Increasingly sidelined, the one-time arbiter of sensible, down-to-earth politics, has seen its stock plummet and the centre-ground left barren, sparsely populated by members of a fading political establishment. As Mehdi Hasan has observed, ‘labels like 'centrist' and 'moderate,' which common sense tells us should reflect the views of a majority… have come to be applied to those who represent minority interests and opinions”. But why? How exactly has this come to pass? And where, if anywhere, does the future of the centre lie? <11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|courses|conferences;disciplines:Politics</11an> A very brief and incomplete history Like the monikers ‘left’ and ‘right’, the ‘centre’, as a political orientation, finds its roots in the French Revolution and the seating arrangements of the short-lived National Assembly. It designated those that sat between the high clergy and wealthy on the right of the chair, and the lower clergy and poorer folks on the left. It was there that contrasting ideas met, were mediated, and (sometimes) found synthesis. In the centuries that followed, the ‘centre’ was sporadically appropriated as both a signifier and epithet. To a modern, anglophone ear, though, it’s mostly associated with the politics of the 1950s and 90s. President Dwight Eisenhowever was among its most strident torchbearers, committed to a politics he called ‘the middle ground’: socially-minded, yet limited governance that despised communism. Riding on his coattails, was UK Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, whose political career was grounded in a similar set of principles he codified in, ‘The Middle Way’. Positioned between ‘socialism and pure capitalism’, it was underpinned by the enduring belief that ‘quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot’. This period of supremacy abruptly ended in the 1960s, when centrism fell victim to the political convulsions that swept the west. In a context of counterculture and revolution, the considered nature for which it was known, looked staid and out of touch. Chastened, its proponents retreated from power, licking their wounds. They would remain out of favour for some time, forced to watch as on both sides of the Atlantic high-office swapped between left and right. Margaret Thatcher would remind centrists of their diminished status, goading them ‘for abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies’. The emergence, in the 90s, of ‘third way’ advocates, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, marked the triumphant return and the advent of centrism’s most celebrated period. Despite hailing from nominally leftist parties, both ran on economic platforms promising public spending limits and balanced budgets. Barack Obama and David Cameron - their ideological successors - would later take up the mantle. So what does it actually stand for? The centre has always been defined by what it’s in the centre of, and, thus, has shifted in response to broader political trends. In the early 60s, it was against the anti-war left; in the 80s it opposed Thatcher; and now, in 2020, it can't stand Trump. It knows well what it isn't; and less well what it is. This can - and often does - manifest in negatively framed messaging ill-suited for the catchy soundbites required of modern campaigning. Joe Biden’s election promise to ‘return to normalcy’, is illustrative - devoid of a forward vision, it’s failing to get pulses racing. In spite of its unfixed state, centrism has become a byword for moderation and triangulation, of working across the aisle. Its recent proponents have typically been fiscally conservative, socially liberal, committed to open borders on trade, and invariably hard-lined on law and order. The scholar, Bo Winegard, has attempted, more explicitly, to codify its core tenets in his ‘Centrist Manifesto’, claiming that ‘political progress is achieved by caution, temperance and compromise’, and urging against ‘dramatic alterations that [could] upset a reasonably successful social order’ - the words ‘reasonably successful’ doing a lot of work. Which brings us to the pertinent question: in a world of Trump, Brexit, and rising temperatures what role, if any, can this amalgam of principles expect to play? Centrism today In the clamoring of current discourse, centrists stake claim to the only escape route away from the bickering and bellicosity. Uniquely positioned above the petty point-scoring and time-wasting agendas of the extremes, and guided, according to Winegard, by a mantra of ‘careful consideration and slow implementation’, they alone can ensure a return to sensible politics. Abstractly, and without context, this offer sounds persuasive, indeed, it feels close to common sense. Applied to the current moment, however, and its shortcomings come into focus. Firstly, the things in which centrism traffics - moderation, incremental change, etc. - lose their appeal in crises. For in hard times like these, it can be difficult to separate suggestions of pragmatic tinkering from attempts to preserve the status quo. And to many the status quo is part of the crisis - it’s complicit. Insisting on the existence of moral equivalences on all sides - a core centrist belief central to compromise - has also drawn ire for being a privileged position available only to those insulated from the sharp-end of inequality and the climate crisis. Without this protection - that growing numbers are also deprived - it follows that their calls for change would be far more urgent. Consequently, assurance is increasingly found in pledges that acknowledge the scale of what is faced, however extreme, and commit to decisive, transformative measures. Calls to ‘drain the swamp’ and demands for ‘medicare for all’ speak to this feeling, and have gained traction at opposite ends of the spectrum because they accept the gravity of people’s concerns and promise to tackle them head-on. Whether its widespread political alienation or concerns over healthcare, the language, and implied commitment, sound appropriate in scope. This is what centrism runs into time and again. On today’s biggest questions - generational indebtedness, housing crises, spiralling inequality, job insecurity - questions that threaten opportunity, livelihoods, lives even, it’s proposals sound insufficient in scale. How, for instance, does the politics of moderation propose to shift the US$1 trillion debt from the shoulders of American millennials? Is it even possible for the ‘slow implementation’ of anything to address the rampant inequality that’s dividing communities? And what of the most important question of all: climate breakdown? The threat posed by the climate is existential and can only be navigated through radical action, as part of a long-term vision - this is roundly accepted. With the stakes so perilously high, relying on a political tradition steeped in a culture of compromise may well be foolhardy. For the planet to survive in any habitable form overhaul is needed, an overhaul of energy, of transport systems, of consumption. Despite its flaws, the Green New Deal (GND) was an attempt at this, legislation proportionate to the size of the problem, climate policy informed by scientists demands for ‘war-like’ mobilisation. Many centrists, however, balked at the idea, Nancy Pelosi called it ‘too broad’ and the Blue Dog Coalition of Democrats would rather prohibit a federal deficit running in peacetime, making the GND, and a whole host of redistributive investment programs, impossible. A choice beckons Amidst political polarisation and burning of the planet, the future of centrism is unsure. Its failure to formulate coherent responses to the biggest issues of the day has left it flirting with irrelevance, and representing, as Hasan commented, only minority interests and opinions. To guarantee its future, it has two options: double-down and continue to force old methods on new issues, or recognise its self-imposed limitations and think bigger. Now is not the time for caution, but for assertive action. To miss this opportunity is to perish. Header Image Credit: ChameleonsEye on Shutterstock (licensed image - editorial use - copyright)
The current moment is one defined by crisis. It can be found everywhere: in the climate, economy, mental health, even in democracy. It’s so ubiquitous as to have almost become the new norm. Amid the chaos, politics has struggled to keep up, its landscape is in permanent shift, its rulebook long thrown away. New formations have emerged, metastasized, sometimes died, and occasionally taken over - developments often surprising and hard to make sense of. What’s clear, though, is that polarisation has set in. From Bernie to Bolsanaro, from Modi to Make America Great Again, the voices now heard, the names that fill newspaper columns, are reminding us just how wide the political spectrum is. For many, it's a terrifying prospect, for others, it’s a thrilling and necessary reset. For the centre, as developments in the US and UK are showing, it may well spell death.
Public Economics & Economic Policy (JEL H)
However simple sounding this choice may be, the question is, in fact, a tricky one. What’s even meant by each term? In the current polarised political climate, where both are bandied about and often weaponised, definitions have blurred. Deplorable in the eyes of some, the roadmap to utopia to others. Many are understandably confused. What should one make of being branded a champagne-sipping socialist? Or a capitalist pig? To make sense of it all, we have delineated each term as concisely as possible. Meaning next time the political barbs start flying, you will at least know how offended to be when one comes your way. <11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|courses|conferences;disciplines:General Economics (JEL A)</11an> Capitalism Of the myriad differences that distinguish capitalism from socialism it’s the level of government involvement in the economy that’s most fundamental. The capitalist model is premised on the private ownership of the means of production and property. The economy relies on open, free markets whose forces - the so-called ‘invisible hand’ - determine prices, incomes, wealth and the distribution of goods. In theory, unencumbered competition then drives innovation - in technology and practice - and encourages companies to make the best products they can as cheaply as possible. Over time, therefore, products improve in quality, while becoming cheaper. ‘Inefficient’ companies that fail to keep up, as in, their products are relatively expensive or poor in quality, are quickly usurped and go out of business. This allows resources to flow to other, more ‘efficient’ areas - a process Joseph Schumpeter called ‘creative destruction’. Meanwhile, the consumer is ensured maximum choice at the minimum price - again, in theory at least. And this is what lies at capitalism’s heart: the promise of meritocracy, of efficiency winning out. It underpins the whole system. This leads neatly to another key distinction from socialism: equality, or, in capitalism’s case, the lack thereof. Under capitalism, inequality is essential. It serves as a driving force, incentivising work with the lure of what could be. The spoils are there, you just need a good work ethic and the right ideas. And who decides which ideas are right? The market. It’s this cold, unbiased mechanism of relentless wheat-from-chaff-separation that drives economic development and moves us forward. Socialism A socialist economy, on the other hand, is driven by a vastly different logic. Through greater governmental intervention, it seeks to (re) allocate resources in a more egalitarian way. In part, this is ensured by state ownership– as opposed to individual– of the major means of production. As the main employer, the state can then determine wages, working hours, and preserve a certain standard of working conditions as it sees fit. Employment rates, thus, are not vulnerable to spasms of the market, meaning full employment can be guaranteed - in some socialist societies that is. In others, individual ownership of property and enterprise is permitted, but is accompanied by high taxes, especially on the rich, and tighter, more stringent government control, to help avoid exploitative practices from developing. To purists, this is no longer socialism, but rather a form of social democracy. In America, it’s tyranny. Where capitalism favours efficiency, socialism focuses on equality, a channeling of wealth from the rich to the poor, and the establishment and preservation of an even playing field - definitely in opportunity, and occasionally in outcome. This is achieved by various means including the state-led provision of healthcare, free at the point of use, price controls, higher taxes, and far more spending on public services. In practice In reality, most countries - even the US, the paragon of capitalist life - operate mixed economies, that is with economic elements of both capitalism and socialism. Therefore, the question playing out around the world is less a choice of one or the other, but more nuanced. Typically, it’s the pitting of greater public provision, in the form of healthcare, education and social security, typically funded by higher taxes (i.e socialist inclined policy), against tax cuts and a general retreat of the state out of the individual’s life (i.e free-market capitalist inclined policy). It's notable that in the majority of cases these proposals are made while accepting an overarching capitalist system. The extremes may be tweaked, but the fundamentals are normally left unquestioned. Header Image Credit: Stefan Malloch on Shutterstock (licensed image - copyright)
As claims go, Francis Fukuyama’s insistence that history’s run its course has aged rather badly. The ascent of China, the Great Recession, spiralling inequality across the West, and now COVID-19, have all, in their own way, undermined his notion that capitalist liberal democracy is the political endgame. If anything, political choice seems to be expanding. People are increasingly being offered the opportunity to continue with capitalism, occasionally of the nativist variety and sometimes strictly neoliberal, or, alternatively, to try a little socialism.
