Posts Tagged ‘the economy’

Sharp rise in youth homelessness shatters stereotypes

by James Farrell

The number of Australians who were homeless on census night increased by 17% to 105,237 in the five years to August 2011. When adjusted for population growth, the increase the increase is still worryingly high, at around 8%. It’s clear we need a stronger commitment to address this significant social issue.

The census data, released this week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), continues to shatter the stereotype of homelessness: the middle-aged alcoholic or drug-addicted man sleeping in a park.

Rather, 60% of people experiencing homelessness were under 35 years old, and an incredible 17% were aged under ten. The ABS acknowledges that census methodology is likely to underestimate youth homelessness, so the number is probably higher than the estimated 44,083 Australians under 25 currently recognised as homelessness.

As subsequent research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows, these young people will be more likely to be involved in child protection and juvenile justice services, further entrenching their disadvantage.

Almost half (44%) of homeless Australians were women; with women and children the fastest growing group seeking assistance from specialist homelessness services. This number, however, does not include women and children remaining in unsafe housing and continuing violent relationships. The ABS recognises that data sources other than the census must be used to better understand the incidence of family violence and the consequences on housing security and homelessness.

In welcome news, the number of people “sleeping rough” (in improvised dwellings, tents or sleeping out) decreased from 7,247 in 2006 to 6,813 in 2011. But more people are sheltered in such substandard overcrowded housing as to warrant being classed as being homeless; this group increased from 31,531 in 2006 to 41,390 in 2011.

The homelessness rate grew by more than 20% in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania, with a gob-smacking 70% rise in the ACT. Meanwhile, the largest fall was in the Northern Territory, which still has (by far) the highest proportion of people experiencing homelessness (731 people per 100,000 population, compared with a national average of 48.9).

The ABS has acknowledged it has further work to do to understand and measure homelessness experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which goes a long way to explaining the NT’s massive homelessness rates.

The ABS report has been the subject of significant media coverage, much of it couched in terms of the failure of governments to reduce homelessness. But given the social and economic changes since 2006, it’s surprising that the growth wasn’t higher.

Rather than whacking governments, the ABS data shows a need for governments to continue their efforts to address homelessness.

 

 Committing to end homelessness

The Commonwealth’s 2008 white paper on homelessness, The Road Home, boldly aims to halve homelessness by 2020 and offer accommodation to all rough sleepers. Similarly, states and territories have introduced bold and targeted action plans to address homelessness.

These commitments have been underpinned by important agreements between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) focuses on early intervention and prevention strategies, better assistance for people with multiple support needs, and providing ongoing assistance to ensure stability for clients post-crisis. The National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) outlines funding arrangements for specific projects and commits partners to addressing agreed outcomes through program delivery.

But these agreements end in June 2013, making the next few months a vital time for the agreements to be renegotiated. At his address to the National Press Club this week, Housing Minister Brendan O’Connor committed to providing half the funds required for another year while the NPAH is renegotiated.

The states are yet to meet this commitment and are seeking additional resources from the Commonwealth. Details will be discussed at today’s meeting of housing ministers in Brisbane.

In addition to resourcing, more work needs to be done to ensure homelessness services are sufficiently funded and effectively delivered. To achieve this, we need to establish a monitoring system with nationally consistent, evidence-based measures to assess the effectiveness of homelessness services. This will allow us to focus on the outcomes of people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, rather than just on the number of people being provided with services.

As the ABS figures show, homelessness continues to be a social crisis in Australia today. Governments, and the broader community, must redouble their commitments to address, and ultimately end, this significant social policy challenge.

James Farrell is currently a Director of the Council to Homeless Persons, Treasurer of the Federation of Community Legal Centres and the National Association of Community Legal Centres and a member of the StreetSmart Australia grants committee.

This article was first published at www.theconversation.edu.au

 

Spotlight back on PPPs as BrisConnections falters

by Flavio Menezes

News that BrisConnections, which operate Brisbane’s Airport Link M7, has suspended trade on the ASX as it continues to talk with its debtors is likely to again lead to a debate about the role of Public-Private-Partnerships – or PPPs – in providing government infrastructure.

PPPs have been criticised in the wake of several high profile failures including Sydney’s cross-city tunnel, Brisbane’s Clem 7 tunnel and the consortium building the Ararat prison in Victoria, as well as the high cost to the public of PPPs undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s.

Supporters will argue that the PPP model works because ratepayers will be protected if the company that built and operated the tunnel fails.

