Kwame Appaiah, Professor of Philosophy poses a question that should be relevant to all of us, cat owners or not: Should you let your (bullying) cat wander? Is his freedom more important than the rights of other cats, to live in peace? This is a question that seems to have become relevant as we discuss a host of issues, including the one about wearing masks.
There are two broad ways of thinking about this issue: the rights-based approach and the utilitarian approach. Speaking of the first one, Appaiah points out “One approach is a rights-based line of reasoning; it would urge you to ensure that you’re not denying the cats of the neighborhood the basic conditions of a good life to which they’re entitled.” This assumes that animals have rights, like humans.
On the other hand, if we take the position that animals have no rights and hence this argument above does not hold, we can take a ‘utilitarian’ approach, whereby “if animals don’t have rights, you might adopt another approach, in which you simply weigh the pleasure that Jasper takes and gives in his outings against the suffering of the cats he bullies,” as Appaiah reminds us.
But cats are not humans and how we decide on whether we let the cat to go out or not depends on how we think of our neighbors. And our obligations as neighbors to them (and their cats). No simple answer there.
However, on the issue of masks, the argument is rather simple. If one to take either of the approaches, whether rights-based or utilitarian, the answer seems to be one of wearing one. One can argue all one wants about one’s freedom to NOT wear a mask – as a lot of people (ill-informed, selfish) are doing, however this impedes with the rights of others to go about their daily business free of fear (of contracting covid-19). Even from a utilitarian perspective, our societies benefit when everyone masks up and is careful in their outings.
The state of CA and others have mandated masks, in public, yet again. Health experts have continued to remind us of the value of wearing masks. So, in any case, please mask up and stop being selfish!
On Monday, June 22, the Cal Lutheran School of Management hosted Dr. Rafiq Dossani from the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica on challenges and impacts on healthcare and economy, and lessons learned from COVID-19 in Asia.
Some key highlights from Dr. Dossani’s talk :
Regime type doesn’t matter, as much as the level of trust. The legitimacy lies in their ability to control COVID-19. In countries such as India, Pakistan, etc the level of trust in govt is low and the government reciprocates. The crisis with internal migration and lockdowns shows how this lack of trust has caused massive chaos
In Korea, national elections were held in the middle of a pandemic and people showed up; this was possible due to the trust
The government did a wise thing in the U.S by opening the taps on liquidity and there was sustainability to the economy. That has continued as payments through the PPE program are ongoing. It would be succeeded in preventing a big crash. If the US government can bring down the virus, then we have a game-changer. If the breakouts continue, then the economy may be in for a tumble
Sri Lanka, a small country in South Asia has managed to effectively manage the crisis. They haven’t made public their work, the public healthcare worker system is in place. The contact tracing mechanism is in place in that country, which seems to have worked well. In India, there is a similar system.
If you wish to read a few essays from the Center for Public Policy and Research based in Cochin, India, click here
With the ongoing protests surrounding equality for Black and colored people, around the world; the question of monuments (including statutes) has come up, rather forcefully. Should we continue celebrating Christopher Columbus, who treated the Native Americans cruelly? Should we celebrate his ‘discovery’ of the Americas as a great event or something that took away much more than freedoms from the Natives? These questions and related ones have become relevant. Whether it is King Leopold II of Belgium, Cecil Rhodes, or Christopher Columbus, several historical figures have come under the scanner for their role in perpetuating racism, genocide, and other crimes against humanity. It is time for the memory of the dead to be reimagined, for our present to be altered, to prevent a whitewashing of their sins.
How should contemporary policymakers deal with this question? I will try to deal with this tricky question, in this short post.
As a Newsweek article pointed out “Cities in the U.S. and elsewhere started celebrating Indigenous Peoples’ Day instead of Columbus Day during the late 1980s. Many have, and continue to, denounce Columbus as a colonizer who enslaved, killed and forced assimilation of indigenous populations.” The gap between how the state sees such historical figures and how civil society views them can create profound tensions. Alternate conceptions of the role of such historical figures and a reading of their actions in the context of current debates can throw up some uncomfortable truths that are hard to deal with, unless policy makers and those in power take a hard, critical look at the needs of the current generation.
The same Newsweek article pointed out that in the U.K., protestors “tore down a statue of slave trader Edward Colston, while others in Belgium vandalized statues of 19th century colonizer King Leopold II, responsible for the deaths of millions in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo.” Such events of taking down statues are not only cathartic for people who are at the receiving end of the rhetoric of racism and discrimination, but also reflect a change in societal norms around what is celebrated and what is accepted.
Exploring the policy angle of memorializing: Philadelphia as an example
As Elizabeth J Burling writes in her Master’s thesis, several cities do not have a policy in place for which monuments were to be erected and on what basis.