How COVID-19 has Affected Economists in the Global North and South
Overall, 36% of economists reported having been negatively affected by COVID professionally (excluding the turn to home-office), with 6% made redundant. Although this may be similar to comparable sectors, mapped geographically, the numbers tell another - depressingly familiar - story. Simply put, economists working in the Global South have suffered far higher levels of job loss, greater reductions in hours and salary, and have had more promotions postponed, than their Global North counterparts. The data is stark: 62% of economists in Africa, 56% in South Asia, and 42% in Caribbean, South & Central America, reported being negatively affected by the pandemic professionally, compared with just 23% in North America, and only 16% in Western Europe. Global inequality The International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) report ‘COVID-19 and the world of work’ makes it possible to place these figures among global labour market trends, and, thus, better understand the nuances of the economists’ experience. ILO research uses ‘working-hour losses’ as an aggregate indicator of COVID-19’s impact on the global labour market, and encompasses shorter hours, being employed but not working, being unemployed, and withdrawal from the labour force. With respect to the Global North/South divide, ILO data contains notable parallels to INOMICS’ survey, reporting that ‘lower-middle-income countries have been hardest hit’ and have endured ‘an estimated decline in working hours of 23.3% in the second quarter of the year’- the equivalent of 240 million full time jobs. This trend continued throughout the third quarter and is accounted for by greater prevalence of informal work, limited opportunities for teleworking, and general resource constraints. Unfortunately, because of unevenly distributed fiscal stimuli, its consequences are also set to worsen - the report expressing concern that ‘the estimated stimulus gap for low-income countries is less than 1% of the total value of the fiscal stimulus packages announced by high-income countries’. A diverging economic experience Where our results and the ILO’s report diverge, however, is among the regions in which employment disruption is at its most severe. For economists that is Africa and South Asia. But this bucks the global labour trend which has seen workers in Latin American and Caribbean countries worst affected, the region losing a full quarter of all working hours in the third quarter. In Central America alone, hours lost reached 30%. Moreover, ILO data reports that African continent sustained an 11.5% working hours loss in the third quarter, 3.5% more than Western Europe, and just 0.7% more than Northern Europe. Given that almost two thirds of economists in Africa reported being negatively affected by COVID, it would appear they are among the more disproportionally hit of the continent’s professions. Everything, though, remains in flux, making comprehensive analysis of COVID’s ongoing effect on the labour market a difficult process. With that said, INOMICS’ data, placed among that of the ILO, offers a glimpse of the regional discrepancy which underpins the economist’s experience, a discrepancy that, while fitting with larger trends, diverges in where job disruption is at its highest. It’s one that, here at INOMICS, we will continue to track. Complete Economics Salary Survey
The damage wrought by COVID, far from equalising, has been pointedly prejudiced. While the virus itself may struggle to differentiate between people, the world in which it operates has no such problem. Indeed, its structures have ensured COVID’s disruption of employment has fallen unevenly across regions - the experience of economists a case in point. Data from the forthcoming INOMICS’ Salary Report speaks to this directly, revealing the relationship between where one works - specifically in which country - and the level of vocational dislocation.
Economic Development, Innovation and Growth (JEL O)
<11an>limit:2;categories:jobs|courses|conferences;disciplines:General Economics (JEL A)|Health, Education, and Welfare (JEL I)</11an> Fortunately, most economists - particularly researchers - have been able to home-office throughout the crisis, transitioning with some ease, with much of their work already reliant solely on access to a computer. This is reflected by almost two thirds of economists reporting that, besides the migration home, they’ve experienced no change to their work. In the words of one: ‘it’s all remained the same’. This, however, cannot be said of teachers, for whom the transition to online learning, while mostly possible, has invariably been a bumpy road. Capturing the prevailing mood, teachers described E-teaching as ‘difficult, time-consuming and boring’, bemoaned their lack of ‘technical help’, and spoke of increased ‘inefficiency’ that had led to ‘an increased workload’. Students mirrored this frustration, though for different reasons. They cited reduced tutor contact hours as a disruptive influence, and were also dismayed by the closure of libraries. For many, though, it’s the future that is the greatest cause of concern. The scarcity of job opportunities was reported multiple times as a primary consequence of the pandemic, a concern expressed often by those on the verge of graduation, or early in their careers. This development will be especially worrisome for those straddled with enormous student loan debt (American student loan debt stands $1.5 trillion) who now face an increasingly precarious future. The prospect of which, according to testimonies from this cohort, has prompted increases in ‘mental stress’, ‘anxiety’, and a fear of perpetual joblessness, all compounded by knowledge that, in certain areas, the worst of the pandemic could be yet to come. The demand for diminishing work was also noted to have negatively affected worker power, empowering the employer. Articulating this emerging reality, one economist predicted that ‘labor struggles for fair pay [would] continue in the long term’, while an economics PhD relayed, in slightly more dramatic terms, that labor relations at their workplace ‘were destroyed’. Another frequent story was that of ‘delayed promotions’, almost 10% of survey participants reporting a promotion postponed as a result of the pandemic. Epitomising this experience, one researcher explained that his promotion was ‘postponed because my research has stalled. I cannot go for visiting research stays in universities and research institutes locally and internationally. And without research, my work has been made redundant as I now do mostly teaching, lecturing and administrative work online from home.’ Such disillusion was not uncommon. A sizable number have also lost their jobs, around 6% of survey participants, and the prospect of this number increasing is having a significant effect, many noting a pervading ‘atmosphere of uncertainty’, aptly captured by one economist who spoke of the looming ‘threat of future redundancies’ that hovered over his workplace. Put in perspective, though, economics has, by-and-large, been able to work on through, placing it among the luckier industries. The discipline can also be both proud of the work it’s continued to produce and the role it’s assumed responding to the crisis. There’s little doubt - in the face of the pandemic economists have risen to the challenge. Complete Economics Salary Survey
That the world of work has radically changed we know, we see it before our eyes: kitchens have replaced offices; pajamas, suits; and housemates often now fill the space previously occupied by colleagues. But how have these changes - and others - been felt by economists around the world? Through a textual analysis undertaken in the INOMICS Salary Survey, we answer that question and, in doing so, paint an anecdotal picture of economists’ COVID experience.
Perhaps a worse indictment, however, is that for many they never had much effect. They never came close to capturing their actual reality: the shortage of food, the fragmentation of community, the political alienation. While coping with these concerns, that the 1% had further increased their collective wealth by X trillion dollars was only ever background noise, a little salt on the wound. Statistics of this kind may sell newspapers, but they don’t capture experience. There's no let-up Alas, such is the prevalence of inequality, it’s at risk of defining our time. Among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, it’s reached a record high, and economists see little sign of it abating. We now live in societies divided: the haves and have nots; those with opportunity and those denied; inhabitants of good, desirable areas, and the left-behind, the forgotten. In a moment in which fracturing communities need healing, inequality undermines any efforts, driving its big wedge into the ever-growing in between. Indeed, it’s only in the last 15 years, or so, that the full impact of these divisions have been assessed in earnest, and the array of inequality’s far-reaching effects laid bare. Some are not so easily identifiable, let alone quantifiable. And yet, an appreciation of them is essential if the true nature of inequality is to be understood. The reality beyond the money-oriented stats; inequality as experienced on-the-ground. Academics should be thanked for filling the void, as there now exists a robust body of research concerning the psychological effects of inequality, exploring, in particular, the trust it diminishes among individuals, and for institutions; the sense of community it erodes; and its links to growing political apathy. It’s these more insidious impacts, often obscured from popular view, that are of interest here – and it’s no exaggeration to say, they run deep. Solidarity on the wane Research by sociologists Marii Paskov and Caroline Dewilde has shown that living in unequal societies fundamentally changes the way people interact with those living around them, and, more broadly, how they perceive their community. Most notably, inter-societal solidarity – that is the willingness of individuals to try and improve the living conditions of other members of their community – suffers. As a general rule, the solidarity expressed by an individual is stronger ‘toward people with whom there is less social distance’, social distance describing the distance between different groups within the same society. Rather unhelpfully, inequality creates the opposite conditions, increasing the social, and also the mental space between community members. This distance limits the individual's ability to recognise the indirect benefits they, too, stand to enjoy by helping others. Thus, the notion that improving one person’s life benefits the whole of society is quickly forgotten. As the collective traits of generosity and compassion reduce, and social cohesion is damaged, the slippery slope is then further greased. The same study shows that declining solidarity is quickly reflected in dwindling public support for government-led redistribution, which, for communities facing high levels of inequality, is exactly what is most needed. Mistrust Economist Henrik Jordhal has looked further, linking greater social distance not just to estrangement, but to higher levels of mistrust. Specifically, the growing belief that other members of one’s community are fundamentally different from oneself. Exactly why this is so dangerous requires little imagination. Scepticism of others prevents the establishment of relationships, setting in motion a vicious cycle: social distance leads to mistrust which leads to further social distancing. Divisions are sown, consolidated, and communities fragment – often, to give things a volatile edge, on ethnic lines. Suspicion pervades the air. And sometimes, violence can follow. Moreover, the work of Professor Frank J Elgar has shown that societies with low levels of trust struggle to create the social supports and connections required to improve the health, and allow for the comfortable ageing, of its members – even outside of a welfare state context. Communities, in effect, err towards atomisation. An individual's welfare, regardless of age, is no longer considered a collective concern, and is seen solely as the responsibility of the individual – and, thus, Thatcher’s dream is realised. Political apathy Declining trust is not exclusive to individuals, but extends to people’s faith in institutions. In a research paper exploring the impact of inequality on values and attitudes, social scientist Frederic L Pryor found that people in less equal countries had less interest in politics, less confidence in their sitting parliament, and often bemoaned a societal lack of respect for authority. And his work is no outlier. Associate professor Frederick Solt argues in a similar vein. His analysis has demonstrated that higher levels of inequality ‘powerfully depress political interest, the frequency of political discussion, and participation in elections’. It’s hardly surprising either. For how is it possible to reconcile the optimistic, soundbite promises of politicians with the biting reality of a life stung by inequality? Successive governments from across the political spectrum have tried (some harder than others) and failed to arrest the trend toward inequality. As things deteriorate, disillusionment is, in many ways, the logical response. To make matters worse, the apathy Solt’s work observes applies to all but the most affluent. With their political intentions unperturbed, and enjoying an ever-growing slice of the economic pie, they are even better placed to set the political agenda, a privilege that can be – and often is – used to ring-fence wealth, exacerbating the original problem. Self-reinforcing And herein lies one of the larger problems. Inequality is reinforcing itself, it’s digging in. Those benefiting from its advance – maybe predictably – are unwilling to surrender their place at the top of the tree. But surrender they must. Before that happens, though, one prohibiting fallacy needs dispelling. Often observed in unequal societies is the collective belief that the wealthy elites (most of whom were in fact born rich), have risen to their position by virtue of superior talent, endeavour, and dedication rather than their birthright, while those languishing at the bottom owe their squalor to idleness and profligacy. This unhelpful internalisation, which attempts to legitimise the status quo, is patently untrue. Inequality stymies social mobility, and although just one of its many causes, its eradication would greatly improve the meritocratic nature of our unequal world – and make people happier. When former IMF chief, Christine Lagarde, is compelled to say that, ‘reducing excessive inequality is not just morally and politically correct, it is good economics’, you know it’s time to act – even the neoliberals are conceding it's gone too far. We must demand that our politicians address the growing gulf. For there is nothing natural or inevitable about the scale of inequality that we endure. It is a choice and it has to be reversed.
