Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Noah Zon points out that while it's impossible to avoid rhetoric about eliminating "red tape" for businesses, we've seen gratuitous barriers put in place to prevent people from accessing needed public support:

It’s a good principle to make interacting with government as easy as possible. For example the Ontario government has ensured that businesses only have to call one number to get business information — whether about buried utilities or regulations more generally. The federal government has implemented service standards for when businesses need to deal with regulators, and they are reporting on performance. Without the red tape slogan, you might just call these efforts good policy, good governance, or good service delivery.

Despite these efforts, some of the most problematic and unnecessary hurdles have been left untouched: the ones that affect individual people, most notably people living with low incomes. The maze of requirements and departments that low-income individuals have to navigate to access the benefits and services that they need and are entitled to is often more complex than those faced by businesses. This red tape burden exacerbates problems for vulnerable people and runs counter to the point of the policies and programs — which is to help people.

The compliance cost of getting and keeping the support that people are entitled to can be overwhelming. It takes away time and money from things that would improve people’s lives and help them move out of poverty, such as joining a community group or taking a course. Accessing and keeping social assistance can require extensive paperwork, starting from participation forms through monthly reporting, that take up the time of people in need, caseworkers and non-profit agencies. An individual needing support because of a disability could face multiple assessments to prove his or her need in different ways for different programs. To get the tax credits that people are entitled to and rely on, vulnerable people may have to rely on tax preparation services or miss out altogether if they don’t file taxes.

Researchers have found that excessive time spent navigating red tape can exacerbate poverty. Our poverty reduction policies are making things worse at the same time that they are supposed to be making things better. Making it easier to navigate the systems that are meant to help those living in poverty is essential to making it easier for people to improve their lives.

- Daron Acemoglu, Jacob Moscona, and James A Robinson highlight the vital role technological investment by governments has made in past economic development. And Brendan Haley writes that a successful transition to a green economy will need to involve a combination of broad carbon pricing and targeted measures for polluting sectors.

- Marco Chown Oved reports on the Canada Revenue Agency's willingness to allow large-scale tax evaders to avoid being publicly named.

- The Star's editorial board writes that the Libs' plan for after-the-fact review by MPs sworn to secrecy falls far short of addressing the problems raised by an obtrusive security state. And Thomas Walkom is duly skeptical that the Libs will bother to address the real issue.

- Finally, Maxwell Cameron discusses the political incentives created by false majorities, and suggests that a more proportional system should lead to far better behaviour from our leaders.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Jeremy Smith argues that the Brexit vote result should serve as a compelling reminder of the dangers of neoliberalism. John Hood focuses on inequality in particular as a driving force behind the willingness of voters to leave the European Union, while Mike Carter points out the connection between economic and industrial decay and the vote.

- The Economist highlights the value of pre-school funding in ensuring that children from all economic backgrounds are able to fulfill their potential. 

- Reema Patel discusses the need to give citizens a direct role in setting economic policy - as well as one project designed to achieve that goal.

- Tom Parkin points out the vital role the labour movement played in fighting to strengthen the Canada Pension Plan. And Lana Payne comments that younger workers will gain the most from the CPP expansion.

- Bruce Campbell writes that rail safety is still in desperate need of improvement three years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

- Finally, John Anderson questions why Netflix, YouTube and other online media platforms are being exempted from the obligations of other media entities operating in Canada.

Saturday Afternoon Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Albert van Senvoort points out that poverty is more difficult to escape in Canada today than it was two decades ago. And Jean Swanson discusses the desperate need for more action from all levels of government to ensure the right to housing is met in British Columbia.

- Danielle Ivory, Ben Protess and Kitty Bennett shed light on the U.S.' widespread privatization of emergency services - with its obvious implication of putting profit before the most urgent needs of citizens:

The business of driving ambulances and operating fire brigades represents just one facet of a profound shift on Wall Street and Main Street alike, a New York Times investigation has found. Since the 2008 financial crisis, private equity firms, the “corporate raiders” of an earlier era, have increasingly taken over a wide array of civic and financial services that are central to American life.

Today, people interact with private equity when they dial 911, pay their mortgage, play a round of golf or turn on the kitchen tap for a glass of water.

Private equity put a unique stamp on these businesses. Unlike other for-profit companies, which often have years of experience making a product or offering a service, private equity is primarily skilled in making money. And in many of these businesses, The Times found, private equity firms applied a sophisticated moneymaking playbook: a mix of cost cuts, price increases, lobbying and litigation.

In emergency care and firefighting, this approach creates a fundamental tension: the push to turn a profit while caring for people in their most vulnerable moments.

For governments and their citizens, the effects have often been dire. Under private equity ownership, some ambulance response times worsened, heart monitors failed and companies slid into bankruptcy, according to a Times examination of thousands of pages of internal documents and government records, as well as interviews with dozens of former employees. In at least two cases, lawsuits contend, poor service led to patient deaths.

- Michal Rozworski points out that a combination of corporate tax slashing and generous treatment of tax havens has led to massive amounts of cash being stashed offshore rather than being invested in

- Finally, Robert Reich argues that the key issue for Hillary Clinton in the midst of a tumultuous presidential campaign should be to clean up the mess that is the U.S.' political system and make democracy work for citizens. And James Wood examines the proposals on tap from Alberta's political parties to do the same at the provincial level.

Musical interlude

Pearson & Hirst - Endor

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- In the wake of yesterday's Brexit vote, David Dayen points out how the failure of technocratic policy left many voters believing they had nothing to lose in abandoning the European Union. Dawn Foster highlights the role Conservative-driven austerity played on that front. And Owen Jones comments on what comes next:

(W)hile much of the blame must be attributed to Cameron, far greater social forces are at play. From Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders, from Syriza in Greece to Podemos in Spain, from the Austrian far-right to the rise of the Scottish independence movement, this is an era of seething resentment against elites. That frustration is spilling out in all sorts of directions: new left movements, civic nationalism, anti-immigrant populism.