This problem has persisted in the U.S. for a long time now. She adds “Indeed, Philadelphia’s relationship with memory has often been contentious – according to Gary Nash, author of First City: Philadelphia and the Forging of Historical Memory, no comprehensive history of the city was written prior to the 150th anniversary of the city’s founding,” (p.2). Her reminder that there is no distinction between works of historical significance and those used as an aesthetic expression is quite. This seems to be the case in Richmond, VA as well. Burling points out that this lack of a coordinated policy creates problems when new memorials are placed in traditional locations. She points to the distinction between a memorial and monument as one where “monuments are built to help us remember, memorials are about helping us never to forget.” Few cities such as Washington D.C. have a “24 step guide to memorialization in the Nation’s Capital,” an elaborate step by step process that helps the National Park Service decide how to go about the process of memorialization.
The history of Philadelphia’s regulations on public art is interesting. In 1959, the Aesthetic Ornamentation ordinance was initiated which set the level of public art for every construction project at one percent. Burling points to the work of De Monchaux and Schuster to articulate the five elements that should be included in any policy strategy for preserving heritage: a.Ownership and operation b.regulation c. incentives d. establishments, allocation, and enforcement of property rights and e. Information. Their argument is for governments to intervene to preserve the heritage and this task cannot be left to the private sector. Despite these five elements each city faces the question of what to memorialize. And this is precisely the question that comes to the fore when one considers history.
Whose history are we memorializing? The winners of the Civil War or that of the losers (Confederates). Given that there is still a sense of injustice and victimhood among Southerners, when it comes to the Civil War, these are raw wounds. Some groups/ nations are open to reevaluating the role of monuments and memorials in contemporary society. Others are not.
France for example, has decided that it will keep all statutes, even those that commemorate controversial figures in history. As Emmanuel Macron, the French President pointed out, this was his interpretation of acknowledging all of history. This is, at the end of the day, a policy choice, shaped by his political situation and what may be acceptable with the French people, at this point in time.
Aspects of the past have intruded our consciousness today and will continue to haunt us into the future. There is no way of getting around it, but rather only through it. How we answer the question of who we celebrate and why determines what kind of a nation we become. For nations are nothing but ‘imagined communities,’ as Benedict Anderson has quite elegantly shown. How each nation decides to remember its history is crucial to what sort of a nation it becomes.
With the recent protests against the killing of George Floyd, the focus is back on a segment of the population that is at the heart of this issue: the public servant. The police force is part of the machinery that has been, is, and will be a part of our daily lives, whether we like it or not. How they behave and treat the public will determine the future we will for ourselves. So, can we ensure that they are better ‘servants,’ to the public? If so, how?
My own training in public administration was at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, the nation’s oldest and most prestigious school of public affairs. The school has shaped the study of public administration and one of the founding credos of the school is that administration is not value-neutral. Dwight Waldo, one of the most influential PA scholars to have lived in this century taught at the Maxwell School and pushed forth the idea that bureaucrats come to work with a value framework and they are not ‘neutral’ executors of policy. Using this insight, we may well face the world as it is, rather than how we want it to be. How these bureaucrats manage these values in their public dealings may well determine what kind of society we live in.
If we look at many of the problems that we face: environmental issues, housing, employment; there is usually an issue involving power & the use of discretion in how one uses it. The notion of how ‘street-level bureaucrats’ exercise this power has been studied quite a bit in PA. The concept of administrative discretion originated with Michael Lipsky and has remained a robust one. As many scholars have argued, offering bureaucrats some discretion allows them to make better decisions, based on client needs.
If one looks around, there are instances when abuse of power is often a result of this discretion. Whether a cop pulls a gun on someone or restrains himself/herself, whether an arrest is made or a warning issued, these are instances when the bureaucrat at the street level is making conscious choices – either to escalate a situation or to de-escalate. This is also the case when the work-load on pubic employees is quite high. As Lipsky points out “Employees must use their personal discretion to become ‘inventive strategists’ by developing ways of working to resolve excessive workload, complex cases, and ambiguous performance targets.” One can suggest that this exercise of administrative discretion can also help address issues of discrimination and in equal treatment that many minorities receive when it comes to public health or other related issues. There are definite health disparities between African Americans and other minorities. As the Center for Diseases Control points out “African Americans aged 18-49 are two times as likely to die from heart disease than whites,” and also “African Americans aged 35-64 are 50% more likely to have a high blood pressure than whites.” This is due to a combination of factors, including lack of access to insurance, policies that do not let African Americans access health services, and sometimes, outright discrimination in the system, that keeps them out of reach of healthcare providers.
Some of the recommendations of the CDC are to: encourage healthcare providers to eliminate cultural barriers to care, to connect patients to community resources to help them take medications on time, and to do follow-up visits. With COVID-19 exposing the cracks in healthcare delivery in the U.S., there is an urgent need to address access to healthcare, access to insurance, and also empowering states to offer services to those who are marginalized. One of the steps could be to empower the street-level bureaucrats to do more, to address the inequities that exist. This may mean offering more resources to teachers, doctors, and other frontline workers, who are often in the best position to address inequities. It also means educating and enlightening them to do what is right.
