organization:oecd

  • If mayors ruled migration : Promises and gaps

    On 8th December 2018, two days before the UN Intergovernmental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, some 80 cities around the world convened in Marrakech for the 5th Mayoral Forum on Human Mobility, Migration and Development. The cities signed a Mayors’ Declaration, identifying common priorities in the follow up and review process of the Global Compact. On that same occasion, a new initiative called the Mayors Migration Council was launched, to support cities’ engagement in international deliberations and policies concerning refugees and migrants. A couple of months afterwards, on February 9th, 2019, the mayors of the main Spanish and Italian cities launched an alliance to oppose the ‘closed harbours’ policy of the Italian Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini and to denounce the incapacity of the EU to address the situation appropriately.

    These are just two recent examples that show how city policies and mobilisation on migration can resonate well beyond municipal and national walls. Can cities’ international mobilisation rescue states (and the EU) from their failure in dealing with migration issues? Cities’ enthusiasts like Benjamin Barber, founder of the Global Parliament of Mayors, have no doubts about the governance capacity of city networks (CN henceforth): ‘Mayors can rule the world because cities represent a level of governance sufficiently local to demand pragmatism and efficiency in problem solving but sufficiently networked to be able to fashion cooperative solutions to the interdependent challenges they face’. Pragmatism and cooperative interaction are presented as the key assets of mayors, cities and, by extension, city networks’ mode of governing global challenges. On the basis of – the still scarce – existing research on city global mobilisation on migration-related issues and of the preliminary results of the MinMUS Project, we can identify the promises and challenges of transnational city networks for the building of a new multilevel governance of international migration.

    Is local policy more pragmatic?

    The idea that local governments must deal with the situation ‘as it is’, therefore taking distance from abstract – and presumably ineffective – ideological recipes, has underpinned the development of research on local migration policy. However, evidence is contradictory and, especially in the US, studies seem to show that pragmatic attitudes and accommodative solutions are just as likely to occur as decisions aiming at excluding migrants or simply ignoring the issue altogether. What a ‘pragmatic solution’ is cannot be easily established a priori, but will depend on policymakers’ interests, perceptions, and definitions of the situation.

    Data collected by the Cities of Refuge project on 27 transnational city networks in Europe show that the most networked cities are leaning towards the centre-left, progressive-side of the political spectrum. And even if membership usually outlasts political shifts, this might not correspond to active participation, as pointed out by research in the field of climate change mitigation. Furthermore, according to Cities of Refuge, cities that adhere to international networks have an average population of 1.5 million, meaning that they are primarily large cities. However, as noted by OECD, while nearly two-thirds of migrants settle in metropolitan and densely populated regions, asylum seekers are more spread across urban-rural areas.

    Territorial dispersal of asylum seekers reflects evidence on reception policies collected by the CeasEVAL Project. To face the sense of pressure generated by increasing inflows since 2011, national governments in both federal/regional countries (Germany, Italy and Spain) and centralised ones (Finland, Luxemburg, Greece and Bulgaria), have redistributed asylum seekers all over their territory, including small municipalities in rural and mountains areas. Even though the reaction of local populations has not necessarily been negative, CeasEVAL points out a high level of heterogeneity in the type of accommodation and quality of services provided, as well as in opportunities for effective integration. Policy learning and exchange of best practices would probably be of great interest to these ‘new immigrant destinations’; however, they often do not have the financial, human and political resources required to participate in international network activities.

    Hence, the international arena is a highly selective one, which risks excluding those – especially small – cities that might be more in need of accessing knowledge and other – mainly financial – resources in order to deal effectively with the challenges of migration and asylum. Modes of inclusion will also depend on the goals of city networks, which are extremely diverse.

    Cities as key players in the multilevel governance of migration?

    City networks gather together on a voluntary basis local authorities in order to pursue perceived collective interests or purposes. They lack authoritative power, and therefore have to rely upon horizontal coordination and mutual cooperation to carry out and implement their initiatives. As such, city networks are organisations which aim at realising quintessential multilevel governance policy processes: on the vertical dimension, they interact with institutions operating at different – local, regional, national and supra-national – territorial scales; on the horizontal dimension city networks establish new relations between cities and with non-public actors mobilised at a city level.

    To assess these hypotheses, the MInMUS project (website) has carried out an in-depth analysis of four transnational networks on migration, i.e.: the Migration and Integration Working Group of Eurocities, the European Coalition of Cities Against Racism (ECCAR), the Intercultural Cities Programme (ICC) and Welcoming America. Results show that these networks: 1) pursue different agendas and 2) are engaged in different types of policymaking processes.

    Regarding agendas, ECCAR and ICC are focused on the promotion of a specific type of local policy, i.e. anti-discrimination and interculture respectively; Eurocities seeks to represent main cities vis-á-vis the European Commission, being involved primarily in lobbying activities; whereas Welcoming America is concerned with soliciting grassroots participation and community partnerships. As for policymaking processes, Welcoming America prioritizes relations with actors such as NGOs, CSOs and private business, whereas Eurocities is more focused on relations with the European Commission and national governments. A more balanced pattern of multilevel political dynamics can be discerned in the other two cases. In particular ICC, starting from 2016, has adopted an explicit multilevel governance approach aimed at promoting cooperation and coordination both on the vertical, i.e. between different levels of government, and on the horizontal, i.e. with non-public actors, dimensions of policy-making.

    Multilevel governance, far from being the essence of city networking initiatives, is only one possible mode of policymaking interactions and it is not even the most relevant one. City networks may well find it more convenient or appropriate to pursue other types of policy interactions, centred on a vertical dimension as in the case of Eurocities or on the horizontal dimension as in that of Welcoming America. Multilevel governance seems easier to pursue in the case of networks that are already established as multilevel organisations. This is the case of ECCAR, launched by Unesco in 2004, and of ICC, officially started in 2008 as a joint initiative of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Patterns of relations and modes of policymaking seem to reflect to a large extent the genesis of city networks and their distinctive policy agenda.

    Getting back to our initial question: Can cities’ international mobilisation rescue states (and the EU) from their failure in dealing with migration issues? While one cannot deny the key role played by cities in the managing of migration crises as well as in supporting integration and community cohesion more generally, city networks’ skewed membership that consists mainly of larger and politically progressive cities should make us cautious about their impact on improving migrants’ living conditions at a grassroots level. Furthermore, evidence suggests that the initiative of supranational institutions ‘from above’ has played a key role in favouring cities’ collaboration around specific policy issues such as interculture and anti-discrimination. Indeed, cities and their networks represent a new actor in the multilevel political dynamics around migration; yet whether and to what extent they will be effective in promoting collaborative multilevel governance relations and influencing national government and EU agendas on migration remains to be seen.

    https://blogs.eui.eu/migrationpolicycentre/mayors-ruled-migration-promises-gaps
    #municipalisme #migrations #villes #collectivités_locales #asile #migrations #réfugiés #gouvernance

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les #villes-refuge :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145

    ping @karine4

  • Tout ce qui brille n’est pas #or : la branche de l’or sous le feu des critiques

    La #Suisse occupe une position de leader mondial dans le commerce de l’or. Mais l’#or_brut raffiné dans notre pays provient parfois de #mines douteuses. La pression augmente pour plus de #responsabilité éthique au sein de la branche des #matières_premières.

    « Il ne peut être totalement exclu que de l’or produit en violation des #droits_de_l’homme soit importé en Suisse. » Voilà la conclusion explosive à laquelle parvient le Conseil fédéral dans un #rapport portant sur le marché de l’or et les droits humains, publié en novembre dernier. Donnant suite à un postulat parlementaire, ce rapport a permis de faire quelque peu la lumière sur une branche qui privilégie la discrétion.

    Le secteur de l’or joue un rôle important pour la Suisse, qui concentre 40 % des capacités de #raffinage mondiales et héberge les activités de quatre des neuf leaders mondiaux du secteur. Les raffineries d’or telles qu’#Argor-Heraeus, #Metalor, #Pamp ou #Valcambi travaillent l’or brut importé ou refondent des ouvrages en or déjà existants. En 2017, plus de 2400 tonnes d’or ont été importées pour un montant de presque 70 milliards de francs, ce qui correspond à environ 70 % de la production mondiale. L’or brut provient de quelque 90 pays, y compris des pays en développement tels que le #Burkina_Faso, le #Ghana ou le #Mali, qui dépendent fortement de ces exportations.

    Des conditions précaires dans les petites mines

    À l’échelle mondiale, environ 80 % de l’or brut est extrait dans des mines industrielles. 15 % à 20 % proviennent de petites mines artisanales, dans lesquelles les conditions de #travail et la protection de l’#environnement s’avèrent souvent précaires. Néanmoins, les mines assurent l’existence de millions de familles : dans le monde entier, ces mines artisanales emploient plus de 15 millions de personnes, dont 4,5 millions de femmes et 600 000 enfants, particulièrement exposés aux violations des droits humains. Certains pays comme le #Pérou ou l’#Éthiopie tentent pourtant de réguler le secteur, par exemple en accordant des licences d’#extraction. Mais la mise en œuvre n’est pas simple et les contrôles sur place tendent à manquer.

    Il y a peu, un cas de commerce illégal d’or au Pérou a fait la une des médias. En mars 2018, les autorités douanières locales ont confisqué près de 100 kg d’or de l’entreprise exportatrice #Minerales_del_Sur. Cet or aurait dû parvenir à la raffinerie suisse Metalor. Le cas est désormais entre les mains de la #justice péruvienne. Le ministère public suspecte Minerales del Sur, qui comptait parfois plus de 900 fournisseurs, d’avoir acheté de l’or de mines illégales. Aucune procédure pénale n’a encore été ouverte. Metalor indique avoir bloqué toute importation d’or péruvien depuis la #confiscation et soutient qu’elle n’a acquis ce métal précieux qu’auprès de mines agissant en toute légalité.

    Une origine difficilement identifiable

    Selon le rapport du Conseil fédéral, l’or brut raffiné en Suisse provient en majeure partie de mines industrielles. Néanmoins, les détails restent flous. En effet, les statistiques d’importation disponibles ne permettent d’identifier clairement ni la provenance, ni la méthode de production. Ainsi, le Conseil fédéral conseille à la branche de se montrer plus transparente au niveau de l’origine, par exemple dans la #déclaration_douanière. Par contre, notre gouvernement ne voit aucune raison d’agir quant à l’obligation de diligence et renvoie aux standards de durabilité volontaires de la branche. De plus, la Suisse soutient la mise en œuvre des principes de l’OCDE sur la promotion de chaînes d’approvisionnement responsables pour les #minerais provenant de zones de conflit ou à haut risque. Cela doit permettre d’éviter que le commerce de l’or alimente des #conflits_armés, par exemple en #RDC. Enfin, le Conseil fédéral souhaite examiner si la technologie de la #blockchain – soit des banques de données décentralisées –, pourrait améliorer la #traçabilité de l’or.

    Les #multinationales ciblées par l’initiative

    Pour le Conseil fédéral, inutile de renforcer les bases légales. Il mise plutôt sur l’auto-régulation de la branche qui, selon lui, est soumise à une forte concurrence internationale. Les organisations non gouvernementales (ONG) ne sont pas les seules à ne pas approuver cette attitude pro-économie. Ainsi, dans un commentaire sur swissinfo.ch, le professeur de droit pénal et expert anti-corruption bâlois Mark Pieth parle d’un véritable autogoal. Selon lui, le Conseil fédéral accorde plus d’importance aux affaires qu’aux droits humains et fournit des armes supplémentaires aux partisans de l’Initiative multinationales responsables. Celle-ci, soumise en 2016 par quelque 50 ONG, a pour but que les entreprises suisses et leurs fournisseurs étrangers soient tenus responsables des violations des droits humains et des atteintes à l’environnement. Pieth reproche surtout aux auteurs du rapport de rejeter l’entière responsabilité des problèmes directement sur le secteur des petites mines artisanales. Pour lui, les multinationales sont souvent responsables de l’accumulation de #déchets toxiques, de la #contamination des eaux et de l’appropriation des #terres des communautés locales.

    Les sondages montrent que cette initiative bénéficie d’un fort capital de sympathie auprès de la population. Le Conseil national a tenté de mettre des bâtons dans les roues des initiants en lançant un contre-projet. Il prévoyait ainsi de compléter le droit des sociétés par des dispositions relatives à la responsabilité. Le Conseil des États n’a néanmoins rien voulu entendre. En mars, une majorité de la petite chambre du Parlement a rejeté l’initiative sans pour autant entrer en matière sur une contre-proposition. Le conseiller aux États Ruedi Noser (PLR, Zurich) a, par exemple, averti que ces dispositions relatives à la responsabilité entraîneraient des inconvénients de taille pour les entreprises suisses. Pour lui, l’économie suisse pourrait même devoir se retirer de nombreux pays. Le Conseil national a remis l’ouvrage sur le métier. Si les deux chambres ne parviennent pas à un accord, l’initiative pourrait être soumise au peuple sans contre-projet. Aucune date n’a encore été fixée.

    Le « Vreneli d’or » populaire

    La pièce d’or la plus connue de Suisse est le « #Vreneli_d’or ». Cette pièce de monnaie arborant le buste d’Helvetia a été émise entre 1887 et 1949. L’or utilisé à l’époque provenait de pays européens. En tout, 58,6 millions de pièces avec une valeur nominale de 20 francs furent mises en circulation. S’y ajoutèrent 2,6 millions de pièces de dix francs et 5000 avec une valeur nominale de 100 francs.

    Jusqu’à aujourd’hui, le Vreneli d’or est resté un cadeau populaire et un placement simple. De nos jours, la pièce de 20 francs avec une part d’or de 5,8 grammes a une valeur d’environ 270 francs et peut être échangée dans n’importe quelle banque de Suisse. Bien évidemment, les éditions rares sont aussi plus précieuses. Ainsi, un Vreneli datant de 1926 vaut jusqu’à 400 francs. Les collectionneurs acquièrent aussi volontiers des pièces frappées entre 1904 et 1906 pour environ 300 francs. Le Vreneli d’or doit probablement son nom à l’ancienne représentation d’Helvetia. En effet, avec ses cheveux tressés, elle rappelait plutôt une jeune paysanne qu’une solide mère patrie.


    https://www.revue.ch/fr/editions/2019/03/detail/news/detail/News/tout-ce-qui-brille-nest-pas-or-la-branche-de-lor-sous-le-feu-des-critiques
    #extractivisme #droits_humains #transparence

    ping @albertocampiphoto

    • #Metalor cuts ties with small mines over sustainable gold

      Swiss gold refinery Metalor Technologies has announced it will no longer deal with artisanal mining operations. The company cites the increasing cost of ensuring that gold is being produced by small mines in compliance with human rights and environmental standards.

      Metalor has come under repeated fire for doing business with gold mines in South America that care neither for their workers or surrounding habitat. Some of the gold being refined has also been linked by NGOs to money laundering.

      The company has refuted many of the charges being levelled at it by human rights groups. But it had nevertheless already ceased doing business with artisanal mines in Peru last year whilst declaring self-regulated measures to combat abuses in the gold trade. Monday’s announcement also signals the end to its artisanal activities in Colombia.

      Pressure groups has complained that Metalor’s due diligence was failing to spot back doors through which “dirty gold” was allegedly reaching the refinery.

      “The increasing complexity of the supply chain in this sector makes it increasingly difficult for Metalor to continue its commercial relations with artisanal mining operations,” said Metalor CEO, Antoine de Montmollin, in a statement.

      “Metalor regrets this well-considered decision, but we will not compromise on defending a more sustainable value chain in the gold sector.”
      ’Skirting the issue’

      Mark Pieth, a champion for greater accountability in the Swiss commodities sector, slammed the refinery’s decision. He believes that cutting ties with trouble spots in response to criticism is not the answer because it strips entire communities of their livelihood.

      “It’s really skirting the issue because in fact the refineries should take responsibility and they should be helping to clean up rather than just cutting and running,” Pieth, who is publishing a book on gold laundering this month, told swissinfo.ch.

