Central Asia's Air Quality Among Worst in the World

By Eurasianet - Apr 02, 2024

• Central Asia's air quality is among the worst in the world.
• 
  
• Tajikistan has the fourth highest concentration of harmful particles.
• 
  
• Air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to human health.

The air quality in Central Asian states is among the worst in the world, according to corporate study that measured pollution in over 130 countries around the world.

The 2023 World Air Quality Report, compiled by Swiss-based IQAir, measured air-borne harmful particles, known as PM2.5, in over 7,800 locations. The findings showed that Central Asia trailed behind South Asian and Gulf states as having the some of worst regional air quality in the world. 

Bangladesh, Pakistan and India ranked one, two three in the report’s table of countries with the dirtiest air. Tajikistan had the fourth highest measurable concentration of PM2.5 in 2023. Kyrgyzstan ranked 18th, Uzbekistan 23rd and Kazakhstan 40th out of the 134 countries and territories measured. There was insufficient data for Turkmenistan to be included in the list. Central Asia’s eastern neighbor, China, ranked 19th. 

“Causing an estimated one in every nine deaths worldwide, air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to human health,” the report states. “According to the World Health Organization (WHO), air pollution is responsible for an estimated 7 million premature deaths worldwide every year.”

Dushanbe was the most polluted capital in Central Asia in 2023 (4th in the IQAir city ranking), followed by Tashkent (22nd), Bishkek (29th) and Astana (52nd).

PM2.5 is defined as fine particulate aerosol particles measuring up to 2.5 microns in diameter. “Measured in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m³), PM2.5 is one of six common pollutants monitored and regulated by environmental agencies worldwide due to the significant impacts to human health and the environment,” the report states. 

Common anthropogenic sources of PM2.5 are car exhaust, heavy industrial processes, power generation, agriculture, construction, and coal and wood burning. IQAir is an air-quality technology company that bills itself as operating the “world’s largest free, real-time air-quality information platform.”

By Eurasianet.org 

 

Geopolitical Risk Looms Over Commodity Markets

By Metal Miner - Apr 02, 2024

• Q1 markets presented mixed signals, with some indices and metals outperforming others.
• 
  
• Geopolitical concerns remain elevated, likely to inject volatility into global markets.
• 
  
• Investors should expect uncertainty and volatility despite upward price trends.

The start of this year presented mixed signals for the global economy. Prices witnessed the continuation of a strong rally from late February going into March. This helped create a lot of positivity in the metals market and market in general, boosting sentiment regarding a strong, healthy U.S. economy.

Markets such as the SP500 and the NASDAQ, saw modest gains week over week to deliver the indices’ best February performance since 2015. February economic data, such as payroll figures, GDP, and retail sales, also came in stronger than expected.

Notable company earnings further fueled optimism within the market. With over 90% of S&P500 companies reporting better-than-expected earnings by February’s end, investor confidence increased, leading to strong buyer support. The tech-heavy NASDAQ also boosted overall market prices to the upside. With increased demand in the AI chip-making industry, strong earnings reports from leading AI chip-makers further bolstered the uptrend in overall markets, including in the metals market.

This combination of robust corporate earnings and strong economic data also spurred investor optimism for future rate cuts. As most investors saw it, federal monetary policy would significantly impact current market sentiment. Meanwhile, continued disinflation would lead to slower rate hikes, which would help sustain the ongoing performance. However, as of the recent Fed meeting in March, rate cuts are not likely to occur just yet, but rather later this year. This is mainly because March inflation data came in higher than expected.

Examining Movements in the Metals Market

In the metals market, recent monthly price action proved remarkably strong. For example, copper futures rose over 8% since their March open price. Meanwhile, gold surged to historically high levels, over 6.5% in March, and silver prices rose over 13%, closing at a yearly high. Indeed, both March CPI data and the recent Federal Open Market Committee meeting helped surge precious metals prices into a robust rally. But unlike copper and other precious metals, base metals like aluminum and nickel saw only modest monthly increases.

Though volatility wasn’t as strong in these markets for the month, aluminum prices still edged higher due to ongoing supply chain disruptions. Meanwhile, iron ore prices remained relatively flat. The ongoing property market downturn largely disregarded the slight increase in Chinese steel production, capping any major price increases for this market.

Amidst all of this, the dollar index continued its sideways trend. With a range between 105 and 102, the index has failed to break through support or resistance levels. After the Bank of Japan shifted its monetary policy, the Japanese Yen experienced significant appreciation against the dollar. These speculations mainly rose from expectations that the BoJ would end its negative interest rate policy.

Going Forward, Global Markets Remain Subject to Numerous Factors

Overall, Q1 provided a generally mixed picture for markets all around. Some reactions were bullish due to certain indices and metals outperforming others. Investors and industry participants should remain vigilant and informed about the ongoing economic data and geopolitical developments.

Considering the recent economic data that boosted markets into a rally, navigating current market (and the metals market) conditions could prove difficult. Meanwhile, geopolitical concerns remain elevated, which will likely inject further volatility into global markets over the coming months. Of course, the future trajectory for investment and metals markets will continue to depend heavily on a wide variety of factors. Even as prices continue to trade upward, investors should not rule out uncertainty and volatility.

The current global tensions and conflict have not caused any recent price volatility throughout March. However, any escalation or development has the potential to disrupt global markets and lead to market uncertainty. Investors and participants should remain vigilant as economic factors such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict and regional unease in the Middle East continue to cast shadows of doubt over global economic stability.