Both sides are mistaken. Economic research suggests that PPPs can deliver better outcomes than traditional procurement but often governments choose PPPs for the wrong reasons and fail to take key steps to ensure their success.

Under public procurement, the government finances the construction phase of the infrastructure, tendering the construction to private parties. The operation and maintenance of the infrastructure also may be contracted to private parties.

Under a PPP, a government tenders a “bundle” consisting of financing, construction and operation to private parties. The contract is usually for a fixed period at the end of which the asset reverts back to the government.

An important advantage of PPPs is the potential efficiency gains from bundling the construction and operations/maintenance.

When bundling occurs, the winning firm minimises the total of construction and maintenance/operating costs. So design and construction are undertaken in a way to minimise the total cost of the project over its lifetime.

Another potential advantage from the involvement of private financing under a PPP is in avoiding the construction of politically motivated white elephants. Private parties will find it difficult to obtain financing for a project that is not commercially sound. Arguably, the PPP failures reported above could be related to the particular structure of those PPPs rather than the underlying economics of the projects.

There are also, however, wrong reasons for selecting PPPs over traditional procurement. For example, governments may favour PPPs over public tendering to alleviate its budget constraints. This argument is clearly wrong when PPPs involve direct government transfers, such as minimum income guarantees or other types of payments. It is also wrong to the extent that the PPP project is financed by user fees — a revenue stream which the government gives for the duration of the PPP contract.

Governments can be also attracted to PPPs because they perceive this model shifts the demand risk from the government to the private parties. This argument for choosing PPPs is erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, the private parties bearing demand risk do so in exchange for a risk premium. To the extent that they cannot influence demand, the government may be the best party to hold the risk. Secondly, the upshot of the financial difficulties with projects such as the M7 Airportlink is that it will be very difficult to find investors willing to finance similar ventures in the future.

Third, in a number of cases in Australia and overseas, governments have bailed out failed projects, for example, by renegotiating payments or taking equity stakes. In such cases governments ended up bearing at least some of the demand risk.

There are ways in which PPP tenders can be modified to allocate risk appropriately. For example, research developed over the past decade suggests a tender process that allocates risks appropriately. The key idea is to run a least-present value of revenue tender. The winner of the tender is the firm that has submitted the lowest required revenue (expressed in present value terms). The innovation of this process is that the duration of the concession is variable.

The contract only expires when the winner of the tender recovers the amount of revenue bid. This type of tender allocates the demand risk to the government, reducing financing costs and ensuring that the benefits of PPPs over public tender are realised. This approach has been successfully tested in Chile.

In the past decade, we have learned a lot about what works and what does not in PPPs. To avoid previous mistakes with PPPs, governments need to ensure that there is a robust process for evaluating PPPs. Moreover, closer attention needs to be paid in the design of PPP tenders and contracts, as suggested by both economic theory and international practice.

Flavio Menezes is a Professor of Economics and currently the Head of the School of Economics at the University of Queensland.

A longer version of this article is at Australian Policy Online.

News From George Soros’ Berlin Conference – Economists Discover Human Beings!

by Lynn Parramore
 
Could economists be leaving behind their mechanistic paradise for the messy, unpredictable human world?

  
Economists are peculiar creatures. Last week a large posse of them descended on Berlin for the third annual conference of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), a think-tank co-founded by investor and philanthropist George Soros in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis.

As I roamed through the various sessions and gatherings, pointy-headed folk squinted at me and rattled off facts and figures that gave them the sort of thrill I get from seeing spring flowers in bloom. The field of economics is known for attracting Asperger’s-spectrum wonks better at formulating financial models than the flow of human interaction. But if the Berlin forum is any indication, the field is now fitfully reorienting itself: it wants to understand those fascinating and often irrational beings known as “people.”

Tellingly, the title of the conference was inspired by Milton. Not Milton Friedman, but John Milton: “Paradigm Lost: Rethinking Economics and Politics.” Intriguingly, the brochure opened with a passage from Book XII of Paradise Lost describing Adam and Eve’s expulsion from Eden — the moment when they look back wistfully on their former paradise, but then, teary-eyed, forge ahead, knowing that “the world was all before them.”

Early on in the program, economist Rob Johnson, INET’s executive director, pointed out that the old economic paradigm, so beautiful in its mathematical modeling, was destructively narrow and dogmatic. Its journals were like so many temples — if you didn’t follow the prescribed religion, you were out on your ear. The new economics would have to be broad, interdisciplinary and open to disagreement. And it would no longer be having a conversation solely with itself. Johnson announced his conviction that the new economics must be firmly grounded in the humanities.