Many of the nearly half of the British people who voted remain now feel scared and angry, ready to lash out at their fellow citizens. But this will make things worse. Many of the leavers already felt marginalised, ignored and hated. The contempt – and sometimes snobbery – now being shown about leavers on social media was already felt by these communities, and contributed to this verdict. Millions of Britons feel that a metropolitan elite rules the roost which not only doesn’t understand their values and lives, but actively hates them. If Britain is to have a future, this escalating culture war has to be stopped. The people of Britain have spoken. That is democracy, and we now have to make the country’s verdict work.

If the left has a future in Britain, it must confront its own cultural and political disconnect with the lives and communities of working-class people. It must prepare for how it responds to a renewed offensive by an ascendant Tory right. On the continent, movements championing a more democratic and just Europe are more important than ever. None of this is easy – but it is necessary. Grieve now if you must, but prepare for the great challenges ahead.

- Steve Burgess discusses the difficulty in placing strong views on free trade at any single point on the political spectrum. And Branko Milanovic discusses the different underlying issues giving rise to populist movements around the globe.

- The Associated Press reports on the IMF's recommendation that the U.S. catch up to the world on minimum wage, social benefits and tax policy.

- Charles Mandel writes about Canada's failing fisheries. And Jason MacLean notes that our environmental laws as a whole need to be brought back up to par following their gutting by the Cons.

- Finally, Alex Boutilier reports on Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien's rightful concerns that Canadian privacy law is also decades out of date.

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Oxfam points out the latest World Wealth Report showing that extreme inequality and wealth continue to grow around the globe. And AFP reports on the IMF's warnings that inequality and poverty represent significant dangers for the U.S. economy.

- Kim Moody writes about the state of the U.S.' working class, and notes that issues such as temporary and precarious employment are only part of the larger economic puzzle. And Robert Skidelsky makes the case that a basic income could address problems with both our current job market and our fraying social safety net.

- Shannon Daub discusses the connection between austerity and climate politics, as a starved public sector both forces people into survival mode in the short term and limits the resources available for a transition in the long run.

- Michael Wilshaw laments the continued disparity in educational outcomes based on wealth in the UK. And Sandy Garossino points out how private schools in Canada are subsidized with massive tax breaks, even as our public education system is under attack.

- Finally, HealthDay reports on new research suggesting that even a modest increase in the minimum wage can work wonders for child health.

New column day

Here, on this week's Canada Pension Plan announcement - and the Wall government's surprising decision to merely delay rather than outright obstruct a national boost to retirement security.

For further reading...
- Kevin Milligan, Sheila Block, Adam Mayers and the Canadian Press each offer useful looks at what the CPP expansion means. And Milligan has also pointed out this chart from the OECD on the small amount of social security contributions currently made by Canadians:

- Meanwhile, Jennifer Paterson compares Canada's pension system to other countries in terms of the benefits currently offered. And anybody looking for source information can find it from Service Canada.
- In light of the distance Canada has to go in order to catch up to other developed countries, Jeremy Nuttall reports on Hassan Yussuff's push to further strengthen the CPP.
- Finally, CBC reports on the Saskatchewan Party's grudging acceptance of the deal - along with its spin that delaying implementation is somehow a worthwhile achievement. And David Giles highlights the view of the CFIB and other corporate spokesflacks that any income security for workers is too much.

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Paul Willcocks discusses British Columbia's two-tiered education system and the role it plays in exacerbating inequality - which is well worth keeping in mind as Saskatchewan deals with the fallout from the Wall government's refusal to fund public schools. And Charlie Smith reviews Andrew MacLeod's A Better Place on Earth as an important contribution to understanding the reality of poverty and inequality in B.C.

- Meanwhile, David MacDonald highlights new Statistics Canada data showing how parental income tends to influence children's opportunities:

Previous estimates in Canada put our income transmission at 23%, but the new report pegs it at 32% . Put another way, a third of what you’ll make in your best years can already be predicted by what your parent made in their best years. That means that both advantage and disadvantage are passed down generationally from parent to child.

In Canada, our income transmission rate isn’t quite as bad as the US, where half of a person’s income is pre-determined by what their parent made. So, what does that mean for the rags-to-riches “American Dream?” Well, it’s actually a bit of an impossible dream. Of developed nations, the US is actually one of the countries where it’s least likely for children to move from abject poverty to millionaire’s row.
...
If you look only at the intergenerational income transmission of rich parents to their kids, it’s far higher than the average, at 45%. This means that half of the keys to the top 1% club in Canada are passed from parent to child. Since this linkage is so strong, it also means that it’s much more difficult for someone whose parents were middle class (or low income) to work their way up into the top 1%.

- Noah Smith comments on the IMF's belated recognition that forced austerity is generally an obstacle to economic development, not a factor promoting it. And Tracy Brown Hamilton outlines the Netherlands' upcoming study of the effect of a number of basic income models.

- Alison writes about the first meeting of Canada's parliamentary committee on electoral reform - with particular emphasis on Nathan Cullen's work to encourage direct public participating in the proceedings, coupled with Jason Kenney's determination to stifle it.

- Finally, Andrew Mitrovica points out the mathematical certainty that the Libs' idea of oversight for Canada's surveillance state will be insufficient.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Illuminated cats.

On risk factors

Yes, "grasping at straws" is the right analysis of the Sask Party's attempt to make excuses to gift SaskTel to the corporate sector. But it's also worth noting something those straws have in common.

Presumably any risk to SaskTel can be paired with an opportunity for another party looking to profit within the telecom sector.

For example, the risk that SaskTel will be sold off for scrap means that some corporate benefactor will profit at the expense of Saskatchewan's public. And so too does the presence of any risk from telecom providers looking to expand their presence in Saskatchewan imply a correlated opportunity for a telecommunications provider which is able to plan outside a single province's borders.

Needless to say, it was the Sask Party government's choice to take that opportunity away from SaskTel with a "Saskatchewan First" policy - which prevents SaskTel from even looking for ways to generate profits and mitigate risk by using its knowledge around the world. And if SaskTel is indeed weaker for that gratuitous decision, there's nobody to blame but Brad Wall.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Neil Irwin writes about the White House Council of Economic Advisers' study of employment policy which found that superior protections for workers (rather than the undermining of employment standards in the name of "flexibility") correlate to improved workforce participation.

