Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    Unethical Philomena by Mannix Flynn. Instead of the politics of selling children we got a cosy road trip

    “the religiously deferential Philomena denies that she was coerced into signing away her child” At the glitzy Dublin premiere of Philomena there was marked discomfort in the Q & A emanating from some of the victims of institutional abuses as the normally boisterous Steve Coogan made every effort to be inoffensive in his efforts to appease Catholic sensibilities. Coogan is the producer, co-writer and star of the movie, as journalist Martin Sixsmith who helped Philomena Lee trace her child, Anthony. The boy was taken from her during their incarceration in Sean Ross Abbey, a Mother and Baby Home in Co Tipperary, in the 1950s. Perhaps Coogan didn’t really understand the politics of the issue. The politics of the church with all its abuses is indeed fraught. But he needed to be aware of this: that gentleness towards oppressors might be seen as indulgence of regimes that wish to keep us all silent, all stunted: childlike and contained. The most startling thing to emerge from Philomena is the lack of accountability for what was in effect the moral theft and trafficking of the child. The whole issue of criminality was avoided throughout the entire film. Indeed the religiously deferential Philomena denies that she was coerced into signing away her child. At the core of the problem of the film is that this denial is taken at face value. This important and still topical ethical issue has been sweetened and pressed into a glowing human interest story rather than a story of organised, criminal conspiracy. Philomena is a road movie for the politically emasculated. A Tinseltown bauble that purports to capture a moment in time that it implies is long gone. Comfortable history. The whole reality of this film is sentimentalised through a naive and clichéd catholic spiritualism. In the book on which the film is based, the real Sixsmith wrote that “The nuns were lovely” and the mother superior was as “a friendly, educated woman … who had devoted her life to the care of disadvantaged and disabled people”. The film is more nuanced but there is certainly no judgementalism. Unlike for example Peter Mullan’s 2002 The Magdalene Sisters, this film is no polemic. As a result it lacks the catharsis necessary to make for even dramatic greatness. The Mother and Baby homes like Sean Ross Abbey, Bessborough, and Castle Pollard formed part of a network of compounds where individual citizens were incarcerated and exploited till they died, made good their escape or somehow found themselves miraculously released. They were all of a piece with the Magdalene laundries, the industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages, mental institutions and indeed some ordinary religious schools. The trauma of what took place in these institutions still permeates this society through the suffering of the individuals who were incarcerated there. As to the brutal separation of mothers from their children, the likes of the Adoption Rights Alliance deal daily with sustained suffering as many both mothers and children are still not being given access to personal records, which can enfranchise the children with an authenticity, an origin. Punitive attitudes incarnated in the movie’s venomous Sister Hildegarde pervade in the often contemptuous attitudes of contemporary Religious Congregations and indeed the State. There was an opportunity in Philomena to address these issues but the writers of the script chose not to do so. Nobody so far has been held to account for this practice; there have been no Garda or Interpol investigations; nobody from Aer Lingus or Pan Am which handled what was in effect the trafficking of the children out of Ireland has been confronted. No-one from the Garda, no-one from US Immigration, from Social Welfare or Foreign Affairs. We had to drag the apology from the Taoiseach in relation to the Magdalene Laundries and large parts of the truth have still been avoided in the massive whitewash of the Ryan and McAleese Reports. The complete indifference and lack of consequences for all those that were involved in the criminality and abuses that were described in the Ferns, Murphy and Cloyne Reports is dumbfounding. Closure is a myth. Respect is due to all the victims of church depredation and deep respect to Anthony Lee who died searching for his mother – diverted by the lies of the very people who thieved him from his mother and continued the expropriation by robbing him of his mother’s whereabouts. But this story is not just theirs; it is all our stories. It needed to have indelible consequences for the church and state – otherwise the story is simply peripheralised, managed, alienated, othered. It will take some time for society to extract the truth on this whole issue. Memorials at the Garden of Remembrance, hollow apologies, and atmospheric, politics-free films like Philomena can never be a substitute for the political truth. With all that in mind – please go. It is well-acted and moving, though to ambivalent ends. And when you come out of the cinema, get involved, demand answers, seek the truth, change the politics, strive to right the wrongs.