By Jimmy Chiguil

 

Thames Water Debacle: A Lesson in Regulation and Utility Mismanagement

By Leonard Hyman & William Tilles - Apr 02, 2024

• Thames Water, the biggest water utility in the UK, was privatized in the last days of the Thatcher regime.
• 
  
• Thames Water fell into the hands of private equity investors who borrowed heavily to buy Thames.
• 
  
• At the most basic level, a utility has to do three things: raise money at reasonable rates, build large public-serving projects and lastly, to operate these projects effectively.
• 
  

The big Cambridge-Oxford boat race on the Thames is the posh British equivalent of March Madness. But there was a big problem this year. The Thames is polluted. The oarsmen had to propel themselves in a sea of e. coli. Unlike the citizens of Flint, MI, who had to face years of polluted water, the oarsmen had a choice. They didn’t have to row. But we are not writing about water equity. This is about utility regulation, and how Americans got something right.

Thames Water, the biggest water utility in the UK, was privatized in the last days of the Thatcher regime. The water utilities in the UK at that time faced enormous capital expenditures to bring water supply and waterway pollution up to European standards. The Thatcherites felt it was better to put this financial burden on private suppliers and consumers rather than on the government. These newly privatized utilities would be expected to run more efficiently anyway, and a competitive water market would develop to discipline prices—at least that was the theory. The privatizers ignored a key aspect of the water business. Like other utilities it is extremely capital intensive. This means that cost of capital, largely variable rate interest expense on a highly leveraged capital structure, is one of the biggest items in the water company budget. When they were first privatized this interest expense number that has cannibalized the expense structure was zero. And private investor capital for what is basically a non-investment grade credit costs a lot more than relatively risk free government bond money.  But that’s not our topic either.

Thames Water fell into the hands of private equity investors who borrowed heavily to buy Thames. They subsequently paid themselves billions in dividends (effectively as repayment and profit) despite Thames Water’s enormous capital spending needs. Those investors now refuse to put more equity into the utility, which may have to declare bankruptcy (whatever the British equivalent). Or heaven forbid, be renationalized. Where were the British regulators during this debacle? We get the impression that they didn’t think it was cricket to interfere in the private business affairs of the owners. American regulators tend to meddle, however, making it difficult to extract too much from the utility. US regulators take the view that the utility needs to stay healthy, financially, in order to serve the public. And they don’t like to leave that to chance. An ailing (or greedy) corporate parent of an otherwise solid utility will look for ways to extract cash. Don’t make it too easy.

At the most basic level, a utility has to do three things: raise money at reasonable rates, build large public-serving projects and lastly, to operate these projects effectively. The inability to do any of these three things is or should be disqualifying to a franchise holder. Thames Water says it cannot raise money at reasonable terms, and one might ask if it has built the necessary projects or managed effectively what it operates. One might even argue that Thames is a “dead man walking”, having mismanaged a relatively low risk business to a point apparently beyond financial repair.

One of these days, Thames Water will be taught as a case study in schools of business and public administration— a lesson in dogmatism, light-handed regulation, and lack of common sense. Maybe we should be grateful for our clunky US regulators and seemingly inefficient government utilities for plodding along and doing their jobs. Remember, the tortoise won the race.

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com

 

Maryland Gears Up to Provide Relief for Baltimore's Longshoremen

Dundalk Marine Terminal in busier times (Port of Baltimore file image)

PUBLISHED APR 2, 2024 10:22 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

 

Help may soon be on the way for longshoremen who depend on freight traffic at the Port of Baltimore. The port generates $2 million per day in wages, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, but the protracted shutdown from the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge has sidelined stevedores and put local businesses at risk. 

Maryland's state legislature is responding with a bill to let the governor use the state "rainy-day" fund to pay for worker-assistance programs. The bill would also help small companies, like drayage and logistics firms, that serve the Port of Baltimore.

“What we are trying to do . . . is provide some modicum of protection and relief for the individuals and small businesses in the port industries that rely on . . . the full operation of the Port of Baltimore,” State Senate President Bill Ferguson told local WBAL. 

Ferguson's bill would pay wages for port workers, help underwrite payroll costs for affected small businesses, and incentivize those businesses to stay in Baltimore instead of moving to a different seaport. The bill incorporates amendments from the governor's office that would waive the unemployment insurance work requirement for longshoremen while they wait for the port to reopen.  

The timeline depends on clearing the port's channel, and local logistics businesses are telling their clients to expect the shutdown to be measured in months, according to the Washington Post. Looming over all of Baltimore's port stakeholders is a simple fact of containerized freight: boxes can move through any suitably equipped port, and one port can be substituted for another. In a disaster scenario, this is a boon to the logistics network, since cargo can flow around a single disruption. Over the long term, if shippers get used to routing boxes a new way - for example, through Newark and Norfolk - Baltimore would have to compete to get that cargo volume back. 

First Tug Makes it Out of Baltimore Harbor After Bridge Collapse

Image courtesy USCG

PUBLISHED APR 2, 2024 9:13 PM BY THE MARITIME EXECUTIVE

 

The first commercial vessels to exit Baltimore's inner harbor after the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge have made it safely through a temporary channel set up by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

After careful surveys and a rapid deployment of channel marker buoys, two tug and barge transits took place Monday afternoon. The first one through was the tug Crystal Coast, bound for Dover Air Force Base with a barge full of jet fuel. 

The channel - one of two new shallow-draft passages - will allow for the movement of salvage vessels between the two sides of the bridge's wreckage. The two temporary channels have depths of 11 and 14 feet, respectively, and a third channel with a 20-25 foot control depth is in the works as well.