Inequality is rampant, we hardly need telling. Rarely does the print media pass up an opportunity to remind us. We stand inundated by an endless stream of statistics – on scales barely fathomable – each one more depressing than the last. For instance, it’s widely known that: ‘8% of humanity takes home 50% of global income’; that ‘the top 1% own 45% of the world’s wealth’; and how could we forget that ‘the 26 richest people on earth had the same net worth as the poorest half’. As shocking as these stats once were, they’re now dishearteningly familiar; we can recite them unassisted; we are numb to them.
Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics (JEL E)
Sudden Delivery Disruptions Due to Pandemic Will Not Go Away Any Time Soon
A couple of steps short of humanitarian disaster and incalculable damage to the environment At the end of the year around Christmas, up to 10,000 trucks headed from Dover to Calais via the Eurotunnel. When France suddenly closed its border with the UK, all trucks and their drivers that were still in Britain got stranded in the ports without any information about when they would be able to continue their journeys, and without food or access to essential hygiene facilities. Truck congestions near the ports in Kent were so bad that they even caused local traffic disturbances in some areas. Police were brought in to help organize the HGV queues. With the chaos difficult to contain, a possible humanitarian disaster in Kent seemed a real possibility. A huge number of people carrying various freights ranging from foodstuffs to goods and products were stuck, and some of the stranded products required special storage conditions available only at their destinations. Movement of unaccompanied freights (containers, etc.) was not stopped. However, how quickly the carriers regroup could transfer the freights stuck on the trucks to sea or air freight containers remained unclear, for the obstacles in their way were significant. Was it even possible given the trucks were tightly parked side by side in an open field inaccessible to other vehicles or reloading equipment? In any case, switching all land freights to sea or air freight transportation is impossible in a short time, as their capacities are limited. France remained resolute and stated that only drivers with a negative COVID-19 test would be allowed in. This meant that the UK were obliged to arrange mass testing very quickly, bringing in the army and fire service for the task. As a result, several thousands trucks crossed the Eurotunnel on December 25 alone. This created an additional load both on the tunnel and its servicing companies, and was undoubtedly a huge burden on the environment at both ends, owing to the large number of trucks and the huge amounts of exhaust gases that were generated. How prepared are countries for a sudden stop of deliveries? From the European perspective, the disruption of deliveries from Britain is no real disaster as there are other suppliers available. From the British perspective, on the other hand, no deliveries coming in from the continent is a real issue. Where will the necessary goods come from in the absence of long-term stocks? And how will Britain obtain goods that are not made in sufficient quantities domestically? The situation at the channel was further hampered by the timing – it's during Christmas season that trade companies generate their largest turnover. Ian Wright, chief executive of the British Food and Drink Federation (FDF)1, noted that France’s decision to block accompanied freight from the UK to the continent “can cause serious disruptions to fresh food supply.” While at the same time, the British Retail Consortium (BRC)2 stated that short-term haulage suspension would not stop retail trade, as retailers had created stocks. It seemed that nobody could predict how long the ban would last. The influential newspaper, The Guardian, estimated that around 3000 trucks carrying vegetables, flowers and plants come to the UK from Europe every day. According to The Guardian, it is the small shops, local markets, restaurants and catering companies, together which supply up to 40% of Britain's fruit and veg, that will most likely experience shortages of those foodstuffs should there be further problems. Analyzing the situation, theconversation.com3 journalists pointed out that Brexit risked just-in-time delivery systems, which were easily disrupted, and that leaving the EU, the source of a third of Britain's food, opened new risks. Brexit had not yet happened when the British first experienced what the disruptions of deliveries meant, even if only for a few days. “We were not surprised that concerns about food shortages emerged when France and over 40 countries imposed travel or truck movement bans on the UK,” theconversation.com noted. This situation has highlighted a problem which has not been openly or frequently enough discussed: whether we are prepared for a possible halting of logistics, due to COVID-19 or anything else (natural or technogenic disaster, etc.). I believe that it’s time for Britain, and others, to check their stocks of essential goods and develop plans B, C, etc. in case of any further unexpected supply disruptions. Risk assessment is more important than ever COVID-19 is still tearing the world apart. Although active vaccination campaigns have already begun, it is clear that this year we will not return to normal life as we have known it. Currently, there are no available data on the losses suffered by the UK haulers and exporters due to closure of the border with France and other countries. At the height of the crisis, haulers cautiously said that they would “account losses as precautionary measures to stop the spread of COVID-19”. But this is no long-term solution. Representatives of Nottingham-based, Baxter Freight, stated that the delays had cost the industry “millions of pounds an hour”, while director of Peterborough-based, Chiltern Distribution, Paul Jackson estimated that freight delays had cost the company “more than 5000 pounds a day”. During the crisis, the company had also looked into the possibility of redirecting freights via Belgium, but the earliest available supply corridor available was on January 4. The Scottish Seafood Association has also declared that it will demand compensation for the loss of profit from the Government, as during Christmas season their goods did not make it to their target markets in Europe. Jimmy Buchan, chief executive of the SSA, said that “people’s livelihoods and jobs are under threat”. Clearly, the events in the UK showed that every hauler must focus on potential risk analysis and crisis solutions more than ever before. Entrepreneur, Rolands Peterson, is an economic, transport and logistics expert. He pays particular attention to developments in the global economy. 1 Food and Drink Federation (FDF) 2 The British Retail Consortium (BRC) 3 https://theconversation.com/food-shortages-brexit-and-covid-19-how-britains-problems-converged-at-christmas-152412
At the end of 2020, chaos in the transport industry ensued after many European countries, including France, decided to ban all travel from the UK. The reason was the rapid outbreak of a new COVID-19 strand. Ultimately, the industry was not ready for such a turn of events. It is incredibly difficult to prepare for what came to pass: in the morning everything started as usual, and then a few hours later, all change and a 180-degree turn.
Urban, Rural and Transportation Economics (JEL R)
COVID-19 and the Effect on Female Employment and the Gender Pay Gap
However, along with impressive scientific advances, have come huge economic and societal costs, many yet to be fully counted. In particular, lockdowns - and all their attendant economic woe - are reversing decades of progress made narrowing the gender pay gap and improving working conditions for women. Largely, this is because women are overrepresented in many of the industries hardest hit by societal shutdown, namely service, retail and entertainment. It’s estimated that 40% of all employed women worldwide, that is 510 million women, work in these sectors. Paid domestic workers - those working for private households - make for an illustrative example. According to ILO statistics, nearly 55 million domestic workers, two thirds of whom are women, have reported being significantly affected by job losses or reductions in working hours and earnings in the last few months alone. In the Global South, many of the problems women have faced stem from their greater reliance on informal employment, employment which often lacks protection by legal and regulatory frameworks, and therefore has left them more vulnerable to the ongoing economic downturn. The ILO’s Global Wage Report 2020/21 provides a broader context. Referring to data collected from over 150 countries, it estimates that, excluding wage subsidies, women globally lost 8.1% of their wages in the second quarter of 2020, compared to 5.4% for men. According to the report, this discrepancy is mainly accounted for by the difference in wage loss due to reduced workings hours: ‘while the average difference in wage bill losses caused by lay-offs was smaller than 0.4 percentage points between women and men, the average wage bill loss due to the drop in workings hours was 6.9% for women compared to 4.7% for men’. Turning to the field of economics, the INOMICS Salary Survey shows that the economists’ experience is not entirely faithful to these broader trends. Of the almost 2000 participants, 38% of male economists reported that their position had been negatively affected by the pandemic, compared to 34% of their female colleagues. Unemployment rates, on the other hand, were more in sync with the ILO’s findings, 11% of female respondents reporting unemployment, compared to 7% of men since the start of the pandemic. It should be pointed out, though, that INOMICS’ data suggests unemployment was higher for female economists before the pandemic, which may account for some of the difference. Still, these numbers fail to tell the full story, and do not convey the broader impacts lockdown measures have had on the gendered division of labour. As the majority of domestic tasks disproportionately fall to women, many have found themselves increasingly stretched, burdened by homeschooling responsibilities, never-ending childcare, and countless other domestic responsibilities that ‘stay at home’ rulings have imposed. Touching on her personal experience, one female economist reported that she was ‘expected to achieve the same outcomes [by her employer] while working from home and homeschooling the children’, meaning her workload had actually increased during the pandemic. Of course, the situation is a developing one, subject to great change, and is contingent, in large part, on government responses which have varied enormously. INOMICS is keeping track, and will keep you updated, on all further developments. You can still fill out our salary survey for economists. Data filled in will be used for future reports. For our full salary report please visit our salary report page.