With close to $500 billion of remittances flowing around the world, the phenomenon of remittances as a force for community development and individual empowerment cannot be ignored. Remittances impact the lives of almost a billion people, worldwide. While the flow of money during the best of times is constrained by various policy initiatives and the high cost of sending money, during the COVID-19 crisis, this problem has become acute. This policy brief is a call to action on how to ease the bottlenecks and help sustain this important lifeblood, for millions around the world. Remittances in the volume are three times as much as international aid, given by developing countries, to poorer nations and have a transformative impact on receiving communities, existing research has shown.
source: imf.org
Background
The United States remains the largest contributor to remittances worldwide, recording $68 billion USD in remittance outflows. The rise in remittances could be attributed to a fairly stable economy, strong job prospects for migrants among other reasons. The growth in remittances to South Asia and southeast Asia was 12 percent in 2019, according to The World Bank. To further emphasize the number of monies recorded that flow from the U.S.A., the next highest contributors are the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, at $44 billion USD and $36 billion USD, respectively. With the shutdown of local economies in the U.S. and concomitant restrictions on travel, the phenomenon of remittances is likely to see a shift, as well. Analysts are already pointing out that there could be at least a 7 percent drop in remittances this year, due to COVID-19 related closures.
With COVID-19 and a dramatic change in the landscape of work and travel, the landscape of remittances is likely to shift, dramatically. If one were to consider the US-Mexico corridor, which sees about $65 billion flows per year, this is likely to be impacted negatively, thus hurting millions of recipients in Mexico. Due to a lack of insurance and costs of healthcare in the U.S., many of the migrant workers are likely to self-medicate rather than approach the formal healthcare system, which may have other implications for their health.
Who sends remittances and why?
Remittances are usually sent by well-meaning family members and friends to their relatives, to help. This money could be used for consumption – paying school fees, medical expenses, or expenses such as weddings, purchasing or constructing a house, etc. These are gifts or repayments of loans that these migrants have taken, to support their journey to the U.S.
As Dilip Ratha, head of Remittances research at The World Bank points out, there are over 270 million migrants around the world, and most of whom live in cities. The remittances they send have a huge poverty reduction impact and are a lifeline for almost a billion people, around the world.
Some programs have evolved to encourage migrants to invest in infrastructure development in the country of their origin. Tres por Uno, a program initiated by the Mexican government is one such example. Several other countries such as the Philippines and India encourage their diaspora to invest in education, healthcare, and other sectors through NGOs and other organized entities that raise money in the U.S.
While migrants from around the world live and work in the U.S., the majority of remittances outflows are to China, India, and Mexico. It is estimated that 5.7% of U.S. households send money abroad & 2.4% send money on a monthly basis and the average remittance is in the range of $200-$300 per month, according to The World Bank. Researchers have pointed out that migrants of all income groups send money ‘back home’, however, there is empirical proof that those in the lower-income categories tend to remit more, as a proportion of their income than middle to high-income earners.
Remittances are sent via various channels, both formal and informal. For instance, there are reports of individuals collecting cash on behalf of their friends/relatives and handing this over to the recipients across the border. This is done either as a favor or in some cases, for a small fee. Such informal flows of money are obviously not recorded. Besides, there is also the traditional, centuries-old system called ‘hawala,’ which operates in the Middle East and Asia (and also parts of Africa) which evolved out of a need for conducting business and the need for cash liquidity over long-distances. As much as a third of Somalia’s GDP comes from remittances and several countries that are in the middle of a conflict or recovering from a war (Yemen, Syria, Congo, Afghanistan) receive a big portion of their GDP via remittances. This flow of money from high-income countries to developing or low-income countries is possible because of strong family ties, opportunities for migrants to earn more money in the U.S. than they could, in their home countries.
Policy implications
Remittances remain one of the most significant flows of foreign currency reserves to most developing countries. Besides providing support to families, remittances also have the potential to help with local community development, spur entrepreneurship, and sustain traditions and culture. Remittances also have a positive net impact on the American economy, if seen from a macro perspective.
As some American politicians have argued, remittances can be leveraged to further American foreign policy objectives. This has been tried in the past and can be further explored in the future, as the sheer amount of remittances makes it a significant tool and lever for both the countries, to base their relations. Facilitating the flow of remittances can demonstrate not only goodwill but also can be a smart policy decision, as it helps both countries and is a mutually beneficial transaction. As some scholars such as Kristin Johnson have pointed out, remittances benefit the U.S. as well. Some of the ways that this is true are
Remittances help receiving countries spend more in U.S. dollars, thus facilitating trade and boosting the volume. This is particularly true in the case of Mexico-U.S., with a shared border and very strong trading ties, going back to centuries.
Remittances help build financial infrastructure, which can help people be part of the financial system. This ‘inclusion’ makes them potential customers and part of mainstream society.
Problem areas & Opportunities
There are three broad areas of concern when it comes to flow of remittances : cost of remittances, regulation of remittances (including Know your Customers (KYC) laws) and the emergence of new forms of technologies that can facilitate the flow of money. These existed before covid-19, but with the new emergency, these areas are further cause for concern.