"I'm thankful that only a week after the collapse, we have pathways and channels so commercial traffic can now move through," said Gov. Wes Moore at a press conference Tuesday. 

In addition to the good news for tug and barge operators, ro/ro carriers are also seeing positive movement: Tradepoint Atlantic, the giant terminal complex at Sparrows Point, will be receiving a large number of extra ro/ro ships. The Port of Baltimore is America's busiest ro/ro port, and it appears set to keep much of its cargo volume despite the shutdown. Tradepoint Atlantic told the Baltimore Sun that it will be accepting nine extra ro/ro ships over the span of two weeks.

The Sparrows Point site is the port's only large cargo terminal located seaward of the Key Bridge, and its accessibility will also help the salvage effort. One of its multipurpose piers will be used to receive and recycle wrecked steel from the bridge. 

The clearance of the main shipping channel is the unified command's primary objective, but it is a highly complex undertaking with an uncertain timeline. The wreckage of the main span is tangled up and partially buried in the mud on the bottom, making it harder for salvage engineers to plan for its removal.

In the long run, Baltimore will need a new bridge, and it is going to be expensive. It will likely be a much different structure with more redundancy built in, like a twin span cable-stayed bridge, according to civil engineering experts. Prof. Joseph L. Schofer of Northwestern University, a civil engineering expert, told Marketplace that the price tag in today's economy will probably come in somewhere in the range of $2-5 billion. Federal officials are predicting a similar price tag in the range of $2 billion, according to Roll Call. The original bridge cost $60 million in 1977, or roughly $360 million in current dollars. The project could take three to five years to complete.

A Former Maryland Governor Ignored

Warnings About Mega-Ships

By Lucy Dean Stockton, Helen Santoro

April 2, 2024

Source: Jacobin


Image by Joe Hawkins, Creative Commons 4.0


Days after a massive cargo ship collided with the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Republican US senate candidate Larry Hogan called for the federal government to foot the bill for the bridge’s reconstruction. Hogan’s demand follows his efforts as Maryland’s governor to attract such outsize cargo vessels to Baltimore’s port in the first place — despite safety warnings from an insurance giant and transportation experts.

Regardless of those concerns, Hogan’s gubernatorial administration pledged that bringing ever-larger cargo ships to Baltimore would strengthen the economy — and even improve safety.

His administration’s major public-private partnership to attract such mega-ships promised that it “reduces the occurrences of crashes, fatalities and injuries among transportation users.”

Hogan appointed the head of dredging contractors’ lobbying group to run the port amid the much-celebrated expansion that doled out lucrative dredging and construction contracts.

As the insurance conglomerate Allianz was spotlighting the dangers of large cargo ships, Hogan positioned himself as his state’s highest-profile supporter of the mega-ship industry — at one point declaring that thanks to his administration’s investments, “every year we are seeing larger and larger container ships choosing the Port of Baltimore.”

During the Republican governor’s tenure, mega-ship traffic in Baltimore exploded, transporting record amounts of cargo through the port worth billions of dollars. But as the port expanded with Hogan’s support, experts say the Key Bridge, as it was commonly known, may not have been fortified for the possibility of a collision with such large ships — even though a cargo vessel had already crashed into the bridge a few decades earlier, when ships were smaller.

Hogan, who is now running for one of Maryland’s US senate seats, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Expansion Amid Warnings

In 2015, two institutions sounded alarms about the push for ever-larger cargo ships.

“Ship size growth raises risk management concerns,” warned a report that year from insurance giant Allianz. “Larger ships could also mean larger losses. . . . Maximum exposure will not necessarily be limited to vessel and cargo value but could also include environmental, social or business interruption backlash.”

In a report published that same year by the International Transport Forum, a consortium of sixty-six governments, researchers wrote, “The costs to salvage hulls of [the] largest existing containerships in case of accident will increase because of the lack of salvage equipment and technology capable of removing a wreck of this size.”

The International Transit Forum report explicitly warned cities against using public money to retrofit ports to encourage larger ships.

“In the case of mega-ships, this situation risks [leading] to situations where the public sector picks up the bill of costs imposed by shipping lines,” the report said. “Especially where ports are engaged in fierce competition to attract mega-ships, port authorities might be tempted [to] use public funds to attract these. . . . There is no inherent public interest in stimulating mega-ships, so there is no reason why public funds should be used to favour mega-container ships.”

Nonetheless, in 2017, Hogan’s port officials, who manage operations and strategic planning for the Baltimore port, purchased additional land to build infrastructure to attract ever-larger cargo vessels. At the time, Baltimore’s port on the Chesapeake Bay was one of the busiest in the nation and just one of four on the East Coast that could handle these mega-ships.

The following year, the Maryland Port Administration requested millions of dollars of federal funds to accommodate the “ever-increasing size of container ships.”

The proposal specifically touted the port’s additional safety enhancements, asserting that it “improves navigational safety, thereby reducing the potential for release of hazardous materials into the nation’s waterways.”

Hogan, first elected governor in 2014, reportedly had an active role in championing the expansion.

Maryland Port Administration executive director James White, who oversaw large parts of the port’s expansion during his eighteen-year tenure, emphasized Hogan’s support for the project in a 2019 statement. “Governor Hogan’s support for the Port of Baltimore from day one has set the course for the future of the port from the Howard Street Tunnel to key infrastructure investments,” noted White.

In 2020, Hogan appointed William P. Doyle, previously the CEO of the industry group Dredging Contractors of America, to lead the Port Administration. Doyle was also appointed to be a sitting member of the federal Maritime Transportation System National Advisory Committee, which helps shape national shipping policy, by US transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg in November 2022.