Less than a year on from COVID’s genome sequencing, vaccination programs are being rolled out around the world. And while the pandemic is far from over, it would appear we’re approaching its endgame, arriving there faster than anyone dared hope. The previous fastest ever vaccine to be developed was for Mumps - and that took four years.
How Has the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic Affected the Academic Sector?
But the coronavirus has also affected economic sectors differently. How the pandemic hit the private and academic sectors, for example, has been highlighted by the ongoing INOMICS Salary Survey. The full results will be released in early 2020; however, we can already begin analysing which sectors were most affected. A difference of extent Every sector has been affected in some way, whether that means people having had their hours reduced or having lost their jobs completely. For our study, we designate someone as being affected if they either lost their job, their salary or hours were reduced, a contract was not extended or planned promotion was delayed or cancelled. This doesn’t include workers who have moved to remote working but maintained the same contract. However, the private sector has been hit harder than the public. Nearly half of those working in the private sector - 47% - have had their jobs affected by the pandemic, in comparison with precisely one-third of the public sector. But it’s the academic sector which came out the best according to our survey: only 28% of those working in academia reported having had their hours reduced or having lost their jobs as a result of COVID. Specifically, just 3% of those working in academia have been made redundant. 8% have had their hours reduced, and another 8% have had their salaries reduced. This shows that the academic sector is more resilient to the pandemic than both the public and private. Perhaps this is because many teachers have had to continue teaching even if classes moved online. The Anecdotal Evidence Still, the academic sector has experienced other problems. One of our respondents wrote My promotion is postponed because my research has stalled, I cannot go for visiting research stays in universities and research institutes locally and internationally. And without research, my work has been made redundant as I now do mostly teaching, lecturing and administrative work online from home. Some in the sector also noticed inconsistencies with how the problem was being dealt with. For example, PhD students, who are required to do extensive amounts of research, were often not able to travel or even use libraries. While a pause may be frustrating but isn’t necessarily a huge problem, some were given extensions to finish their research which weren’t long enough. One student wrote that they were unable to conduct research on their dissertation for six months, but were only given a two month extension to their deadline. Others who are more involved in teaching were able to carry on, as many seminars and lectures began to be held online. This meant the majority of these people were able to carry on working, albeit under vastly different circumstances to which they were forced to adapt. Not out of the woods The pandemic is still very much ongoing, with second lockdowns coming into force in many parts of the world. Although there is talk of a vaccine and governments ostensibly know how to handle the crisis better, the struggles of those working in the academic sector are far from over. Many will remain unable to do their research or lose funding, and more may lose their positions or be forced to work fewer hours if the pandemic doesn’t ease up. Only time will tell. Complete Economics Salary Survey
Although we’ve been told time and again that the pandemic doesn’t care about who you are, in reality it hasn’t affected everyone equally. Senior Editor William Pearse has already written about how COVID-19 has been harder on those from ethnic minorities and on poorer communities in the UK.
How has the Economics Job Market Been Affected by the Coronavirus? - Salary Report Introduction
INOMICS is in a unique position to survey a broad and engaged subset of economists from a wide range of countries and at a wide variety of career stages. Based on this data, while recognising the limitations of a restricted sample, we are able to make key observations about the overall and regional state of economist salaries, about the extent of gender diversity at different career stages, and about the value of different levels of education in terms of salary later achieved. Over 1,500 economists completed the survey so far, with data collection continuing until the end of December 2020. INOMICS will release the full results of our salary survey in the first half of 2021 as a standalone report. This report will also be slightly different to those we’ve done in the past, in that we also included a section where economists could recount their anecdotal experience of the pandemic. This adds a personal touch to the report. While we work on finalising the results of the overall salary report, in the coming weeks we will discuss some of our preliminary findings from the coronavirus section. This will include commentaries on the geographical discrepancies we found in the severity of the crisis and if and how pre-existing inequalities in the economics job market have been accentuated as a result of the pandemic. Key findings of the salary survey related to the pandemic include: One third of economist jobs have been negatively affected by the Coronavirus Pandemic. This includes being made redundant, having hours or salary reduced, a contract not extended and a scheduled promotion cancelled or delayed. This does not include changes in how people work such as working or teaching from home. 6% of economists said they have lost their job because of the pandemic. Economists in the private sector have been hit harder than those in the public sector or academia. Economists in the Global South have been more affected than those in the Global North. 62% of economists in Africa and 56% in South Asia reported being negatively affected by the pandemic professionally, compared with just 23% in North America, and only 16% in Western Europe. Over half of economists (55%) feel they have not received sufficient support and training for remote working or moving to digital tools. There is a clear trend towards remote working and significant shifts for economists in work/life balance. Fortunately, the majority of economists have been able to maintain their employment in some form. Despite current difficulties, the picture is not universally bleak. Although they have had to adapt to digital working and home office, the majority of economists in the Global North at least have broadly been able to continue with their professional lives. New jobs are still being posted to INOMICS all the time and with the prospect of some form of vaccination program in 2021 there is at least the potential for a recovery in the foreseeable future. Complete Economics Salary Survey If you are an economist and have not done so already, be sure to complete the salary survey - submissions until the end of December 2020 will be counted towards the report, with any later submissions being used for next year’s survey. Additionally, don’t forget to create an account on INOMICS to receive notifications about all our upcoming publications as well as tailored job, program and conference announcements straight to your inbox.
In 2020, INOMICS once again carried out its salary survey, examining the state and health of the economics profession worldwide. As in previous years, the survey considered pay, sector, seniority, location, gender and educational background. Our 2020 survey was launched in the spring as cases of coronavirus began to increase exponentially around the world. Consequently, we added new questions related to the coronavirus pandemic to assess the effect of the crisis on economists and economics students.
Who is Responsible for a Shipping Vessel? Ownership and Scrapping
There must be a link between the state on whose behalf the vessel is sailing and the vessel's flag state. But in reality, flag registers, which do not stipulate the registration of shipping companies, benefit from convenient financial benefits and lower taxes. All this is partly regulated by private companies, 'helping' shipowners to change their flag to a more advantageous one when they want to. It also helps shipowners to obtain lower taxes and lighter regulatory burdens. According to UNCTAD data, almost 73% of the world's fleet sail under flags of the states other than the actual owner of the ship. This is why there is a great deal of dissonance between the countries where the real shipowners are located and the flag states exercising regulatory control over the international fleet. Check out our job listings The choice of the flag state where the ship makes her last voyage to be scrapped calls for special attention. In most cases, vessels sail to the beaches of South Asia instead of ship recycling facilities elsewhere. No wonder many end-of-life ships are already wearing the flags of Asian countries. In addition, most of these flags are already blacklisted in the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). These flags also usually indicate poor compliance with international maritime standards. Several of South Asia's beaches offer a 'last voyage' package, which includes quick registration and no nationality requirements to be met. Who benefits? If a ship had to be recycled in European ports in compliance with all the required environmental and toll requirements, it would be quite expensive and disadvantageous for many private companies. According to the data published by the NGO Shipbreaking Platform in 2019, 674 ocean-going vessels and offshore units were sold for scrap metal. Of these ships, 469 large tankers, bunkers, floating platforms, cargo and passenger ships were dismantled. They are mainly delivered to three coast lines: Bangladesh, India and Pakistan, accounting for almost 90% of the total gross dismantled worldwide. The platform's data show that in 2018, 744 large ocean-going vessels were sold to scrap yards, of which 518 were dismantled. In 2017, 835 large ocean-going vessels were scrapped, of which 543 were cracked on the beaches of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Statistics for the last three years show that overall figures are declining for both scrapped and cracked vessels. Bangladesh still has a favourable landfill for end-of-life ships full of toxic substances, and profit is the only decisive factor for most shipowners who sell their ships for scrapping. For developing countries at risk of poverty, these transactions are profitable. Many countries in the world that own large merchant vessels would have to pay a lot of money for scrapping, as they would have to comply with international environmental pollution requirements and other conditions. In developing countries, though, these ships are dismantled on local beaches without complying with environmental pollution regulations or worker safety requirements. Every year these ship breaking centres employ workers without specific knowledge, equipment and safety standards, even children. Local authorities turn a blind eye to the number of people injured and killed each year who work in ship-breaking yards. Old shipowners do not have to worry about this and do not have to comply with strict international agreements. Last year, at least 30 workers were killed and even more seriously injured in ship breaking work. These ship-recycling facilities claim that the work there is safe, but they are not included in the list of EU approved ship-recycling facilities. International regulations that seek to improve ship recycling practices should fall outside the jurisdiction of the flag state. A lack of political will at international level has so far prevented shipowners from being held liable for ship recycling, but the solution must be global. Policymakers should take effective measures to redirect ships to places approved by the EU. The fact that old ships are registered under flags that are known to have poor implementation of international maritime law raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of such legislation, which is based solely on the jurisdiction of the flag state. However, it should be borne in mind that the EU Ship Recycling Regulation has been applicable since 1 January 2019 and requires EU-flagged vessels to be recycled in one of the currently approved facilities in the world, included in the EU list. There are 41 such facilities on the list. These facilities meet high standards of environmental protection and worker safety, ensuring sustainability for ship breaking yards.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that the primary responsibility for vessels lies with the flag state of the vessel. Consequently, this means that each merchant vessel must be registered under the flag of a specific state. The flag state of the vessel is responsible for the inspection of the vessel and compliance with safety, pollution prevention, crew certification and international standards.