      Pieth also points that sourcing gold exclusively from large-scale mining is no guarantee of a problem free supply chain. Large-scale mining has been associated with environmental pollution, as well as with the displacement and expropriation of indigenous communities.

      Hosting four of the world’s major refineries, Switzerland has virtually cornered the market in gold processing. In 2017, the country imported 2,404 tonnes of gold (worth a total of CHF69.6 billion or $69.7 billion) while 1,684 tonnes were exported (CHF66.6 billion).

      Last year, the government issued a report of the gold sector and said it was working with the industry to improve “sustainability standards”.

      If Swiss refineries shun artisanal gold, this will likely be snatched up by refineries in the United Arab Emirates or India that care even less about following good practices, noted Pieth.


      https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/compliance-costs_swiss-gold-refinery-turns-back-on-artisanal-miners/45036052

      ping @albertocampiphoto

    • Boycotting artisanal gold miners is not the answer

      Switzerland’s anti-corruption champion #Mark_Pieth thinks Metalor was wrong to drop artisanal miners.
      The sudden decision by the giant Swiss refinery Metalor to throw a blanket ban on gold from small-scale mines in Colombia and Peru is an understandable knee-jerk reaction to growing public horror at the human rights, environmental and organised crime issues linked to artisanal mining.

      Yet it is a short-sighted business decision, or rather, wilfully blind.

      It is true that conditions in many artisanal mines and their surrounding communities can be appalling and dangerous – particularly illegal mines hijacked by organised criminals rather than traditional mining communities where the activity is merely informal.

      I have seen with my own eyes women handling mercury with their bare hands and men working 28-day shifts in slave-like conditions in precarious tunnels carved into the rockface, surviving in shanty towns notorious for gun violence, forced prostitution and hijacking like Peru’s La Rinconada.

      But – and it’s a big but – if other refineries follow suit rather than engaging with the issues and trying to solve them, it will be catastrophic for the 100 million people worldwide who rely on artisanal mining for their livelihoods.

      About 80% of miners work in small-scale mines, but generate only 20% of the 3,200 tonnes of newly mined gold that is refined worldwide every year. The remaining 80% of our gold comes from sprawling industrial mines owned by powerful corporations like US-based Newmont Mining and the Canadian multinational Barrick Gold.

      Firstly, it is simply not economically possible to disregard 20% of the world’s gold production. If responsible refineries refuse artisanal gold, it will instead end up in the cauldrons of poorly regulated refineries with zero care for compliance in the United Arab Emirates or India.

      Secondly, it is a basic factual mistake to believe that gold from large-scale industrial mines is any cleaner than artisanal gold.

      Toxic substances leech into drinking water supplies and major rivers with fatal consequences, through the collapse of cyanide pools (such as the Baia Mare disaster in Romania) or toxic mine drainage after the mines are abandoned. Huge piles of contaminated waste rubble, or tailings, turn landscapes into no-go wastelands.

      Violent land-grabbing facilitated by corruption is common: in Ghana, there is even a word, galamsey, for traditional miners pushed into illegality through forced displacement without compensation.

      Most importantly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in its Alignment Assessment 2018 deplores the “risk-averse approach to sourcing” that Metalor has been panicked into taking, and this form of “internal embargo” on artisanal mining. It’s not hard to see why: it doesn’t solve the problems faced by artisanal miners, but instead takes away their only source of livelihood while allowing the refinery to tick a box and turn a blind eye.

      So, what should Metalor and other responsible gold refineries with the collective power to change the industry do?

      First, acknowledge the scale of the problems and show willingness to engage – with the problems and with others trying to solve them.

      Second, pinpoint the obvious no-go areas. Gold coming from conflict areas (like Sudan) or mined by children (child miners are common in many countries, including Burkina Faso, Niger and Côte d’Ivoire), for example.

      And third, work together with other refineries to jointly tackle the issues of artisanal mining and help raise standards for those 100 million impoverished people who rely on it.

      Metalor cites “resources to secure compliance” as a reason for its blanket ban on artisanally mined gold. But the cost of proper, transparent audits tracing back through the entire gold supply chain is mere pocket money for a refinery of this size – and if the refineries engage in collective action, it’s a matter of gold dust.

      https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/opinion_metalor--mark-pieth-gold/45037966
      #boycott

  • Africapolis

    http://www.africapolis.org/home

    Produced by the OECD Sahel and West Africa Club, Africapolis.org is the only comprehensive and standardised geospatial database on cities and urbanisation dynamics in Africa. Combining demographic sources, satellite and aerial imagery and other cartographic sources, it is designed to enable comparative and long-term analyses of urban dynamics - covering 7 500 agglomerations in 50 countries.

    #afrique #urban_matter

  • Les #gilets_jaunes vus de New York...

    Low Visibility

    Driving was already expensive in France when in January 2018 the government of President Emmanuel Macron imposed a tax that raised the price of diesel fuel by 7.6 centimes per liter and of gasoline by 3.8 centimes (about 9 and 4 cents, respectively); further increases were planned for January 2019. The taxes were an attempt to cut carbon emissions and honor the president’s lofty promise to “Make Our Planet Great Again.”

    Priscillia Ludosky, then a thirty-two-year-old bank employee from the Seine-et-Marne department outside Paris, had no choice but to drive into the city for work every day, and the cost of her commute was mounting. “When you pay regularly for something, it really adds up fast, and the increase was enormous,” she told me recently. “There are lots of things I don’t like. But on that I pushed.” In late May 2018, she created a petition on Change.org entitled Pour une Baisse des Prix du Carburant à la Pompe! (For a reduction of fuel prices at the pump!)

    Over the summer Ludosky’s petition—which acknowledged the “entirely honorable” aim of reducing pollution while offering six alternative policy suggestions, including subsidizing electric cars and encouraging employers to allow remote work—got little attention. In the fall she tried again, convincing a radio host in Seine-et-Marne to interview her if the petition garnered 1,500 signatures. She posted that challenge on her Facebook page, and the signatures arrived in less than twenty-four hours. A local news site then shared the petition on its own Facebook page, and it went viral, eventually being signed by over 1.2 million people.

    Éric Drouet, a thirty-three-year-old truck driver and anti-Macron militant also from Seine-et-Marne, created a Facebook event for a nationwide blockade of roads on November 17 to protest the high fuel prices. Around the same time, a fifty-one-year-old self-employed hypnotherapist named Jacline Mouraud recorded herself addressing Macron for four minutes and thirty-eight seconds and posted the video on Facebook. “You have persecuted drivers since the day you took office,” she said. “This will continue for how long?” Mouraud’s invective was viewed over six million times, and the gilets jaunes—the yellow vests, named for the high-visibility vests that French drivers are required to keep in their cars and to wear in case of emergency—were born.

    Even in a country where protest is a cherished ritual of public life, the violence and vitriol of the gilets jaunes movement have stunned the government. Almost immediately it outgrew the issue of the carbon taxes and the financial burden on car-reliant French people outside major cities. In a series of Saturday demonstrations that began in mid-November and have continued for three months, a previously dormant anger has erupted. Demonstrators have beaten police officers, thrown acid in the faces of journalists, and threatened the lives of government officials. There has been violence on both sides, and the European Parliament has condemned French authorities for using “flash-ball guns” against protesters, maiming and even blinding more than a few in the crowds. But the gilets jaunes have a flair for cinematic destruction. In late November they damaged parts of the Arc de Triomphe in Paris; in early January they commandeered a forklift and rammed through the heavy doors of the ministry of state—the only time in the history of the Fifth Republic that a sitting minister had to be evacuated from a government building.

    The gilets jaunes are more than a protest. This is a modern-day jacquerie, an emotional wildfire stoked in the provinces and directed against Paris and, most of all, the elite. French history since 1789 can be seen as a sequence of anti-elite movements, yet the gilets jaunes have no real precedent. Unlike the Paris Commune of 1871, this is a proletarian struggle devoid of utopian aspirations. Unlike the Poujadist movement of the mid-1950s—a confederation of shopkeepers likewise opposed to the “Americanization” of a “thieving and inhuman” state and similarly attracted to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories—the gilets jaunes include shopkeepers seemingly content to destroy shop windows. There is an aspect of carnival here: a delight in the subversion of norms, a deliberate embrace of the grotesque.

    Many have said that the gilets jaunes are merely another “populist movement,” although the term is now so broad that it is nearly meaningless. Comparisons have been made to the Britain of Brexit, the United States of Donald Trump, and especially the Italy of Cinque Stelle. But the crucial difference is that the gilets jaunes are apolitical, and militantly so. They have no official platform, no leadership hierarchy, and no reliable communications. Everyone can speak for the movement, and yet no one can. When a small faction within it fielded a list of candidates for the upcoming European parliamentary elections in May, their sharpest opposition came from within: to many gilets jaunes, the ten who had put their names forward—among them a nurse, a truck driver, and an accountant—were traitors to the cause, having dared to replicate the elite that the rest of the movement disdains.

    Concessions from the government have had little effect. Under mounting pressure, Macron was forced to abandon the carbon tax planned for 2019 in a solemn televised address in mid-December. He also launched the so-called grand débat, a three-month tour of rural France designed to give him a better grasp of the concerns of ordinary people. In some of these sessions, Macron has endured more than six hours of bitter criticisms from angry provincial mayors. But these gestures have quelled neither the protests nor the anger of those who remain in the movement. Performance is the point. During the early “acts,” as the weekly demonstrations are known, members refused to meet with French prime minister Édouard Philippe, on the grounds that he would not allow the encounter to be televised, and that sentiment has persisted. Perhaps the most telling thing about the gilets jaunes is the vest they wear: a symbol of car ownership, but more fundamentally a material demand to be seen.

    Inequality in France is less extreme than in the United States and Britain, but it is increasing. Among wealthy Western countries, the postwar French state—l’État-providence—is something of a marvel. France’s health and education systems remain almost entirely free while ranking among the best in the world. In 2017 the country’s ratio of tax revenue to gross domestic product was 46.2 percent, according to statistics from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—the highest redistribution level of any OECD country and a ratio that allows the state to fight poverty through a generous social protection system. Of that 46.2 percent, the French government allocated approximately 28 percent for social services.

    “The French social model is so integrated that it almost seems a natural, preexisting condition,” Alexis Spire, a sociologist of inequality at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, told me recently. A number of the gilets jaunes I met said that despite the taxes they pay, they do not feel they benefit from any social services, since they live far from urban centers. But anyone who has ever received housing assistance, a free prescription, or sixteen weeks of paid maternity leave has benefited from the social protection system. The effect of redistribution is often invisible.

    And yet the rich in France have gotten much richer. Between 1983 and 2015, the vast majority of incomes in France rose by less than one percent per year, while the richest one percent of the population saw their incomes rise by 100 percent after taxes. According to World Bank statistics, the richest 20 percent now earns nearly five times as much as the bottom 20 percent. This represents a stark shift from the Trente Glorieuses, France’s thirty-year economic boom after World War II. As the economist Thomas Piketty has pointed out, between 1950 and 1983, most French incomes rose steadily by approximately 4 percent per year; the nation’s top incomes rose by only one percent.

    What has become painfully visible, however, is the extent of the country’s geographical fractures. Paris has always been the undisputed center of politics, culture, and commerce, but France was once also a country that cherished and protected its vibrant provincial life. This was la France profonde, a clichéd but genuinely existing France of tranquil stone villages and local boulangeries with lines around the block on Sundays. “Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance,” goes the beloved song by the crooner Charles Trenet. “Mon village, au clocher aux maisons sages.” These days, the maisons sages are vacant, and the country boulangeries are closed.

    The story is familiar: the arrival of large multinational megastores on the outskirts of provincial French towns and cities has threatened, and in many cases asphyxiated, local businesses.1 In the once-bustling centers of towns like Avignon, Agen, Calais, and Périgueux, there is now an eerie quiet: windows are often boarded up, and fewer and fewer people are to be found. This is the world evoked with a melancholy beauty in Nicolas Mathieu’s novel Leurs enfants après eux, which won the Prix Goncourt, France’s most prestigious literary prize, in 2018.

    The expansion since the 1980s of France’s high-speed rail network has meant that the country’s major cities are all well connected to Paris. But there are many small towns where the future never arrived, where abandoned nineteenth-century train stations are now merely places for teenagers to make out, monuments of the way things used to be. In these towns, cars are the only way people can get to work. I met a fifty-five-year-old truck and taxi driver named Marco Pavan in the Franche-Comté in late November. What he told me then—about how carbon taxes can seem like sneers from the Parisian elite—has stayed with me. “Ask a Parisian—for him none of this is an issue, because he doesn’t need a car,” Pavan said. “There’s no bus or train to take us anywhere. We have to have a car.” I cited that remark in a Washington Post story I filed from Besançon; in the online comments section, many attacked the movement for what they saw as a backward anti-environmentalism—missing his point.

    Few have written as extensively as the French geographer Christophe Guilluy on la France périphérique, a term he popularized that refers both to the people and the regions left behind by an increasingly globalized economy. Since 2010, when he published Fractures françaises, Guilluy has been investigating the myths and realities of what he calls “the trompe l’oeil of a peaceful, moderate, and consensual society.” He is one of a number of left-wing French intellectuals—among them the novelist Michel Houellebecq, the historian Georges Bensoussan, and the essayist Michel Onfray—who in recent years have argued that their beloved patrie has drifted into inexorable decline, a classic critique of the French right since 1789. But Guilluy’s decline narrative is different: he is not as concerned as the others with Islamist extremism or “decadence” broadly conceived. For him, France’s decline is structural, the result of having become a place where “the social question disappears.”

    Guilluy, born in Montreuil in 1964, is something of a rarity among well-known French intellectuals: he is a product of the Paris suburbs, not of France’s storied grandes écoles. And it is clear that much of his critique is personal. As a child, Guilluy, whose family then lived in the working-class Paris neighborhood of Belleville, was forcibly relocated for a brief period to the heavily immigrant suburb of La Courneuve when their building was slated to be demolished in the midst of Paris’s urban transformation. “I saw gentrification firsthand,” he told Le Figaro in 2017. “For the natives—the natives being just as much the white worker as the young immigrant—what provoked the most problems was not the arrival of Magrebis, but that of the bobos.”

    This has long been Guilluy’s battle cry, and he has focused his intellectual energy on attacking what he sees as the hypocrisy of the bobos, or bourgeois bohemians. His public debut was a short 2001 column in Libération applying that term, coined by the columnist David Brooks, to French social life. What was happening in major urban centers across the country, he wrote then, was a “ghettoization by the top of society” that excluded people like his own family.

    Guilluy crystallized that argument in a 2014 book that won him the ear of the Élysée Palace and regular appearances on French radio. This was La France périphérique: comment on a sacrifié les classes populaires, in which he contended that since the mid-1980s, France’s working classes have been pushed out of the major cities to rural communities—a situation that was a ticking time bomb—partly as a result of rising prices. He advanced that view further in 2016 with La Crépuscule de la France d’en haut—now translated into English as Twilight of the Elites: Prosperity, the Periphery, and the Future of France—a pithy screed against France’s bobo elite and what he sees as its shameless embrace of a “neoliberal,” “Americanized society” and a hollow, feel-good creed of multicultural tolerance. In 2018, one month before the rise of the gilets jaunes, he published No Society, whose title comes from Margaret Thatcher’s 1987 comment that “there is no such thing as society.”

    In Guilluy’s view, an immigrant working class has taken the place of the “native” working class in the banlieues on the outskirts of major cities. This native class, he argues, has been scattered throughout the country and become an “unnoticed presence” that France’s elite has “made to disappear from public consciousness” in order to consolidate its grip on power. Cities are now the exclusive preserve of the elites and their servants, and what Guilluy means by “no society” is that the visible signs of class conflict in urban daily life have vanished. This is his trompe l’oeil: rich, insulated Parisians have convinced themselves that everything is fine, while those who might say otherwise are nowhere near. “The simmering discontent of rural France has never really been taken seriously,” he writes in Twilight of the Elites.