The Hogan administration’s 2018 port-expansion application included implementing safety requirements for dredging the channel, widening the space needed for these boats’ turning radius, and fortifying the wharf structure, among other considerations. But it did not make any adjustments or designate protections for the nearby Key Bridge, which the ultra-large crafts would be traveling under.

Meanwhile, the port administration said the project had “few and well-mitigated risks.”

But as the port expansion was nearing completion, Allianz sounded another alarm.

“While approach channels to existing ports have been dredged deeper and berths and wharfs extended to accommodate ultra large vessels, the overall size of existing ports has remained the same,” wrote one of the insurance company’s senior marine risk consultants. “As a result, ‘a miss’ can turn into ‘a hit’ more often for the ultra large container vessels.”

A Previous Collision

Maryland officials pushing the port expansion offered safety reassurances despite engineers and marine experts previously expressing concerns about the safety of the Key Bridge, which was completed in 1977 and was at the minimum height needed to accommodate such ships.

“Extra capacity and safety tends to be needed all the more when the bridge is older,” researchers wrote in the International Transport Forum report, recommending bridge updates in busy port areas.

“The preferred method for building bridges today is that there is redundancy built in,” Jennifer Homendy, chair of National Transportation Safety Board, which is investigating the recent crash, told the Washington Post following the Key Bridge’s collapse on March 26. “This bridge did not have redundancy.”

In 1980, when a ship collided with the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Florida, killing thirty-five people, a top state engineer said the Key Bridge could not withstand a similar crash. “I’m talking about the main supports, a direct hit — it would knock it down,” the official reportedly told the Baltimore Sun.

In the last decade, officials managing the Port of New York and New Jersey raised the nearby Bayonne Bridge to accommodate mega-ships traveling through the New York harbor. Federal, state, and local governments also invested more than $1.5 billion into replacing the Gerald Desmond Bridge in Long Beach, California, with a taller bridge that could accommodate larger vessels.

Despite the lack of such upgrades to the Key Bridge, in December 2018, Hogan announced that the state had been awarded the $6 million–plus in federal funding to expand Baltimore’s port. Less than a year later, the port welcomed its largest-ever ship, the Triton, at 1,210 feet long — longer than three football fields. That record was eclipsed in 2023 with the arrival of Ever Max, which holds one thousand more containers than the Triton.

“Thanks to Maryland’s investment in a 50-foot berth, every year we are seeing larger and larger container ships choosing the Port of Baltimore,” Hogan said in May 2019.

Yet the Key Bridge barely allowed for the arrival of new, larger cargo cranes for Baltimore’s expanded port. Maryland’s then transportation secretary Greg Slater boasted in a 2019 blog post about shutting down the bridge to allow “four new, massive Neo-Panamax container cranes . . . [to] pass beneath the Key bridge with just 3 feet of clearance.”

Ever-Growing Ships

Since 1968, container ships like the one that hit the Baltimore bridge have increased their carrying capacity by almost 1,500 percent, according to a fifty-year analysis by the business insurance company Allianz. These mega-ships are attractive to shipping companies because they’re more profitable: the larger the ship, the more goods it can transport while requiring less fuel per container.

The push to modernize and expand Baltimore’s port’s infrastructure was part of a race among East Coast cities to accommodate these mega-ships and the economic activity they would bring, once the Panama Canal completed its 2015 overhaul to allow for supersized cargo ships. In early 2012, Baltimore was already competing with other cities to expand its port infrastructure, installing enormous cranes and dredging its harbor.

But as the boats got bigger, so did the risks. In 2022, the Ever Forward — owned by the same Hong Kong–flagged company that grounded a different ship in the Suez Canal in 2020, an accident that is estimated to have cost the global economy up to $60 billion in delayed cargo — was grounded in the Chesapeake Bay for over a month.

The Chesapeake Bay features a characteristically shallow ecosystem, further exaggerating the risks of these mega-ships. Consequently, Maryland’s port administration and the US Army Corps of Engineers have to dredge 4.5 million tons of sediment from the port’s channel each year to keep ships from beaching.

Baltimore’s port expansion faced other objections. Environmental justice advocates had long sounded the alarm over the ship exhaust and toxic dust being generated by the second-largest coal-exporting port in the nation, and suggested that the expansion would open the door to greater hazards for portside communities in South Baltimore that have long faced environmental injustices.

Other advocates voiced concern about making the port a hub for liquefied natural gas exports, which emit more greenhouse gasses than coal when exported, as well as the ecological impacts of intensified dredging in the area.

But Hogan, a pro-business Republican who said the port project fit the state’s “Open for Business” agenda, has largely championed the industries and businesses that rely on the supersized ships. In doing so, he echoed the Baltimore business groups that pushed for the port expansion. Business sectors like construction and natural resource extraction, which heavily rely on the port, have been some of Hogan’s largest campaign donors.

Hogan recently stepped down from his position as honorary chairman of the new No Labels party, a moderate party aligned with secretive corporate interests, while launching his own bid for a Maryland senate seat.

Basic Income for a New Model of Canadian Social Democracy

Now is the time for the democratic left in Canada to develop a workable and comprehensive version of basic income as a key policy instrument, and not a sideline consideration.

LONG READ


Basic income is a paradigm-shifting idea on how to ensure economic security for everyone. It is an idea has been discussed and often debated by social democrats and those on the democratic left for many years. This article is a contribution to this discussion from someone who does research on and writes about basic income, but who has also played an active role in the basic income movement in Canada for fifteen years.