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Nobody really cares. Department of Environment’s revived post-Mahon planning ‘enquiry’ likely to be box-ticking, again. John Gormley Aug 2013 Village

    ’In a democracy the voters have a right to make stupid and irresponsible decisions, the right to vote for gombeens and bribetakers who will ignore development plans and rezone every blade of grass in the country’ ‘The Greens ,while in power, initiated the enquiries; Fine Gael and Labour put a halt to them – for the most spurious of reasons. And they got away with it’ On the day that the Mahon tribunal found that Frank Dunlop had made corrupt payments to certain politicians Twitter was in a frenzy – with the news that Pat Kenny was departing RTE for Newstalk. Maybe the general public were suffering from a serious bout of Tribunal fatigue, or maybe the showbiz/human interest element of the Kenny story was irresistible, but could there be a deeper, more uncomfortable truth in evidence here? Is it possible that the Irish are just not that pushed about corruption? Are they really that bothered about the poor planning that has blighted this country for decades? Could they really give a toss about the over zonings that fuelled the property bubble? It’s not popular to say so, but my twenty years as a public representative tell me that the above topics are not ones which exercise the public mind when it comes to elections. You need look no further than the last local elections when some of those councillors who received corrupt payments were re-elected. And no doubt at next year’s local elections the electorate will once again reward corrupt politicians while ignoring many of the candidates who have never taken a bribe. So, it’s down to the voters, the people, and for whatever historical reasons we have a tolerance – even a sneaking regard – for the rogue in our society. Some may see this as an endearing quality – we understand human frailty and don’t get too hung up on the letter of the law. At the heart of this is a more uncomfortable truth. We’re really not that pushed about corruption. We don’t see bribery or white collar crime in the same league as the common or garden thief. Frank Dunlop is a witty, entertaining, intelligent guy, who just happens to be corrupt and a perjurer. You see, those who crusade on the planning/corruption issue are not the norm in this country. People like Michael Smith, Colm MacEochaidh, Elaine Byrne or Trevor Sargent are exceptions – ‘odd bods and misfits’ who are quickly marginalised and neutralised. It was Trevor Sargent who first brought the problem to public attention when he stood up in the Council Chamber waving a developer’s cheque and asking if anyone else in the Council had received one. The omerta code had been broken and the reaction was swift. Trevor was surrounded by councillors and physically attacked. Councillor Don Lydon , who was subsequently found to have accepted bribes, got Trevor in a very expert headlock. Those who witnessed the events of that night say that Dr Lydon, who was a psychologist by profession, really missed his real calling in life and should have been a cage fighter. Don had Trevor in very professional headlock, depriving my colleague of oxygen and demanding the return of the cheques. As Trevor’s face turned blue. I recently sat beside Don at a dinner for past members of the Oireachtas. We had quite a pleasant and civil conversation, and he asked me to pass on his warmest regards to Trevor. He was very fond of Trevor, he said. I couldn’t help but wonder afterwards what he would have done to Trevor that night had he actually disliked him. Don, like the others in the corruption trial, now finds himself in an unusual situation. A Tribunal of Enquiry has found that he took bribes, whereas in the courts he has essentially been acquitted on the same charges. I’m sure on a human level the past few years have been an ordeal for him, but contrast his treatment with that of Gerard Convie, the Donegal planner. Mr Convie was the whistleblower in Donegal County Council, who alerted the Department of Environment to serious planning irregularities in the region. Not only had Mr Convie been dismissed, but when the new Fine Gael and Labour government took over they very quickly dropped the independent inquiries which I had initiated as Minister for the Environment. Mr Convie took the matter to the courts where his good name was vindicated, and the new government was forced to reinstate the planning enquiries. Again, keen observers of these matters will note that a clear pattern of public and media indifference emerges. The news that the independent planning enquiries were to be dropped in the first place was greeted with barely a whimper in the newspapers and broadcast media. Try to imagine – if you can – the howls of outrage and indignation of certain columnists if Fianna Fail had pulled such a stunt. But it gets worse. Incredibly, the day after the Convie case an editorial appeared in the Irish Independent, complimenting the government on their announcement of the independent planning enquiries, completely ignoring the fact that this government had dropped the enquiries in the first place! If there was any finger of blame, it was pointed, unjustifiably, at the Department for the Environment. It’s true that government departments try, generally, to avoid unnecessary hassle or extra work and expense, but the decision to stop the independent enquiries was a political one, pure and simple. The Greens ,while in power, initiated the enquiries; Fine Gael and Labour put a halt to them – for the most spurious of reasons. And they got away with it. Given the distinct lack of enthusiasm already displayed by the new government for these planning enquiries, don’t get your hopes up. I expect nothing more than a perfunctory ticking of boxes. No heads will roll; no ground-breaking changes will be made to our planning laws. One of the changes being demanded by An Taisce –and a key recommendation of