    Since November, much of the French press has declared that Guilluy essentially predicted the rise of the gilets jaunes. They seem, after all, a fulfillment of his prophecy about “the betrayal of the people” by the elites, even if he is always elusive about who exactly “the people” are. While critiques from the movement have remained a confused cloud of social media invective, Guilluy has served as its de facto interpreter.

    No Society puts into words what many in the gilets jaunes have either struggled or refused to articulate. This is the hazy middle ground between warning and threat: “The populist wave coursing through the western world is only the visible part of a soft power emanating from the working classes that will force the elites to rejoin the real movement of society or else to disappear.”

    For now, however, there is just one member of the elite whom the gilets jaunes wish would disappear, and calls for his violent overthrow continue even as the movement’s momentum subsides.

    An intense and deeply personal hatred of Macron is the only unifying cry among the gilets jaunes. Eighteen months before the uprising began, this was the man who captured the world’s imagination and who, after populist victories in Britain and the United States, had promised a French “Third Way.” Yet the Macronian romance is already over, both at home and abroad.

    To some extent, the French always turn against their presidents, but the anger Macron elicits is unique. This is less because of any particular policy than because of his demeanor and, most of all, his language. “Mr. Macron always refused to respond to us,” Muriel Gautherin, fifty-three, a podiatrist who lives in the Paris suburbs, told me at a December march on the Champs-Élysées. “It’s he who insults us, and he who should respond.” When I asked her what she found most distasteful about the French president, her answer was simple: “His words.”

    She has a point. Among Macron’s earliest actions as president was to shave five euros off the monthly stipends of France’s Aide personalisée au logement (APL), the country’s housing assistance program. Around the same time, he slashed France’s wealth tax on those with a net worth of at least €1.3 million—a holdover from the Mitterand era.

    Macron came to office with a record of unrelentingly insulting the poor. In 2014, when he was France’s economic minister, he responded to the firing of nine hundred employees (most of them women) from a Breton slaughterhouse by noting that some were “mostly illiterate.” In 2016 he was caught on camera in a heated dispute with a labor activist in the Hérault. When the activist gestured to Macron’s €1,600 suit as a symbol of his privilege, the minister said, “The best way to afford a suit is to work.” In 2018 he told a young, unemployed gardener that he could find a new job if he merely “crossed the street.”

    Yet nothing quite compares to the statement Macron made in inaugurating Station F, a startup incubator in the thirteenth arrondissement of Paris, housed in a converted rail depot. It is a cavernous consulate for Silicon Valley, a soaring glass campus open to all those with “big ideas” who can also pay €195 a month for a desk and can fill out an application in fluent English. (“We won’t consider any other language,” the organization’s website says.) Google, Amazon, and Microsoft all have offices in it, and in a city of terrible coffee, the espresso is predictably fabulous. In June 2017 Macron delivered a speech there. “A train station,” he said, referring to the structure’s origins, “it’s a place where we encounter those who are succeeding and those who are nothing.”

    This was the moment when a large percentage of the French public learned that in the eyes of their president, they had no value. “Ceux qui ne sont rien” is a phrase that has lingered and festered. To don the yellow vest is thus to declare not only that one has value but also that one exists.

    On the whole, the gilets jaunes are not the poorest members of French society, which is not surprising. As Tocqueville remarked, revolutions are fueled not by those who suffer the most, but by those whose economic status has been improving and who then experience a sudden and unexpected fall. So it seems with the gilets jaunes: most live above the poverty line but come from the precarious ranks of the lower middle class, a group that aspires to middle-class stability and seeks to secure it through palliative consumption: certain clothing brands, the latest iPhone, the newest television.

    In mid-December Le Monde profiled a young couple in the movement from Sens in north-central France, identified only as Arnaud and Jessica. Both twenty-six, they and their four children live in a housing project on the €2,700 per month that Arnaud earns as a truck driver, including more than €1,000 in government assistance. According to statistics from France’s Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (Insée), this income places them right at the poverty line for a family of this size, and possibly even slightly below it. But the expenses Arnaud and Jessica told Le Monde they struggled to pay included karate lessons for their oldest son and pet supplies for their dog. Jessica, who does not work, told Le Monde, “Children are so mean to each other if they wear lesser brands. I don’t want their friends to make fun of them.” She said she had traveled to Paris for gilet jaune protests on three separate weekends—journeys that presumably cost her money.

    Readers of Le Monde—many of them educated, affluent, and pro-Macron—were quick to attack Arnaud and Jessica. But the sniping missed their point, which was that they felt a seemingly inescapable sense of humiliation, fearing ridicule everywhere from the Élysée Palace to their children’s school. They were explaining something profound about the gilets jaunes: the degree to which the movement is fueled by unfulfilled expectations. For many demonstrators, life is simply not as they believed it would be, or as they feel they deserve. There is an aspect of entitlement to the gilets jaunes, who are also protesting what the French call déclassement, the increasing elusiveness of the middle-class dream in a society in which economic growth has not kept pace with population increase. This entitlement appears to have alienated the gilets jaunes from immigrants and people of color, who are largely absent from their ranks and whose condition is often materially worse.2 “It’s not people who don’t have hope anymore, who don’t have a place to live, or who don’t have a job,” Rokhaya Diallo, a French activist for racial equality, told me recently, describing the movement. “It’s just that status they’re trying to preserve.”

    The gilets jaunes have no substantive ideas: resentment does not an ideology make. They remain a combustible vacuum, and extremist agitators on the far right and the far left have sought to capitalize on their anger. Both Marine Le Pen of the recently renamed Rassemblement National and Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the left-wing La France Insoumise have tried hard to channel the movement’s grassroots energy into their own political parties, but the gilets jaunes have so far resisted these entreaties. The gilets jaunes also found themselves at the center of a diplomatic spat: in early February Italy’s deputy prime minister, Luigi Di Maio, met with two of their members on the outskirts of Paris in a jab at Macron. Two days later, France withdrew its ambassador to Rome for the first time since 1940, but the gilets jaunes have not attempted to exploit this attention for their own political gain. Instead there was infighting—a Twitter war over who had the right to represent the cause abroad and who did not.

    The intellectual void at the heart of an amorphous movement can easily fill with the hatred of an “other.” That may already be happening to the gilets jaunes. Although a careful analysis by Le Monde concluded that race and immigration were not major concerns in the two hundred most frequently shared messages on gilet jaune Facebook pages between the beginning of the movement and January 22, a number of gilets jaunes have been recorded on camera making anti-Semitic gestures, insulting a Holocaust survivor on the Paris metro, and saying that journalists “work for the Jews.” Importantly, the gilets jaunes have never collectively denounced any of these anti-Semitic incidents—a silence perhaps inevitable for a movement that eschews organization of any kind. Likewise, a thorough study conducted by the Paris-based Fondation Jean Jaurès has shown the extent to which conspiracy theories are popular in the movement: 59 percent of those surveyed who had participated in a gilet jaune demonstration said they believed that France’s political elites were encouraging immigration in order to replace them, and 50 percent said they believed in a global “Zionist” conspiracy.

    Members of the movement are often quick to point out that the gilets jaunes are not motivated by identity politics, and yet anyone who has visited one of their demonstrations is confronted with an undeniable reality. Far too much attention has been paid to the symbolism of the yellow vests and far too little to the fact that the vast majority of those who wear them are lower-middle-class whites. In what is perhaps the most ethnically diverse society in Western Europe, can the gilets jaunes truly be said to represent “the people,” as the members of the movement often claim? Priscillia Ludosky, arguably the first gilet jaune, is a black woman. “It’s complicated, that question,” she told me. “I have no response.”

    The gilets jaunes are also distinctly a minority of the French population: in a country of 67 million, as many as 282,000 have demonstrated on a single day, and that figure has consistently fallen with each passing week, down to 41,500 during “Act 14” of the protest on February 16. On two different weekends in November and December, other marches in Paris—one for women’s rights, the other against climate change—drew far bigger crowds than the gilets jaunes did. But the concerns of this minority are treated as universal by politicians, the press, and even the movement’s sharpest critics. Especially after Trump and Brexit, lower-middle-class and working-class whites command public attention even when they have no clear message.

    French citizens of color have been protesting social inequality for years without receiving any such respect. In 2005 the killing of two minority youths by French police in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois ignited a string of violent uprisings against police brutality, but the government declared an official state of emergency instead of launching a grand débat. In 2009, the overseas departments of Guadeloupe and Martinique saw a huge strike against the high cost of living—a forty-four-day uprising that also targeted fuel prices and demanded an increase to the minimum wage. In 2017 an almost identical protest occurred in French Guiana, another French overseas department, where residents demonstrated against household goods that were as much as 12 percent more expensive than they were in mainland France, despite a lower minimum wage. The French government was slow to respond in both of these instances, while the concerns of the gilets jaunes have resulted in a personal apology from the president and a slew of concessions.

    Guilluy, whose analysis of la France périphérique ultimately fails to grapple significantly with France’s decidedly peripheral overseas territories, does not shy away from the question of identity. He sees a racial element to the frustrations of la France périphérique, but he does not see this as a problem. Some of the most frustrating moments in his work come when he acknowledges but refuses to interrogate white working-class behavior that seems to be racially motivated. “Public housing in outlying communities is now a last resort for workers hoping to be able to go on living near the major cities,” he writes in Twilight of the Elites, describing the recent astronomic rise in France’s urban real estate prices. “These projects, mostly occupied by immigrant renters, are avoided by white French-born workers. Barring some utterly unforeseeable turn of events, their expulsion from the largest urban centers will be irreversible.” It would not diminish Guilluy’s broader point about la France périphérique if he acknowledged that victims of structural changes can also be intolerant.

    Guilluy also regularly recycles anxieties over immigration, often from controversial theorists such as Michèle Tribalat, who is associated with the idea of le grand remplacement, the alleged “great replacement” of France’s white population by immigrants from North and Sub-Saharan Africa. In making his case about “the demographic revolution in process,” Guilluy has been accused of inflating his statistics. France, he wrote in Fractures françaises, “welcomes a little less than 200,000 legal foreigners every year.” But these claims were attacked by Patrick Weil, a leading French historian of immigration, who noted in his book Le sens de la République (2015) that Guilluy failed to consider that a large number of those 200,000 are temporary workers, students who come and go, and others of “irregular” status. Guilluy has not responded to these criticisms, and in any case his rhetoric has since grown more radical. In No Society he writes, “Multiculturalism is, intrinsically, a feeble ideology that divides and weakens.”

    Whether the gilets jaunes will eventually come to agree with him is a crucial question. Like Guilluy, they are responding to real social conditions. But if, following Guilluy’s lead, they ultimately resort to the language of race and ethnicity to explain their suffering, they will have chosen to become a different movement altogether, one in which addressing inequality was never quite the point. In some ways, they have already crossed that line.

    On the afternoon of Saturday, February 16, the prominent French intellectual Alain Finkielkraut got out of a taxi on the Boulevard Montparnasse. A crowd of gilets jaunes noticed him and began hurling anti-Semitic insults. The scene, recorded on video, was chilling: in the center of Paris, under a cloudless sky, a mob of visibly angry men surrounded a man they knew to be Jewish, called him a “dirty Zionist,” and told him, “go back to Tel Aviv.”

    Finkielkraut’s parents were Polish refugees from the Holocaust. He was born in Paris in 1949 and has become a fixture in French cultural life, a prolific author, a host of a popular weekly broadcast on France Culture, and a member of the Académie Française, the country’s most elite literary institution. In the words of Macron, who immediately responded to the attack, he “is not only an eminent man of letters but the symbol of what the Republic affords us all.” The irony is that Finkielkraut—another former leftist who believes that France has plunged into inexorable decline and ignored the dangers of multiculturalism—was one of the only Parisian intellectuals who had supported the gilets jaunes from the beginning.

    I spoke to Finkielkraut after the attack, and he explained that the gilets jaunes had seemed to him the evidence of something authentic. “I saw an invisible France, neglected and forgotten,” he said. “Wearing fluorescent yellow vests in order to be visible—of being a ‘somewhere’ as opposed to an ‘anywhere,’ as Goodhart has said—seemed to me an absolutely legitimate critique.” The British journalist David Goodhart, popular these days in French right-wing circles, is the author of The Road to Somewhere (2017), which sees populist anger as the inevitable response to the widening gulf between those “rooted” in a particular place and cosmopolitans at home anywhere. “France is not a ‘start-up nation,’” Finkielkraut told me. “It can’t be reduced to that.”

    Finkielkraut said that the attack was a sign that the reasonable critiques orginally made by the gilets jaunes had vanished, and that they had no real future. “I think the movement is in the process of degradation. It’s no longer a social movement but a sect that has closed in on itself, whose discourse is no longer rational.”

    Although the Paris prosecutor has opened an investigation into his attackers, Finkielkraut has not pressed charges. He told me that the episode, as violent as it was, did not necessarily suggest that all those who had worn yellow vests in recent months were anti-Semites or extremists. “Those who insulted me were not the nurses, the shopkeepers, or the small business owners,” he said, noting that he doubted he would have experienced the same prejudice at the roundabouts, the traffic circles across the country where gilets jaunes protesters gathered every Saturday. In a sense, these were the essence of the movement, which was an inchoate mobilization against many things, but perhaps none so much as loneliness. The roundabouts quickly became impromptu piazzas and a means, however small, of reclaiming a spirit of community that disappeared long ago in so many French towns and villages.

    In Paris, where the remaining gilets jaunes have now focused most of their energy, the weekly protests have become little more than a despicable theater filled with scenes like the attack on Finkielkraut. There is no convincing evidence that those still wearing yellow vests are troubled by the presence of bigotry in their ranks. What is more, many gilets jaunes now seem to believe that pointing out such prejudice is somehow to become part of a government-backed conspiracy to turn public opinion against them.

    Consider, for instance, a February 19 communiqué released in response to the attack on Finkielkraut from La France en Colère, one of the movement’s main online bulletins. “For many days, the government and its friends in the national media seem to have found a new technique for destabilizing public opinion and discrediting the Gilets Jaunes movement,” it begins. “We denounce the accusations and the manipulations put in place by this government adept at fake news.” But this is all the communiqué denounces; it does not address the anti-Semitic violence to which Finkielkraut was subjected, nor does it apologize to a national figure who had defended the movement when few others of his prominence dared to do the same.

    A month after our last conversation, I called Priscillia Ludosky back, to see if she had any reaction to the recent turn of events in the movement her petition had launched. She was only interested in discussing what she called the French government’s “systematic abuse to manipulate public opinion.” She also believes that a government-media conspiracy will stop at nothing to smear the cause. “If there was one person who ever said something homophobic, it was on the front page of every newspaper,” she told me.

    In the days after the attack, Finkielkraut lamented not so much the grim details of what had happened but the squandered potential of a moment that has increasingly descended into paranoid feverishness. As he told me: “This was a beautiful opportunity to reflect on who we are that’s been completely ruined.”

    https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/03/21/low-visibility-france-gilet-jaunes

  • Finland’s basic income trial boosts happiness but not employment | Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-basic-income/finlands-basic-income-trial-boosts-happiness-but-not-employment-idUSKCN1PX0
    https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190208&t=2&i=1354502227&w=1200&r=LYNXNPEF170XW

    HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland’s basic income scheme did not spur its unemployed recipients to work more to supplement their earnings as hoped but it did help their wellbeing, researchers said on Friday as the government announced initial findings.

    The two-year trial, which ended a month ago, saw 2,000 Finns, chosen randomly from among the unemployed, become the first Europeans to be paid a regular monthly income by the state that was not reduced if they found work.

    Finland — the world’s happiest country last year, according to the United Nations — is exploring alternatives to its social security model.

    The trial was being watched closely by other governments who see a basic income as a way of encouraging the unemployed to take up often low-paid or temporary work without fear of losing their benefits. That could help reduce dependence on the state and cut welfare costs, especially as greater automation sees humans replaced in the workforce.

    Finland’s minister of health and social affairs Pirkko Mattila said the impact on employment of the monthly pay cheque of 560 euros ($635) “seems to have been minor on the grounds of the first trial year”.