Given the volume of remittances, there has been a lot of government interest in the phenomenon of remittances. As a Congressional Research Service report points out, P.L. 111-203 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, has provided federal consumer protections on remittance transactions. It further points out that remittances are also subject to federal regulation to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The banking regulations around KYC are crucial to address, as they are seen as one of the major reasons for the high cost of remittances as well as delays in sending money, abroad.
The discussion and debate around KYC and related efforts includes identity check and ensuring that the recipient and sender are traceable and they are indeed who they claim to be. There are also limits on how much money can be sent as well as documenting the relationship between the sender and receiver.
With the rise of technology and the use of crypto remittances and other newer technologies, analysts have pointed out that through the use of automated identification, real-time transaction scanning, data analytics, and artificial intelligence, the issue of compliance can be dealt with. Biometrics has also been proposed as a potential solution. The use of fingerprint IDs stored on phones can help authenticate parties involved.
Oklahoma is the only state in the U.S, that levies a tax on remittances. This proposal of taxing remittances has been put forth at the federal level as well, most recently by Donald Trump but has been widely seen as a bad idea. The motive behind this move is to raise revenues for the U.S. government, but analysts have argued this is not helpful and ultimately counterproductive.
Several thinkers and scholars such as Peter Singer, have made the argument that taxing remittances is normatively not a moral argument. Given that wealthy nations have not helped the poorer nations as much as they could have, it is not morally right to tax these self-help initiatives such as remittances (Peter Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, 1971).
Regulation and government involvement in this space has created layers of regulation, bureaucracy and unwanted delays in a phenomenon which is driven by individual initiative and creativity.
Many of these problems arise because many of the recipients (and senders in some cases) are unbanked. Lack of literacy and access to financial institutions can cause many of the issues related to tracking them and ensuring that the purpose of sending this money is legitimate. However, at the same time, many observers and practitioners in this space argue that the amount of money sent is so small – often a few hundred dollars – that over-compliance and over-regulating this space does not make sense.
Solutions
The following steps may be taken as a measure to prevent the drop-in remittances volumes due to COVID-19
There has been some debate around whether everyone in the U.S., whether documented or undocumented should be able to send (or receive) remittances. There are a few restrictions around sending remittances, such as the need for identification, etc. this has been criticized by those who care for a freer regime of remittances flow. Easing the requirements for ID can be a first step in facilitating the transfer of remittances. Given that the average remittances are in the range of $200-$300, the risk for this money ending up in the wrong hands is minimal.
While compliance of regulations is one of the main factors leading to a rise in the cost of remittances, there can be mechanisms to reduce this and hence, bring down the cost of sending money. As researchers have pointed out, there is a need to urgently bring down the cost of sending remittances, especially in conflict and post-conflict zones, to nonprofits and other social sector organizations, that cannot afford to spend huge amounts of money on just sending remittances, which often pay for salaries, etc.
Create special provisions for nonprofits and social service sector organizations and individuals sending money to these types of organizations: Existing rules do not facilitate the flow of money for nonprofits and treat them equivalent to other for-profit and government organizations. This means that individuals making donations to nonprofits and similar organizations (and those receiving them) face the same amount of scrutiny as regular for-profit organizations. As a Charity & Securities Collaborative report pointed out, 37% of nonprofits that operate globally face delays in wire transfers.
Leverage technology for the flow of money: Emerging technologies including blockchain promise very low – or no costs – to transfer remittances. Crypto remittances may not be fully operational in all parts of the world but are being experimented with. This may open a new frontier, which is very unregulated but seemingly safe, for those who know how to use it. Governments must move into this space, albeit as partners rather than the cop in town to make use of these emerging technologies to facilitate an exchange for its citizens. Biometrics, data analytics, and Artificial Intelligence can be used to track and monitor transactions for compliance.
The World Bank is projecting the largest decline in remittances in history, due to COVID-19. On April 23, 2020, The World Bank hosted a webinar with Dr. Dilip Ratha, Chief Economist Remittances unit at the bank on how we could keep remittances flowing. Here is an abridged version of the webinar.
Q: Can you give a broad overview of what’s going on?
Dilip: Globally $554 bn were sent last year, in remittances and we are expected this to drop to $445 bn – reduction by 20—30%. Rupture to poor countries. The human aspect is not to be underestimated. FDI, companies are sending it. The amounts sent are $100-$200 being sent in remittances. Perhaps a billion people are being impacted.
The main impetus for decline comes from the COVID crisis. Lockdown and social distancing. The main impact is coming when people don’t get jobs. Their incomes will fall and the inability to send money is impacted. There are other spillover effects that come from the fact that as economic activity comes down, there are ripple effects.
Q: Why is this decline so significant?
Dilip: There are about 270 million migrants around the world and most of them are in cities. In some cities, they maybe 40% of the population – NY, London, Paris, etc. These people sending these billions, are sending it to their families. This is used for consumption – food, education, healthcare, etc. The migrants who are sending money are poor, migrants. It has a huge poverty reduction impact. Nepal, South Sudan, Haiti, etc. sometimes remittances are 40%-50% of the income of the country and they are the lifeline for many people.
Given the shortage of food etc. that is being felt the impact could be severe, for food security as well.