- MaxSpeak discusses the value of universal social supports in contrast to means-tested programs which compromise the idea of a common interest - and warns of the dangers of pushing the latter at the expense of the former:

The fact is that the great, social-democratic systems of Europe are powered by mass consumption taxes that finance big spending programs. The most powerful, time-tested tool against inequality is universal social insurance, not means-tested benefits. The prominence of the latter in the U.S. welfare state is a bug, not a feature. Trading social insurance for means-testing is a concession to inequality. Sometimes such concessions can facilitate reasonable bargains for greater benefits, sometimes concessions are required in adversity. The problem is elevating such a device as a basic ideal.

A principled progressive would have welcomed discussion of Sanders’  proposals, rather than revert to bromides about fiscal austerity. The simple truth is that any universal benefit financed by progressive taxation will retain a net, progressive redistributive impact. This is not an economic theory; it’s arithmetic. Nobody has suggested that Sanders’ tax proposals are not progressive. Of course the practicality of any proposal is fair game, but that was not the basis for most criticism. Instead we had ostensibly liberal Democratic Party politicians upholding the tenets of neoliberalism.

- Fortunately, at least one of Canada's major social programs is now set to be expanded and improved thanks to the federal-provincial agreement to boost the Canada Pension Plan.

- Michael Hiltzik suggests that prescription drug costs can be expected to drop if manufacturers are simply required to account for their pricing.

- Judith Lavoie discusses a push by Canadian health care providers to end the use of coal power. And Charles Mandel points out the Canadian connection between big coal and climate change denialism.

- Finally, Katrina Vanden Heuvel comments on the importance of freedom of the press to challenge all forms of concentrated power. And Jordon Cooper points out that any place of power or privilege can and should be used to help the many people excluded from those positions.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Andrew Leach's after-the-fact addendum to his review of Alberta's climate change policy offers an important reminder as to the costs of inaction on climate change - and the message is one which applies equally to other jurisdictions which are seen as climate laggards:

Our emissions do not simply come from our large industries—almost everything else we do has greenhouse gas emissions impacts, whether it’s driving our cars and trucks, heating our homes, or purchasing goods delivered here by plane, truck or train. Reducing emissions in Alberta will not be easy—we don’t have a magic wand, and if cost-effective, lower-emissions substitutes were available in all cases today, we wouldn’t be facing this problem. But, not reducing emissions in Alberta is also potentially very costly. We’ve already seen policies and actions aimed at our resource sector whether through the rejection of pipelines, the application of low carbon fuel standards, or challenges to companies investing here from their shareholders or from sustainable investors. If Alberta chooses not to act, those costs won’t go away. And, we’re part of a federation, and our federation has committed to an ambitious target to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions. There will be costs if Alberta is not a constructive partner in those efforts—continued market access challenges or unfavourable policy design. Those costs may be difficult to quantify, but that doesn’t mean they’re not real. Finally, of course, we know that emissions impose costs on others around the world—if we use the most recent estimates, we are each imposing on average $2,800 to $4,500 worth of costs on current and future global citizens every year with our emissions, and many of these impacts affect some of the poorest countries on earth.
...
(T)he business-as-usual case that a modeller might use to assess the costs of these actions does not exist for Alberta. We see today increasing pressure on firms to mitigate carbon risk, increasing pressure on governments to achieve their Paris commitments, and increasing focus on Alberta as a symbol of inaction on climate change. We do not see how a comparison to a case where Alberta can continue to find viable markets for its products and see investment return to the oil sands in the absence of credible action on greenhouse gases exists. What would likely exist as an alternative is a world where Alberta faces increasingly discriminatory and punitive policies and barriers to trade both from within and from outside Canada, and where firms face mounting shareholder and institutional investor pressure not to invest in Alberta. The costs of these are speculative, and more difficult to quantify, but we are confident that they far and away exceed the cumulative costs of the actions we’ve recommend. 

- Meanwhile, Larry Buhl reports on widespread wage theft by the U.S.' oil industry.

- Rejean Hebert makes the case for publicly-funded home care and long term care to avoid the need to use our hospital care system to address disabilities and chronic conditions.

- Charles Smith points out the dangerous (if consistent) precedent set by the Saskatchewan Party's refusal to fund the contract it negotiated with Saskatchewan's teachers.

- Finally, Martin Regg Cohn traces the path toward an expanded Canada Pension Plan. And Mark Hancock writes that an improved CPP needs to produce a more secure retirement for everybody, rather than being whittled down to nothing by exceptions and carve-outs.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Brian Nolan, Max Roser, and Stefan Thewissen study (PDF) the relationship between GDP and household income across the OECD, and find a nearly universal pattern of nominal economic growth which isn't finding its way into households (which is particularly extreme in the U.S.). Roy van der Weide, Christoph Lakner and Elena Ianchovichina examine (PDF) high-end house prices as an indication of the exorbitant high-end incomes which don't show up in individual tax records. And Sean McElwee and Roberta Barnett discuss how big-money donors are able to distort U.S. politics.

- Sujata Dey points out that even from the standpoint of gross economic numbers, there's reason to be wary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and other new trade agreements. But Cory Doctorow highlights the greater danger of deals which undermine democratic decision-making and public interests.

- Steven Chase reports on Canada's increased sales of military equipment to human rights abusers.

- Rob Carrick points out that financial institutions are being forced to plan for a millenial generation with little capacity to borrow or save.

- Finally, Nicholas Kristof acknowledges that the theory behind draconian welfare policies was entirely wrong - and that the primary effect of restricting access to social programs has been to foment poverty in a country which can afford to eliminate it.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Phillipe Orliange discusses the significance of inequality in the developing world as a problem for both fairness and economic development:

The question of inequality has become so important because societal cohesion broadly depends upon it. It is not normal for 1% of the population to possess as much wealth as the other 99%.
...
There is also a moral side to the question. We cannot say that we are building a shared world in which nobody will be left behind, while accepting this unreasonable monopolisation of wealth. This alone is reason enough to act.