Canadian basic income advocates are part of a movement for basic income that is international in scope. It is a multi-faceted and ecumenical amalgam of national and sub-national advocacy groups, civil society organizations, policy experts, academics, campaigners, and research institutes. Important leadership on the global level have been provided since 1986 by the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN). The basic income movement in Canada was launched with the 2008 founding (as a national chapter of BIEN) of the organization now called the Basic Income Canada Network. Since then, many other basic income advocacy organizations have emerged at national, provincial and local levels, including (at the national level) Coalition Canada: Basic Income, UBI Works, and Revenu du base Québec. These organizations are working for an equitable and feasible version of basic income for Canada and have taken a very deliberate non-partisan approach to their work. They have received support from across the political spectrum,[1] including from the late Senator and prominent Conservative Hugh Segal, in convention resolutions passed by the federal Liberal Party, from current and former NDP Members of Parliament, and from the Green Party of Canada (who have supported basic income for over twenty years).

Canadian advocates of basic income have become increasingly invested in a particular model of basic income that they want to see implemented in this country. This model would target lower income people (rather than a being a demogrant that is paid to everyone). It would complement (but not necessarily replace) elements in the broader income support architecture at the level of the federal government, leaving intact the large social insurance programs of Employment Insurance and the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans. In February 2023 three national advocacy organizations, the Basic Income Canada Network, Coalition Canada: Basic Income, and UBI Works, endorsed a Consensus Statement on a Basic Income Guarantee that outlines the principles and general design for a feasible basic income program for Canada.[2]

This essay first surveys views on basic income found on the democratic left in Canada. Consideration will be given will to how negative and sceptical views about basic income on the left are addressed by the Consensus Statement. Following this survey, elements in the Consensus Statement (as well as some key points drawn from broader basic income sources) will be considered alongside core tenets of social democracy as articulated in the Broadbent Principles for Canadian Social Democracy. Lastly, some suggestions will be made on how the basic income model of universal economic security could reshape our conception of social democracy as we confront the existential threats of economic and social inequality, rising right-wing authoritarianism, and the ecological emergency.
Critical Perspectives of Basic Income on the Left

There has been an array of reactions to the idea of (universal) basic income among social democratic thinkers, activists, and politicians.[3] Outright opponents include those who object to the “universal” aspect of “universal basic income.” They see basic income as an inefficient and wasteful use of public funds in that it is not targeted to those who need income support the most. Another general concern of these critics is that basic income will serve as a neoliberal ‘trojan horse.’ This argument assumes that while low-income people would be provided with a modest unconditional cash benefit. At the same time further cuts to public services would be justified. Further in this telling of a possible basic income world, all of us (including those whose only income is a paltry amount of basic income) will have to fend for ourselves in the profit-seeking marketplace to secure necessities such as health care, education, or affordable and decent housing.

The efficiency and trojan horse objections to basic income have been found both among neoliberals but also on the left in recent years. But there are now social democratic voices expressing more open-minded views on basic income. MacEwan et al. (2020) tentatively and conditionally endorse basic income in their 2020 report Basic Income Guarantee: A Social Democratic Framework from their vantage point at the Broadbent Institute.[4] They do fear that basic income may be seen as a “silver bullet” or a “quick fix solution” to poverty and economic insecurity. But the report’s authors do conclude in a positive vein that “there are concrete steps that we can take to make a basic income more feasible in the future and help to address poverty right now.”

On the other hand, MacEwan et al. couch their support for basic income in this way:


A host of labour market policies such as full employment, residency status for migrant workers, employment standards, training supports, and union density interact with income support programs and must be taken into consideration. In Canada, addressing these questions is the responsibility of different levels of government, making any implementation of a basic income even more complicated. Designing a program that meets the expectations of social democrats will not be simple.

This assertion that basic income “complicates” the achievement of other social democratic goals such as lowering unemployment and decent jobs is a questionable framing. The implementation of any new social program–be it basic income or say an expansion of the public healthcare system – “complicates” the overall operation of the welfare state, so it is not clear why basic income is unique in this regard.

Additionally, basic income is not a complicated program in the sense that its goal is simply to ensure that people have sufficient income to live a good life. In fact, Canada already maintains an array of federal income support programs, including the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, the Canada Child Benefit for families with children, and the GST refund for low-income people. A fully implemented basic income could be paid out through the existing tax-and-transfer system that these existing programs already use. In this sense, basic income is less complex than the other aspirational goals identified by MacEwan et al. (2020) such as “full employment” or “training supports.” Implementing basic income does not require social democrats to abandon these other goals, and in fact may help to achieve them. In another recent Canadian study by Dwyer et al. (2023),[5] it was found that simply giving homeless people money could be helpful in addressing their other difficult and complicated social needs, and in facilitating their access to in-kind supports. The potential outcomes out of an administratively simple program are far-reaching.

It may be that social democratic hesitancy or half-hearted support regarding basic income is a case of the perfect becoming an enemy of the good. Some social democrats will not give basic income their unequivocal support unless various other desirable policies are already in place and all the consequences can be foreseen. However, there are instances in Canadian social welfare history when progressive politicians, government officials, and advocates made social policy ‘leaps of faith’ that push forward on equality, even though all of the complications or consequences of a new program were not in view. This was the case when workers’ compensation was implemented in the early twentieth century, when unemployment insurance was launched in 1940, and when public health insurance was extended across the country in the latter part of the 1960s. Progressives pushed forward nonetheless, and people benefited. Perhaps it is time for social democrats to make such a ‘leap of faith’ with basic income. This leap would not be made without any foresight either; there is already substantial research and policy learning on basic income to guide the design and launch of an effective and sustainable program that fits the current context in Canada.