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Economic inequality creates educational inequalities and class-based cuts to education, an engine for equality, subvert other rights and goods for the most vulnerable.

    By Kathleen Lynch. The impact of rising economic inequality on inequality in education is profound, especially over time. Education is essentially a competition for advantage in an unequal society. Those who have most resources and wealth, outside of education, can and will use it to gain advantage for their children within schools and colleges. Under-resourced public services like education, services on which those with lowest incomes depend heavily, cannot guarantee equality of opportunity for all. Wealthier parents can afford to, and are enabled to, subsidise their children privately. Their private annual expenditures on education through fees, grinds, tutoring, trips, summer camps, IT supports, etc often far exceed total state expenditure on a given child per annum. As Michael Marsh noted in his book Class Dismissed (2011), economic inequality is at the root of educational inequality, and enabling economic inequality to rise annually is a way of actively promoting educational inequality. Yet this is precisely what has happened and is happening in Ireland as the rich are getting richer and the poorest are getting poorer: between 2009 and 2010, the wealthiest ten percent of households experienced an 8% increase in disposable income while the poorest ten percent had a 26% drop in disposable income. (CSO, 2012: 11, Figure 1d). This pattern persisted with the new government, as poverty rates increased between 2010 and 2011: “In 2011, the at risk of poverty rate increased to 16.0% from 14.7% in 2010…. Almost one quarter (24.5%) of the population experienced two or more types of enforced deprivation in 2011 up from 22.6% in 2010” (CSO, SILC, 2013:1). The OECD’s Economic Survey of Ireland (OECD, 2013: 35), published in September, confirms that “Poverty and social exclusion have increased since the crisis…” Cuts to Educational Services and Supports: Punishing the Poor Not only have the current and previous governments enabled economic inequalities to rise, they have compounded this injustice by cutting or greatly reducing the supports that lower-income households need to participate as equals in education. Blanket cuts to child benefit in the recent budget had the greatest impact on those who are poorest; as have the very significant decreases in Rent Allowance, which eat into the very meagre budget of the poorest families in the State. Both recent governments have also reduced the resources that schools and colleges need to support those who do not have access to discretionary funding from their families. While the unjustifiable cuts to educational services for children with learning disabilities have received some public attention, relatively little attention has been given to the significant reduction in language supports for immigrant children, despite the evidence from the 2011 census that one in seven children under the age of 14 is from an ethnic minority (excluding Traveller) or migrant background. Traveller-specific educational supports have also been devastated with a cut of 80% in recent budgets. This happened despite compelling evidence that Travellers are among the most educationally disadvantaged groups in Ireland. As many immigrants and Travellers are not only economically and socially vulnerable, but also lack a powerful, organised public voice, this makes the attack on their educational supports especially reprehensible. Class Inequality and Educational Attainment A survey by Barnardos in 2012 found that, on average, parents are spending €355 for a child in senior infants, €390 for children in fourth class in primary school and €770 for children going into first year in second-level education. Yet the Back to School Allowance in 2013 was only €100 for children aged four to eleven and €200 for a child aged 12 or over, for that minority who are entitled to it. This is an enormous disparity between expenditures and supports. When this is combined with the reduction in school transport supports (unless the child has a medical card), and the planned reductions in one–parent-family payments, it is clear that both the current and previous government policies have been to punish the most vulnerable and the most voiceless. Policies that increase economic inequalities and reduce public educational services and supports will exacerbate an already unequal educational system. Emer Smyth and Selina McCoy’s Investing in Education (2009: 7, Figure 2.2) report showed that there were already significant social-class differences in attainment before the financial crisis. At the end of primary school, children from higher professional backgrounds had a mean literacy score of 43 (out of a possible 50) while those from semi- or un-skilled manual backgrounds had a score of 28 and those in households where neither parent was employed had a mean score of 25. These social-class-related differences are huge and are compounded by, and contribute to, differences in educational attainment at junior and leaving certificate levels, all of which, in turn, translate into further class inequalities in gaining access to higher education. What the government is doing is making a bad educational situation worse for the most disadvantaged. Cuts in Higher Education: Keeping people in their place Although there has been no major discussion of the impact of cuts on low-income working-class, immigrant, disabled, lone-parent or mature students in higher and further education, the impact has been considerable. Between 2010 and 2011, students were among the groups that showed a statistically significant change in their at-risk-of-poverty rate. While 22.7% of students were at risk of poverty in 2010, this rose to 31.4% in 2011. This means that almost one third of students are now at risk of poverty (CSO, 2013: 4). There have been a number of really pernicious cuts in further and higher education that are profoundly class-biased and that have led to this situation. New entrants under the Back to Education Allowance (benefitting the disabled, lone parents and the unemployed) will no longer get maintenance support. This makes it almost impossible for those mature students on low incomes, or those with young children who need childcare, to return to third-level education. Moreover, those students who are from low-income families and on grants, at undergraduate level, and who need to do a further degree/diploma to qualify for a job (such as