Q: How’s pandemic impacting migration and labor?
Dilip: I don’t think migration has shifted significantly. There are travel bans, new migration is going to fall, but those who are here will stay. The stock of international migrants wont change much. In terms of internal migration, they are not able to go home, perhaps they’ll walk home – like in India. Villages have barricaded people.
There will be an impact over 6 months to a year.
Q: How are certain sectors going to be hit?
Dilip: In different countries, it may play out differently. There are two kinds of migrants. We see just one kind and not the other. The ones who are visible are doctors, white-collared professionals. NHS has a lot of doctors etc. The health sector is doing a little better. The agriculture sector is also in the news as there is a shortage of farm workers. That has huge implications for food security as agriculture season can be disrupted. Food prices are going up. What we don’t notice is the hospitality, retail sector, etc. they have been impacted as well.
Directly related to us is the money transfer industry. This is not considered an essential sector and we forget is that most of the people in the world don’t have access to digital services to send money. Most of the money sent it cash-to-cash (80%). Informal migrants send money through a store. Both the sending and receiving side of the stores are closed. This is a big impact on them.
Q: What’s the regional impact?
Dilip: The impact is global and declines in remittances may be historic, since the 1980s. In 2009, there was a drop of remittances of 5% and flow was above the pre-crisis.
The 2008 recession impacted just parts of the world. This crisis is impacting everyone, even in remote villages. That’s the context in which everything is impacted. Some will be impacted more than others.
Also, oil prices have fallen. Gulf and Russia are key for remittances. South Asia and North Africa receive a lot of remittances. The oil price issue is true in Russia. Rouble, the currency in Russia is also weakening in comparison to the US dollar. We are expecting the largest decline and global by about 20%.
Q: The bank is making $160 bn available over the next 15 months. What are some of the solutions?
Dilip: The policy response can be to think that alarge number of migrants are human beings and are concentrated in urban economic centers. Like humans, they need to be included in part of our healthcare, social transfer responses. Also, the most urgent. Also, remittance is a lifeline, and making them ‘essential services’ is key. Finally, we know that the only way for us to send money is digital, and yet, we know that poor people who work in the informal sector, are unbanked. Having access to a bank account is critical to use digital means to send money. Yet, there is an urgent need to bring them to the banking sector so they can use digital means. Some barriers include regulation: Know your customer, ID checks. And some suspicion that small amounts are money laundering etc. We need to decriminalize this.
Q: What about stranded migrants?
Dilip: Some of the migrants are in labor camps, etc. and there are refugee camps. They don’t receive the attention they deserve. Migrants are ignored or discriminated against. Countries of origin can play a big role in bringing them back to their home communities. When they are in different places, they need cash transfer programs.
Q: How can we help migrants who may be facing discrimination?
Dilip: Migrants are also being seen as vectors. We need to reduce discrimination against migrants too. Some education program is also key.
How do you reach out to folks without IDs is the problem. There needs to be a mindset that we need to help people.
The localized crisis causes distressing discord to a community. Widespread catastrophe creates agonizing chaos in any region. If not managed carefully, long-term chaos will knock the wind out of our sails and destroy national cohesion.
source: unodc.org
Noble response to the novel COVID-19.
Public administrators, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, medical staff, sanitation workers, long-haul truckers, local delivery drivers, gas station attendants, food industry specialists, and other essential members of the industry are to be commended for their intrepid efforts. Despite the threat of infection and drawn-out absence from their families, they bravely serve their communities with intense focus and undying adherence to their professional oath. Most have been working for weeks without a break. At this pace, no human can effectively sustain quality outputs of labor.
Without a much-needed break, essential employees will become less effective. The more they toil without sleep, the more mistakes they will make. An increase in the number of mistakes will erode trust within teams and decrease organizational effectiveness. Observable missteps and miscommunication will ultimately lead to a loss of public confidence.
When at peace, build teams, cross-train, and practice often.
During tranquil periods, government agencies establish formal relationships amongst each other to deconflict procedural issues. Through periodic inter-agency training, the partners exercise their unique capabilities using familiar, short-duration scenarios. The controlled environment is where operational maneuvers are tested and lines of authority are clarified. More importantly, the interaction is where bonds are strengthened, familiarity is increased, and commitment to the group is solidified. When a crisis develops, the government can quickly mobilize the ad hoc teams to confront any problem. If the issue is short-term and familiar, success is immediately attained, the provisional team is quickly disbanded, and everyone returns to the routine of everyday living.
Complications when in uncharted territory.
What happens when the situation is unfamiliar, novel, and long-term? What if ad hoc team members are lost to a pandemic, and new faces are thrust into the folds of the team? What will crop up when team members begin losing family members to the crisis? How will the potential loss of income, depletion of savings, forfeiture of a home, ungrieved loss of a loved one, and worry of infection affect team cohesion?
When in crisis, take frequent breaks and rotate personnel out of harm’s way.