Halloween is probably one of the best occasions to demonstrate how seriously you take yourself (or not!) and how far your creativity can go to show it. If you think that Halloween is below your intellectual level, well, they say that even Paul Krugman threw one economics-themed party, where “two guests came as Asian tigers, several came as hedge funds, one woman came as capital, dressed as a column..." Browse our PhD listings for more opportunities In keeping with the season, we have put together a short list of ideas, collected from various econ-related source (like a Halloween Edition from Economists Do It With Models), which may be useful if you are attending a Halloween party full of like-minded economists. 1. EconoTroll Take a look at this well-known post from Noah Smith about EconoTrolls and you may be surprised by the amount of ideas for Halloween costumes. In his witty blog post from last year, not only has Noah categorized all possible species of trolls in the econ blogosphere, but also explicitly illustrated them. Don’t miss out on the comments either. 2. Your favourite “evil” economist It might sound easy, but creating a good costume of a real person is an art that is hard to master. Although anyone can buy a mask of Ben Bernanke, only a few would be able to depict his persona in an allegoric way. To succeed: think of the most “infamous” policies or just a tiny character detail anyone would recognize about that person and play around them. 3. Economics theory & concepts There is no need to be creative if the great thinkers have already done it for you. Any economics textbook has a whole host of ideas for Halloween costumes – just read all the definitions literally. Invisible hand, indifference curve, price elasticity, budget constraint … it is a list without end. 4. Financial crisis related Financial crisis has become a buzzword, referred to by individuals regardless of profession and status. So if your Halloween party-mates happen to come from outside of the economics community, costumes related to financial crises might be the only ones that have a chance of being understood: just dress-up like an investment banker and add horns, or dress yourself up as a bubble. 5. Economics costumes for couples Although some might argue that a couple is a rare phenomenon among economists, ideas for Demand & Supply or Keynes vs Hayek could make it worth making an effort to find at least a temporary partner. There's also the classic 'bear and bull' duel Halloween costume, also financial crisis related, and relatively easy (bear and bull costumes aren't too difficult to come by). 6. An Econometrician An idea from one of the many anonymous users from econjobrumours: “Find a friend who dressed up as a statistician, blatantly copy his/her costume, get twice as much candy”. 7. The Wolf of Wall Street How do you make yourself look like Leonardo DiCaprio? Actually, you don't have to develop an inferiority complex by attempting this. A much easier way to do this is wear a suit, shove fistfuls of fake money (or real money, if you're into extravagant displays of wealth) into your pockets, and throw a wolf mask on top. Very easily done. 8. An Economist At the end of the day, is there a need for a costume at all? Just look at the pictures from your last academic conference and copy a look of a random audience member.
In keeping with the season, we have put together a short list of ideas, collected from various economics-related source, which may be useful if you are attending a Halloween party full of like-minded economists.
Yes, because economic sanctions provide an alternative to military action One of the primary arguments for economics as a method of preventing war is that it provides alternative mechanisms for nation states to respond to each other without necessitating military involvement. Both nation-states and international bodies such as the UN have tools for censuring other nations that are behaving dangerously, without having to engage military tactics as a first step. For example, if a nation is behaving aggressively towards its neighbours and threatening to destabilize an area, then other nations can impose economic sanctions as a first step rather than sending in troops straight away. Economic sanctions can include trade barriers, higher tariffs, or restrictions on financial transactions. In more serious cases, an embargo or trade ban can prevent trade between the nations entirely. The nation which is the subject of the sanctions will certainly experience a drop in trade, which will negatively impact their growth and development. Additionally, they may come to be seen as a pariah on the international stage. For these reasons, a nation may decide to curb its aggressive behaviour in order for sanctions to be lifted, all without risking the loss of life or military operations. Yes, because global economic interdependence necessitates peace Connected to the use of economic sanctions is the concept of economic interdependence. The idea is that as our world becomes increasingly globalized, nations rely on each other more and more. States rely on each other even for essential tasks like food production, where large quantities of basic foodstuffs may be imported from other locations around the globe. Certainly, this is true in business, when huge multinational corporations have offices or points along their supply chain in many different countries. This is termed economic interdependence. This means that for both the political leaders of nations and for many business people living within the state, maintaining a good relationship with other states is essential for the continued well-being of the state and its businesses. If a nation needs the support of another nation, either to buy or sell goods to them, then they are incentivised to maintain a positive and peaceful relationship, and to find answers to conflicts that do not involve war. Thomas Friedman termed this the Dell theory: “No two countries that are both part of a major global supply chain, like Dell’s, will ever fight a war against each other as long as they are both part of the same global supply chain". Yes, because free trade bolsters peace and improves human rights Finally, there is a moral argument that free markets support peace and promote human rights. The idea is this: take a country with a strong economy but a dubious humans rights record, such as China. If people in developed Western nations want to improve the well-being of people in China, then they need to maintain a political connection with them. If countries decided that they would stop trading with China because of its human rights abuses, then not only would they likely harm Chinese workers, but also the Chinese government would have no incentive to improve their human rights record. In order to influence the behaviour of another nation, you need free trade with them to use as a bargaining chip. The second part of this argument states that human rights are best improved by modelling them for other countries. In order to improve human rights, nations have to interact with each other and show how a nation can progress and thrive without human rights abuses. It is therefore essential for nations to interact with each other through trade, because this is how human rights will eventually be improved globally. However, there are also arguments to the contrary: No, because war drives economies An argument against the above goes as follows: economics cannot prevent war, because economic well-being is itself supported and driven by war. In wartime, a nation's manufacturing and infrastructure are increased in order to build military structures and weapons and to mobilize those elements around and beyond the state. This increase in manufacturing leads to lower unemployment, increased efficiency, more production, and therefore a stronger and growing economy. In the end, wars can be seen as “necessary” in that they provide justification for economic growth. George Orwell popularized the concept of perpetual war, in which wars are fought endlessly not because of the actions of other states, but to preserve order within a state: “[War] eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs... The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.” Under this view, economics can never prevent war because war is such an effective economic driver. No, because economic sanctions eventually lead to military actions Another argument can be marshalled against the use of economic sanctions to prevent war, and that is that such sanctions are either ineffective enough to be ignored, or effective enough to harm the people of the target nation – and in this case, military actions are often not far behind. An economic sanction such as a blockade can help cut off supplies to a nation and impress upon that nation the displeasure of another. But when this blockade threatens the stability of the nation, then military action can be justified in response. For example, consider the Cuban Missile Crisis. The partial blockade of Cuba in 1962 was established by the US to prevent Soviet missiles from being moved to Cuba where they would be close to US soil. But this blockade did not alleviate tensions between the US and the Soviet Union, it increased them. Not only this, but it also pulled other nations into the conflict and obliged them to choose a side. Although eventually an agreement was reached between the US and Soviet Union, the blockade came extremely close to kicking off a third world war. Similarly, those convinced that, unlike war, economic sanctions are not harmful to the well-being of citizens should consider the blockade of the Gaza Strip that has been ongoing since 2007. The situation within Gaza is horrendous, with water that is undrinkable, not enough food to go around, a lack of fuel, regular power cuts, and the destruction of trade and industry. It would be hard to argue that economic sanctions are a more humane alternative to war when they cause such suffering. No, because history demonstrates otherwise Regarding the value of economic interdependence in an increasingly globalized society, one need only look to history to see how effective this has been at stopping war in the past. The pre-WW1 period was marked by a strong internationalisation of trade and business, with economic interdependence a key feature of the European landscape in particular. The widespread use of the gold standard made trade between nations easy, and therefore common. But this interdependence utterly failed to stop the first world war. If interdependence failed to keep the peace then, what reason is there to believe it will work now? Some writers have even argued that economic interdependence creates war by bringing powerful nations into contact with each other. As Kenneth Waltz put it, “It is impossible to get a war going unless the potential participants are somehow linked.” When states are dependent on each other, especially for essentials like food, this is perceived as a vulnerability. States, therefore, seek to control each other in increasingly severe ways as a response to this perceived vulnerability, and are more likely to end up in a situation of war. Conclusion Clearly, there are strong arguments both in favour and against economics as a method of preventing war. The difficulty is in untangling the particular effects of economic policies - the consequences can often be far-reaching, and in some cases unforeseen. The historical context, potential for a military response, and the overall state of global politics must also be taken into consideration - it really is a complex matter.
Is economics a useful tool for maintaining peace? Can nations use economic policies to avoid war? With globalization an established fact of modern politics, this question is more important than ever. In this piece, we'll consider arguments both for and against.
Alarming Trend due to COVID-19 – Maritime Piracy on the Rise
It is more difficult for poorer countries to fight piracy, as the global pandemic has further weakened their economies. In 2019, it seemed to everyone that there was a decline in maritime piracy, with the lowest number of attacks in the world in 25 years. However, this year showed the opposite. The global pandemic did not weaken the occupation, but allowed it to flourish again. This, in turn, opened up new opportunities for maritime piracy. Due to restrictions, low trade and diseases, there are fewer crew members on board. Reduced global consumer spending means a drop in trade, which gives companies less revenue to provide greater protection on board ships, such as armaments or other equipment against attacks. As a result, ships are likely to become an easier target for sea pirates. Check out our job listings Profile of a pirate from our century Nowadays, pirates do not sail with big ships, do not wear tricorn hats like in movies and do not fly pirate flags. Modern sea pirates travel in small high-speed motorboats. Their goal is to stop quickly and rob a slower ship. Pirates are usually well-armed with firearms. The pirates aim to hijack parts, oil, crew members' personal valuables, and communication equipment - anything that can later be sold on the black market for money. In more severe cases, pirates take the ship's crew hostage for later ransom. One third of pirate attacks take place on large container ships and tankers. This type of attack is usually planned in advance, but ships are observed and tracked. One of the reasons for robbery is that criminals need resources and weapons for their fights on land, which is why ships passing by or nearby are robbed. Which countries are affected? A lot of maritime piracy affects poor countries with weak economies, weak leaders, poverty and official corruption. These include South America, Venezuela, Brazil, West Africa, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Guinea, etc. These countries are also experiencing a particularly high outbreak of COVID-19, which is why the government is now focusing more on what is happening on land, while forgetting about the situation at sea. Ecuador, for example, is not a pirate's favourite place at sea, but armed robbers regularly attack ships in and around the port of Guayaquil. It is the seventh busiest port in Latin America, handling most of Ecuador's agricultural and industrial imports and exports. Cases of piracy have also doubled across Asia, with 50 incidents in the region in the first half of the year, compared with 25 in the same period in 2019. The Singapore Strait, one of the world's busiest commercial routes, has experienced 16 incidents between January and June. The number of attacks has also increased in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB) reports that a total of 77 seafarers have been taken hostage or abducted for ransom since January. This highlights, for example, the Gulf of Guinea near West Africa, which accounts for just over 90% of all hijackings in the world. Meanwhile, in 2008, the large area of the Gulf of Aden off the coast of East Africa became the most dangerous place in the world due to pirate attacks. Somali pirates regularly hijacked large commercial ships for five years. The situation was stabilized by 2019, but there is no longer any certainty as to how things can change in the near future. In Southeast Asia, better and more coordinated air and maritime surveillance has reduced the threat of piracy through better coordination between national governments. As a result of these efforts, the number of attacks and attempts in the world has dropped significantly over the last decade, from almost 450 incidents in 2010 to less than 165 incidents in 2019, which has been the lowest number of actual attacks and attempts since 1994. Ship hijacking, which is the most serious and visible form of maritime piracy, has also decreased since 2010. But already this year, about 200 pirate attacks have been registered in the world, drawing many ship-owners’ attention. It is possible to follow the cases of maritime piracy attacks and the live piracy map on the website of the IMB Piracy Reporting Centre.