    But participants in the trial were happier and healthier than the control group.

    “The basic income recipients of the test group reported better wellbeing in every way (than) the comparison group,” chief researcher Olli Kangas said.

    Chief economist for the trial Ohto Kanniainen said the low impact on employment was not a surprise, given that many jobless people have few skills or struggle with difficult life situations or health concerns.
    Owner Sini Marttinen poses for a picture at her coffee shop she founded while benefitting from Finland’s basic income scheme in Helsinki, Finland January 30, 2019. REUTERS/Philip O’Connor

    “Economists have known for a long time that with unemployed people financial incentives don’t work quite the way some people would expect them to,” he added.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL BOOST

    Sini Marttinen, 36, had been unemployed for nearly a year before “winning the lottery”, as she described the trial.

    Her basic income gave her enough confidence to open a restaurant with two friends. “I think the effect was a lot psychological,” the former IT consultant told Reuters.

    “You kind of got this idea you have two years, you have the security of 560 euros per month ... It gave me the security to start my own business.”

    Her income only rose by 50 euros a month compared to the jobless benefit she had been receiving, “but in an instant you lose the bureaucracy, the reporting”, Marttinen said.

    Mira Jaskari, 36, who briefly found a job during the trial but lost it due to poor health, said losing the basic income had left her feeling more insecure about money.

    The center-right government’s original plan was to expand the basic income scheme after two years as it tries to combat unemployment which has been persistently high for years but reached a 10-year low of 6.6 percent in December.

    That followed the imposition of benefits sanctions on unemployed people who refused work.

    The basic income has been controversial, however, with leaders of the main Finnish political parties keen to streamline the benefits system but wary of offering “money for nothing”, especially ahead of parliamentary elections due in April.
    Slideshow (2 Images)
    TAX BIND

    Prime Minister Juha Sipila’s Centre Party has proposed limiting the basic income to poor people, with sanctions if they reject a job offer, while Conservative finance minister Petteri Orpo says he favors a scheme like Britain’s Universal Credit.

    The higher taxes that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says would be needed to pay for basic income schemes might also be off-putting for voters.

    In a review of the Finnish scheme last year, the OECD warned that implementing it nationally and cost-neutrally for the state would imply significant income redistribution, especially towards couples from single people, and increase poverty.

    The researchers have acknowledged that the Finnish pilot was less than realistic because it did not include any tax claw-back once participants found work and reached a certain income level.

    Swiss voters rejected a similar scheme in 2016. Italy is due to introduce a “citizens’ wage” in April in a major overhaul of the welfare state, which will offer income support to the unemployed and poor.

    Trial participants were generally positive, however, with Tuomas Muraja, a 45-year-old journalist and author, saying the basic income had allowed him to concentrate on writing instead of form-filling or attending jobseekers’ courses.

    He said the end of the two-year trial, during which he published two books, had made it difficult again for him to accept commissions, because “I ... can earn only 300 euros per month without losing any benefits”.

    “If people are paid money freely that makes them creative, productive and welfare brings welfare,” Muraja told Reuters about his experience of the pilot.

    “If you feel free, you feel safer and then you can do whatever you want. That is my assessment.”

    ($1 = 0.8817 euros)

  • Statistical Insights: Are international productivity gaps as large as we thought? - OECD
    http://www.oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/statistical-insights-are-international-productivity-gaps-as-large-as-we-though


    Figure 1. Average annual hours worked per person, selected OECD countries, 2016

    Labour productivity is a key indicator of economic wellbeing, and raising it – producing more goods and services from the same or less work (labour input) – is one of the main drivers of sustainable economic growth.

    Historically, comparisons of levels of productivity across countries have shown substantial gaps, even between similar-sized economies at a similar stage of development – leaving many analysts struggling to understand the causes. However, a new OECD study has found that at least a part of these gaps disappears once we adjust for differences in how countries measure labour input.
    In the case of the United Kingdom for instance, the study reveals that the gap in labour productivity levels with the United States is around 8 percentage points smaller than was previously thought – closing from 24% to 16%. The gap with Germany shrinks from 22% to 14% and with France from 20% to 11%.

    The corollary of lower hours worked of course is higher labour productivity levels. Figure 2 shows labour productivity levels, referenced to the United States, using official national accounts average hours worked estimates, comparing them with new results from the OECD simplified component approach for countries using the direct method.

    Overall, the results point to a reduction in relative productivity gaps of around 10 percentage points on average compared with current official estimates in many countries, with notable international ranking changes for some countries. The United Kingdom for example moves above Italy, while Austria moves ahead of France, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Germany.


    Figure 2. International productivity gaps, levels, 2016

  • 5 idées reçues à déconstruire sur les liens entre migrations & développement

    Mobilisés pour le développement de leur région d’origine comme de destination, les organisations « migrations & développement » sont des acteurs clés de la #coopération_internationale. Le cadre de leur engagement associatif, « ici et là-bas », met en exergue les grandes interdépendances mondiales entre les sociétés du Nord et du Sud.

    Ce travail est le fruit d’une coopération étroite entre des associations de migrants en Europe et leurs partenaires. Ainsi, les rédacteurs ont repris les idées reçues les plus couramment véhiculées dans le secteur de l’aide publique au développement à chaque fois qu’il était fait référence aux migrations, aux immigrés ou à leurs organisations représentatives.

    – Pas de pauvreté, pas de migration

    – Quitter son pays, c’est l’appauvrir encore plus

    – Ouvrir les frontières, c’est mettre en péril notre économie

    – Les associations de migrants ne s’impliquent pas dans la vie locale en Europe

    – Les organisations de migrants qui investissent dans le champ de la solidarité internationale ne se préoccupent que de leurs familles


    https://mediatheque.agencemicroprojets.org/idees-recues-migrations-developpement
    #mythe #préjugés #migrations #développement #pauvreté #frontières #ouverture_des_frontières #aide_au_développement

    Brochure :
    https://mediatheque.agencemicroprojets.org/wp-content/uploads/5-id%C3%A9es-%C3%A0-d%C3%A9construire-lien-migration

    ping @_kg_

    • Migrations subsahariennes : les idées reçues à l’épreuve des chiffres

      Elaborer des politiques publiques pertinentes, à même d’optimiser les liens entre migrations et développement des individus et des territoires requiert des données et une analyse scientifique des caractéristiques des flux et des individus concernés. Face à un important déficit d’informations sur les migrations, la collecte et l’exploitation de données internationales comparables, comme la base de données DIOC (Database on Immigrants in OECD Countries) permettent d’alimenter ce processus et de déconstruire un certain nombre d’idées reçues (OCDE-AFD, 2015).

      https://issuu.com/objectif-developpement/docs/29-question-developpement_77d96bb3beda0e

  • Israël et ses expatriés : un rapport difficile
    22 septembre 2018 Par La rédaction de Mediapart
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/220918/israel-et-ses-expatries-un-rapport-difficile?onglet=full

    Plus de 15 000 Israéliens ont quitté l’État hébreu en 2017. C’est près de 6 300 de plus que d’Israéliens revenant dans le pays. Ce déficit tend certes à s’affaiblir, mais dans un pays qui se veut le refuge des Juifs du monde entier, ces expatriés soulèvent bien des questions en Israël. Le quotidien suisse Neue Zürcher Zeitung publie une enquête sur ce phénomène. Les raisons de partir sont nombreuses : elles peuvent être économiques, liées à la formation ou plus politiques, par rejet de la politique gouvernementale ou par désespoir de voir un jour la paix régner dans la région.

    Beaucoup en Israël estiment que ces départs nuisent à l’image d’un pays qui se veut performant sur le plan économique et à la pointe de la technologie. D’autres critiquent une forme de trahison vis-à-vis du seul État juif, d’autres encore redoutent la fuite des cerveaux. Mais les réactions de la société israélienne face aux expatriés sont complexes et paradoxales. Ainsi, la droite souhaitait accorder le droit de vote aux Israéliens de l’étranger sur leur lieu de résidence, pensant que ces derniers soutiendraient plutôt la politique de Benjamin Netanyahou. La gauche s’y opposait, estimant qu’il était injuste de donner le droit de vote à ceux qui ne subissent pas directement cette politique. Puis, la droite a fait marche arrière devant la crainte de voir les Juifs de gauche étasuniens, par exemple, faire un aliya par correspondance en demandant un passeport sans jamais résider en Israël, et en votant… à gauche.

    En lire plus dans la NZZ : https://www.nzz.ch/international/der-kampf-um-die-abgestiegenen-seelen-ld.1422166

    • nzz.ch, siehe oben

      [...]

      (Die) Bemerkungen lösten in Israel eine riesige Debatte aus. Und starker Tobak ist es fürwahr – auch hippe Israeli in Berlin werden nicht gerne pauschal beschuldigt, ihr Land «wegzuwerfen». Lapid wurde heftig angegriffen, aber in den sozialen Netzwerken ergriffen auch viele Partei für ihn und warfen den Expats Fahnenflucht, mangelnden Patriotismus und Schlimmeres vor. Die Linke schlug zurück und diagnostizierte einen andauernden Exodus, der Ausdruck von Verdruss und Verzweiflung über die dominierende Politik der Rechten sei. Joseph Chamie und Barry Mirkin, zwei amerikanische Wissenschafter, schrieben 2011 in der Zeitschrift «Foreign Policy» einen Artikel mit dem Titel «The Million Missing Israelis» und behaupteten, bis zu eine Million Israeli lebten im Ausland. Das seien rund 13 Prozent, ein für OECD-Länder hoher Wert. 1980 hätten lediglich 270 000 Israeli im Ausland gelebt.

      [...]

      ... das Wesentliche, die Begründung der Auswanderung. Für ... war es nicht nur das, was weglockte, die angeblich bessere Bildung im Ausland, die bessere Lebensqualität, das Einkommen und die tollen Berufschancen. Nein, sie fanden auch Faktoren, die die Menschen wegtrieben. Die Politik der Regierung. Der offene Rassismus in breiten Volksschichten. Die fehlenden Friedensaussichten. Die allgemeine Niedergeschlagenheit. «The question is not why we left, but why it took us so long to do so.» Und ahnungsvoll wurde festgestellt, dass viele Expats bereits Doppelbürger waren oder es werden wollten. Rund 100 000 Israeli hätten bereits den deutschen Pass, in den USA gebe es denselben Trend. Die Israeli im Ausland seien tendenziell gescheiter, gebildeter, wohlhabender, säkularer als der Durchschnitt, hiess es weiter. Angesichts dieses Exodus werde die Lage in Israel langsam schwierig. Die Emigration stärke die Ultraorthodoxen und die Araber. Damit gefährde sie das zionistische Projekt.

      [...]

    • The million missing Israelis | Foreign Policy 2011

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/07/05/the-million-missing-israelis

      [...]

      At the lower end is the official estimate of 750,000 Israeli emigrants — 10 percent of the population — issued by the Israeli Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, which is about the same as that for Mexico, Morocco, and Sri Lanka. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government places the current number of Israeli citizens living abroad in the range of 800,000 to 1 million, representing up to 13 percent of the population, which is relatively high among OECD countries. Consistent with this latter figure is the estimated 1 million Israelis in the Diaspora reported at the first-ever global conference of Israelis living abroad, held in this January.

      Current estimates of Israelis living abroad are substantially higher than those for the past. During Israel’s first decade, some 100,000 Jews are believed to have emigrated from Israel. By 1980, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics estimated some 270,000 Israelis living abroad for more than a year, or 7 percent of the population. Several decades later, the number of Israeli emigrants had swelled to about 550,000 — or almost double the proportion at the end of the 1950s.

      Of the Israelis currently residing abroad, roughly 60 percent are believed to have settled in North America, a quarter in Europe, and 15 percent distributed across the rest of the world. It is estimated that about 45 percent of the adult Israeli expatriates have completed at least a university degree, in contrast to 22 percent of the Israeli population. The Israeli emigrants are deemed to be disproportionately secular, liberal, and cosmopolitan. Furthermore, the emigrants are generally younger than the immigrants to Israel, especially those from the former Soviet Union, hastening the aging of Israel’s population.

      The often-cited reasons for Israeli emigration center on seeking better living and financial conditions, employment and professional opportunities, and higher education, as well as pessimism regarding prospects for peace. Consistent with these motives, one of the most frequently given explanations for leaving Israel is: “The question is not why we left, but why it took us so long to do so.” And recent opinion polls find that almost half of Israeli youth would prefer to live somewhere else if they had the chance. Again, the most often-cited reason to emigrate is because the situation in Israel is viewed as “not good.”

      Another important factor contributing to the outflow of Jewish Israelis is previous emigration experience. As 40 percent of Jewish Israelis are foreign-born, emigration is nothing new for many in the country. Moreover, as Israeli emigrants cannot yet vote from abroad, they are likely to feel marginalized from mainstream Israeli society, further contributing to their decision to remain abroad as well as attracting others to do the same. Whether the Netanyahu government’s effort in the Knesset to approve a bill granting voting rights to Israelis living abroad will slow the trend is uncertain.

      Adding to emigration pressures, many Israelis have already taken preliminary steps to eventually leaving. One survey found close to 60 percent of Israelis had approached or were intending to approach a foreign embassy to ask for citizenship and a passport. An estimated 100,000 Israelis have German passports, while more are applying for passports based on their German ancestry. And a large number of Israelis have dual nationality, including an estimated 500,000 Israelis holding U.S. passports (with close to a quarter-million pending applications).

      [...]

  • International Migration Outlook 2018

    Preliminary data show that OECD countries received slightly more than 5 million new permanent legal migrants in 2017. This represents the first decline in migration to the area since 2011 (down by around 5%, compared to 2016). This is due, however, to the significant reduction in the number of recognised refugees in 2017 while other migration categories remained stable or increased.

    After two years of record‑high numbers of asylum applications to OECD countries, there was a significant decline in 2017, with 1.23 million claims. This figure is still well above any other recorded year, prior to 2015. The top three origin countries were Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. In 2017, the United States received the highest number of asylum applications in the OECD (330 000 applications), followed by Germany (198 000).

    Accounting for almost 40% of permanent migrants, family migration (family reunification and formation as well as accompanying family members) remained the most important migration channel to the OECD area. The sharp increase in this category in the period 2015/16 reversed a decline that started in 2010.

    For the first time, this year’s Outlook includes a consolidated number for all categories of temporary labour migration to OECD countries. These categories comprise international recruitments of seasonal workers and other temporary foreign workers; EU workers sent by their employers to other EU countries under local contracts (posted workers); and intra‑company transferees. In total, more than 4.2 million temporary foreign workers were recorded in the OECD in 2016, which corresponds to an 11% increase compared to the previous year. The main receiving countries for temporary foreign workers are Poland (672 000, mostly from Ukraine) and the United States (660 000, with India as main origin country).

    Around 3.3 million international students were enrolled in higher education in an OECD country, 8% up from the previous year. Recent trends in the United States, however, indicate a strong decline in the number of study permits in 2016 (‑27%). On average, international students account for 9% of the total number of students enrolled in establishments of higher education in OECD countries in 2015. They represent 14% of all students enrolled in Master’s degree courses and 24% of those enrolled in doctoral courses.

    On average across OECD countries, migrants’ employment rate increased by 1 percentage point in 2017, to 67.1. Their average unemployment rate decreased by 1 percentage point to 9.5%, and the average unemployment gap with their native‑born peers narrowed to 3 percentage points in 2017. This development was partly driven by significant improvements in some EU countries.

    On the policy side, migration channels for highly‑qualified foreigners continue to be refined in many countries, involving adjustment of the selection criteria of permanent programmes and reviewing conditions for temporary programmes. Start‑up visas continue to grow in number while investor programmes are under review and see stricter conditions. Eligibility for family reunification is also an area of policy adjustment.