Wow. At a time when undergraduates increasingly choose business majors and obtaining an English or history degree is widely considered a cultural affront, that was exciting news. Such a refocusing could certainly help economists become better able to describe reality, and just as importantly, consider the needs of human beings in their prescriptions.

Back in the late ’90s, when I was studying for a doctorate in English at NYU, my friend at the Wharton School of Business used to tell me about his lessons in rational behavior, perfect information and the pure motivation of self-interest. When I noted that a single exposure to Shakespeare or a page out of Freud’s oeuvre could relieve him of such fantasies, he got defensive and complained that all we did in the English department was sit around and read fiction. “Well,” I shot back, “That’s what you seem to be doing. Only you don’t call it that.”

I worried a lot that he and his colleagues, ignorant of human psychology and alarmingly shallow in their understanding of traditional Western values and ethics, would leave business school and go on to run large companies. 

I had reason to fear: They went on to help blow up the global economy.

In the humanities, we had our postmodern excesses, but they didn’t tend to wreak havoc on the word’s most vulnerable people. But free-market economics, in the words of INET panelist Paul Davidson, was a “weapon of math destruction.”

In his address to the conference, George Soros made it clear that economic obtuseness had helped produce the euro crisis, and that the failure was more profound then generally realized. Economics, he noted, had tried hard to imitate Newtonian physics and set itself on establishing timeless laws for reality. But, Soros insisted, it’s really a social science, and it was high time practitioners stopped pretending otherwise. (I would urge scientists to realize the same thing, but that’s a matter for another piece.) The famous financier emphasized that economic activity is based on the behavior of human beings who act on imperfect information and are driven by a wide variety of motives. They think. They are, by turns, rational, silly and euphoric. They have a will of their own. And they are definitely not inanimate objects whose movements can be neatly summed up in an equation.

If you consider economics this way, then you have to realize that markets, as Soros pointed out, are just as likely to produce horrifically damaging bubbles as they are to create equilibrium. So you’d better damn well understand that when you’re thinking about regulation and political frameworks like the eurozone. If the Europeans can’t wake up to this, Soros warned, they can pretty much kiss Europe goodbye.

I was struck by the idea that just as religious elites had once created an elaborate system based on “Divine Will” to justify their power and oppression, the obstinate free-market economists had created their own supernatural entities, referred to as “The Market” and “The Invisible Hand” in order to pretend that their policies were inevitable and natural. Was a Reformation now in the works?

Throughout the week, I heard economists (certainly not all, but many) talking as if human beings mattered. Chinese economist Jiahua Pan mentioned the need for an ethical foundation and ecological principles. James K. Galbraith discussed the human costs of inequality. Arjun Jayadev of the University of Massachusetts, Boston, talked about why people needed debt forgiveness. Speeches centered as often on what humans think and feel as they did on what financial models could predict. There were lectures on neuroscience and social values.

Some will say this is all just talk. You don’t get an insurrectionary adrenaline rush at an economic conference the way you do at an Occupy Wall Street protest. But such talk, particularly among those who teach tomorrow’s leaders and act as policy advisers at high levels of government, is critical to any chance of changing the paradigm. Do we want a society that is people-driven, rather than profit-driven? Then Johnson is right: economics must reacquaint itself with the humanities. Do we want an economy that serves society rather than a society that serves the economy? Then we have to keep insisting on the social nature of economics.

There’s reason to think that the effort coming from INET will be long-term and influential. During the week, the announcement came of a $25 million gift from William Janeway, senior advisor at Warburg Pincus and INET governing board member, and his wife, Weslie Janeway. Along with that donation, the governing board of INET has launched a $75 million fundraising campaign, and Soros, in response, has pledged $50 million. Conference attendees also learned of a joint project (INET@Oxford) with the Martin School at Oxford University focused on visionary interdisciplinary approaches to economics, equity and curriculum reform.

After half a century of free-market orthodoxy, the field of economics is not going to produce a new paradigm overnight. As a woman and an English major, I can be forgiven for hoping that more women and more English majors will be joining the conversation. The need for diversity is strong, and the call for a vigorous examination of values urgent. But there’s a whiff of change in the air, and you could feel its electricity in Berlin. The economists were beginning the painful and exciting process of leaving the old fantasies behind.