Speaking of current issues under the influence of COVID-19, events on the water, or sea, which is another parallel world with its written and unwritten laws, are somewhat undeservedly forgotten. Looking at the latest data, we need to talk about a very worrying trend over the last year. Although global maritime piracy is not as high as between 2009 and 2012, in 2020 the number of pirate attacks and attempts has increased by 24% compared to 2019.
Which countries own the world's largest container ships?
Leader – Panama According to the available global data, Panama currently has the largest number of ships with a capacity of more than 20,000 TEU, with at least 20 such ships, and about 10 more ships with a capacity of up to 20,000 TEU. This is quite a triumph in the international container shipping arena. Why is that? Panama is a transcontinental country in Central and South America. The Panama Canal is an economically important geographical location for the country, generating millions of dollars in tolls for the national economy and providing huge employment, as well as a significant share of Panama's GDP. Its economy has grown steadily over the past decade, making Panama the country with the highest GDP per capita in the region. The transfer of the canal and military facilities to the United States has led to major construction projects. The expansion of the Panama Canal, the large foreign and domestic investment and its strong logistics industry make sea freight to Panama a safe investment, as it is generally assessed by risk rating agencies. In total, Panama has five seaport areas: Panamas City, Manzanillo, Balboa, Colon, and Cristobal. These seaports export and import $16,000 and $17,000 million, which is the annual value of Panama's foreign trade. Due to its central geographic location, Panama's economy is mainly based on a well-developed service sector, in particular trade and tourism, which are important and growing sectors. Therefore, Panama is considered a high-income country. In addition, in politics, Panama is one of the founders of the United Nations and other international organizations such as the OAS, LAIA, G77, WHO and NAM. The world's largest container ships are also owned by Hong Kong and Denmark Hong Kong is the next largest container ship leader in the world. At least 17 of the world's largest container ships are owned by Hong Kong, but both Hong Kong and China are among the shipping operators of these ships. Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and has become one of the world's most important financial centres and trading ports. Hong Kong is also the world's tenth largest exporter and ninth largest importer. The economy of Hong Kong is a highly developed free-market economy characterized by low taxation, almost-free port trade and a well-established international financial market. The strengths of the Hong Kong economy are a stable banking system, almost no public debt, a strong legal system and extensive foreign exchange reserves. At the end of the 20th century, Hong Kong was the seventh largest port in the world. Hong Kong is also a full member of the World Trade Organization and owns the largest container port complex in Asia. Denmark, with at least 11 such container ships, is the third leading country in the world with the largest container ships. Not only do they belong to Denmark, but they are also operated by Danish companies. Denmark is an example of the Nordic model: its economy is modern, and the country boasts a high standard of living, well-developed public services and a high dependence on foreign trade. It is not yet possible to judge whether these leadership positions among countries could change in the near future for large container ship owners. However, given the economic stability of these countries and the well-developed freight industry, these positions are likely to remain for a long time.
According to the International Chamber of Shipping, more than 50,000 container ships are currently active in the oceans. These are large vessels that carry cargo in closed containers. The capacity of a container ship is measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU), while a vessel with a capacity of more than 20,000 TEU is defined as a very large container ship.
Although referencing football – specifically, the English variety - the sentiment was also thought applicable to sport more generally. Because eye-catching qualities like creativity and flair are difficult to quantify, the consensus was that judgement of sporting prowess was best left to those well-versed in said sport - in the majority of cases, former players. Certainly, the very notion that statisticians had anything to contribute in terms of team selection, acquisition, or even strategy was given little consideration. Statistical Analysis, the Roots In the UK, this began to change in the 1990s, when - as documented in the New Statesmen - undergrads at Lancaster University analysed, in-depth, goal-scoring probability in a hypothetical football match. While rudimentary in its technique, the analysis attracted the attention of more senior statisticians, namely Stuart Coles, who then expanded on the students' findings. His resultant work was to have far-reaching consequences. Across the pond, a similar development was already underway. This one, however, was to be even more transformative, radically altering the way certain sports, particularly baseball, were conceived. Owing to its easily isolated ‘one-on-one’ contests - pitcher v batter, for example - baseball lends itself well to statistical analysis. Indeed, the use of sabermetrics, ‘the empirical statistical analysis of baseball’, has been employed in some capacity ever since the sport was first professionalised. Its current use, though, both its universality and sophisticated nature, has its roots in Billy Beane’s tenure as General Manager (GM) of the Oakland Athletics, and his now much-famed ‘Moneyball Effect’. The 'Moneyball' Effect As GM of the (relatively) cash-strapped Oakland A’s, Beane’s innovative approach was the perfect manifestation of necessity being the mother of invention. With no way to meet compete with the spending power of their deep-pocketed rivals, Beane adopted an analytical, ‘sabermetric’ approach when planning the assembly of his squad, bringing into his management team a number of statisticians for the purpose. Through rigorous and incredibly time-consuming analysis, the team learnt that ‘stolen bases’, ‘runs batted in’, and ‘batting averages’ – for years the yardsticks by which a player’s ability was measured - were not necessarily the best gauges of overall effectiveness. Rather, it was not-so-glamorous ‘on-base percentage’ and ‘slugging percentage’ that were more accurate indicators of players’ potential offensive success. Historically, scouts overlooked these traits in favour of speed and contact, meaning their market price was undervalued, and players possessing said traits could thus be acquired on the cheap. It was following these new principles, heeding the word of his statisticians that Beane assembled his team. The result dismayed many, for on paper, the newly formed roster was a motley crew of old, in some cases injured, has-beens. Their appearance alone drew ire from the purists already angered by the cold scientific approach. How could a team of such visible misfits go onto success? Well, initially they didn’t. The Athletics fared so poorly during the first part of the season - enduring at one stage a 5-16 streak - that many were quick to declare the method a failure. And yet, as many will know through its dramatisation in the film ‘Moneyball’, their fortunes reversed, the A’s eventually winning the American League West, breaking the long-standing record of 19 consecutive victories in the process. The Spread Around the world, these developments did not go unnoticed. The sporting community watched keenly as baseball laid down the statistical blueprint for success. It was not long before comparable models were incorporated into the management systems of football teams, both American and English, Ice Hockey, Basketball, and many others. One of the highest profile converts was American football coach Bill Belichick. Although denouncing its use publically (to guard his methods), the New England Patriots boss had long held ‘a Moneyball sort of attitude’. In fact, the whole management team at the Patriots was imbued with a Moneyball-esque philosophy. From the owner Robert Kraft, described as the ‘biggest believer in data and analytics’, to Belichick's most trusted advisor Ernie Adams, the Patriots’ football research director and previous bonds trader, most were willing converts. Even Belichick himself holds a degree in economics. Such expertise, NBC has commented, is easily read into the team’s recruitment which is highly suggestive of a sophisticated understanding of ‘hyperbolic discounting’ - the result, thus far, has been the acquisition of high-quality players at bargain prices. On the field this has led to five Super Bowl triumphs - it seems to be working. Professional basketball teams were also quick to jump on the bandwagon, compiling huge databases of information from games that were then used in the offseason to inform decisions regarding contracts and free-agent signings. Many a romantic will be turned off by the use of intensive, analytical thinking almost instinctively. The deployment of cold, emotionless figures to make sense of sport, something that by nature is highly dynamic, emotional, and capricious, just doesn't sit right. Such a mindset, though, ignores the creative latitude many of these models allow, particularly in more fluid games like English football and basketball, where a value judgement must still be made as to which parts of the game are prioritised. But in the End... Obviously, it will never be possible to reduce human behaviour to a simple formula - no matter how badly the betting enthusiast may wish. Yet, what analysts have proven, through the employment of statistical models, is their ability to get teams punching above their weight - a weight normally dictated by financial restrictions. That said, the advantage gained, history has shown, can often be short-lived. As the A’s experienced, the problem was that as soon as these models gained credibility, they were quickly adapted, and in some cases, bettered by other teams. Just two years after the A's experiment, the Boston Red Sox also adopted a sabermetrics model to aid recruitment. The result? They won the 2004 World Series, their first since 1918.
‘Chance dominates the game’ concluded C. Reep and B. Benjamin in their 1968 study ‘Skill and Chance in Association Football’ - and not without consequence. Until recently, this statement stood as received wisdom, the phrase deemed self-evident, its veracity left unquestioned. Predictions based on statistics were a folly they said, the game was ‘too fluid, too unpredictable’.
Inventory of hazardous substances in container vessels: another necessary but bureaucratic burden for carriers
In addition, as early as the end of this year, from 31 December 2020, in accordance with the European Union Ship Recycling Regulations (EUSRR), ships of 500 gross tonnage and upwards with the EU member state flag and all other ships, regardless of country of origin, will be required to keep an inventory of hazardous substances and materials (IHM) when visiting an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) port. New European ships and EU-flagged ships which are being dismantled must have this list of hazardous materials (IHM), inspected by the relevant administration or authority, indicating the location and approximate quantity of these materials. Check out our engineering jobs listings COVID-19 is stirring things up However, as a result of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, many ship-owners may not be able to complete the required Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM) before the deadline. To this end the British and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) recommends that its members firstly develop an IHM on older ships. Older ships are usually recycled more quickly, and such planning will show that ship-owners are proactive in meeting the requirements of the new EU regulations. In addition, as members of BIMCO, www.strategies.lv has already written to the European Commission and asked for favourable conditions for all parties concerned regarding the deadlines for shipping companies to complete the IHM process while dealing with COVID-19 limitations and outages. The letter also includes a set of industry guidelines on compliance with EU ship recycling regulations and the establishment of an inventory of hazardous materials, which BIMCO members are encouraged to use. It is now known that the new regulation will affect approximately 137 (58%) of the 236 BIMCO member vessels. Only 33 ships have completed their work on this, while the rest are in various stages of development in an attempt to meet these new requirements. www.strategies.lv is propounding streamlining of the system, but it also wants it to be a reasonably achievable condition for all market participants and for this new bureaucratic burden not to further restrict companies which are already hit by the pandemic.