    The labour market impact of recent refugees

    For European countries as a whole, the estimated relative impact of recent refugee inflows on the working‑age population is projected to reach no more than 0.4% by December 2020. In terms of labour force, since participation rates of refugees are typically very low in the early period of their stay in the host country, the magnitude of the aggregate net impact is estimated to be even smaller, at less than 0.25% by December 2020.

    In countries with the highest aggregate effects, the impact is likely to be much larger in specific segments of the labour market, notably among young low‑educated men. Since this population group is already vulnerable in most host countries, well‑targeted measures are needed to provide them with adequate support.

    The illegal employment of foreign workers

    The illegal employment of foreign workers may result from non‑compliance with either migration – or labour – rules. Addressing this issue is therefore both an economic and migration policy objective.

    Consequently, OECD countries should seek to improve co ordination and coherence between enforcement authorities. They should also raise awareness among both employers and workers and use improved status verification systems as part of measures to prevent the illegal employment of migrant labour. However, when the illegal employment of foreign workers becomes a highly prominent issue or is deemed structural, regularisation programmes may be considered. They need to be designed carefully and accompanied by appropriate changes in legal labour migration channels and stronger enforcement measures. Finally, policies to combat the illegal employment of foreign workers should be conducted not only at national and sector levels, but also internationally.

    Main findings

    Labour market integration of immigrants

    Between 2016 and 2017, the unemployment rate of migrants in the OECD decreased by more than 1 percentage point to 9.5%, and the employment rate increased from 65.5% to 67.1%. The improvement was more marked for foreign‑born women.
    Specific migrant groups are showing particularly high employment rates. For example, in the European Union, the employment rate of EU migrants is higher than that of natives by 5 percentage points. In the United States, for the first time in recent years, migrants from Mexico and Africa outperformed migrants from Asia by 1 and 3 percentage points, respectively.
    Across OECD countries, the creation of integration programmes for newly‑arrived migrants and refugees continues, focusing largely on language and skills acquisition. Many countries have also developed measures intended for the most vulnerable, notably unaccompanied minors and children who arrive late to the education system.

    Labour market impact of refugees

    European countries received 4 million new asylum applications between January 2014 and December 2017, three times as many as during the previous four‑year period. During the same period (2014‑17), about 1.6 million individuals were granted some form of protection.
    For European countries as a whole, the relative impact of recent refugee inflows on the labour force is estimated to be quite small, at less than 0.25% by December 2020. Specific groups (young, low‑educated men) in the most affected countries (Austria, Germany, Sweden) are, however, more exposed.
    In the absence of any migrant returns to their countries of origin, the total number of rejected asylum seekers could reach 1.2 million by end 2020. The effect on the informal labour market will depend on the level of voluntary returns and the efficiency of enforcement measures.

    Illegal employment of foreign workers

    Illegal employment of foreign workers is most likely to affect men of a relatively young age. The sectors most concerned by such illegal employment are agriculture, construction, manufacturing and domestic services.

    https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/0312b53d-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/0312b53d-en
    #migrations #réfugiés #OCDE #statistiques #asile #chiffres #2017 #rapport #travailleurs_étrangers #marché_du_travail #travail

    cc @reka

  • #gdpr Decoded - Part 2: The Specifics
    https://hackernoon.com/gdpr-decoded-part-2-the-specifics-17ad575230a8?source=rss----3a8144eabfe

    GDPR Decoded — Part 2: The Specificsdatanalytics.comGDPR did not happen overnight. It came into effect two years after it was passed by the EU Parliament. Moreover, the seeds were sown on 23rd October 1980 in the form of Guidelines on the Protection of #privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. It was published by the OECD (Organisation for the Economic Cooperation and Development) and endorsed by the USA and the EU.These recommendations enumerated below laid the foundation of what we now know as Right to Privacy.Collection Limitation Principle — limit the collection of personal data by all means except by informed consent.Data Quality Principle — Data, if stored/processed must be free of inaccuracies and be updated within a suitable time duration.Purpose Specification Principle — The reason (...)

    #gdpr-decoded #european-union #wtf-is-gdpr

  • #OGM - Mensonges et vérités

    La #controverse entre pro-OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés) et anti-OGM rend le débat passionnel et parfois incompréhensible. Ce tour d’horizon mondial démêle le vrai du faux, preuves scientifiques à l’appui.

    Depuis plus de vingt ans, les OGM (organismes génétiquement modifiés), en particulier les plantes, ne cessent de s’étendre sur la planète, dans le but d’améliorer les rendements de soja, maïs, coton, colza, riz, etc. Dix pays, sur les vingt-huit qui en cultivent, représentent, à eux seuls, 98 % de la superficie mondiale des cultures transgéniques – soit 11 % des terres cultivées –, essentiellement sur le continent américain, le sous-continent indien et en Chine. Aux États-Unis, où les premières plantations de soja transgénique ont été introduites en 1996, les OGM représentent environ 90 % des cultures de soja, de maïs et de coton. Selon leurs défenseurs, ils sont indispensables pour répondre aux besoins d’une population en forte croissance. C’est l’argument du géant du secteur, le semencier américain Monsanto, qui produit aussi le célèbre Roundup, un herbicide total dont la substance active, le glyphosate, épargne les plantes OGM.


    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/057483-000-A/ogm-mensonges-et-verites

    #film #documentaire #reportage #vidéo
    #BT #maïs_BT #rentabilité #TH #soja #Roundup #USA #Etats-Unis #monoculture #agriculture #élevage #Argentine #Monsanto #pommes_De_terre #risques #génie_génétique #toxine_BT #pesticides #industrie_agro-alimentaire #glyphosate #herbicide #super_mauvaises_herbes #darwinisme #soja_roundup_ready #atrazin #business #santé #cancer #Mexique #propriété_intellectuelle #brevets #Percy_Schmeiser #sécurité_alimentaire #Ghana #malformation_congénitale #justice #biodiversité

    #USAID (qui lie #aide_au_développement et utilisation de OGM dans le pays qui va recevoir l’aide)

    #Gates_Foundation (qui finance des tests de plantes OGM au Ghana)

    #biotechnologie_agricole #coton #Bukina_Faso #coton_BT #Sofitex #rendements #Geocoton #Roundup_Ready_Flex_Cotton #néo-colonialisme

    #MON810 #maïs_MON810 #riz_doré #riz #Philippines #golden_rice #Syngenta #technologie #dengue #oxitec #moustiques_transgéniques #AGM #animaux_génétiquement_modifiés

    • Une ONG présentée dans le film, au Ghana :
      #Food_sovereignty_ghana

      Food Sovereignty Ghana is a grass-roots movement of Ghanaians, home and abroad, dedicated to the promotion of food sovereignty in Ghana. Our group believes in the collective control over our collective resources, rather than the control of our resources by multinational corporations and other foreign entities. This movement is a product of Special Brainstorming Session meeting on the 21st of March, 2013, at the Accra Freedom Centre. The meeting was in response to several calls by individuals who have been discussing, writing, or tweeting, about the increasing phenomenon of land grabs, the right to water and sanitation as a fundamental human right, water privatization issues, deforestation, climate change, carbon trading and Africa’s atmospheric space, and in particular, the urgent issue of the introduction of GM food technology into our agriculture, particularly, its implications on food sovereignty, sustainable development, biodiversity, and the integrity of our food and water resources, human and animal health, and our very existence as a politically independent people. These calls insisted that these issues need to be comprehensively addressed in a systematic and an organized manner.

      Foremost in these calls was the need for a comprehensive agricultural policy that respects the multi-functional roles played by agriculture in our daily lives, and resists the avaricious calculations behind the proposition that food is just another commodity or component for international agribusiness. The trade in futures or speculation involving food have pushed food prices beyond the reach of almost a billion of people in the world who go to bed, each day, hungry. Even though we have have doubled the amount of food to feed everybody in the world today, people still don’t have access to food. The primary cause of this is the neo-liberal agenda of the imperialists, such as the SAP, EPA, AGOA, TRIPS, AoA, AFSNA, AGRA, which have the focus on marginalising the small family farm agriculture that continues to feed over 80% of Africa and replacing them with governance structures, agreements and practices that depend on and promote unsustainable and inequitable international trade and give power to remote and unaccountable corporations.

      We came together in order to help turn a new leaf. We see a concerted effort, over the years, to distort our agriculture to such an extent that today, our very survival as a free and independent people crucially depend on how fast we are able to apply the breaks, and to rather urgently promote policies that focus on food for people, and value our local food providers, the arduous role of the resilient small family farm for thousands of years. We need to resist imperialist policies such as the Structural Adjustment Programmes of the World Bank and the IMF which rolled away 30 years of gains towards food sovereignty in the 1970s and 80s. Those African countries that graduated from the SAP were subsequently slammed with HIPIC. In all these years, the imperialist countries fortified their agricultural production with heavy government subsidies, as Africa saw the imposition of stringent conditionality removing all government subsidies on our own agriculture. The effect has been a destruction of our local food production capacity and a dependence on corporations for our daily food needs. This has had a devastating effect on Africa’s agriculture, and our ability to feed ourselves.

      We believe that a proper analysis of the food crisis is a matter that cannot be left with trade negotiators, investment experts, or agricultural engineers. It is essentially a matter of political economy. As Jean Ziegler succinctly puts it, “Every child who dies of hunger in today’s world has been murdered.” Our Food Under Our Control! is determined to make sure that such a crime becomes impossible in Ghana. Our number one mission is to switch the language from food security to food sovereignty as the goal, to repeat the words food sovereignty at every opportunity and say we don’t want food security, that can still be dependence, we want food sovereignty, we need food sovereignty. This is not the same as “food security”. A country can have food security through food imports. Dependence on food imports is precarious and prone to multiple risks — from price risks, to supply risks, to conditionality risks (policy conditions that come with food imports). Food sovereignty, on the other hand, implies ensuring domestic production and supply of food. It means that the nationals of the country (or at the very least nationals within the region) must primarily be responsible for ensuring that the nation and the region are first and foremost dependent on their own efforts and resources to grow their basic foods.

      Aims and objectives:

      1. To help promote the people’s right to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and to generally ensure the priority of domestic food crops produced by small farms over export crops.

      2. To help create mass awareness about the political, economic, health and environmental impacts of genetically modified food technology and defend the right of the people to define their own food and agricultural systems.

      3. To help ensure small farms are sustained by state provision and facilitation of necessary infrastructure: Security of land tenure, Water, Financial credit, Energy, Fertilizers, Transport, Storage, Extension service, Marketing, Technology and Equipment for production, harvesting, storage and transport, and Insurance against crop failures due to climate changes, or other unforeseen circumstances.

      4. To help resist the theft, destruction, and loss of the Commons, our natural and indigenous resources, by means of laws, commercial contracts and intellectual property rights regimes, and to generally serve as the watch-dog over all aspects of agricultural sustainability in Ghana.

      5. To help protect and preserve public access to and ownership of the Commons: Water, Land, Air, Seeds, Energy, Plants, Animals, and work closely with like-minded local, national, and international organisations in the realization of the foregoing objectives.


      http://foodsovereigntyghana.org

    • Un chercheur, #Damián_Verzeñassi de l’#université_de_Rosario, mentionné il y a une année dans un article de Mediapart :

      Argentine : soja transgénique voisine avec maladies

      Avia Terai, ville de 10 000 habitants, est exposée aux pulvérisations incessantes sur ses champs de soja et de coton de glyphosate, le composant de base de l’herbicide de Monsanto. Un pesticide que l’Organisation mondiale pour la santé a étiqueté cancérogène en 2015. Ici, des enfants naissent avec des malformations, des troubles neurologiques sévères et le taux de cancer est trois fois plus élevé que la moyenne nationale, selon l’étude du docteur argentin Damián Verzeñassi de l’université de Rosario. De son côté, Monsanto nie catégoriquement l’authenticité de ces études et considère que la #toxicité de son produit phare Roundup n’a pas encore été prouvée.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/studio/portfolios/argentine-soja-transgenique-voisine-avec-maladies

      Le chercheur a fait une étude dans laquelle il montrait un lien entre le glyphosate et le développement de cancer :
      “Hay una incidencia del glifosato en los nuevos casos de cáncer”

      Desde 2010 se hicieron relevamientos en 32 localidades de la región pampeana y se relevaron más de 110 mil personas. Según Verzeñassi, si se encontró en estas localidades, donde se aplicó el modelo productivo con transgénicos a base de agrotóxicos, un pico muy importante de casos de cáncer, hipotiroidismo y abortos espontáneos.


      https://rosarionuestro.com/hemos-encontrado-un-incremento-en-la-incidencia-del-glifosato-en-los

    • #Red_de_Médicos_de_Pueblos_Fumigados (Argentine)

      La Red Universitaria de Ambiente y Salud (REDUAS) es una coordinación entre profesionales universitarios, académicos, científicos, miembros de equipos de salud humana en sus distintos niveles y demás estudiosos, preocupados por los efectos deletéreos de la salud humana que genera el ambiente degradado a consecuencias de la actividad productiva humana, especialmente cuando esta se da a gran escala y sustentada en una visión extractivista.

      La REDUAS surge como una de las decisiones tomadas en el 1º Encuentro de Médicos de Pueblos Fumigados, realizado en la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba y organizado por el Modulo de Determinantes Sociales de la Salud de la Cátedra de Pediatría y por la Cátedra de Medicina I de dicha Facultad; concretado el 26 y 27 de agosto de 2010

      La REDUAS se construye para unir, coordinar y potenciar el trabajo de investigación científica, asistencia sanitaria, análisis epidemiológico y divulgación ,difusión y defensa del derecho a la salud colectiva, que realizan equipos que desarrollan este tipo de actividades en 10 provincias distintas de la Republica Argentina y que se encuentran activados por el problema del daño a la salud que ocasiona la fumigación o aspersión, sistemática de más de 300 millones de litros de plaguicidas sobre casi 12 millones de personas que conviven con los sembradíos de cultivos agroindustriales.

      Para avanzar en ese sentido se propone aportar al debate público por la necesidad de construir prácticas productivas que permitan una supervivencia feliz de la especie humana en la superficie terrestre y de la responsabilidad publica, privada, colectiva e individual en el resguardo de esas condiciones ecológicas.

      Considerando al derecho a la salud, como uno de los valores sociales que debemos tratar de privilegiar en el análisis de las decisiones políticas y económicas que se toman en nuestra sociedad, creemos necesario ampliar la difusión del conocimiento de los datos científicos que se dispone, y que muchas veces se invisibilizan; aportar a la generación de nuevos datos e informaciones experimentales y observacionales – poblacionales; y potenciar la voz de los equipos de salud, investigadores y pobladores en general afectados en sus derechos por agresiones ambiéntales generadas por practicas productivas ecológicamente agresivas.


      http://reduas.com.ar
      #résistance

    • #Madres_de_Ituzaingo_Anexo-Cordoba
      http://madresdeituzaingoanexo.blogspot.fr

      Madres de #Ituzaingó: 15 años de pelea por el ambiente

      En marzo de 2002 salieron a la calle por primera vez para reclamar atención sanitaria ante la cantidad de enfermos en el barrio.Lograron mejorar la zona y alejar las fumigaciones, nuevas normas ambientales y un juicio inédito. Dicen que la lucha continúa. Un juicio histórico


      http://www.lavoz.com.ar/ciudadanos/madres-de-ituzaingo-15-anos-de-pelea-por-el-ambiente
      #Sofia_Gatica

    • Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in #Oaxaca, Mexico

      Concerns have been raised about the potential effects of transgenic introductions on the genetic diversity of crop landraces and wild relatives in areas of crop origin and diversification, as this diversity is considered essential for global food security. Direct effects on non-target species1,2, and the possibility of unintentionally transferring traits of ecological relevance onto landraces and wild relatives have also been sources of concern3,4. The degree of genetic connectivity between industrial crops and their progenitors in landraces and wild relatives is a principal determinant of the evolutionary history of crops and agroecosystems throughout the world5,6. Recent introductions of transgenic DNA constructs into agricultural fields provide unique markers to measure such connectivity. For these reasons, the detection of transgenic DNA in crop landraces is of critical importance. Here we report the presence of introgressed transgenic DNA constructs in native maize landraces grown in remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico, part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin and diversification of this crop7,8,9.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/35107068

    • #Gilles-Éric_Séralini

      Gilles-Éric Séralini, né le 23 août 1960 à Bône en Algérie1, est un biologiste français, professeur de biologie moléculaire à l’université de Caen2. Il est cofondateur, administrateur et membre du conseil scientifique du CRIIGEN3, parrain de l’association Générations Cobayes4 et lanceur d’alerte5. Il est aussi membre du conseil scientifique de The Organic Center6, une association dépendant de l’Organic Trade Association (en)7, « le principal porte-parole du business bio aux États-Unis »8, et parrain de la Fondation d’entreprise Ekibio9.