And the world was all before them.

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet contributing editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of ‘Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.’ Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

Moving beyond political soap opera

by David Hetherington

A debate over fair distribution of Australia’s mining income gives Labor a platform to reconnect with ordinary voters on national values

Australia’s Gillard government resembles a half-written political drama, but the most creative scriptwriter would struggle to pack in the twists and turns that have marked its first 18 months in office.

Undoubtedly, there have been policy successes – a carbon price, a national broadband network and a streamlined income tax system. Yet there have also been serious misjudgements on the part of the government and the prime minister herself, which have surprised many since she was so sure-footed as education minister.

These self-inflicted wounds include a botched deal to repatriate asylum seekers to Malaysia, an ugly internal ‘stoush’ over same-sex marriage, and the reversal of proposed reforms to address chronic gambling. Excuses can be mounted for each in isolation, but together they’ve betrayed a worrying pattern.

The most recent twists have centred on a high-profile dramatis persona with former prime minister Kevin Rudd. After months of speculation and a sudden late-night resignation as foreign minister, Rudd formally challenged Gillard for the Labor leadership on 27 February. Despite his dramatic intervention, Rudd was roundly beaten, a loss that puts his ambitions on ice for the foreseeable future. Ultimately this was a contest of personalities rather than policies, with Rudd arguing his popularity with voters gave him the better chance of winning the 2013 election. Evidently, his parliamentary colleagues did not agree.

Barely hours after this challenge, another powerful player, senator Mark Arbib, announced his sudden resignation from the government. This in turn opened the door for Gillard to draft in Bob Carr, a wise elder statesman of the party, as the new foreign minister.

This process was far from smooth, and had all the elements of a play-within-a-play. Gillard, fresh from her resounding leadership victory, jumped at the suggestion of Carr’s appointment, with media reports hailing it a done deal. Then, in a sudden about-turn, the government poured water on the idea: it appeared the prime minister had been outmanoeveured by ambitious members of her team.

Three days later, against all expectations, Gillard called a press conference to unveil Carr as her new foreign minister, and in doing so, asserted her control of the government in no uncertain terms. This belated show of strength was certainly a win for the PM, but the stop-start process dulled much of the afterglow of her leadership ballot victory.

This may have proved compulsive viewing for political watchers, but it has left the ordinary voter with an impression of Labor more absorbed in its internal machinations than in running the country.

In need of a new, positive twist, the government found an unlikely hero, treasurer Wayne Swan. A credible if unflashy finance minister, Swan used a major essay to consider the challenges Australia faces in the fair distribution of its mining income. In particular, he highlighted the role of a handful of mining billionaires in resisting attempts to price carbon emissions and to tax mining super-profits.

These magnates have paid for mass media campaigns against the government. In response, Swan placed the debate in the context of the shared national values of egalitarianism and fairness. His intervention was successful in part because it was so unexpected. It surprised a lot of people who’d forgotten that Australian politicians could talk meaningfully about values as part of the wider public debate.

Labor has found it difficult to articulate its raison d’etre in recent times, struggling to explain how its policy achievements connect into a vision for the country. If Swan is able to drive a mature debate about inequality, wealth distribution and the role of media campaigns in policymaking, he will remind voters that Labor is addressing issues of real importance to Australia’s future – a worthy next chapter in Labor’s story.

A contribution to State of the Left, a monthly insight report from Policy Network’s Social Democracy Observatory

David Hetherington is executive director at Per Capita, a progressive thinktank based in Sydney

The Precariat – The new dangerous class

by Guy Standing

For the first time in history, the mainstream left has no progressive agenda. It has forgotten a basic principle. Every progressive political movement has been built on the anger, needs and aspirations of the emerging major class. Today that class is the precariat.

So far, the precariat in Europe has been mostly engaged in EuroMayDay parades and loosely organised protests. But this is changing rapidly, as events in Spain and Greece are showing, following on the precariat-led uprisings in the middle-east. Remember that welfare states were built only when the working class mobilised through collective action to demand the relevant policies and institutions. The precariat is busy defining its demands.

The precariat has emerged from the liberalisation that underpinned globalisation. Politicians should beware. It is a new dangerous class, not yet what Karl Marx would have described as a class-for-itself, but a class-in-the-making, internally divided into angry and bitter factions.

Read more ...

Connect now

Subscribe

Subscribe to LAWCRIMEPOLITICS.COM

Email address:

Search

Progressing the Social Democratic Agenda