The European Union (EU) is working very hard to make ship recycling greener and safer in the future. It is quite clear that the dismantling of ships in many parts of South Asia in its current state is not acceptable, either from an environmental or a social point of view. Ship recycling regulations, adopted seven years ago, are finally gathering pace now. In particular, the regulation firstly prohibits or restricts the installation and use of hazardous materials such as asbestos or ozone depleting substances on board ships.
Freight container market needs a two-year recovery period
At first, everyone thought that this was just a problem for China: a significant reduction in manpower, the closure of factories and shipyards, but, as the events unfolded, it was already clear that this was a global crisis. Various restrictions have led to labor shortages in all segments of China's shipping industry, which in turn has affected trade, and this decline is the sharpest in 16 years. China is a major player in the international trade chain, with the most active and important shipping container ports in the world. Although the country was the first to be hit by the coronavirus, it is one of the first to embark on a recovery path, while the rest of the world is still overcome by uncertainty and chaos about the future scenario. Check out our engineering jobs listings Surplus cargo - a major problem in the shipping industry As a result of the economic consequences of the coronavirus, the volume of cargo imported into the USA also decreased significantly - by 12.5%. These retail figures sharply reflect the extent to which domestic consumption of goods has declined, but it will take a long time to recover to pre-coronavirus levels. The United States has also imposed strict restrictions on ships entering Chinese ports by imposing strict crew and ship surveillance. According to the coast guard guidelines, the ship's crew is currently required to have a 14 day quarantine period. These requirements are causing a significant drop in trading activity, which is halting the progress of industry processes. Another trend that is exacerbating the transport market as a whole is the increase in demand for small vessels, while large vessels are experiencing a sharp drop in chartering tariffs on the main long-haul routes with the most delays. With container vessels at a standstill, a new record of -2.65 million TEU was reached in the spring of this year, driven by the transport of semi-empty or virtually empty vessels. Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) expects the idle fleet to remain at around 10% for the remaining year, which is also in line with the World Trade Organisation's optimistic scenario of a 10% reduction in container traffic demand in 2020. Given that most international cargo ships are quarantined, surplus cargo will create additional problems for freight operators. In some cases, due to increased congestion in ports, containers are sent back to the country of origin because there are countries that avoid Chinese shipments. China is a major importer of crude oil, so the slowdown in economic activity in China is certainly having a negative effect on demand for crude oil tankers. This is also noted in the market research Vessels Value data, which this year showed a sharp drop in demand for Chinese crude oil tankers. From an average of 3.4 billion ton miles per day in 2019 to almost zero today. However, it should be noted that fluctuations in fuel prices have led to a direct reduction in shipping costs for a number of operators. Namely, the demand for oil tankers is currently increasing, as the "collapse" of The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC + Alliance) led to a 30% drop in oil prices and a possible price war between the world leaders. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic is expected to severely damage oil demand 2020, which will have a negative impact on oil transportation rates in the coming months. Demand for container transport will not recover in the short term Experts already estimate that the demand for container transport will not recover in the short term, it will take at least two years. As the virus continues to spread like wildfire, container shipping is increasingly becoming the epicenter of the global shipping industry crisis. The sale of containerized consumer goods has been hit hardest by various restrictive measures and consumer habits, so the crisis could last long enough. The current scenario, which revolves around the coronavirus, has caused a number of setbacks in the maritime and shipping sectors, and it is still quite difficult to predict the future of the shipping industry. If COVID-19 restrictive measures are reviewed at the level of policy makers, this will stabilize the situation and make it more predictable.
The COVID-19 crisis has hit hard enough and continues to affect the global container shipping market. The current economic situation does not give much hope for a short-term recovery of this market. Demand for container shipments has fallen sharply, especially as China closed much of its plants in February 2020. The volume of production or cargo to be exported to other countries plummeted. The situation was exacerbated by a number of restrictions and requirements in almost every industry and in the world's ports.
Depression and Anxiety on the University Campus
Scarier than all this, though, is the real truth: that it’s not just college students, but all young people. Vindication for this comes from the conclusions of a psychiatric report from 2008 which found young people of student age but who don’t attend college to be equally as likely to suffer from some kind of psychiatric disorder as their college-going counterparts. Non-college attending individuals were more likely to self-medicate with drugs, whereas college students were at a higher risk of having some kind of alcohol misuse disorder. Among the initial sample of over 43,000 respondents, nearly one-half met the criteria for a psychiatric disorder. It’s glaringly obvious there’s a mental health crisis among young people. But why? Money, drugs, and TLC The reasons for this crisis are manifold and complex. The aforementioned 2008 study found that among both young adults of college-going age and the general population as a whole, loss of social support was a heavily contributing element in an increase in risk for psychiatric disorders. Another obvious explanation specific to university-goers could be the pressures students are put under to study long and hard and perform well, troubles mirrored among the non-student population in job insecurity, financial worries and the stress of the 9 to 5. Students are expected to deal not only with their studies, but also the stresses of moving away from home, living somewhere new, being thrust into a community of total strangers, and managing their own finances, all similar worries for young people attempting to purchase their first property and find a decent job. Moreover, n places like the United Kingdom and America, university fees are preposterously high, meaning many students live under financial strain and work part-time jobs – another pressure. But these aren’t the only factors. Said stresses have changed little over time; half a century ago, students were still under pressure to perform well in their exams in an unfamiliar, potentially lonely environment. The financial burden was perhaps less, but – and without taking away its obvious impact – this can’t be used to explain the huge increase in disorders. One potential factor is the opening up of the conversation around mental health: students are more willing to talk about their struggles, so levels of diagnosis are higher, and therefore it appears there is an epidemic. But even this doesn't explain away the numbers. Even taking into account potential disparities in statistics, university campuses across the world are nonetheless experiencing a proportional upsurge in students who need help. Perhaps the most important factor which has bee neglected is lifestyle. The stress of university can affect sleeping patterns, and getting enough sleep has been shown to be essential in staving off depression. Many students eat poorly, don’t exercise as much as they should, and often drink copious amounts, whether due to the university lifestyle in general or as a coping mechanism. Some experiment with drugs, which can become a crux, and a large number of students report feeling isolated and alone. Those who have difficulty making friends may be disproportionately affected. All of these are important contributing factors to mental illnesses. Recent studies from, among others, Dr Steve Ilardi, have shown, for example, that Omega-3 is a critical fatty acid in combating depression, and having a stable social circle and frequent social contact can work wonders. Being stuck inside all day studying at the computer doesn’t help either, as getting enough sunlight is an often-overlooked contributor to mental health difficulties. Dr Ilardi recommends a programme which involves regular exercise, a tight-knit social circle, adequate Omega-3 and sufficient sleep every night. The trials have a 90% success rate (success being judged on patients not going into remission after 12 month). However, his programme potentially difficult to implement when one considers the stresses - and pressures - of university life. Universities themselves have a responsibility to deal with this problem, not just students. Unfortunately, these institutions are totally unprepared to deal with the problem. System failure The quality and crucially the availability of mental health care varies from university to university - but in general, it is inadequate. A survey at the University of California, San Francisco, suggested that of the 24% of students who were depressed, only 22% used mental health counselling services. Three of the main reasons students gave for not using services were cost at 28%, lack of confidentiality at 37%, and at the top of the list a lack of time, with nearly half – 48% – of students giving it as a reason not to attend. These results suggest not only that the mental health care systems in place aren't affordable for regular students, but also that the university system itself, at a foundational level, doesn't encourage either open dialogue nor space for students to look after their mental health. This space needs to open up immediately, though. The discourse around mental health – specifically, the stigma that still surrounds it – is changing, but not fast enough. A study from 2009 in Medical Care Research and Review conducted on American campuses found that how students felt they were judged by their peers did not play a significant role in whether or not they sought help; their own personal feelings towards themselves were far more important. And these personal feelings of guilt, shame, whatever they may be, which caused people to close themselves off and feel uncomfortable talking about their mental health, were highly dependent on identity. Certain groups were far more at risk of stigmatising themselves than others: namely, younger, Asian, international, and/or more religious men, and predominantly those from poorer families. In the United Kingdom, men are just as likely to be depressed as women, but far less likely to seek help, and a far worse statistic highlights this point: suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 45, and men account for three-quarters of suicides in the United Kingdom. These stats will only get worse - and certain people will suffer more than others - if these spaces on campuses don't open up for this dialogue to take place. Chemical solutions Put in these terms, the problem seems insurmountable; fixing our youth is going to require time, money, and compassion on the behalf of the government, the health care system and universities, as well as us rethinking the way we want to live our lives. Fortunately, some are trying to come up with solutions before the university level. In New York, the Mental Health Association has launched an online training program to ‘help educators better prepare in supporting student mental health’. The program aims to aid teachers in their understanding of the signs and symptoms of mental health, as well as how it can affect youth development. New York State enacted a law in 2018 that made some form of mental health education mandatory in schools. Head over to India, and the same conversation is opening up, with positive effects. In Mangaluru, the District Mental Health team has begun organising camps to create awareness among teachers and parents of mental health issues, and has implemented a hotline system which students can call if they need counselling. Dr Ratnakar of the District Mental Health team says ‘the primary objective of the mission is to unearth the fear that is instilled in... young minds’ – in other words, to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness. These types of programs are especially effective as they try to mitigate the problem at an early age – during the school year. There is always the risk, however, that these types of top-down impositions can be crudely structured and organised, of low quality, even. Regardless, it’s a step in the right direction. At the university level, there are necessary steps to be taken to mitigate the fallout of this epidemic. Universities should be promoting lifestyles that foster both physical and mental health, the two going hand in hand as they do. This means providing adequate facilities for both free and low-cost sports, as well as doing things like not allowing students to stay in the library all night in order to encourage healthy sleeping habits. Moreover, an environment in which talking about mental health is encouraged should be a priority. Aside from this, universities must work with healthcare providers to ensure counselling and support led by trained professionals are available for students whenever they need it. This would shorten waiting lists and guarantee the correct therapeutic route for the person in need. Equally as important, these services need to be properly publicised. Too often, student support services aren’t advertised to students, meaning they don’t take advantage of the services which could help them through their studies and, in more serious cases, save their life. This is especially true for emergency services for those close to mental breakdown or contemplating taking their own life – these services are essential and cannot be spared. There’s a more serious issue that needs to be tackled if we are are to mitigate this problem, and it comes back to Dr Ilardi’s research. The modern lifestyle – as he puts it, our ‘sedentary, indoor, sleep-deprived, socially-isolated, fast-food-laden, frenetic’ modern life – is one conducive to mental illnesses, particularly depression. If we want to decrease the likelihood that people will experience mental illness, this needs to change. This isn’t just about providing healthcare and talking therapy for students; it’s about a fundamental shift in the way we interact with the world around us, the things we do to our bodies, and the way we live our lives. Until we do this, until we make this central structural change, rates of depression will continue to climb, irrespective of how many psychologists are available for weekly sit downs and how destigmatised the conversation becomes. The problem goes deeper than just discourse: it reaches right down into our bodies, the food we put in them, the people we interact with; in other words, into our very chemistry. If you’re affected by mental illness or psychiatric problems, whatever they may be, it’s essential to talk to a GP or a mental health professional. If you're contemplating suicide, most countries have a suicide help line. The UK number for Samaritans is 116 123 and the US National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is 1-800-273-8255.