The motto of the US Special Forces is “De Oppresso Liber” or “To Liberate the Oppressed.” In many countries, Green Berets advise allies in stabilizing their own government. However, exposure to frequent chaotic events leads to fatigue, disagreement, and soured relationships. Constant stress and protracted periods of little rest will diminish patience and sound judgment. To maintain cohesion, during tenuous periods Green Berets take frequent breaks and rotate members out of danger areas more frequently. The induced periods of rest allow the individual to rebalance and increases his effectiveness on the battlefield.
When we are tired, it is difficult to trust our own thinking and the actions of others. To preserve the effectiveness of government, public administrators could implement a rotation schedule, take frequent breaks while at work, and decompress for an extended period every few weeks. Subordinates who fill the leadership positions when leaders are away on break will benefit from the real-world experience. The country will come out of this pandemic with an increased number of crisis-tested leaders.
Frontline troops can focus on the mission when the home front is well cared for.
In addition to rest periods, the military ensures that spouses and dependents are well cared for. This means that salaries and benefits are never disrupted, and morale-uplifting mail service continues.
To help essential employees focus on their mission, public administrators should ensure that there is an ample support mechanism to care for the family members of front-line workers so that they can focus on caring for our sick family members. To continue to uplift the resolve of essential employees, we should shower them with generous mail in the form of meaningful greetings, conspicuous banners, and heartfelt notes of gratitude.
What we need to do.
Today, we need to maintain a united, steadfast front to beat the unseen enemy. Well-rested public administrators and leaders will set a confident tone for the entire country. Conspicuous acknowledgment of essential employees will feed their soul as that keep us sustained. But ultimately, national cohesion starts with me and you. Take plenty of rest breaks, express gratitude, and be kind to each other. The trust you build within your domain will echo throughout the entire national ecosystem, and the reverberations will fuse us into an indivisible and indomitable nation.
“Without trust, we don’t truly collaborate; we merely coordinate or, at best, cooperate. It is the trust that transforms a group of people into a team.” – Stephen Covey
Hello, readers of the MPPA Blog! I hope everyone is staying safe and keeping healthy during these times. My name is Hope Ramos and I am currently in my fourth term with the MPPA program at California Lutheran University and I am also the 2019-2020 Gallegly Fellow! There have been so many opportunities that I have been blessed with whilst being the current Fellow and wanted to share my experience with those currently going through the application process.
My Thesis
With the Gallegly fellowship, I am able to conduct research of my choice and focus on a topic that is close to my heart. My family owns almond and walnut orchards in Northern California and since the disastrous 2012 drought, they have had an incredibly hard time maintaining a proper water source. My research, that I have been focusing on since my undergraduate, and is now my thesis, will be focusing on farmers in Northern California and their perceptions of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Specifically, these farmers will be coming from Yolo and Solano county where a majority of crops use an abundant amount of groundwater, such as almonds and walnuts. However, groundwater is becoming more scarce with recent droughts and a lack of proper regulations on the natural source. This is changing with the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act which is meant to benefit farmers and their agricultural practices. However, has there been any change since its creation in 2014, and have farmers benefited at all from it? Do farmers think that it has been or will be effective? I want to look at this state policy from the perspective of the constituents that it is meant to be supporting and protecting, and determine whether it is beneficial or not. Policy work is something that I am very passionate about and I want to make sure that any type of policies is being properly implemented for the benefit of the constituents of California.
Social Experiences
Naturally, I have always been a very shy person, and meeting new people and strangers can be a bit of a difficulty for me. But as the Fellow, I have been able to attend a couple of mixers and events where it has allowed me to step out of my comfort zone and mingle with some amazing individuals. I have been able to attend events at the Ronald Reagan Library where I have met city and local officials and listened to important figures in the community speak on issues happening throughout the area. I have also attended events where donors have been present and have been able to personally thank them for their generosity, and share my story and experiences with them.
My Family and Future
The Fellowship has really been a big blessing on not only my life but for my mom, as well. She is a single mom who has always worked full time to support us. With the help of the Reagan Library and the Gallegly’s, they have allowed me to pursue a higher education whilst allowing my mom to stay finically stable. She knew how much I wanted to pursue higher education, and supported my decision but was worried about how she would be able to put me through a master’s program. When I told her that I had received the Fellowship, I remember how happy of a day it was in our household that I not only was able to continue on with my education but also know that my mom would not be finically burdened. I am also thankful that if I want to continue on to my Ph.D., then I will be able to proudly put on my application that I was the Reagan-Gallegly Fellow.
And these are just a few of the opportunities that the Fellowship has given to me! It has been a blessing in mine and my family’s life, and I am so thankful to the Reagan Library and the Gallegly family for supporting me throughout my master’s program.
I wish everyone applying to the Fellowship, good luck, and no matter what, you will love the MPPA program!