We now also know that inequality is bad for economic growth. A number of studies from the IMF prove this to be true. And finally, the victims of inequality are at higher risk of exposure to the effects of climate change.

So not only is inequality morally reprehensible, but it is also economically inefficient. And the effect is cumulative.

- Meanwhile, Hassan Yussuff points out that all Canadians stand to benefit from the added security of an improved Canada Pension Plan.

- David Suzuki discusses the role of feed-in tariffs in encouraging the development of distributed renewable power. And Kevin O'Connor reports on Mark Jacobson's lesson to Brad Wall on the relative costs and benefits of transitioning toward cleaner energy as opposed to barrelling ahead with a fossil fuel-based economy.

- Finally, Marie-Danielle Smith reports on Libs' decision to provide extra funding to Canada's Information Commissioner to deal with a serious backlog of complaints. But as Keith Reynolds notes in discussing new plans in British Columbia, most governments reviewing the access-to-informatoin system end up taking obvious steps to undermine its operation where it seems inconvenient for the party in power - and the Trudeau Libs look to be no exception.

Friday Evening Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Ed Finn reminds us that "free trade" agreements have always served to increase the wealth and power of those who already have the most at the expense of social interests. And Scott Sinclair and Angella MacEwen each offer their take on Parliament's hearings into the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

- Meanwhile, Zach Dubinsky reports on another set of unfair deals which have allowed corporations to send profits offshore to avoid paying taxes with (primarily the Cons') government approval.

- But in case anybody expected the Libs to live up to any different set of principles, Mia Rabson points out Robert-Falcon Ouellette's craven politicking around a basic income - consisting of seeking media attention for his support for at least studying the concept before going along with a party-line vote against it. (And it's particularly striking that even the Con members of the finance committee were willing to support the motion - leaving the Libs alone to shoot it down.)

- Frances Baum, David Sanders, Matt Fisher, Julia Anaf, Nicholas Freudenberg, Sharon Friel, Ronald Labonté, Leslie London, Carlos Monteiro, Alex Scott-Samuel and Amit Sen examine the influence of multinational corporations on the health of individuals, while pointing out the desperate lack of any meaningful assessment on an organizational basis. 

- Finally, Teuila Fuatai discusses how Canada's employment insurance system is set up to disadvantage mothers in lower-earning families.

Musical interlude

Lumineers - Stubborn Love

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Rafael Gomez and Juan Gomez offer a look at the state of Canadian workplace democracy, as well as some useful proposals to improve it.

- The New York Times editorial board points out how the U.S.' temporary worker programs are predictably being abused by employers to lower wages. And Sean Silcoff and Michelle Zilio report that the Trudeau Libs are going out of their way to make it easier for Canadian employers to do the same - even as their Labour Minister claims (at least in front of an audience of workers) that she'd prefer to rein in our reliance on temporary foreign workers.

- Rachel Obordo highlights the challenges facing young workers trying to pay increasingly inaffordable rents out of limited wages. Rayhanul Ibrahim discusses the contrast in spending patterns based on income, with the inability of poor individuals to afford durable goods standing out as a particularly stark difference. And Jim Tankersley points out that exactly that gap may exacerbate recessions as poorer people without sufficient social supports feel compelled to put off any spending during economic downturns.

- Andrew Nikiforuk examines some of the consequences of fracking which have resulted from dangerous development in the absence of meaningful study or regulation. And Katie Herzog discusses why we can expect the future to be shaped by renewable energy investment rather than by fossil fuels.

- Finally, Gus Van Harten studies the special privileges the Trans-Pacific Partnership would hand to the investor class at the expense of the general public.

New column day

Here, on the Senate's recent attempts to claim any relevance to Canadian politics, and what they should tell us about the failures of our actual elected representatives.

For further reading...
- OpenParliament's status report on Bill C-14 (featuring the votes from the House of Commons) is here. Catherine Tunney reported on the Senate's debate on amendments to Bill C-14, while John Paul Tasker follows up on its final vote.
- The report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce seeking to undermine provincial governance is here (PDF). And for background as to the absurdity of demanding wholesale limitations on government based on a small number of "barriers" which could best be addressed individually, see here, here and here among other examples.
- And finally, for more on the Trudeau Libs' refusal to develop a federal policy on climate change, see my past discussion here and here. 

Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon reminds us why even if we were to (pointlessly) prioritize raw GDP over fair distributions of income and wealth, inequality is bad for economic growth in general:

The more we redistribute income and wealth, the more consumption increases, which then increases demand. In turn, this should encourage the private sector to invest, thereby accelerating the growth process.

So reducing inequality, in addition to social and health benefits, has important economic implications: our economies grow, and growth itself becomes less volatile. In short, inequality is bad economics.
...
To restart economic growth, a major preoccupation of many Canadians, there are a number of policies that can be adopted. For instance, higher incomes can be taxed at a much higher marginal rate, including capital gains and income earned from dividends; wealth can also be taxed more.

In light of the Panama Papers, government can close tax loopholes; we can also prevent the private-sector practice of buying back their own shares, which unnecessarily inflates the dividends of shareholders, which in turn favours short-term financial gains to the detriment of long-term economic growth.

Finally, we can adopt a full employment policy.

- Meanwhile, PressProgress points out new research by Cristobal Younga, Charles Varnera, Ithai Lurieb and Richard Prisinzanob showing no statistically significant connection between tax rates and millionaires' locations - signalling that there's no reason to take seriously any threat that more progressive taxes will lead the wealthy to move to avoid paying their fair share.

- Aru Pande discusses how U.S. non-profits are being forced to try to fill in glaring gaps in public services for children living in poverty.

- Ian McLeod reports that the Libs' plans to do anything about C-51 are limited to secret Parliamentary oversight after the fact - meaning that the public will have continue to have no idea how its rights are being violated. And Michael Geist writes that there's no longer any doubt just how much needless surveillance is taking place in Canada.