It is still important to consider the critical research to understand where basic income’s limitations can occur. A recent comprehensive and noted critique of basic income from a progressive perspective came from Green, Kesselman and Tedds (2021).[6] This report was commissioned by the provincial NDP government of British Columbia as part of its legislative supply and confidence agreement with the BC Green Party in 2017.[7]

In their final report, Green, et. al., concluded that “the needs of people in this society are too diverse to be effectively answered simply with a cheque from the government.” The authors seemed to assume that a ‘stand-alone’ basic income was what Canadian advocates were calling for. However, prominent national organizations advocating for basic income in Canada have proposed a basic income that becomes a part of the existing social welfare system, meeting the social needs in Canada. The 2023 Consensus Statement of basic income advocates strongly emphasized that basic income needs to be embedded in an array of public services such as health care, social housing, food security measures, child and elder care, and other aspects of Canada’s welfare state.

In particular, basic income could be a transformative alternative to the existing model of provincial social assistance, given that it is inadequate, stigmatizing, and dysfunctional.[8] [9] Basic income advocates also hold the view that such a program would support people not assisted by federal social insurance programs such as Employment Insurance or the Canada Pension Plan. A made-in-Canada and income-tested version of basic income could in fact operate like, and be built out from, existing federal income support programs such as Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors, the Canada Child Benefit for families with young children, and the GST Refund, and the Canada Workers Benefit for low income people.[10] [11] [12]

On a conceptual level, Green, et. al., claim that,


A basic income emphasizes individual autonomy—an important characteristic of a just society. However, in doing so it de-emphasizes other crucial characteristics of justice that must be, in our view, balanced: community, social interactions, reciprocity, and dignity.

In fact, research on and advocacy for basic income have presented multiple rationales for basic income that are grounded in the goals of economic justice, social solidarity, freedom from domination, and environmental sustainability.[13] [14] [15] To be sure, there are certainly tensions and sometimes contradictions among these various rationales, but to portray basic income as being primarily about “individual autonomy” as Green, et. al., portend distorts Canadian and international debates about basic income that have been ongoing for many decades.
Advocacy for Basic Income on the Left

The Consensus Statement calls for a version of basic income in Canada that is income-tested where “benefit amounts will be determined based on taxable income with provisions to rapidly accommodate significant changes in income and family composition,” and where “benefits will be reduced gradually as other taxable income increases.” This targeted model of basic income would cost much less than a universal demogrant. The income-tested model of basic income would also avoid having to tax back the benefit from high income earners (presuming that such a demogrant would in fact be taxed). Such a clawback process would result in a great deal of ‘churn’ and in the tax-and-transfer system, and in higher tax rates for high income earners that would likely provide ammunition for parties on the right that campaign against taxation in general.

On the argument that basic income would lead to additional cuts to in-kind programs of the welfare state, neoliberals who are intent on shrinking social welfare provision have not had to wait for basic income to make their cuts. They have been eroding welfare programs for several decades now, and basic income has only received serious discussion and consideration in Canada for the last ten years or so. To make cuts to social programs, neoliberals have not had to rely on the promise of a basic income to justify austerity.

That said, it is also true that basic income advocates must be wary about basic income becoming a new rationale for cutting social programs. The Consensus Statement addresses this question directly by opposing the “either/or” framing of having to choose between basic income or basic services. These points are contained in the Statement:The basic income guarantee should be an essential component of broad publicly funded universal supports and services.
The basic income guarantee will not replace any publicly delivered social, health or educational services.
The basic income guarantee will not restrict access to any current or future benefits meant to meet special, exceptional, or other distinct needs and goals beyond basic needs.

Given the need for clarity and debate, advocates for basic income on the left have also engaged in critical discourse from a social democratic perspective. An important policy voice on the left in Canada is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA). One of CCPA’s early considerations of basic income was structured as an inventory of pros and cons.[16]

The CCPA has continued to publish constructive analysis on basic income that incorporates the views of critics and supporters of basic income, and a collection edited by Himelfarb and Hennesey (2016) is particularly notable in this regard.[17] Himelfarb and Hennessey expressed a degree of openness to basic income, and in their introductory remarks, the co-editors questioned the modest incrementalist approach that has characterised Canadian progressive policy to address poverty reduction and economic precarity in recent years. Himmelfarb and Hennesey see basic income as, “the kind of jolt that breaks the mould. Maybe this is a step in a new direction — and new directions are in great need right now.”

Guy Caron, a former NDP Member of Parliament from Quebec who ran unsuccessfully for the federal NDP leadership in 2017, has also been advocate for basic income among Canadian social democrats. During his leadership campaign Caron made basic income a central plank in his platform, and since leaving federal politics, in 2020 Caron produced a brief Broadbent Institute explainer to articulate on a “guaranteed minimum income.”[18] In this explainer, he argued that such an income-tested benefit could be implemented by the federal government based upon its experience with the COVID-19 Pandemic policy measures implementing the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB). In Caron’s view, Ottawa should take the initiative with this program, and then seek to engage provincial governments to coordinate their programs with guaranteed minimum income. In the social democratic spirit, Caron presents his basic income proposal as complementary to job creation, progressive labour market policies, and improvement in public services; not as a substitute for such measures.

Labour movement leaders and progressive economists have also expressed their supportive views for basic income in Canada. Canadian economist Jim Stanford for instance sees basic income as a program that will strengthen workers, including unionized ones.[19] Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic income support programs such as CERB, Stanford (2022) views that:


The core principles that no-one should live in poverty, that we can afford a decent living standard for everyone, that protecting the poor strengthens the well-being of us all, are more within our reach than for many decades. … [T]hinking big about universal income security is appropriate and inspiring. And done right, it can both strengthen and unify the struggles of trade unionists and anti-poverty advocates.