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Ireland’s employment problem

    By Sinead Pentony ‘Employment in construction is now just 37.5% of its June 2007 level but increased by 51,300 over the last six years in the areas of health and social work, information and communication, and education’. ‘The main policy measures aimed at increasing employment include the Action Plan for Jobs which aims to have 100,000 more people in work; the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund which is to be funded with €6.4 billion from the National Pension Reserve Fund; and JobsPlus’. As we prepare to exit the bailout and wave goodbye to the Troika in mid-December, they have highlighted three big issues that have yet to be resolved – elevated levels of unemployment, high public debt, and banks’ growing non-performing loans. I will take a closer look at the first two issues over the next two editions of Village. The Troika may be leaving Ireland but the unemployment crisis is on-going. Unfortunately, unemployment crises are nothing new to Ireland. The unemployment rate currently stands at 13.9% (200,700 people). Over the last 30 years (1982-2013) unemployment has averaged over 11%, which represents a huge loss to the economy, lost opportunities for thousands of people and enormous social costs for society. Ireland experienced one of the biggest increases in unemployment of the 34 OECD countries between 2007 and 2012, as shown in Figure One. Long-term unemployment (unemployed for over 1 year) is currently 8.1% (175,000 people), which means the long-term unemployed make up almost 60% of the total number of people who are unemployed. There are signs of improvement. The number of job losses appears to have levelled off and there has been a modest increase of 33,700 people in work over the last 12 months (June 2012 – June 2013). While this is positive, it still represents a decline of 277,400 jobs from June 2008. Ireland experienced the third largest fall in employment levels over this period, after Greece and Spain, as shown in Figure Two. The sectors most affected by the crisis are construction, industry, and administrative and support services. Employment in construction is now just 37.5% of its June 2007 level. Industry and administrative and support services have fared better, with employment levels of 79% and 73%, respectively, for the same period. In contrast, employment increased by 51,300 over the last six years in the areas of health and social work, information and communication, and education. While any improvement in the employment figures is to be welcomed, this is not at a level that is going to solve the unemployment crisis in the short term. The employment rate in Ireland currently stands at 60%, which falls far short of the EU Commission’s Europe 2020 Strategy employment target of 75%. The biggest issue is that there are not enough jobs available. Ireland adopted a mid-range 2014 employment rate target of 69-71%. This was combined with a commitment to focus policy on addressing weak labour demand; putting in place incentives and stimuli to increase employment within enterprises; addressing long-term unemployment; and improving the levels of skills and education in the working-age population. The main policy measures aimed at increasing employment include the Action Plan for Jobs which aims to have 100,000 more people in work over the life-time of the plan; the recently announced Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) which is to be funded with €6.4 billion from the National Pension Reserve Fund; and a range of initiatives aimed at incentivising employers to take on unemployed people e.g. JobsPlus. These are important measures to boost economic growth and job creation, but many of the initiatives are relatively new, which means it will take time for the effects to be seen in the employment figures. The policies aimed at increasing growth and jobs are also not sufficient to deal with the scale of the unemployment crisis, nor are they sufficient to off-set the damage that has been done by a budgetary strategy that has taken €28 billion out of the Irish economy since 2008. Policies aimed at increasing employment are complemented by policies that support unemployed people back into work and ensuring the workforce is equipped with the skills and training required in an advanced economy. These policies, commonly referred to Active Labour Market Programmes (ALMPs), are crucial to reducing structural unemployment (an over-supply of skills in the construction sector and an undersupply in the ICT sector) and achieving a high rate of employment. Pathways to Work sets out the programme of reform. The central element of these reforms has been the establishment of Intreo. This merges employment services and benefit administration into one-stop-shops, providing a single point of contact for all employment and income supports. A key aspect of the Intreo service is its case management approach and the development of a personal progression plan, which is in line with international best practice. Unfortunately, the new Intreo service only covers new jobseekers, which means that the vast majority of unemployed people have no access to Intreo supports. While the number of caseworkers is increasing, the average caseload currently is approximately 800 jobseekers, which is very high by international standards. This raises serious questions about the quality of service that can be delivered. A person-centred approach to labour market activation also requires highly skilled case workers. There are challenges relating to the skills and training of case workers who need extensive knowledge of the social welfare system, employment opportunities, education and training, work programmes and how to provide guidance to people with a varied range of skills and qualifications. An active labour-market service that supports a move towards a high level of employment also needs to develop tailored supports for people who often find themselves at the back of the jobs queue because employers perceive them to be less productive, or because they cannot easily combine work with their other responsibilities. This includes people from ethnic minority backgrounds, those with long-term health conditions, people with disabilities, younger and older people, mothers, and people with few or no formal qualifications. The EU