- Finally, Zeynep Engin reviews Beth Simone Noveck's Smart Citizens, Smarter State on the future of governance:

The key terms that I believe best describe the spirit of the book emerge as ‘targeted expertise’, ‘crowdsourcing’, ‘experimental governance’ and ‘citizen engagement’. Instead of the traditional advisory committee model that mainly relies on stakeholder representation (missing the epistemic value of committee membership) and typically produces a report or a set of recommendations over months or even years, Noveck suggests that new technologies should allow us ‘to make consultation on a day-to-day basis and to strive for constant conversation with an engaged and knowledgeable public’. Going beyond ‘crowdsourcing widely to crowdsourcing wisely’ to match the right experts to the right opportunities on a large scale is more likely to lead to faster and better decision-making. Modes of expert engagement can be accommodated at all stages of ideation, discussion, formulation and assessment as opposed to limiting public participation to consultation on pre-formulated drafts of ‘professional policy-makers’ in government departments. This would also lead to redefinition of ‘the public service and the public servant as the steward of such a conversation’. The challenges with this type of engagement and potential strategies to overcome them are also covered widely.
...
Those with technology and ‘hard’ sciences backgrounds would hugely benefit from a comprehensive understanding of government and policy domains in order to set new research agendas with significant potential for wider impact. At the other end of the spectrum, those with politics and social science backgrounds would find it very helpful for understanding the current technologies of expertise and the new trends in public decision-making, offering great promise for transforming the ways that governments should operate under the ongoing data revolution.

 [Edit: fixed typo.]

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Bagged cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Sherri Torjman discusses how the the gig economy is based mostly on evading protections for workers - and how the both employment law and social programs need to catch up:

Much of the labour market is morphing into freelance or gigs. More and more Canadians are becoming free agents who cobble together bits of work in order to get by. Workers increasingly are juggling two, three or more casual jobs. Exhaustion and stress take their toll on health as the working day gets longer and precious family time erodes.

These challenges are no different from those facing the current army of precarious workers in Canada, who earn low wages and have no job security, accident protection, sick leave or pensions. But the implications of the changing labour market may be bigger than quality of employment.
...
The new world of work is a less generous and less certain provider of these benefits. At the end of the day, governments may have to step in to fill the gaps in income adequacy, pension protection and health benefits that the new “gig economy” is leaving in its wake.

Perhaps all generations can agree that it makes no sense to slow down or stop technological innovation − especially with consumers embracing it full throttle.

But we do need to pay serious attention to improving the working conditions in the sharing economy. Only then can we all support this brave new world.

- Meanwhile, Dan Darrah highlights the spread of unpaid internships as a factor dragging down wages for all kinds of younger workers.

- Aravind Ganesh comments on the need for a focus on social determinants of health in providing care for seniors. And Canadian Doctors for Medicare offers a much-needed reminder that the federal government can't pretend anybody else has the jurisdiction to directly enforce the Canada Health Act.

- Tyler Clarke writes that Saskatchewan's municipalities can't afford the long-term corporate giveaways that come with P3 infrastructure schemes. And the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives studies the costs now being borne by Nova Scotia due to its earlier privatizing binge.

- Chris Mooney reports on new research showing that our atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has reached a new high with no apparent prospect of going back. And Suzanne Goldenberg and Helena Bengtsson expose how a single coal producer funded a web of climate denial.

-Finally, Yves Engler points out the damage Canadian mining firms are doing in Africa - and notes that if we in fact want to help the developing world, an end to a culture of corporate impunity would do far more than any number of self-promotional charity events.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your week.

- Cynthia Kaufman discusses Moses Naim's theory that while a transnational ruling class has managed to exercise almost total control over the functions of government, it's set to lose power over the public at large. And 63Mag interviews Jennifer Hollett about the future of progressive activism and organizing in Canada.

- Sophia Harris reports on yet another round of fee increases from Canadian banks which will do little other than goose their already-massive profits. And Kelly Crowe highlights the pharmaceutical industry's track record of secrecy and falsified test results.

- Jim Bronskill writes that the Canada Border Services Agency's "Border Security" show has at long last been cancelled due to its blatant and inexplicable infringement on privacy rights.

- Tom Parkin calls for the Libs to get moving on ending the Charter abuses imposed under C-51. And Vincent Gogolek worries that Justin Trudeau's promises about improved transparency and access to information are about to be replaced by even more means of suppressing information.

- Finally, Bill Graveland reports on Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond's observation that child protective services need to be able to track at-risk children across provincial borders.

Sunday Morning Links

This and that for your Sunday reading.

- Lisa Phillips writes about the desperate need for Canadian courts to ensure a fair tax system, rather than allowing technicalities and loopholes to win out over the principle that everybody should pay a fair share:

With some exceptions, Canadian judges have defaulted to a literal reading of tax law that is based on 19th-century English precedents. This approach stresses, above all, the right of property owners to rearrange their affairs to minimize tax.

In the United States, the courts took a different tack, ignoring transactions that were designed purely to escape tax. By the 1970s, the English judiciary was also moving in this direction. In a series of landmark cases, they recognized that taxpayer liberty must be balanced with the need to distribute the cost of government services fairly, according to Parliament’s intentions. Canadian courts have been slower to leave 19th-century England behind.

Frustrated by our judiciary’s passive approach, the government added a general anti-avoidance rule to the Income Tax Act in 1988. The rule gives judges explicit authority to override tax planning that abuses the law by defeating its purpose. Yet, in many cases, our courts are hesitant to follow through.

...

Such rulings bear a share of the responsibility for eroding the integrity and fairness of Canada’s tax system. They signal that tax planners can be aggressive in pushing the limits of the law, creating a thriving market for new avoidance ideas. As soon as one implausible story succeeds, the race is on to manufacture more. Authorities struggle to keep up and understandably wonder whether it is wise to invest their limited resources to challenge these ventures in court. Rewriting the tax law to close technical loopholes must be done carefully. By the time it is done, tax planners have already moved on to the next gambit. It is easy to point the finger at lawyers and accountants as enablers. It is true that these professionals make a handsome living from helping their clients to reduce tax bills. Some will admit privately their discomfort with deals that seem to make a mockery of the progressive income tax. But, in most cases, they are only doing what the courts have licensed. Until the judiciary also sends a stronger message, we can expect a culture of aggressive planning to persist.