      Il s’est fait notamment connaître du grand public pour ses études sur les OGM et les pesticides, et en particulier en septembre 2012 pour une étude toxicologique portée par le CRIIGEN mettant en doute l’innocuité du maïs génétiquement modifié NK 603 et du Roundup sur la santé de rats10,11. Cette étude, ainsi que les méthodes utilisées pour la médiatiser, ont été l’objet d’importantes controverses, les auteurs étant accusés d’instrumentaliser de la science, ou même suspectés de fraude scientifique12,13. En réalité, les agences de santé européennes et américaines réagissent sur le tard, indiquant les lacunes et faiblesses méthodologiques rédhibitoires de la publication (notamment un groupe de contrôle comportant un nombre d’individus ridiculement bas). Certains dénoncent aussi un manque de déontologie pour s’assurer d’un « coup de communication ». La revue Food and Chemical Toxicology retire l’étude en novembre 2013.


      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles-%C3%89ric_S%C3%A9ralini

      Dans le documentaire on parle notamment d’un article qu’il a publié dans la revue « Food and chemical toxicology », que j’ai cherché sur internet... et... suprise suprise... je l’ai trouvé, mais le site de Elsevier dit... « RETRACTED »
      Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637

      Il est par contre dispo sur sci-hub !
      http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

      voici la conclusion :

      In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate con- sumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures ( EPA ). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural gly- phosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below offi- cially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. Similarly, disruption of biosynthetic pathways that may result from overexpression of the EPSPS transgene in the GM NK603 maize can give rise to com- parable pathologies that may be linked to abnormal or unbalanced phenolic acids metabolites, or related compounds. Other muta- genic and metabolic effects of the edible GMO cannot be excluded. This will be the subject of future studies, including transgene and glyphosate presence in rat tissues. Reproductive and multigenera- tional studies will also provide novel insights into these problems. This study represents the first detailed documentation of long- term deleterious effects arising from the consumption of a GM R- tolerant maize and of R, the most used herbicide worldwide. Altogether, the significant biochemical disturbances and physi- ological failures documented in this work confirm the pathological effects of these GMO and R treatments in both sexes, with different amplitudes. We propose that agricultural edible GMOs and formu- lated pesticides must be evaluated very carefully by long term studies to measure their potential toxic effects.

    • #RiskOGM

      RiskOGM constitue depuis 2010 l’action de recherche du ministère en charge de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie pour soutenir la structuration d’une communauté scientifique et le développement de connaissances, de méthodes et de pratiques scientifiques utiles à la définition et à la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques sur les OGM.

      Le programme s’appuie sur un Conseil Scientifique et sur un Comité d’Orientation qui réunit des parties prenantes.

      Les axes de recherche prioritaires identifiés portent sur les plans de surveillance générale des OGM, la coexistence des cultures, la gouvernance, les aspects économiques, éthiques et sociaux ou encore la démarche globale d’analyse de la sécurité des aliments contenant des produits transgéniques,

      3 projets en cours ont été soutenus après un 1er appel à proposition fin 2010. Fin 2013, suite à un deuxième appel, le projet (#PGM / #GMO90plus) a été sélectionné et soutenu à hauteur de 2,5 M€. Il vise à une meilleure connaissance des effets potentiels sur la santé de la consommation sur une longue durée de produits issus des plantes génétiquement modifiées.

      http://recherche-riskogm.fr/fr
      #programme_de_recherche

      Un projet dont fait partie #Bernard_Salles, rattaché à l’INRA, interviewé dans le documentaire.
      Lui, semble clean, contrairement au personnage que je vais un peu après, Pablo Steinberg

    • Projet #G-Twyst :

      G-TwYST is the acronym for Genetically modified plants Two Year Safety Testing. The project duration is from 21 April 2014 – 20 April 2018.

      The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has developed guidance for the risk assessment of food and feed containing, consisting or produced from genetically modified (GM) plants as well as guidance on conducting repeated-dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rodents on whole food/feed. Nonetheless, the long-term safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) food/feed is a long-standing controversial topic in the European Union. At the present time there are no standardized protocols to study the potential short-, medium- and/or long-term toxicity of GM plants and derived products. Against this backdrop the main objective of the G-TwYST project is to provide guidance on long-term animal feeding studies for GMO risk assessment while at the same time responding to uncertainties raised through the outcomes and reports from recent (long-term) rodent feeding studies with whole GM food/feed.

      In order to achieve this, G-TwYST:

      Performs rat feeding studies for up to two years with GM maize NK603. This includes 90 day studies for subchronic toxicity, 1 year studies for chronic toxicity as well as 2 year studies for carcinogenicity. The studies will be based on OECD Test Guidelines and executed according to EFSA considerations
      Reviews recent and ongoing research relevant to the scope of G-TwYST
      Engages with related research projects such as GRACE and GMO90plus
      Develops criteria to evaluate the scientific quality of long-term feeding studies
      Develops recommendations on the added value of long-term feeding trials in the context of the GMO risk assessment process.
      As a complementary activity - investigates into the broader societal issues linked to the controversy on animal studies in GMO risk assessment.
      Allows for stakeholder engagement in all key steps of the project in an inclusive and responsive manner.
      Provides for utmost transparency of what is done and by whom it is done.

      G-TwYST is a Collaborative Project of the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities. The proposal for G-TwYST was established in reponse to a call for proposals on a two-year carcinogenicity rat feeding study with maize NK603 that was launched by he European Commission in June 2013 (KBBE.2013.3.5-03).

      https://www.g-twyst.eu

      Attention : ce projet semble être sous forte influence des lobbys de l’OGM...

      Fait partie de ce projet #Pablo_Steinberg, interviewé dans le documentaire.

      Pablo Steinberg est d’origine argentine, il est également le toxicologue du projet « #GRACE : GMO Risk Assessment and communication evidence », financé par l’UE :

      GRACE was a project funded under the EU Framework 7 programme and undertaken by a consortium of EU research institutes from June 2012 - November 2015. The project had two key objectives:

      I) To provide systematic reviews of the evidence on the health, environmental and socio-economic impacts of GM plants – considering both risks and possible benefits. The results are accessible to the public via an open access database and other channels.

      II) GRACE also reconsidered the design, execution and interpretation of results from various types of animal feeding trials and alternative in vitro methods for assessing the safety of GM food and feed.

      The Biosafety Group was involved in the construction of the central portal and database (CADIMA; Central Access Database for Impact Assessment of Crop Genetic Improvement Technologies) that managed the information gathered in the pursuit of the two objectives and in the dissemination of information.

      http://biosafety.icgeb.org/projects/grace

      La conférence finale de présentation du projet GRACE a été organisée à Potsdam... un 9 novembre... date-anniversaire de la chute du mur...
      Voici ce que #Joachim_Schiemann, coordinateur du projet, dit à cette occasion (je transcris les mots prononcés par Schiemann dans le reportage) :

      « Nous aussi, avec nos activités, nous essayons d’abattre certains murs et de faire bouger certaines positions qui sont bloquées. Je trouve que c’est très symbolique d’avoir organisé cette conférence à Potsdam, à proximité de Berlin et des vestiges du mur »

    • Prof. Potrykus on #Golden_Rice

      #Ingo_Potrykus, Professor emeritus at the Institute of Plant Sciences, ETH Zurich, is one of the world’s most renowned personalities in the fields of agricultural, environmental, and industrial biotechnology, and invented Golden Rice with Peter Beyer. In contrast to usual rice, this one has an increased nutritional value by providing provitamin A. According to WHO, 127 millions of pre-school children worldwide suffer from vitamine A deficiency, causing some 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness every year. This deficiency is responsible for 600,000 deaths among children under the age of 5.

      https://blog.psiram.com/2013/09/prof-potrykus-on-golden-rice
      Ce riz, enrichi de #bêtacarotène pour pallier aux carences de #provitamine_A, a valu, à Monsieur #Potrykus, la couverture du Time, une première pour un botaniste :

    • Golden Illusion. The broken promise of GE ’Golden’ rice

      GE ’Golden’ rice is a genetically engineered (GE, also called genetically modified, GM) rice variety developed by the biotech industry to produce pro-vitamin A (beta-carotene). Proponents portray GE ’Golden’ rice as a technical, quick-fix solution to Vitamin A deficiency (VAD), a health problem in many developing countries. However, not only is GE ’Golden’ rice an ineffective tool to combat VAD it is also environmentally irresponsible, poses risks to human health, and compromises food security.

      https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Genetic-engineering/Golden-Illusion
      #rapport

    • #MASIPAG (#Philippines)

      MASIPAG a constaté que les paysans qui pratiquent la production agricole biologique gagnent en moyenne environ 100 euros par an de plus que les autres paysans, parce qu’ils ne dépensent pas d’argent dans des fertilisants et pesticides chimiques. Dans le contexte local, cela représente une économie importante. En plus, l’agriculture biologique contribue à un milieu plus sain et à une réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Malgré cela, le gouvernement philippin poursuit une politique ambiguë. En 2010, il a adopté une loi sur la promotion de l’agriculture biologique, mais en même temps il continue à promouvoir les cultures génétiquement modifiées et hybrides nécessitant le recours aux intrants chimiques. La loi actuelle insiste également sur une certification couteuse des produits bio par les tiers, ce qui empêche les #petits_paysans de certifier leurs produits.

      http://astm.lu/projets-de-solidarite/asie/philipinnes/masipag
      #paysannerie #agriculture_biologique

    • #AquAdvantage

      Le saumon AquAdvantage (#AquAdvantage_salmon® pour les anglophones, parfois résumé en « #AA_Salmon » ou « #AAS ») est le nom commercial d’un saumon transgénique et triploïde1.

      Il s’agit d’un saumon atlantique modifié, créé par l’entreprise AquaBounty Technologies (en)2 qui est devenu en mai 2016 le premier poisson génétiquement modifié par transgenèse commercialisé pour des fins alimentaires. Il a obtenu à cette date une autorisation de commercialisation (après son évaluation3) au Canada. En juillet 2017, l’entreprise a annoncé avoir vendu 4,5 tonnes de saumon AquAdvantage à des clients Canadiens qui ont à ce jour gardés leur anonymat4. L’entreprise prévoit de demander des autorisations pour des truites5, des tilapias 5 et de l’omble arctique génétiquement modifiés6.

      Selon les dossiers produits par AquaBounty à la FDA, deux gènes de saumons Chinook et deux séquences provenant d’une autre espèce (loquette d’Amérique) ont été introduits7, (information reprise par un article du New-York Times8 et un article scientifique évoquent aussi un gène provenant d’un autre poisson (loquette d’Amérique9). En 2010, AquaBounty, produirait déjà au Canada sur l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard les œufs de poissons destinés à des élevages en bassins enclavés à terre au Panama10 pour des poissons à exporter (alors que l’étiquetage n’est toujours pas obligatoire aux États-Unis)10.

      Ce poisson est controversé. Des préoccupations scientifiques et environnementalistes portent sur les risques d’impacts environnementaux à moyen et long terme, plus que sur le risque alimentaire. La FDA a considéré que la modification était équivalente à l’utilisation d’un médicament vétérinaire (hormone de croissance et modification transgénique)11 et a donc utilisé son processus (dit « NADA12 ») d’évaluation vétérinaire. Dans ce cadre, la FDA a conclu que ce poisson ne présentait a priori pas de risques pour la santé, et pouvait être cultivé de manière sûre. Mais en 2013, l’opportunité d’élever un tel poisson reste très contestée13 notamment depuis au moins 1986 concernant les risques qu’il pourrait poser à l’égard de l’environnement14, l’autorisation de mise sur le marché pourrait être à nouveau repoussée15.


      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage
      #saumon #saumon_transgénique #AquaBounty_Technologies

      Aussi appelé...
      #FrankenFish

  • Sampling bias in climate–conflict research
    http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0068-2

    Critics have argued that the evidence of an association between #climate change and #conflict is flawed because the research relies on a dependent variable sampling strategy. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that convenience of access biases the sample of cases studied (the ‘streetlight effect’). This also gives rise to claims that the climate–conflict literature stigmatizes some places as being more ‘naturally’ violent. Yet there has been no proof of such sampling patterns. Here we test whether climate–conflict research is based on such a biased sample through a systematic review of the literature. We demonstrate that research on climate change and violent conflict suffers from a streetlight effect. Further, studies which focus on a small number of cases in particular are strongly informed by cases where there has been conflict, do not sample on the independent variables (climate impact or risk), and hence tend to find some association between these two variables. These biases mean that research on climate change and conflict primarily focuses on a few accessible regions, overstates the links between both phenomena and cannot explain peaceful outcomes from climate change. This could result in maladaptive responses in those places that are stigmatized as being inherently more prone to climate-induced violence.

    • A growing number of policymakers, journalists and scholars are linking climate change to violent conflict9. Nevertheless, scientific evidence of this relationship remains elusive due to heterogeneous research designs, variables, data sets and scales of analysis10,11. Amid the array of disparate findings is a core of meta-analyses that are based on statistical methods12,13 as well as several in-depth studies linking climate change to highly prominent conflicts such as those in Darfur or Syria14,15.

      Critics of this research point to an array of methodological problems, and to a lesser extent a deeper underlying problem with a study design that selects only cases where conflict is present or where data are readily available1,2,3,4,10. Researchers have, for instance, intensively studied the impact of a multi-year drought on the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, while there is little analysis of responses to the same drought in Jordan or Lebanon, where no large-scale violence erupted16. So, if the evidence of a causal association between climate and violent conflict is informed only by exceptional instances where violent conflict arises and climate also varies in some way, it is unable to explain the vastly more ubiquitous and continuing condition of peace under a changing climate.

      Other critics of the research claiming a link between climate change and violent conflict have pointed to the way it stigmatizes some places—most often ‘Africa’ or a few African countries—as being more naturally violent than others. It does this ignoring the many similar and/or proximate places where peaceful responses are the norm, and the complex political, economic and institutional factors that cause violence and peace4,6,8,17. Such ‘mappings of danger’ can undermine the confidence of investors, local people and international donors and hence undermine sustainable development. They change the climate policy challenge from being one of adaptation with and in the interests of local people, to one of interventions to secure peace in the interests of those who fear the risk of contagious conflict and instability6,18.

      So, it is important to understand whether the research claiming a link between climate change and violent conflict is based on a biased sampling strategy. Yet the extent to which this is the case remains untested. We therefore survey the relevant academic literature for the period 1990–2017 using the Scopus database and a systematic review—a method often used to analyse large bodies of literature with a high degree of rigour and replicability, and which is described in the Methods section with data provided in Supplementary Datasets 1 and 219,20.

      The analysis of the relevant literature shows that Africa is by far the most frequently mentioned continent (77 mentions), followed by Asia (45) (see Table 1). The dominant focus on Africa in the literature is largely stable over time (see Fig. 1). This is surprising given that Asia is also home to places that are politically fragile and highly vulnerable to climate change21,22, but much more populous. Other continents with significant vulnerabilities to climate change (and that are at least in some places also prone to violent conflict), such as South America or Oceania, are hardly considered at all21.
      Table 1 Most frequently mentioned continents and world regions in climate–conflict publications
      Full size table
      Fig. 1: Frequency of mentions of continents in the climate–conflict literature per year.
      Fig. 1

      The bars illustrate how frequently a continent was mentioned in the climate–conflict literature per year (2007–2017). No bar indicates that the continent was not mentioned in this year.
      Full size image

      With respect to world regions, Sub-Saharan Africa was by far most frequently mentioned in the literature analysed (44 times), although the Middle East (22) and the Sahel (22) were also discussed often (see Table 1). At the country level, Kenya and Sudan were most frequently analysed by climate–conflict researchers (11 mentions), followed by Egypt (8) as well as India, Nigeria and Syria (7). Complete lists of the continents, world regions and countries discussed in climate–conflict research can be found in Supplementary Dataset 1.