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Partridge leaves the building

    Partridge leaves the building. Pat Kenny doesn’t like facing up to climate change by John Gibbons The classic comedy series I’m Alan Partridge where a former national chat show host is reduced to working the graveyard shift on a local radio station is chock-full of toe-curlingly awful moments. In one infamous episode, Partridge has insulted the local farming community, and the following day a farmers’ leader is in-studio demanding that he apologise on-air. Already in a hole, the only way out for the redoubtable Partridge is to start digging. Soon, he is accusing farmers of incest, not to mention feeding beefburgers to swans. Then there’s the secret sheds where farmers keep “twenty foot high chickens, because of all the chemicals you’ve put into them, and these chickens are scared because they don’t know why they’re so big…” In early December 2009 I accepted an invite from Pat Kenny to ‘debate’ whether or not climate change is real with an Australian mining industry geologist and paid climate denier called Ian Plimer. So far, all pretty innocent. There is, however, a back story. Two weeks earlier, my Irish Times column ran a story under the headline ‘Kenny stirs up bogus climate change debate’. In that piece, I lampooned Kenny’s constant promotion of debunked denialist canards. “Kenny opened up a 20-minute piece that mashed together anecdotes, interviews and half-facts, topped off with a generous dollop of the presenter’s own editorial slant”. I concluded the piece by throwing a variant of the old TV licence slogan at him: “We’ve heard all the excuses, Pat, and none of them work”. Yes, it was a tad bitchy. Having listened to one attack on climate science after another, all hosted by Kenny, I had submitted him a list of questions to try to smoke out his views on the basic science of climate change. Before 9 am the following morning, Kenny phoned. He clearly didn’t like the questions, and was audibly annoyed at having to lower himself to deal with me. Our conversation did not go well. Kenny accused me of not being a professional like him, of taking sides, of being a ‘green apostle’ and a ‘zealot’, etc. etc. He made a series of vague threats against me during the course of this call (of the ‘do you know who you’re messing with, son, you’ll never work in this town again…’ variety) while insisting that the call was “off the record” and that I could not journalistically use anything he said. As the discussion continued, I gradually drew him away from the name-calling and towards the science itself. To my astonishment, he was genuinely clueless on the specifics. The call lasted just under an hour, and, while torrid at times, it ended almost cordially – and five minutes later, he was live on air, doing his morning show like the seasoned pro that he is. My exchange with Kenny left me smarting, and keen to make him squirm when the article appeared the following day. Columns are, after all, written by humans, not robots; piss one of them off sufficiently and yes, they may well abuse their position to kick you in the arse. Just like broadcasters, you might say. Revenge is a dish best served cold. Kenny set the trap to lure me into his lair in Montrose, and, like a gobshite, in I went. The first thing I noticed when in studio was a bundle of his hand-written notes. Uh oh, Pat had his homework done this time. I’m told it was 30 of the most bruising minutes aired by RTE in quite some time. The Sunday Tribune gave it a half page, with radio reviewer John Foley summarising thus: “It certainly was great radio. Did it enlighten the listener on the climate change debate? Not a whit. Just as Plimer hoped, you suspect”. Still, Kenny – who some years before had successfully batted a complaint to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of bias about a Late Late Show he’d done with denier Philip Stott – did again have the last laugh. Within weeks of this interview, my Irish Times column was, after two years, abruptly cancelled. The question remains: why would such a smart, well-read individual be so utterly dogmatic on environmental and climate change issues? I can only speculate that the answer lies in cognitive dissonance. If this stuff were true, then the era of millionaire lifestyles and endless jet-setting is over. Kenny’s life, in other words. That’s a tough pill for any of us to swallow, especially for the wealthy and fortunate. Denial offers an easy way out. Kenny’s recent decision to bail on a 41-year career in pursuit of a nosebag of cash from Radio Norwich copperfastened the impression of a career defined by a love affair with money, with journalism a distant second. John Gibbons is on Twitter @think_or_swim August 2013, Village Magazine

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Little Emperors Few, except environmentalists, will miss China’s one-child policy Ken Phelan