- Allan Holmes observes that a lack of access to high-speed Internet service represents a serious barrier to full public and economic participation for people living in poverty. And Don Pittis contrasts the compelling arguments against exploitative payday lending with the implausible claim that anybody is better off living in inescapable debt, while Nicholas Kristof laments the blight of debtors' prisons for poor individuals who have no prospect of paying off gratuitous fines.

- Felicity Hannah points out that self-employment tends to lead to poverty. And Kathryn May reports on a PIPSC study showing the dangers of outsourcing federal government services to precarious workers.

- Juliane Kippenberg discusses the International Labour Organization's efforts to eliminate abuses in global supply chains - despite the greediest efforts of the corporations who profit from them.

- Finally, Alex Press notes that the Trans-Pacific Partnership stands to enrich biotech companies at the expense of both farmers' incomes and biodiversity. And Ben Parfitt looks at the Peace River - with its combination of landslides, toxic fracking chemicals and earthquake risks - as an alarming example of happens when multiple environmental factors are all subject to insufficient analysis and regulation.

Saturday Morning Links

Assorted content for your weekend reading.

- Yvan Guillemette discusses the need for public-sector investment in economic development to make up for the massive amounts of private capital sitting idle. And Daniel Kahnemann challenges the theory that corporate decision-making is either rational or directed toward optimal outcomes:

“You look at large organizations that are supposed to be optimal, rational. And the amount of folly in the way these places are run, the stupid procedures that they have, the really, really poor thinking you see all around you, is actually fairly troubling,” he said, noting that there is much that could be improved.

 

Figuring out how to make the act of decision-making “commensurate with the complexity and importance of the stakes” is a huge problem, in Kahneman’s view, to which the business world does not devote much thought.

- Meanwhile, James Hutt rightly argues that a transition toward a cleaner economy would offer an ideal opportunity to develop more and better jobs. 

- But of course that would require some interest in the well-being of workers. And Sara Mojtehedzadeh reports on how Ontario is slashing health services for people who have suffered injuries on the job, while frequently forcing people back to work before they're ready.

- Bryce Covert writes that San Francisco is the latest city to learn that it's even in terms of bare dollars and cents, it's more efficient to provide housing to people who need it than to deal with the social costs of homelessness.

 - Finally, Michael Harris slams the Cons' manufactured outrage over Niki Ashton's daring to campaign for Bernie Sanders. But it's worth noting as well that we should fully expect our political leaders to have some interest in issues and campaigns beyond their own level of government (and in some cases borders).

Musical interlude

Government Town - Home

Friday Morning Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jim Tankersley interviews Joshua Bivens about the relative effects of economic growth and income inequality - and particularly his evidence showing that more people are far better off with more modest growth fairly distributed than with greater nominal growth concentrated at the top:

Tankersley: How do we know that a lot more growth would not have been enough by itself to help the workers who have been left behind in this period?

Bivens: There’s a bunch of ways you can do this, but there’s no way you can do it where inequality is not a huge part of the problem. The way I do it in the paper is really a simple look at average household income in the two periods — say, what if we had let the bottom 90 percent grow over the past 30 years at the rate of average growth; so basically, no rise in inequality but the average growth stays the same? That has a bigger effect on their incomes than if we did a counterfactual that says, let’s let the overall rate of growth go with the faster immediate prewar period but inequality still happens. The inequality effect is larger than the growth effect in keeping their incomes lower.

Tankersley: There is an argument that many liberals make that if we could reduce inequality, we could improve growth. You’re arguing that might be true but needs not be to justify fighting inequality?

Bivens: It’s a little bit dangerous to accept the burden of proof in the debate that says, if we stop the rise in inequality we will boost overall growth. Because even if we don’t, it will still be a worthwhile thing to do for my political goal of raising incomes for the bottom 90 percent.

- Meanwhile, Dennis Rasmussen reminds us that the theorist whose name is often invoked as a defence of unfettered greed actually had significant ethical concerns with the concentration of wealth.

- Canadians for Tax Fairness comments on the absurdity of Members of Parliament and expert witnesses being prohibited from even saying KPMG's name when discussing its tax offshoring. And Linda McQuaig notes that the Libs generally aren't lifting a finger to ensure that the people and corporations with the most spare capacity to fund a functional society actually do so.

- Meanwhile, on the long list of areas where Canadians who voted for change have every reason to be disappointed in the Libs, Andrew Mitrovica reminds us that C-51 is still in full effect without any hint of restraint or oversight. Janice Dickson points out that the NDP is having to prod the Libs to remember the need for pay equity. Kristy Kirkup reports that there's little indication the Libs are living up to the acknowledged obligation to stop discriminating against First Nations in funding child welfare programs. And Ryan Moore notes that Stephen Harper's edifice of dumb-on-crime legislation has been left standing except for the parts which had already been dismantled by the courts.

- Finally, Paul Wells reports on Justin Trudeau's pathetic excuses for selling arms to human rights violators - based on the laughable theory that it's somehow more a mark of a banana republic to prioritize human rights over immediate economic convenience rather than the opposite. And Somini Sengupta notes that Saudi Arabia's intimidation of anybody daring to even mention its human rights abuses extends to the U.N. as a whole - meaning that the community of nations would seem to have a strong interest in reversing course.

New column day

Here, on the Wall government's move to push poor Saskatchewan residents into social programs with counterproductive work requirements.

For further reading...
- Again, Betty Ann Adam reported here on the changes to social assistance in Saskatchewan's budget. Pamela Cowan highlighted the damage to health care, including through cuts to prescription drug funding and a complete lack of resources for mental health and addictions. And the list of other areas being subjected to jarring overhauls in the wake of a campaign against change includes education both primary/secondary and post-secondary, along with health care.
- LaDonna Pavetti's research mentioned in the column is found here and here.
- Finally, Toni Pickard's case for a basic income as a means to stop micromanaging people's lives looks particularly timely given the terms of the program (PDF) being pushed by the Sask Party.