In a similar vein, researchers associated with the Labour Studies Department at McMaster University have focused on basic income as a measure to address labour market precarity and economic insecurity of working people.[20] [21] Building on a multi-year research project on Poverty and Employment Precarity in Southern Ontario, they also studied the Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project, implemented in select Ontario communities in 2018, and subsequently cancelled by the then incoming Progressive Conservative provincial government. From this brief but substantial study, Ferdosi et al. (2020) concluded that, “the stability basic income provides can help recipients move to better paying employment and to play a fuller role as citizens in society,” and that basic income “has the potential to improve the physical and mental health of participants and reduce their demands on public health resources.”[22]
Canadian Political Developments on a Social Democratic Basic Income

As outlined above, basic income has received a substantial defence on the Canadian left among the ranks of labour, politics, and academia. An overarching question, however, is whether or not Canada’s social democratic party—The New Democratic Party of Canada and its provincial wings—will make basic income a policy priority and a central plank in their election campaign platforms. In the 2021 federal election, the federal NDP platform made the policy commitment to enact:


“A livable income when you need it […]

With the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, we have seen what’s possible when governments mobilize to make a livable income a priority.

… we’ll get to work right away building towards a guaranteed livable income for all Canadians.

In time, New Democrats will work to expand all income security programs to ensure everyone in Canada has access to a guaranteed livable basic income.”

In this framing, the federal NDP appeared to offer only vague, rhetorical support for basic income. Following the 2021 election, the NDP caucus forged a Parliamentary supply and confidence agreement in March 2022 to prop up the minority Liberal government in exchange for NDP legislative priorities. In this agreement public programs for dental care and prescription drugs were at the top of the priority list; however, improved income security programs were not part of the agreement.

There are, still, federal NDP caucus members that have pushed the basic income agenda forward. In December 2021, NDP MP Leah Gazan introduced a private member’s Bill (C-223 – An Act to develop a national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income) in the House of Commons. This bill directs the Minister of Finance to take one year to “develop a national framework for the implementation of a guaranteed livable basic income program throughout Canada for any person over the age of 17, including temporary workers, permanent residents and refugee claimants.” An identical Bill (S-233) was introduced in the Upper Chamber by Senator Kim Pate, where it received second reading and was sent to Committee for further study in April 2023.

Over the last several years social democrats in Canada have warmed to the idea of basic income as a new approach to ensuring economic security for all, despite the continued hesitancy of centering such a program as a foundational plank of a progressive policy platform.

Canadian social democrats can move beyond basic income as just an ‘add on’ policy to their many existing political objectives and build on principles of unconditional economic security for all to reshape our model of social democracy. To build a Canada that is just and equitable, outlined as the central objective of the Broadbent Principles for Canadian Social Democracy, basic income holds the potential to addressing the gaps in economic and social rights.

There are various (but often generally similar) definitions of “social democracy.” One that is helpful for this discussion is offered by Ben Jackson (2013) is that of:


An ideology which prescribes the use of democratic political action to extend the principles of freedom and equality valued be democrats in the political sphere to the organization of the economy and society, chiefly by opposing the inequality and oppression created by laissez-faire capitalism.[23]

Basic income advocates in Canada take a rigorously non-partisan approach that embraces no political ideology, be it social democracy, liberalism, conservatism, or whatever. Nonetheless, a case can be made that the current preferred model of Canadian basic income advocates, as articulated the 2023 Consensus Statement, is one that aligns closely with social democratic principles and as a complement to its strong systems of social welfare.

Given this convergence with basic income advocates, there is an opportunity for Canadian social democrats, including the New Democratic Party, labour unions, and social movements of the broad democratic left, to focus on a made-in-Canada model of a basic income guarantee in their social advocacy and political campaigning.
Basic Income and the Reformulation of Social Democracy

There are certainly opportunities for basic income and its convergence with social democratic principles, and so Canadian social democrats must go beyond supporting it as a worthwhile policy idea and make basic income implementation a key plank in election platforms.

Fundamentally, social democrats should embrace the basic income model of economic security as one aspect of a broader project of rethinking the tenets of social democracy. Engaging in such a radical re-think gives social democrats an opportunity to develop effective responses to existential and global crises faced by society such as economic inequality and precarity, the rise of right-wing authoritarian populism, and the ecological emergency.

This is no small task, to be sure, but there are several pivotal issues around which we can begin to construct a new model of social democracy that incorporates, and complements, a basic income.
i) Basic Income and Social Reproduction

Some feminist theorists are concerned that basic income could trap women in unwaged reproductive labour roles,[24] but others take a more positive position. Kathi Weeks (2020) discusses how basic income can address the failure of heteropatriarchal family in late capitalism to properly count economic contributions, especially the unpaid reproductive labour of women, and to distribute income in a more fair and efficient way.[25] In a similar vein, Nancy Fraser (2016) links the struggle for a basic income with other progressive causes, including campaigns for a shorter work week, public childcare, housing, rights of migrant domestic workers, and environmental protection, and sees the programmatic change sought by social movements as a “new way of organizing social reproduction.”[26] Nedelsky and Malleson (2023) argue that basic income merits consideration as part of a suite of policy measures that could enable a transition to a society in which all of us work part-time so that we can fully engage in care work within the family and community.[27]

Social reproduction and care work are matters on which social democrats have had much to say. Social democrats have fought for, and frequently achieved, programs that provide public, accessible childcare, as well as financial and practical support for family caregivers. Building on this historic struggle, a social democratic version of basic income could better support family care work regardless of gendered roles. Such a program could also help lower the number of hours in the standard work week; could enable easier transitions between unpaid and paid work; and could ensure better access to good jobs for women and other groups who have been historically disadvantaged in the labour market.