    Little Emperors Few, except environmentalists, will miss China’s one-child policy Ken Phelan ‘In September 2013, Liu was taken to the Peopleʼs Hospital of Fangzi District, where she was administered a drug to abort her unborn foetus. She was six months pregnant’ ‘The Little Emperors are Chinaʼs future, single-minded and resolute, and may not be quite as malleable as their parents’. In its 34-year history, Chinaʼs one-child policy has inflicted untold misery and suffering on its population. Despite state censorship and a culture of almost servile obedience and compliance, countless reports have leaked to the press of harrowing personal tragedies and gross human rights abuses. Late-term and forced abortions have been commonplace, as has child trafficking and female infanticide; womenʼs menstrual cycles are kept under surveillance by the state and aborted foetuses can be seen left in dustbins or floating by Chinaʼs riversides. In a country where abortion had originally been outlawed by then leader Mao Zedong, the one-child policy – introduced as a measure to counter spiralling population growth – has resulted in over 336m abortions and 196m sterilisations in a legacy that will forever cast a shadow over China’s troubled history. Following a meeting of top Communist Party leaders in Beijing in November, it was reported by Xinhua, China’s official news agency, that significant changes were to be made to the one-child policy. Under the new rules, couples in which one partner is an only child will now be allowed to have two children; this exception had previously been afforded to couples where both partners were only children. It is believed this rule could be extended to cover all families by 2015. As with most things in China, the reasons for the proposed changes are purely economic: the Peopleʼs Republic, going back to the days of Mao Zedong, views its people as numbers or units, rather than citizens. Over thirty years of the one-child policy has resulted in worrying population trends and disrupted demographics. It is believed that Xi Jinping, who was elected president in March, will pursue reform of the one-child policy as a matter of urgency. Although Chinaʼs population stands at 1.35bn, this is expected to peak at 1.45bn in about 10 years and to decline sharply thereafter. Officially, the fertility rate stands at 1.7 births per couple – below the 2.1 births needed to maintain stable population levels – while other estimates have placed the figure as closer to 1.5. China also has an increasingly ageing population which threatens to put tremendous pressure on the pension system – 8.5 percent is currently over 65, and according to United Nations data it is set to rise to 23.9 percent by 2050. The working-age population also fell for the first time in January 2013 which, if sustained, could threaten economic growth and mean less workers supporting an ever-growing number of retirees. There is also a significant gender gap in the population where females have been aborted in preference to males. The first children of the one-child policy have been left with the so-called “4-2-1 Problem”, where each is left providing for two parents and four grandparents. Statistics