      To check whether the selection of cases is biased towards the dependent variable, we run a number of Poisson regressions (see Supplementary Tables 1–3 for the full results) using data on, among others, the number of times a country is mentioned in the literature and on battle-related deaths between 1989 and 201522. Although the battle-related deaths data set is far from perfect and tends to underestimate small-scale violence (which many scholars believe is likely to be the most affected by climate change), it is currently the best global data set on violent conflict prevalence available.

      The correlation between the number of mentions and a high death toll is positive and significant in all models (Fig. 2). This suggests that studies on climate–conflict links that research one or a few individual countries are disproportionally focusing on cases that are already experiencing violent conflict. Holding other factors constant, we estimate that countries with more than 1,000 battle-related deaths are mentioned almost three times as often as countries with a lower death toll. This is further supported by a comparison of the top ten countries of each list (Table 2). Six of the ten most-often-mentioned countries are also among the ten countries with the most battle-related deaths. The four remaining countries are also characterized by significant numbers of battle-related deaths, ranging from 2,775 (Egypt) to 8,644 (South Sudan).
      Fig. 2: Changes in the frequency of mentions in the climate–conflict literature depending on country characteristics.
      Fig. 2

      Relative changes in the frequency with which countries are mentioned in the climate–conflict literature depending on climatic and other characteristics (estimated incidence rate ratios are shown, with 95% confidence intervals in grey). Estimated changes are not significant at the 5% level where confidence intervals cross the dashed line. Model 1 analyses the full sample. Model 2 includes English-speaking country instead of former British colony. Model 3 replaces Agriculture>25% of GDP with Agriculture>25% of employment. Model 4 uses high vulnerability rather than high exposure to climate change. Model 5 drops Kenya and Sudan from the analysis. Model 6 includes only African countries.
      Full size image
      Table 2 Countries most often mentioned in climate–conflict literature and countries with most battle-related deaths
      Full size table

      In contrast, the sampling of countries to be studied seems to be barely informed by the independent variable. A high exposure and a high vulnerability to climate change according to the ND-GAIN index23 are negatively, but not significantly, correlated with the number of times a country is mentioned (Fig. 2). The same holds true for the correlation with our climate risk measure based on the Global Climate Risk Index (CRI)24, although correlations are mostly significant here (Fig. 2), indicating that countries less at risk from climate change are more often discussed in the climate–conflict literature.

      Table 3 adds further evidence to this claim. None of the ten most climate change-affected countries according to the ND-GAIN exposure score or the CRI are among the top ten countries considered in the climate–conflict literature. Further, the literature on climate change and conflict does not discuss 11 of these 20 high-climate risk-countries at all (Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nicaragua, Philippines, Seychelles, Tuvalu and Yemen), despite many of them being characterized by significant political instability. There may be several reasons for these disparities, which include a greater interest in conflict-prone countries, issues of accessibility (discussed in the next paragraph) and a preference for studying countries with a higher global political relevance.
      Table 3 Countries most often mentioned in the climate–conflict literature compared with the countries most exposed to and at risk from climate change
      Full size table

      The literature largely agrees that climate change is a ‘threat multiplier’ that aggravates existing tensions. It would hence make little sense to focus predominantly on countries that are politically very stable. Also, several analyses explicitly select their cases based on a number of scope conditions that are hypothesized to make climate–conflict links more likely16,25. But if studies (especially when analysing a small number of cases) focus on places that are already suffering from intense violent conflict, while highly vulnerable countries receive little attention, results may be distorted and significant knowledge gaps left unaddressed. In line with this, we find that further climate sensitivity measures such as the contribution of the agricultural sector to employment (negative, insignificant effect) and to gross domestic product (GDP; slightly positive and significant, but not robust effect) are weak predictors for the number of mentions (Fig. 2).

      Our results further indicate a streetlight effect in climate–conflict research, that is, researchers tend to focus on particular places for reasons of convenience5. On the continent level, the availability of conflict data might have played an important role, especially as statistical analyses are very widespread in climate–conflict research10. Large geo-referenced conflict data sets spanning several countries and longer time periods were until very recently only available for Africa26. Indeed, when just considering statistical studies (n = 35 in our sample), the focus on Africa as a continent (65%) and Sub-Saharan Africa as a region (57%) is even stronger than in the full sample.

      On the country level, all models reveal a positive and significant correlation between the numbers of mentions in the literature and countries that are former British colonies (Fig. 2). A likely explanation for this finding is that countries formerly colonized by Great Britain have better data (for example, historic weather records), which makes research more convenient5. Further, in four of the six most-mentioned countries (Sudan, Kenya, India and Nigeria). English is an official language (which makes research more practicable for many Western scholars). However, the positive correlation between these two factors indicated by model 2 (Fig. 2) is not significant. The presence of a streetlight effect in climate–conflict research is a reason for concern as it suggests that case selection (and hence knowledge production) is driven by accessibility rather than concerns for the explanation or practical relevance27.

      One should note that the database we used for the literature search (Scopus) mainly captures journal articles that are written in English. Including French and Spanish language journals would probably yield a different picture of countries and regions most frequently mentioned.

      The statistical findings provided by this study are robust to the use of different model specifications, the inclusion of further control variables, and the removal of the two most frequently mentioned countries (Kenya and Sudan) from the analysis (see Fig. 2 and the Supplementary Information for further information). Results also hold when analysing Africa only, hence suggesting that the detected sampling biases occur not only on a global scale, but are also valid for the continent most intensively discussed in climate–conflict research.

      To conclude, critics have warned for some time that environmental security and climate–conflict research tend to choose cases on the dependent variable2,3,28. Our study provides the first systematic, empirical evidence that such claims are warranted. Studies focusing on one or a few cases tend to study places where the dependent variable (violent conflict) is present and hardly relate to the independent variable (vulnerability to climate change). In addition, climate–conflict research strongly focuses on cases that are most convenient in terms of field access or data availability.

      To be clear, we do not intent to criticize individual studies, which often have good reasons to focus on specific regions, countries and phenomena. However, the sampling biases of the climate–conflict research field as a whole are deeply problematic for at least four reasons.

      First, they convey the impression that climate–conflict links are stronger or more prevalent than they actually are3. This is especially the case for studies using few cases. Large-N studies usually contain a large number of non-conflict cases in their sample, although they draw all of these cases from a few regions or countries (see below).

      Second, focusing strongly on cases of violent conflict limits the ability of (qualitative) researchers to study how people adapt peacefully to the impacts of climate change or carry out the associated conflicts non-violently4,29. Such knowledge, however, would be particularly valuable from a policy-making perspective.

      Third, evidence of climate–conflict links comes primarily from few regions and countries that are convenient to access, such as (Sub-Saharan) Africa. This is even more of an issue in large-N, statistical analyses. While such a bias is not problematic per se as considerable parts of (Sub-Saharan) Africa are vulnerable to both climate change and conflict, this also implies that other very vulnerable regions, for instance in Asia and especially in South America and Oceania, receive little scholarly attention.

      Finally, over-representing certain places leads to them being stigmatized as inherently violent and unable to cope with climate change peacefully4,6. This is particularly the case for Africa as a continent, the world regions Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, and countries such as Kenya, Sudan or Egypt. Such stigmatization might contribute to the re-production of colonial stereotypes, especially as 81% of the first authors in our sample were affiliated with institutions in countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). And it can also provide legitimation for the imposed security responses in certain places at the expense of co-produced adaptation responses in all places at risk from climate change17,18,30.

  • Americans are dying younger than people in other rich nations - The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/27/americans-are-dying-younger-than-people-in-other-rich-nations

    by 2015 that gap had flipped. The average American born that year could expect to live a little less than 79 years, while the typical baby born in an OECD country had an expected life span of nearly 81 years.

    #visualisation #espérance_de_vie #santé #États-Unis

  • Can research quality be measured quantitatively?

    In this article I reflect on ways in which the neoliberal university and its administrative counterpart, #new_public_management (NPM), affect academic publishing activity. One characteristic feature of NPM is the urge to use simple numerical indicators of research output as a tool to allocate funding and, in practice if not in theory, as a means of assessing research quality. This ranges from the use of journal impact factors (IF) and ranking of journals to publication points to determine what types of work in publishing is counted as meritorious for funding allocation. I argue that it is a fallacy to attempt to assess quality of scholarship through quantitative measures of publication output. I base my arguments on my experiences of editing a Norwegian geographical journal over a period of 16 years, along with my experiences as a scholar working for many years within the Norwegian university system.

    https://fennia.journal.fi/forthcoming/article/66602/27160
    https://fennia.journal.fi/forthcoming/view/index
    #qualité #recherche #quantitativisme #université #édition_scientifique #publications_scientifiques #indicateurs #indicateurs_numériques #impact_factor #impact-factor #ranking

    • How global university rankings are changing higher education

      EARLIER this month Peking University played host to perhaps the grandest global gathering ever of the higher-education business. Senior figures from the world’s most famous universities—Harvard and Yale, Oxford and Cambridge among them—enjoyed or endured a two-hour opening ceremony followed by a packed programme of mandatory cultural events interspersed with speeches lauding “Xi Jinping thought”. The party was thrown to celebrate Peking University’s 120th birthday—and, less explicitly, China’s success in a race that started 20 years ago.

      In May 1998 Jiang Zemin, China’s president at the time, announced Project 985, named for the year and the month. Its purpose was to create world-class universities. Nian Cai Liu, a professor of polymeric materials science and engineering at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, got swept up in this initiative. “I asked myself many questions, including: what is the definition of and criteria for a world-class university? What are the positions of top Chinese universities?” Once he started benchmarking them against foreign ones, he found that “governments, universities and stakeholders from all around the world” were interested. So, in 2003, he produced the first ranking of 500 leading global institutions. Nobody, least of all the modest Professor Liu, expected the Shanghai rankings to be so popular. “Indeed, it was a real surprise.”

      People are suckers for league tables, be they of wealth, beauty, fame—or institutions of higher education. University rankings do not just feed humanity’s competitive urges. They are also an important source of consumer intelligence about a good on which people spend huge amounts of time and money, and about which precious little other information is available. Hence the existence of national league tables, such as US News & World Report’s ranking of American universities. But the creation of global league tables—there are now around 20, with Shanghai, the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS the most important—took the competition to a new level. It set not just universities, but governments, against each other.

      When the Shanghai rankings were first published, the “knowledge economy” was emerging into the global consciousness. Governments realised that great universities were no longer just sources of cultural pride and finishing schools for the children of the well-off, but the engines of future prosperity—generators of human capital, of ideas and of innovative companies.

      The rankings focused the minds of governments, particularly in countries that did badly. Every government needed a few higher-educational stars; any government that failed to create them had failed its people and lost an important global race. Europe’s poor performance was particularly galling for Germany, home of the modern research university. The government responded swiftly, announcing in 2005 an Exzellenzinitiative to channel money to institutions that might become world-class universities, and has so far spent over €4.6bn ($5.5bn) on it.

      Propelled by a combination of national pride and economic pragmatism, the idea spread swiftly that this was a global competition in which all self-respecting countries should take part. Thirty-one rich and middle-income countries have announced an excellence initiative of some sort. India, where world rankings were once regarded with post-colonial disdain, is the latest to join the race: in 2016 the finance minister announced that 20 institutions would aim to become world-class universities. The most generously funded initiatives are in France, China, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. The most unrealistic targets are Nigeria’s, to get at least two universities in the world’s top 200, and Russia’s, to get five in the world’s top 100, both by 2020.

      The competition to rise up the rankings has had several effects. Below the very highest rankings, still dominated by America and western Europe—America has three of the THE’s top five slots and Britain two this year—the balance of power is shifting (see chart). The rise of China is the most obvious manifestation. It has 45 universities in the Shanghai top 500 and is now the only country other than Britain or America to have two universities in the THE’s top 30. Japan is doing poorly: its highest-ranked institution, the University of Tokyo, comes in at 48 in the THE’s table. Elsewhere, Latin America and eastern Europe have lagged behind.

      The rankings race has also increased the emphasis on research. Highly cited papers provide an easily available measure of success, and, lacking any other reliable metric, that is what the league tables are based on. None of the rankings includes teaching quality, which is hard to measure and compare. Shanghai’s is purely about research; THE and QS incorporate other measures, such as “reputation”. But since the league tables themselves are one of its main determinants, reputation is not an obviously independent variable.

      Hard times

      The research boom is excellent news for humanity, which will eventually reap the benefits, and for scientific researchers. But the social sciences and humanities are not faring so well. They tend to be at a disadvantage in rankings because there are fewer soft-science or humanities journals, so hard-science papers get more citations. Shanghai makes no allowance for that, and Professor Liu admits that his ranking tends to reinforce the dominance of hard science. Phil Baty, who edits the THE’s rankings, says they do take the hard sciences’ higher citation rates into account, scoring papers by the standards of the relevant discipline.

      The hard sciences have benefited from the bounty flowing from the “excellence initiatives”. According to a study of these programmes by Jamil Salmi, author of “The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities”, all the programmes except Taiwan’s focused on research rather than teaching, and most of them favoured STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). This is no doubt one of the reasons why the numbers of scientific papers produced globally nearly doubled between 2003 and 2016.

      The rankings may be contributing to a deterioration in teaching. The quality of the research academics produce has little bearing on the quality of their teaching. Indeed, academics who are passionate about their research may be less inclined to spend their energies on students, and so there may be an inverse relationship. Since students suffer when teaching quality declines, they might be expected to push back against this. But Ellen Hazelkorn, author of “Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education”, argues that students “are buying prestige in the labour market”. This means “they want to go to the highest-status university possible”—and the league tables are the only available measure of status. So students, too, in effect encourage universities to spend their money on research rather than teaching.

      The result, says Simon Marginson, Oxford University’s incoming professor of higher education, is “the distribution of teaching further down the academic hierarchy”, which fosters the growth of an “academic precariat”. These PhD students and non-tenured academics do the teaching that the star professors, hired for their research abilities, shun as a chore. The British government is trying to press universities to improve teaching, by creating a “teaching-excellence framework”; but the rating is made up of a student-satisfaction survey, dropout rates and alumni earnings—interesting, but not really a measure of teaching quality. Nevertheless, says Professor Marginson, “everybody recognises this as a problem, and everybody is watching what Britain is doing.”

      A third concern is that competition for rankings encourages stratification within university systems, which in turn exacerbates social inequality. “Excellence initiatives” funnel money to top universities, whose students, even if admission is highly competitive, tend to be the children of the well-off. “Those at the top get more government resources and those at the bottom get least,” points out Ms Hazelkorn. That’s true even in Britain, which, despite not having an excellence initiative, favours top universities through the allocation of research money. According to a study of over 120 universities by Alison Wolf of King’s College London and Andrew Jenkins of University College London, the Russell Group, a self-selected elite of 24 universities, get nearly half of the funding for the entire sector, and increased their share from 44.7% in 2001-02 to 49.1% in 2013-14.

      The rankings race draws other complaints. Some universities have hired “rankings managers”, which critics argue is not a good use of resources. Saudi Arabian universities have been accused of giving highly cited academics lucrative part-time contracts and requiring them to use their Saudi affiliation when publishing.