For the purposes of election campaigning, social democrats could present clear and comprehensive family policies grounded in basic income principles that would address the crisis in social reproduction. Such a package of policies could conceivably gain broad public support. Most people in Canada can relate directly and powerfully with the challenges of family care, economic survival in a precarious labour market, and the time poverty that results from the demands of both paid labour and unpaid care work. Social democrats should develop flexible and nuanced responses to these challenges using the basic income approach.
ii) Basic Income and Political Participation

Canadian social democratic political parties campaign in elections to win seats and form governments, but they also connect with Canadians to form durable social alliances that achieve progressive political goals and go beyond election campaigns. Social democrats themselves are found in the ranks of unions, women’s organizations, coalitions fighting racism and trans- and queerphobia, and many other civil society groups.

Unfortunately, it is not apparent that these coalitions and alliances have formed a resilient and sustained political movement for reshaping Canada along social democratic and left-progressive lines. On the other hand, in recent years we have seen in Canada the remarkable growth of authoritarian, right-wing populism that has been aided immensely by echo chambers of social media on the internet. Right-wing populism gained significant momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, with its opposition to public health measures such as vaccination mandates. How can the democratic left build a populism of its own to counter the rise of these right-wing forces that are racist, xenophobic, antipathetic towards democratically elected political leaders, contemptuous of scientific research, and sometimes neo-fascistic?

This is a complex question that cannot be fully addressed here, but it plausible to suggest that one driver of right-wing extremism is a deep and abiding economic anxiety about the future. This anxiety is an outgrowth of precarious employment, rising costs for necessities such as groceries and housing, and attenuated access to public goods such as health care. There are other sinister forces at play, for sure, such as white supremacist groups spreading their propaganda, and libertarian politicians undermining the very legitimacy of governments and public policy. Still, economic insecurity and uncertainty surely plays a role in fuelling right-wing populism.

Senator Kim Pate and MP Leah Gazan have argued that this economic insecurity and anxiety could be addressed in part by setting in place a basic income guarantee for all.[28] This would not be a panacea—in fact, basic income is derided and opposed by right-wing populists who are deeply suspicious of public policy measures that redistribute wealth. Nonetheless, basic income, along with other policy innovations and moral clarion calls from the left, may help to restore the faith of Canadians in collective and perhaps universal measures to look after one another through public programs, and the various levers of government power under democratic control.
iii) Basic Income and Social-Ecological Transition

An increasingly prominent understanding of today’s ecological imperative points towards a steady-state economy and a post-growth society in which basic income plays a central role, when the limits of growth encroach on the present environmental emergency. Social democrats must consider social welfare beyond its dependence on economic growth in the current capitalist mode of production—a different political economy in which scarcity is overcome through radical redistribution within and between countries, to avoid the worst consequences of the environmental emergency.

Basic income ought to be a necessary policy choice in this scenario, in place of the notion of “full employment” construed as all working-age adults being continually employed in full-time paid work. Social democrats must search for policies that support full social engagement in socially necessary and useful (paid and unpaid) work, bearing in mind the need for gender justice as discussed in the section on social reproduction immediately above.

Basic income, once again, would be part of a mix of policies in a social-ecological transition guided by social democratic principles. Such a transition would lead us to more modest and local ways of life, but also to greater economic security and personal fulfillment in a political-economic order that is equitable, just, inclusive, and sustainable.
Basic Income for Canadian Social Democracy

Even during the ‘Golden Age’ of the western social democratic welfare program, thoughtful and influential social democrats have endorsed basic income. In September 1968, Ed Broadbent gave his inaugural speech as a newly elected Member of Parliament, where he identified “the absence of a guaranteed annual income” as one of the “serious deficiencies that still remain” in the “structural components of the modern welfare state.”[29]

Now is the time for the democratic left in Canada to develop a workable and comprehensive version of basic income as a key policy instrument, and not a sideline consideration. Canadian social democrats should incorporate the principle of guaranteed, unconditional and universal economic security as a fundamental program for its vision a better society. Such a commitment could reshape and renew our understanding of social democracy and move us forward in our continuing quest to build a better Canada.

James Mulvale is a Professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Manitoba.

FURTHER READING
Bank of Canada Independence Vs. Accountability
ISSUE NO. 1 – SPRING 2024 | JOURNAL
April 2, 2024
Dave McGrane
The origin of the concept of central bank independence is a critique of social democratic ideas prevalent during the middle part of Friedman’s career.



Trad-Wives and Hustle-Bros: Contemporary Rejections of Late-Stage Capitalism
ANALYSIS
March 6, 2024
Alexandra Ages
The “trad-wife” and “hustle-bro” subcultures are a phenomena of the social media age, and a symptom of late-stage capitalism.



A Common Platform for a Green Industrial Transformation
OPINION
February 6, 2024
Clay Duncalfe, Clement Nocos, Hadrian Mertins-Kirkwood
Across Canada, public investments totalling $188 billion over five years in these key priorities are urgently needed to drive a prosperous green transformation.




Perspectives is a Canadian Journal of Political Economy and Social Democracy by the Broadbent Institute. 

info@perspectivesjournal.ca
SUPPORT OUR WORK

© 2023 Broadbent Institute. All rights reserved.