In the past few weeks, I have received multiple requests for donations, mainly from nonprofits and individuals I know. The requests are for the upkeep of operations, providing essential services, etc. and reflect the need for solidarity, that is much needed in these times. Notions of charity, philanthropy, and volunteering are making a comeback in these times, with individuals and organizations doing all they can to adjust to the new reality we are facing. The question that remains before us is: What kind of philanthropy do we need, in these times? Do we need the self-help, communitarian model of giving or do we need billionaires writing large checks to address big problems? Will self-help groups take us out of the mess that we find ourselves in or will hi-networth giving save us? Or do we need government policies to address systemic issues that philanthropy is unable or unwilling to address?
source: sabithkhan.com
Will the billionaires save us? This is a question that is being increasingly asked among scholars of philanthropy and some activists. While the idea of philanthrocapitalism is still around, there is increasing skepticism in the ability and willingness of the super-rich to help the less fortunate amongst us. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and other billionaires have shaped our world in many ways, both in good ways and bad. The question is not whether they have an impact, but how.
John D. Rockefeller & Carnegie: Remnants of an era gone by, or models for our time?
John D.Rockefeller and Carnegie embodied a ‘gilded age,’ which was known for its corruption and ties between businesses and politics. Perhaps much more than the age we live in, today. Carnegie’s greatest legacy may be the idea of funding and establishing libraries, which are in some ways the great equalizer.
Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth is an important text in American philanthropy and his ideas of giving away wealth while alive has become popular. One of his most famous quotes in the book is “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.” When Carnegie wrote that “The problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years,” he may well have been writing about us, in 2020. The fact that access to healthcare is so disproportionate in the U.S. of today is a tragedy. Media reports point to over 70 percent of deaths in Chicago from COVID-19 being that of African-Americans.
Amidst such catastrophic outcomes, we need government intervention in the form of stronger policies, but also support from foundations, individuals and community-based groups, to help fix some of these disparities.
While there is a section of American society that is deeply suspicious of hi-networth donors – and rightly so – one cannot deny the fact that those with a lot of wealth can and have made significant positive contributions to public life. John D Rockefeller helped establish the University of Chicago, for instance.
The emergence of the ‘new philanthropy’ which is based on measuring return on investment and is based on what Sean Parker has called a ‘hacker’ mindset is in vogue. As Michael Massing points out, Gates has single-handedly shaped Education policy in the U.S. Whether this is a good thing remains in question, given that education is a public good. Some of the bigger questions in this space remain unsettled and there are massive inequities when it comes to access to education, especially digital access, as we are witnessing during COVID-19.
The Giving Pledge is an off-shoot of the idea of giving away one’s wealth that Carnegie came up with. This notion has caught on globally, though its uptick has been somewhat slow in Asia and parts of Africa.
One of the bigger problems with hi-networth giving is the ‘expressive giving’ that drives many of them. What this means is that rich people give to causes that drive them, at a personal level. There is a sense of strong involvement among many of these folks, who are driven to make a difference around them, for various reasons. Whether it is promoting religious freedoms or healthcare, the one who writes the check wields an enormous amount of influence over the one who receives it. In a context where this can mean shaping a nation’s public health or the education system, this is a slippery slope; despite the good intentions of the donor.
Bill Gates has also received a lot of flak in recent years. His failed educational ventures, with the start and closure of private schools and about turn on this key sector is seen as a big failing. As The Guardian quotes him as saying “The overall impact of the intervention, particularly the measure we care most about – whether [pupils] go to college – it didn’t move the needle much … We didn’t see a path to having a big impact, so we did a mea culpa on that.” Such mea culpas are expensive and heart-wrenching, when they impact the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids.
Is Bill Gates the new Andrew Carnegie of our times?
The Gates Foundation has spent considerable amounts on public health and has achieved quite a bit of good in the world, but at the same time has an outsized influence on global health policies. How one interprets that is open to question. Some may call it philanthropic, while others may call it non-democratic. A stricter version would even call it hegemonic influence. The rightwing media has more recently started attacking Mr.Gates for altogether different reasons: his advocacy of stay-at-home orders, differing with Mr. Trump and his followers. His advocacy of preparedness for epidemics has been consistent. His support for this effort is admirable.
Philanthropy’s goal ultimately should be the betterment of lives. This is a goal that all of us agree upon. The divergence seems to be on how to get there. This is an area where all stakeholders – givers of money, recipients, and entities that govern it should come together and hash this out. In this regard, Carnegie’s advice of giving away one’s wealth during one’s lifetime may be the best advice for anyone who has a lot of wealth. The gospel of wealth may be a good reminder for our billionaire class, perhaps?
The Republic of Canada is known for having some of the strictest laws for immigration and visitation for foreign nationals who have been convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), or equivalent misconduct in their respective countries. With the steadily rising number of tourists year by year and the number of foreign nationals being barred from entry rising exponentially in step, the amount of lost revenue cannot be ignored. At this point, a travel policy law that was initially created for the betterment and protection of the Canadian public is actually actively hindering international commerce.
source: data-basics.com
The Travel Leniency Act (TLA) is meant to remedy this, by relaxing the stringent policy that defines “serious criminality”, more specifically regarding offenses that were not violent or felonious in nature. The introduction of this law as an addendum to the current immigration framework would further stimulate the tourist industry, create more jobs, and entice visitors to contribute to Canada’s flourishing GDP.