show that the ill-conceived policy has resulted in serious demographic problems that are economically unsustainable. As an economist at Citi Research said in October: “China has reached a turning point where the demographic dividend will become a liability”. When the Communist party came to power in 1949, population growth was seen as essential to the workforce and in bolstering the military for an anticipated third world war. At first, Mao Zedong had encouraged large families, and abortions, sterilisations and the use of contraceptives were prohibited. Though these rules were somewhat relaxed in later years, the result was Chinaʼs population growing from approximately 500 million in 1949 to almost a billion under Maoʼs rule. When Deng Xiaoping took over power in 1978 following the cultural revolution and Maoʼs death, he was persuaded by a group led by rocket scientist Song Jian that in order to secure Chinaʼs future economic targets, the population would have to be restricted to 1.2 billion. The intially “temporary” solution they proposed – the one-child policy – remained instead for over 30 years. China-2 Implementation of the one-child policy The one-child policy was introduced nationally in 1979, having previously been trialled in just a few provinces. Under the rules, couples could have only one child, or in rural areas two if the first child was a girl. The State Family Planning Commission (FP) and the Communist Party were entrusted with the task of enforcing the policy, with officials being held personally responsible for population targets. In a process quite unique to the Peopleʼs Republic of China, the one-child policy involves the systematic monitoring of womenʼs menstrual cycles; this is carried out by family-planning officers, party members and local volunteers on all women of childbearing age to determine which pregnancies are ʻlegalʼ. Whether or not a pregnancy is legal is determined by eligibility rules and in some cases by quotas set down for the particular village or workplace. Should a woman fall pregnant with a second child or if the pregnancy is deemed ʻillegalʼ due to quota levels, she is subject to often exorbitant punitive fines which, if unpaid may result in a forced abortion. ʻUnauthorisedʼ children cannot be registered in the state until the so-called “social support fee” has been paid, are not issued documentation, and therefore cannot avail of medical care, schooling or employment. As defined by The State Council in 2002, the social support fee is “a fee paid by citizens giving birth extra-legally to compensate for the governmentʼs public goods spending, (to) adjust the consumption of natural resources and to protect the environment”. Abortions and the one-child policy Forced and late-term abortions have been common in China under the one-child policy: the 1979 abortion law set 28 weeks of gestation as the upper limit for performing legal abortions, but this has often been ignored by unscrupulous and over-zealous officials. In 2000, Jin Yani (20)

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Strong Irish growth in 2014 will not be sustained We have catastrophic debt and structural problems Constantin Gurdgiev