[Edit: updated link.]

Thursday Morning Links

This and that for your Thursday reading.

- Andrew Coyne argues that the Senate's role in overruling elected representatives - which only seems to be growing under the Trudeau Libs - represents an affront to democracy. And Duncan Cameron has some suggestions beyond proportional representation as to how our electoral system can better live up to a democratic ideal.

- Elizabeth Thompson reports on the expert consensus that tax evasion needs to be met with far stronger consequences. But Kimberly Ivany and Harvey Cashore note that the people responsible for the Isle of Man offshoring are instead (with the Libs' permission) dictating what may and may not be discussed in Parliament - even by experts invited specifically to address the scheme. And at the same time, a KPMG accountant has admitted to participating in insider trading and tipping.

- Charles Mandel reports on the lack of effective regulation of cosmetics, while highlighting the dangers of allowing the sale of unsafe products which are expected to be used regularly. And Jordan Press discusses our lack of any reliable mechanism to so much inform consumers about products made with child labour.

- Meanwhile, Fay Faraday examines how temporary foreign workers are treated in Canada. And Ian Hussey offers a useful list of facts about Alberta's minimum wage and the need to shore it up.

- Finally, Jennifer Hollett comments on the three major issues surrounding the future of work:

Armine is soon hosting a series of panels on “full employment,” which used to be a public policy priority of governments everywhere, in the post-war period. It fell off the map in the 70s, and by the mid 90s we stopped talking about it entirely.

Critical of the lure of basic income, Armine argues it is difficult to scale. “It’s not going to happen at a level that will unshackle people from the need to work.” Where full employment is everyone who wants to have a job, can have one. And then, this is the critical point she stresses, that it’s a good job.

I hope this is where all the conversations overlap. Be it precarious work, basic income, or innovation, these questions, panels, and hashtags should push us to figuring out a way to ensure the lives of everyone are better off.

Wednesday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Andre Picard writes about the devastating effects of widespread social isolation, particularly given its connection to poverty:

All told, it is estimated that about six million Canadians live an isolated existence. We have an epidemic of loneliness, and the principal underlying cause is poverty. If you’re poor, you’re six times more likely to be socially isolated than your peers. In academic circles, and increasingly in political discourse, the term “social determinants of health,” is bandied about. Sir Michael Marmot, the guru of social determinants research, defines them simply as the “causes of the causes of poor health.” What has the greatest impact on our health is not genetics or access to health care, but income, education, housing, food security and our physical environment. But there is one key health determinant that’s often forgotten: a sense of belonging. Being connected — to family, friends, neighbours, a community group, a running club, a mosque — can literally add years to your life.

The corollary is that isolation and loneliness are devastating to a person’s mental and physical health, deadly even. Isolation is, in part, a state of mind, but it is also a physical reality. So we need to ask ourselves how our surroundings, our homes and our cities contribute to the scourge of loneliness. Do we build cities — and adopt urban policies — that encourage social interaction or that breed isolation?

...

If we want a sense of community, and its benefits, we need to invest in services that encourage independent living, and in public spaces and programs that nurture interaction. Yet, we underfund and devalue places that bring us together like libraries, parks, recreation centres and community gardens. We often make it difficult to volunteer with all kinds of bureaucratic hurdles. Being lonely also has stigma attached to it: it’s often associated with having poor social skills or being odd. We look upon those who are reaching out to make a connection with suspicion. How often have you heard: “How can I meet people?” For most, the answer to that question is not Tinder or Grindr.

...
Building community takes determined effort. It takes time and money, and a conviction that it matters. It blossoms out of recreational centres, schools, places of worship, volunteer activities and in subtle gestures such as introducing yourself to your neighbours. It comes from reaching out to an old lady wandering the streets late at night, or to a boy in a wheelchair at the park. We often talk about inclusion and being senior-friendly, but what cities tend to offer are grudging accommodations — things like wheelchair ramps and discount bus passes. These gestures do not solve the problems of those who ride the bus all day because they have nothing else to do, or nowhere else to go. If we want people to be healthy — physically, mentally and emotionally — they need to be full citizens. If we want healthy cities, we need people to have a sense of belonging — not just a civic address. We need everyone to be engaged — not just the elite. We need to make a resolute effort to help each other, especially those on the margins of society, move from isolation to inclusion.

- Zack Beauchamp highlights Canada's relative acceptance and encouragement of immigrants and minority groups as being what truly sets us apart among developed countries.

- Andrea Flynn, Dorian Warren, Felicia Wong and Susan Holmberg discuss the need to restructure existing rules, practices and policies to counter entrenched racism and discrimination. Audra Williams points out that we won't achieve more inclusive political representation unless members of more privileged groups "lean out". And Gabrielle Brassard-Lecours comments on a call for an inquiry into systemic racism in Quebec.

- Finally, Megan Leslie points out that it's not too late to preserve our ocean econsystems, but that there's an urgent need to act now. And Andrew Nikiforuk points out the futility of prioritizing pipeline development over sustainable environmental and economic policies.

Tuesday Night Cat Blogging

Decorated cats.

Tuesday Morning Links

This and that for your Tuesday reading.

- Hamilton Nolan interviews Branko Milanovic about inequality on both a national and international scale - and how there's little reason to take heart in reductions in the latter if it's paired with increases in the former:

Gawker: Is it fair for people to ask what good the reduction in global inequality is doing them, if within their nations inequality is on the rise? 

Milanovic: Global inequality is such an abstract concept, simply because there is no global government. Telling people in rich countries who have had no increase in real incomes, stagnant median wages and so on, that on the other hand global inequality is going down because people who are much poorer than them are getting richer—it’s something that maybe they would like in an abstract sense, because everyone is happy there are fewer poor Chinese, but you may not be as happy if these Chinese are taking your job. So I don’t think a politically reasonable defense of the current situation is to tell the people who feel they’ve been losing economically within their own country that, on the other hand, they are contributing to some greater good externally.
...

Gawker: What do you think the wisest move is, for those who are not the highest earners, to mitigate inequality? 