Canadian History and Status Quo
The governing legislature that dictates current immigration procedures in Canada is the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (S.C. 2001, c. 27). Passed in 2002, this act furnishes foreign nationals and immigrants with specific rights and limitations and details the minimum qualifications for admission, residency, and refugee status. In 2018, an amendment to the IRPA imposed tighter restrictions upon those who have been accused of acts that would be considered “Serious Criminality” under Canadian law. The Division 4 Inadmissibility section of the IPRA states that grounds for permanent residents or foreign nationals being denied admission include:
having been convicted of an offense outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years; or
committing an act outside Canada that is an offense in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offense under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years.
Note that in Canadian law, a summary conviction and an indictable offense are equivalent to the United States Misdemeanor and Felony charges respectfully. Under Canadian criminal law, a DUI is a “hybrid” charge. No different from a US wobbler charge, a hybrid charge can be either a summary conviction or indictable offense in Canada, and therefore is treated at the highest level.
In Canadian Criminal law, the DUI equivalent is “Operation while Impaired”. The offense is described thusly:
320.14 (1) Everyone commits an offense who
(a) operates a conveyance while the person’s ability to operate it is impaired to any degree by alcohol or a drug or by a combination of alcohol and a drug;
320.19 (1) Every person who commits an offense under subsection
320.14(1) or 320.15(1) is guilty of(a) an indictable offense
The only remedy at this time is to prove that criminal rehabilitation has occurred. Rehabilitation applications can be filed 5 years after sentences have been completed, so long as no subsequent convictions have occurred.
Law Detail
DEFINITIONS
Serious Criminality – Criminal behavior that resulted in the conviction of an indictable offense or equivalent. Includes summary convictions that were violent in nature.
Non-Violent Crime – Includes crimes of petty theft, burglary, driving under the influence. It does not include crimes that would constitute a threat to national security.
Tourist – Any foreign national who enters the Republic of Canada with no intention of being a permanent resident or citizen.
Pardon – A written, legal indemnification of prior crimes issued expressly by the Canadian Minister of travel for foreign nationals.
LEGISLATURE
The Travel Leniency Act will serve as an addendum to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and shall address and reform the current travel inadmissibility standards.
WHEREAS the current definition of “serious criminality” is found wanting and hinders international tourism and travel to the Republic of Canada and
WHEREAS potentially non-violent summary convictions such as “Operation while impaired” or similar charges for foreign nationals are treated with equivalency to indictable offenses Therefore
PASSED BY PARLIMENTAL REVIEW, LET IT BE ENACTED THAT:
SECTION I. The definition of “serious criminality” for the purposes of the Immigration and Refugee Act will no longer include summary convictions or equivalent changes when and if they are proven
To have been non-violent in nature;
To be offenses that are not a threat to national security;
To have been formally pardoned by the Canadian government under current law;
SECTION II. Shorten the term of any application to the Minister for a pardon term to 2 years after initial conviction or sentencing. This includes any offense that meets the above criteria. Any conviction that is older than 5 years will be considered rehabilitated by way of time passed. Applications will take no longer than 5 business days to be processed from the date of submittal.
SECTION III. Temporary Residency Permits will be issued with expediency to foreign nationals intending to stay for a term no fewer than 3 days, and no more than 10. Formal reporting is not required for tourists who provide
Reasonable proof of a duration of stay not exceeding 3 days
Obvious intent to vacate the nation within the next 24 hours
SECTION IV. Formally deputized officers of the Canadian Border Services Agency will prove the veracity of claims during an investigation, and records of the investigation will be held for a period not exceeding 3 years from the date of recording.
Adoption Procedures
The TLA will shorten the timeframe required between the year the offense occurred, and the execution of this change will result in a higher rate of applications. As a result, the Minister will be able to delegate signature authority to members of their staff to mitigate the higher volume.
Destination Canada, the Canadian Government’s official tourism website, will release a statement of the law in laymen’s terms to clarify the ramifications of this act on foreign nationals. This will be particularly good optics with the United States and China, both of which comprise the bulk of tourists visiting Canada.
Anticipated Response
Between 2018-2019 36,145,370 foreigners entered the county, and of this 8,781 were detained, which comprises .024% of the 2018-2019 year. From 2007-2016 a total of 267,449 foreigners were denied entry from Canada. In 2019 313,580 immigrants were entering Canada for various purposes and from a variety of countries.
Tourism represents a significant and lucrative source of revenue for Canada, bringing in $33.9 billion within the first nine months of 2019, and boosted Canada’s GDP by 5.9% from the previous year. Tourism accounted for 750,000 jobs in 2018, and a record-breaking 21.13 million tourists traveled to Canada from across the globe in this same period.
Based on these figures, over nine years (2007-2016) nearly $430 million in tourist revenue were not captured, and nearly 10,000 jobs in the tourist industry were not realized. Although this may seem like a small leakage, the steadily increasing numbers year by year present a unique opportunity for the people of Canada to stimulate local economies with travel. This will be a very positive outcome, and the provinces will reap the rewards, creating more jobs.
