty of it) in many businesses owners are thinking of giving a chance to women. On the other hand, in the last ten years we have seen that women perform better in education. They have university degrees and are better prepared than many men. According to this situation, nobody can stop the climbing of women to the managerial tasks.

In fact, as the report Shall women save the world’s economy? points out, women can do best in these difficult times. Their management approach is more appropriate to cope with uncertainty and negative ways:

“Women have a completely different approach to life. They are more cooperative and bring more people in when important decisions must be made. So it can take a little longer to make the decision, but the decision is considered thoroughly before being made. I have absolutely no doubt that the world would have been very different if women had had the assignment.”

The paper says that now we need financial control, cooperation instead fierce competition, warm environment instead hard labour relations and a bigger sense of the importance of success in the long term. All these features are in the managerial style of women. “There is a feminine approach to leadership. It’s about being intuitive and rational. It’s about multitasking, sensitivity to people’s needs and feelings and being a generous listener.” An important point to remember is that the entering of women into management is going to be a structural trend, at least in the more developed countries. The era of supremacy of macho managers is ending.