Milanovic: If the solution were simple, we would have done it. But if you agree with that sort of description of the perils of populism and plutocracy, then the answer is really greater attention from the winners of globalization towards those who are dissatisfied. Because the well understood self-interest at the top would tell them that you cannot just continue with policies forever if you have a significant pool of people who are unhappy. So the self-interest would say, “let’s see what we can do to make their position better.” It could be higher tax on the top incomes, closing down the loopholes they have at the top that lobbyists have been very successful at making, encouraging small shareholders—broadening the ownership of capital, which is very heavily concentrated...

This is not a short term solution, because whatever change you make now is going to take five or ten years to make an impact. But you cannot just ignore it forever.

- Meanwhile, Andrew Coyne examines how a basic income could work in Canada.

- Anjuli Patil reports on a move among municipalities to resume providing services directly as they learn about the higher cost and lower effectiveness of privatization. But Andy Blatchford writes that rather than taking the public's interests into account, the Trudeau Libs are looking at large-scale plans to turn public assets into private profit engines. And Brent Patterson points out just a few of the problems with that course of action.

- Daniel Tseghay and Samantha Ponting point out that actual workers have been almost entirely excluded from a federal review of the temporary foreign worker program.

- Jason Warick reports on Roy Romanow's new role as co-chair of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness.

- Finally, Marie-Danielle Smith highlights the disproportionate impact of climate change on First Nations communities. And Reid Southwick reports on new research showing the growing health gap between First Nations people and other residents of Alberta.

Monday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material to start your wek.

- Maia Szalavitz discusses the connection between unemployment, inequality and addictions, noting in particular that uncertainty and stress in other areas of an individual's life make addition recovery far more difficult:

The relationship between addiction rates and inequality has long been noted by researchers who study its health effects: countries and states with higher levels of inequality tend to have worse mental health and addiction problems than those with less dramatic differences between the 1% and everyone else.

Further, decades of survey data also show that the addiction rate among the unemployed is usually around twice as high as among those who have jobs. Some of this unemployment, of course, is addiction-related job loss. But a review of this literature suggests that in many cases, unemployment precedes addiction and that either way, it reduces the odds of recovery.
...
(W)hen decent jobs are not available, all of the social aspects of this process can be blocked because economic opportunity influences not only employment, but also coupling and childrearing. Accordingly, recovery without treatment is far less common among the poor and unemployed.

For over 100 years, we’ve relied on attempting to cut the drug supply by locking up dealers or restricting access to certain chemicals – and this has never remotely come close to solving the problem. If we want to fight addiction, we’ve got to look at what drives people to despair. And to do that, we can’t ignore inequality.

- Of course, there's one obvious way to make sure individuals have a secure income to fall back on - and on that front, Charles Murray makes the case for a guaranteed annual income in the U.S., while Heather Stewart reports that the Labour Party is taking a close look at a basic income in the UK.

- But Jordan Press reports that the Cons' attempts to instead fragment social services and outsource them to the corporate sector have proven to be an utter failure - even as the Libs continue down the same path. And David Shield reports that programs working on the connections between social issues are also being axed by Brad Wall.

- CAP Action points out a new Congressional Budget Office report on the risks and costs of climate change. And Patrick Cain comments on how Canada's prairies in particular will be affected - including serious risks to water supplies.

- Finally, Sean McElwee examines the U.S.' political donor class and its outsized influence on public policy.

Sunday Afternoon Links

Miscellaneous material for your Sunday reading.

- David Korten writes that despite the trend of the past few decades, there's nothing inevitable about international agreements favouring capital over citizens rather than the other way around.

- Miles Corak examines Nicole Fortin's research showing that concentrated income at the top of the spectrum is undermining any effort to pursue pay equity. Ben Spurr points out how precarious work can be made all the worse by transportation systems which don't take into account the needs of people trapped in irregular hours. And Mary-Dan Johnston Christine Saulnier study the living wage needed for Halifax families to live in relative security.

- Bryce Covert comments on the growing influence of female leaders within the U.S.' labour movement.

- Michael Babad discusses the jarring rise in the ratio of personal debt to income in Canada, while noting that matters only figure to get worse in the foreseeable future. And Betty Ann Adam reports on the Saskatchewan Party's conscious decision to make sure people in need bear the brunt of cutbacks and benefit restrictions.

- Finally, John Ivison and L. Ian MacDonald both note that it's better late than never for the Libs' change in course to ensure multi-party cooperation on electoral reform. And Andrew Coyne points out that the actual committee will serve as an example of a more proportional Parliament in action.

[Edit: fixed wording.]

Musical interlude

Krewella feat. Gareth Emery - Lights & Thunder

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Rick Salutin argues that we need to say no to any more trade agreements designed to privilege corporations at the expense of the public. Will Martin reports on the IMF's long-overdue recognition of the failures of neoliberalism, while pointing out that there's still a long way to go in ensuring that recognition is reflected in its wider policy. And Benjamin Dangl notes that we shouldn't ignore the fact that the economic violence of neoliberalism has often been accompanied by political violence needed to force unwanted policies on citizens.

- Meanwhile, Barb Pacholik discusses the Saskatchewan Party's choice to single out Saskatchewan's less wealthy residents for punishment, while doing nothing to increase public revenues or otherwise bring in more money from people who can afford it.

- Andrew Jackson explains why employers would be far better off supporting a stronger Canada Pension Plan, rather than facing the double whammy of future retirees both requiring alternative social supports and having limited spending power.

- David Hughes studies the effects of new pipelines and finds that they figure to be both needless at current or foreseeable oil production levels, and useless in influencing the return on oil actually produced. And Joe Romm argues that while peak oil supply may not be an imminent issue, peak oil demand may not be far away due to the growth of renewable alternatives.

- Finally, Karl Nerenberg discusses the Libs' belated acknowledgment that the NDP had the right idea in ensuring that any electoral reform has multi-party support while limiting the ability of one obstructionist opposition party to refuse any fairer system. And Democratic Audit explores how majoritarian systems are far more prone to gerrymandering and other abuse than proportional ones.