In recent years, an epidemic has enveloped university campuses across the world - and it's not the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Compared to any other generation of college students in history, current students experience more mental health issues than ever before. Some reports suggest that 35% of freshers in American universities experience anxiety disorders - and this percentage is compounded by the fact that, terrifyingly, nearly 10% of students have considered suicide in the previous twelve months. Since the 1950s, rates of suicides on American campuses have tripled, and it’s now the second most common cause of death among students. In the United Kingdom alone, a student commits suicide every four days.
Download the INOMICS Handbook With 11 years left to 2030, there is a sense of urgency and a recognition that innovative approaches are necessary to overcome the challenges IsDB Member Countries face in reaching the SDGs. This is where The Lives and Livelihoods Fund (LLF) comes in. Launched in 2016, the LLF is the product of a unique partnership model that provides highly concessional financing up to US$2.5 billion. It does so by combining the ordinary financing of the IsDB with donated grants from the King Salman Humanitarian Aid and Relief Centre (KSRelief) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Qatar Fund for Development (QFFD), the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development (ADFD), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Islamic Solidarity Fund for Development (ISFD), and the UK’s Department for International Development. Recipient low-income member countries pay back the IsDB while donors indirectly cover the markup rate under IsDB financing, in doing so dramatically reducing the cost of borrowing. The LLF, a bonded partnership compact between some of the biggest development organizations in the Gulf, targets the key drivers of poverty in the most marginalized Muslim populations. In particular, it seeks to address critical needs in health (specifically, primary healthcare & infectious disease control) agriculture (smallholder farmers’ production & productivity), and basic infrastructure. The development impact of LLF investments is maximized further by combining technical support from international donors, innovative implementation models involving the private sector, and a special Project Preparation and Implementation Facility (PPIF). The PPIF is devoted to increasing the relevance, readiness and results (the 3Rs) of projects eligible for LLF funding, measuring them against a refined criteria for selection, and thus laying the foundations from which millions of lives can be saved and livelihoods secured. Thanks to the relentless efforts of the LLF Management Unit, in close collaboration with relevant IsDB entities and regional hubs, the Fund has approved projects worth over US$1.16 billion to a total of 19 different countries - and disbursements are only increasing. With respect to health, the LLF has provided funding designed to improve the ability of IsDB member countries to eradicate infectious diseases. Notable examples include a US$100 million approved project in Pakistan to fight polio, and a US$32 million project in Senegal to eliminate malaria for good, both of which were in partnership with UNICEF and the Global Fund. Freeing these countries from such maladies allows their respective workforces to better contribute to economic development. The LLF also provides guidelines as to how recipient countries can provide better public healthcare to their populations. Cameroon, for instance, has received US$30 million of LLF funding for improving its healthcare system, while Djibouti was awarded a US$20 million of concessional financing to help improve its mother and child healthcare management. And the LLF isn’t neglecting its responsibility to help tackle the COVID-19 outbreak, either. It will be redistributing certain existing health investments to make sure essential services can continue running, as well as increasing them to help with the response to and recovery from the virus. Moreover, the LLF will invest in strengthening the agriculture sector in at-risk countries to ward off the potential collapse of this industry. COVID-19 affects us all, and the LLF will be playing its part to stop it. In a joint effort with reputable development actors such as the African Development Bank (AfDB), BADEA, and IFAD, the LFF is revolutionizing the traditional way of feeding vulnerable populations. It does so by adopting an approach that addresses both nutrition and production, while also taking into account the value chain at a regional level, in order to maximize synergies between the private and public sector to achieve economies of scale. It was with this method that, in 2016, the LLF approved a US$90 million livestock value chain development project that covered Burkina Faso, Mali and Senegal. In 2016 and again in 2018, the Regional Rice Value Chain Development Program amounting to more than US$100 million and covering The Gambia, Guinea, Niger, Sierra Leone and Senegal was also announced. These investments contributed to helping recipient governments reduce their food self-sufficiency deficit, boost their livestock and agriculture production, and reduce their spending on food imports. The LLF is also transforming the lives and livelihoods of millions of people through improving sanitation systems, thus dramatically reducing the disastrous spread and impact of waterborne diseases. To this end, the LLF has approved a US$54 million project to improve the water and sanitation of the city of Conakry in Guinea, and a US$49 million project for sustainably improving the sanitation system in Abidjan and eleven secondary cities in the Ivory Coast. We are proud to confirm that the LLF is now acknowledged as the largest development initiative of its kind based in the Middle East. It has established itself as one of the best means IsDB member countries have of achieving the SDGs by the 2030 deadline. That being said, much remains to be done to address the many problems these countries face. Many still require support in rebuilding their national health care systems, developing food self-sufficiency, and strengthening their ability to provide potable water, clean power, and decent sanitation systems to their poorest communities. Our ambition is to save millions of lives by eradicating extreme poverty and extending a helping hand to vulnerable people in the world. That the LLF has approved financing of over US$1.16 billion in the three years since its inception demonstrates that when committed actors join forces, anything is possible. We strongly encourage international donors, regional development actors, and all organizations committed to eradicating poverty and disease in the poorest countries to stand with us; for as a united front, we will achieve the SDGs by 2030.
Four years ago, the world adopted an ambitious set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) designed ‘to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030’. Despite rising life expectancy and the eradication of many endemic diseases, more than 400 million people in the member states of the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB) still live in absolute poverty, subsisting on less than US$1.90 per day. It is, perhaps, these countries that face the greatest challenges in fulfilling the SDGs. Traditional methods of development finance have struggled to alleviate the extreme poverty in some regions of the world, leaving the poorest populations without the basic building blocks needed to lead healthy lives and build dignified livelihoods. Many remain deprived of primary healthcare, protection against infectious diseases, a sufficient and nutritious food supply, potable water, clean power, and sanitation.
How the Coronavirus Pandemic Broke the Commercial Freight Transport Sector
China is the driving force of the shipping sector, and therefore the state of this sector is closely connected to China’s plight, which is a significant trade partner of many countries, as well as the leading shipbuilder; furthermore, the world’s busiest and most important container ports are located in China. Major shipping volumes from China, which recently flooded the world, have stopped along with the idle standing of industry in China. Moreover, every country has introduced its own transport regulations. This enormous chain of logistics, which started in China in the transport sector, was cut drastically by the pandemic, causing serious and already irreversible consequences in the global shipping sector. Check out more INOMICS blog posts Due to various current restrictions, individual ports returned the freight containers to the ports of origin. As recession set in and demand and supply decreased, a response to the ongoing idle standing in the Chinese ports. Since China is also a significant importer of crude oil, nationwide downturn in economic activity had a negative effect on demand for the crude oil tankers. Overall, capacity of China in ports decreased by 20% to 50%. Lack of labour in Chinese maritime segments simultaneously affected the whole trade. Percentage drop was inevitable According to the optimistic scenario of the World Trade Organisation, in 2020, demand for container transport will decrease by 10%. According to the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) data, global container transport decreased by 5.1% in the first quarter, and, compared to last year, these volumes dropped by 2.1 million Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) to 38.2 million tons TEU. Export along key routes from East Asia to Europe decreased by 12.0% in the 1st quarter, to Northern America by 9.4%. The number of orders of new container ships has also decreased by 36.8% - down to 153,422 TEU compared to last year. Idle standing of fleets remains very high. Falling interest rates meant that the average container transport rate to send a container from Europe to East Asia was higher than sending freight from East Asia to Europe. Currently the freight transport sector shows another trend, namely, that demand for large-size container ships has sharply decreased, whereas demand for smaller ships remains more stable. Therefore, operators are currently more oriented to short-term contracts and shorter routes using small-size ships. Holders of large container ships, who have purchased them on credit during recent years, are currently facing a real challenge. Many large ships are usable only in the route from East Asia to Europe, and, upon decrease in demand, these ships will remain ashore. The following months will be a real test for operators, and show whether they will keep transporting half-empty ships as they have been doing so far. Each of them will try to reach a balance by keeping high freight rates on one hand and increasing capacity of use of their ships on the other. This year, the shipping sector also faces transition to fuel with lower sulphur content, which is more expensive. Thus, aforementioned regulatory costs create another additional burden for the operators. Will robotics save the sector? Of course, the sector will gradually normalize; however, it is not yet clear how long it will take for freight transport to reach that point. At the moment, it is important to renew inland consumption in the USA, whereas, in case of closing down companies and millions of lost jobs, full recovery to pre-coronavirus level will take a long time. In parallel to all the aforementioned, a totality of preventive measures is required involving professionals of the sector to stimulate recovery of the shipping sector. When rebuilding the freight transport sector, it could be stimulated with investments in various segments of robotics and freight transport technologies, which would lead to global changes across the sector. Autonomous shipping and smart technologies in freight transport companies will help the current sector optimise current operations and connect the various participants thereof – consignors, brokers and sea freight operators. However, looking ahead, every sector must have a plan “B” or so called buffer for the restructuring of the sector so it can withstand any crisis that may appear.
Coronavirus has had a broad impact on the global economy. Particularly affected were the tourism, trade and industrial sectors, including the export and import markets. Demand for and consumption of goods decreased, and so did the international freight transport sector. The COVID-19 crisis continues to severely affect the container transport market and the current economic situation gives no hope for short-term recovery.