    With employment rising, property prices on the mend, mortgages arrears stabilising, Exchequer returns surging and business and consumer confidence regaining pre-crisis highs, Ireland might easily be mistaken for an Asia-Pacific economic dynamo. Alas, once the official hullabaloo about the return to growth is stripped back to the bare facts, it becomes clear that Ireland is entering a new age, the Age of Great Stagnation. The reasons for this are two-fold. First, we are still facing a long-term debt crisis. No matter what statistics are pulled out of the hat, this crisis, embodied in high levels of debts carried by our households, non-financial companies and the Exchequer, is going to be with us for many years to come. Second, we are still in a structural growth crisis. Neither our own development model, heavily reliant on Foreign Direct Investment and transfer pricing by the multinationals, nor our core trading partners’ growth models, reliant on fiscal and financial repression to drag themselves out of the crisis, are sustainable in the long run. In our leaders’ dogmatic adherence to the past (a behavioural fallacy that economists call path-dependency), our official growth theory suggests that economic recovery in our major trading partners will trickle down to Ireland’s national accounts. Alas, in the longer run, a lot is amiss with this thinking. For starters, the exports-led theory of growth is simply not valid. 2000-2013, Ireland led the euro area both in growth and in recession. Since the onset of the crisis, cumulative real GDP across the euro area has contracted by 2.1 percent. In Ireland, over the same period, GDP fell by 4.7 percent as domestic drivers for the crisis overpowered external factors. As for the recovery period: unlike in the early 1990s, the improving economic fortunes abroad have not done much good for Ireland’s exports so far. Over the last four years, the volume of imports of goods in euro area countries grew by almost 15 percent. Irish exports of goods over the same period of time rose just 2.2 percent. The reason for this is structural. Tax arbitrage only works as long as there are profits to move through the Irish tax system. Once the profits dry out, arbitrage ends. The pharma sector is a good example of this dynamic. Replacing goods-driven exports with services-driven Information and Communications Technology exports is decoupling our external balances from the real economy. Worse, much of our trade balance improvements in 2009-2013 was down to a collapse in imports. This presents a serious risk. To fund our public and private liabilities, we need long-term current-account surpluses to average above 4 percent of GDP, over the next decade or so. We also need economic growth of some 3-3.5 percent in GDP and GNP. Yet, to drive real growth in the economy we need domestic investment and demand uplifts. These require an increase in imports of real capital goods for consumption. Should our exports of goods continue the pattern, any sustained improvement in the domestic economy will be associated with higher imports. A corollary to that will be a deterioration in our trade balance. This, in turn, will put pressures on our economy’s capacity to fund its overwhelming debt. And given the levels of debt we carry, the tipping point is not that far off the radar. In the first half (H1) of 2013 Ireland’s external real debt (excluding monetary authorities, banks and FDI) stood at almost USD1.32 trillion – the highest level ever recorded. Large share of this debt is down to the Multinationals. However, overall debt levels in the Irish system are still sky high. At the end of H1 2013, total real economic debt in Ireland – debt of the Irish Government, excluding Nama, Irish-resident corporates and households – stood at over EUR492 billion: down just EUR8.5 billion on absolute peak attained in H3 2012. Which brings us to the second point raised in the beginning of the article: our economic, regulatory, monetary and political dependency on the euro area. Instead of charting our own course toward sustainable long-term competitiveness, we remain attached at the hip to the euro area. The latter is now gripped by Japanese-style, long-term stagnation with no growth in new investment and consumption, and glacially slow deleveraging of its own banks and sovereigns. Financial, regulatory and fiscal repressions are now dominating euro-area agendas. All of the trade growth in the euro area today comes from the emerging and middle-income economies outside the euro bloc. And competition for this trade is heating up. Even Portugal, Greece and Spain, not to mention Italy are posting positive trade surpluses and these are projected to strengthen in 2014. Meanwhile, we remain on a slow path to entering new markets, despite having spent the better part of the last 6 years talking about the need to ‘break’ into BRICS and the emerging- and middle-income economies. In the first three quarters of 2012, Irish exports of goods to BRICS totalled EUR2.78 billion. A year later, these had dropped to EUR240 million. We are also missing the most crucial element of the growth puzzle: structural reforms. Since 2008 there has been virtually no change in the way we do business domestically, especially when it comes to the protected professions and state-controlled sectors. Legal reforms; restructuring of semi-state companies and the sectors where they play dominant roles, such as health, transport and energy; and reductions in the costs and inefficiencies in our financial services; are just a handful of areas where promised reforms have not been delivered. Instead of reducing the burden of monopolistic competition in key domestic sectors, we are increasing it. In banking, the oligopoly of three domestic players is being reinforced by exits of international banks and a lack of new entrants into the market. In line with the dearth of transformative changes in state-controlled sectors, there is little innovation in the ways the Government approaches fiscal policies. Taxes and charges are climbing, while spending continues to run ahead of pre-crisis trends. On a cumulative basis, 2008-2013

    Loading

    Read more