      Intellectual citizens of nowhere

      Notwithstanding its downsides, the rankings race has encouraged a benign trend with far-reaching implications: internationalisation. The top level of academia, particularly in the sciences, is perhaps the world’s most international community, as Professor Marginson’s work shows. Whereas around 4% of first-degree students in the OECD study abroad, a quarter of PhD students do. Research is getting more global: 22% of science and engineering papers were internationally co-authored in 2016, up from 16% in 2003. The rankings, which give marks for international co-authorship, encourage this trend. That is one reason why Japan, whose universities are as insular as its culture, lags. As research grows—in 2000-14 the annual number of PhDs awarded rose by half in America, doubled in Britain and quintupled in China—so does the size and importance of this multinational network.

      Researchers work together across borders on borderless problems—from climate change to artificial intelligence. They gather at conferences, spend time in each other’s universities and spread knowledge and scholarship across the world. Forced to publish in English, they share at least one language. They befriend each other, marry each other and support each other, politically as well as intellectually. Last year, for instance, when Cambridge University Press blocked online access to hundreds of articles on sensitive subjects, including the Tiananmen Square massacre, at the request of the Chinese government, it faced international protests, and an American academic launched a petition which was signed by over 1,500 academics around the world. CUP backed down.

      The rankings race is thus marked by a happy irony. Driven in part by nationalistic urges, it has fostered the growth of a community that knows no borders. Critics are right that governments and universities obsess too much about rankings. Yet the world benefits from the growth of this productive, international body of scholars.


      https://www.economist.com/international/2018/05/19/how-global-university-rankings-are-changing-higher-education?frsc=dg%7Ce

      #Chine #classement_de_Shanghai #compétition #classement #ranking #QS #Times_Higher_Education #THE #excellence #Exzellenzinitiative #Allemagne #Inde #France #Singapour #Taïwan #Corée_du_Sud #Nigeria #Russie #USA #Etats-Unis #Angleterre #UK #recherche #publications #publications_scientifiques #enseignement #réputation #sciences_sociales #sciences_dures #précarité #précarisation #travail #inégalités #anglais #langue #internationalisation #globalisation #mondialisation

      La fin est très en phase avec le journal qui a publié cet article, hélas :

      Critics are right that governments and universities obsess too much about rankings. Yet the world benefits from the growth of this productive, international body of scholars.

      La première version de cet article a été apparemment corrigée :

      Correction (May 22nd, 2018): An earlier version of this piece suggested that non-English data and books are not included in the rankings. This is incorrect. The article has been amended to remove that assertion.

      –-> mais en fait, en réalité, il n’aurait pas dû l’être. Pour avoir expérimenté moi-même une fois le #H-index sur ma liste de publications, je peux vous dire qu’aucun article en d’autres langues que l’anglais avait été retenu dans l’index. Et même pas tous les articles en anglais que j’ai publiés...

  • 10 reasons why borders should be opened | #François_Gemenne | TEDxLiège
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/RRcZUzZwZIw
    #frontières #ouverture_des_frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #libre_circulation

    Les raisons :
    1. raisons humanitaires
    2. raison pragmatique pour combattre les passeurs et les trafiquants
    3. car les fermer, c’est inutile et inefficace
    4. raison économique
    5. pour contrer la migration illégale
    6. raison sociale : moins de travailleurs travaillant en dessous du minimum salarial
    7. raison financière : les frontières fermées sont un gaspillage d’argent
    8. raison #éthique : déclaration universellle des droits de l’homme (art. 13) —>jamais implementé à cause des frontières fermées... c’est quoi le point de quitter un pays si on ne peut pas entrer dans un autre ? En ouvrant les frontières, on reconnaîtrait que la migration est un droit humain —> c’est un projet de #liberté
    9. raison éthique : #injustice dans le fait que le destin d’une personne est déterminée par l’endroit où elle est née —> ouverture des frontières = projet d’#égalité
    10. raison éthique : nous sommes coincés par un « paradigme d’immobilité » (migration est un phénomène structurel et fondamental dans un monde globalisé). On continue à penser aux frontières comme à un manière de séparer « nous » de « eux » comme si ils n’étaient pas une humanité, mais seulement une addition de « nous » et « eux » #cosmopolitisme #fraternité

    • zibarre cte article !

      Exemple : moins de travailleurs travaillant en dessous du minimum salarial  ? ? ? ? ? ?
      L’exemple des travailleurs détachés, travaillant en dessous du minimum salarial, en France c’est bien la conséquence de l’ouverture des frontières ! Non ?

      L’importation d’#esclaves étrangers n’était pas suffisante pour l’#union_européenne.

      Je suppose que pour #François_Gemenne la fraude fiscale internationale est une bonne chose. L’importation des #OGM, des médicaments frelatés, et autres #glyphosates, aussi.

    • Ouvrir les frontières aux humains, une évidence. Comparer ça aux effets de la directive Bolkestein est scandaleux et amoral. #seenthis permet l’effacement des messages, n’hésitez pas.

    • Sur cette question d’ouverture de frontières, il y a aussi un livre d’éthique que je recommande :


      http://www.ppur.org/produit/810/9782889151769

      Dont voici un extrait en lien avec la discussion ci-dessus :

      « La discussion sur les bienfaits économiques de l’immigration est souvent tronquée par le piège du gâteau. Si vous invitez plus de gens à votre anniversaire, la part moyenne du gâteau va rétrécir. De même, on a tendance à penser que si plus de participants accèdent au marché du travail, il en découlera forcément une baisse des salaires et une réduction du nombre d’emplois disponible.
      Cette vision repose sur une erreur fondamentale quant au type de gâteau que représente l’économie, puisque, loin d’être de taille fixe, celui-ci augmente en fonction du nombre de participants. Les immigrants trouvant un travail ne osnt en effet pas seulement des travailleurs, ils sont également des consommateurs. Ils doivent se loger, manger, consommer et, à ce titre, leur présence stimule la croissance et crée de nouvelles opportunités économiques. Dans le même temps, cette prospérité économique provoque de nouvelles demandes en termes de logement, mobilité et infrastructure.
      L’immigration n’est donc pas comparable à une fête d’anniversaire où la part de gâteau diminuerait sans cesse. La bonne image serait plutôt celle d’un repas canadien : chacun apporte sa contribution personnelle, avant de se lancer à la découverte de divers plats et d’échanger avec les autres convives. Assis à cette table, nous sommes à la fois contributeurs et consommateurs.
      Cette analogie du repas canadien nous permet d’expliquer pourquoi un petit pays comme la Suisse n’a pas sombré dans la pauvreté la plus totale suite à l’arrivée de milliers d’Européens. Ces immigrants n’ont pas fait diminuer la taille du gâteau, ils ont contribué à la prospérité et au festin commun. L’augmentation du nombre de personnes actives sur le marché du travail a ainsi conduit à une forte augmentation du nombre d’emplois à disposition, tout en conservant des salaires élevés et un taux de chômage faible.
      Collectivement, la Suisse ressort clairement gagnante de cette mobilité internationale. Ce bénéfice collectif ’national’ ne doit cependant pas faire oublier les situations difficiles. Les changements induits par l’immigration profitent en effet à certains, tandis que d’autres se retrouvent sous pression. C’est notamment le cas des travailleurs résidents dont l’activité ou les compétences sont directement en compétition avec les nouveaux immigrés. Cela concerne tout aussi bien des secteurs peu qualifiés (par exemple les anciens migrants actifs dans l’hôtellerie) que dans les domaines hautement qualifiés (comme le management ou la recherche).
      Sur le plan éthique, ce constat est essentiel car il fait clairement apparaître deux questions distinctes. D’une part, si l’immigration profite au pays en général, l’exigence d’une répartition équitable des effets positifs et négatifs de cette immigration se pose de manière aiguë. Au final, la question ne relève plus de la politique migratoire, mais de la redistribution des richesses produites. Le douanier imaginaire ne peut donc se justifier sous couvert d’une ’protection’ générale de l’économie.
      D’autre part, si l’immigration met sous pression certains travailleurs résidents, la question de leur éventuelle protection doit être posée. Dans le débat public, cette question est souvent présentée comme un choix entre la défense de ’nos pauvres’ ou de ’nos chômeurs’ face aux ’immigrés’. Même si l’immigration est positive pour la collectivité, certains estiment que la protection de certains résidents justifierait la mise en œuvre de politiques migratoires restrictives. »

    • « Bart De Wever a raison : il faut discuter de l’ouverture des frontières », pour François Gemenne

      La tribune publiée ce mercredi dans De Morgen par le président de la N-VA est intéressante – stimulante, oserais-je dire – à plus d’un titre. En premier lieu parce qu’elle fait de l’ouverture des frontières une option politique crédible. Jusqu’ici, cette option était gentiment remisée au rayon des utopies libérales, des droits de l’Homme laissés en jachère. En l’opposant brutalement et frontalement à la préservation de la sécurité sociale, Bart De Wever donne une crédibilité nouvelle à l’ouverture des frontières comme projet politique. Surtout, elle place la question de la politique migratoire sur le terrain idéologique, celui d’un projet de société articulé autour de la frontière.

      La tribune publiée ce mercredi dans De Morgen par le président de la N-VA est intéressante – stimulante, oserais-je dire – à plus d’un titre. En premier lieu parce qu’elle fait de l’ouverture des frontières une option politique crédible. Jusqu’ici, cette option était gentiment remisée au rayon des utopies libérales, des droits de l’Homme laissés en jachère. En l’opposant brutalement et frontalement à la préservation de la sécurité sociale, Bart De Wever donne une crédibilité nouvelle à l’ouverture des frontières comme projet politique. Surtout, elle place la question de la politique migratoire sur le terrain idéologique, celui d’un projet de société articulé autour de la frontière.
      L’ouverture des frontières menace-t-elle la sécurité sociale ?

      Bart De Wever n’a pas choisi De Morgen, un quotidien de gauche, par hasard : pour une partie de la gauche, les migrations restent perçues comme des chevaux de Troie de la mondialisation, qui annonceraient le démantèlement des droits et acquis sociaux. Et l’ouverture des frontières est dès lors vue comme un projet néo-libéral, au seul bénéfice d’un patronat cupide à la recherche de main-d’œuvre bon marché. En cela, Bart De Wever, au fond, ne dit pas autre chose que Michel Rocard, qui affirmait, le 3 décembre 1989 dans l’émission Sept sur Sept, que « nous ne pouvons pas héberger toute la misère du monde » (1). Ce raisonnement, qui semble a priori frappé du sceau du bon sens, s’appuie en réalité sur deux erreurs, qui le rendent profondément caduc.

      Tout d’abord, les migrants ne représentent pas une charge pour la sécurité sociale. Dans une étude de 2013 (2) qui fait référence, l’OCDE estimait ainsi que chaque ménage immigré rapportait 5560 euros par an au budget de l’Etat. Dans la plupart des pays de l’OCDE, les migrants rapportent plus qu’ils ne coûtent : en Belgique, leur apport net représente 0.76 % du PIB. Et il pourrait être encore bien supérieur si leur taux d’emploi se rapprochait de celui des travailleurs nationaux : le PIB belge bondirait alors de 0.9 %, selon l’OCDE. Si l’immigration rapporte davantage qu’elle ne coûte, c’est avant tout parce que les migrants sont généralement beaucoup plus jeunes que la population qui les accueille. Il ne s’agit pas de nier ici le coût immédiat qu’a pu représenter, ces dernières années, l’augmentation du nombre de demandeurs d’asile, qui constituent une catégorie de particulière de migrants. Mais ce coût doit être vu comme un investissement : à terme, une vraie menace pour la sécurité sociale, ce serait une baisse drastique de l’immigration.
      Lien entre migration et frontière

      La deuxième erreur du raisonnement de Bart De Wever est hélas plus répandue : il postule que les frontières sont un instrument efficace de contrôle des migrations, et que l’ouverture des frontières amènerait donc un afflux massif de migrants. Le problème, c’est que les migrations ne dépendent pas du tout du degré d’ouverture ou de fermeture des frontières : croire cela, c’est méconnaître profondément les ressorts de la migration. Jamais une frontière fermée n’empêchera la migration, et jamais une frontière ouverte ne la déclenchera. Mais le fantasme politique est tenace, et beaucoup continuent à voir dans la frontière l’instrument qui permet de réguler les migrations internationales. C’est un leurre absolu, qui a été démonté par de nombreux travaux de recherche, à la fois sociologiques, historiques et prospectifs (3). L’Europe en a sous les yeux la démonstration éclatante : jamais ses frontières extérieures n’ont été aussi fermées, et cela n’a pas empêché l’afflux de migrants qu’elle a connu ces dernières années. Et à l’inverse, quand les accords de Schengen ont ouvert ses frontières intérieures, elle n’a pas connu un afflux massif de migrants du Sud vers le Nord, ni de l’Est vers l’Ouest, malgré des différences économiques considérables. L’ouverture des frontières n’amènerait pas un afflux massif de migrations, ni un chaos généralisé. Et à l’inverse, la fermeture des frontières n’empêche pas les migrations : elle les rend plus coûteuses, plus dangereuses et plus meurtrières. L’an dernier, ils ont été 3 116 à périr en Méditerranée, aux portes de l’Europe. Ceux qui sont arrivés en vie étaient 184 170 : cela veut dire que presque 2 migrants sur 100 ne sont jamais arrivés à destination.
      La frontière comme projet

      Ce qui est à la fois plus inquiétant et plus intéressant dans le propos de Bart De Wever, c’est lorsqu’il définit la frontière comme une « communauté de responsabilité », le socle de solidarité dans une société. En cela, il rejoint plusieurs figures de la gauche, comme Hubert Védrine ou Régis Debray, qui fut le compagnon de route de Che Guevara.

      Nous ne sommes plus ici dans la logique managériale « entre humanité et fermeté » qui a longtemps prévalu en matière de gestion des migrations, et dont le seul horizon était la fermeture des frontières. Ici, c’est la frontière elle-même qui définit le contour du projet de société.

      En cela, le propos de Bart De Wever épouse une fracture fondamentale qui traverse nos sociétés, qui divise ceux pour qui les frontières représentent les scories d’un monde passé, et ceux pour qui elles constituent une ultime protection face à une menace extérieure. Cette fracture, c’est la fracture entre souverainisme et cosmopolitisme, qu’a parfaitement incarnée la dernière élection présidentielle française, et dont la frontière est devenue le totem. Ce clivage entre souverainisme et cosmopolitisme dépasse le clivage traditionnel entre gauche et droite, et doit aujourd’hui constituer, à l’évidence, un axe de lecture complémentaire des idéologies politiques.

      La question des migrations est un marqueur idéologique fondamental, parce qu’elle interroge notre rapport à l’autre : celui qui se trouve de l’autre côté de la frontière est-il un étranger, ou est-il l’un des nôtres ?

      La vision du monde proposée par le leader nationaliste flamand est celle d’un monde où les frontières sépareraient les nations, et où les migrations seraient une anomalie politique et un danger identitaire. Cette vision est le moteur du nationalisme, où les frontières des territoires correspondraient à celles des nations.

      En face, il reste un cosmopolitisme à inventer. Cela nécessitera d’entendre les peurs et les angoisses que nourrit une partie de la population à l’égard des migrations, et de ne pas y opposer simplement des chiffres et des faits, mais un projet de société. Un projet de société qui reconnaisse le caractère structurel des migrations dans un 21ème siècle globalisé, et qui reconnaisse l’universalisme comme valeur qui puisse rassembler la gauche et la droite, de Louis Michel à Alexis Deswaef.

      Et on revient ici à l’ouverture des frontières, qui constitue à mon sens l’horizon possible d’un tel projet. Loin d’être une utopie naïve, c’est le moyen le plus pragmatique et rationnel de répondre aux défis des migrations contemporaines, de les organiser au bénéfice de tous, et de mettre un terme à la fois aux tragédies de la Méditerranée et au commerce sordide des passeurs.

      Mais aussi, et surtout, c’est un projet de liberté, qui matérialise un droit fondamental, la liberté de circulation. C’est aussi un projet d’égalité, qui permet de réduire (un peu) l’injustice fondamentale du lieu de naissance. Et c’est enfin un projet de fraternité, qui reconnaît l’autre comme une partie intégrante de nous-mêmes.

      (1) La citation n’est pas apocryphe : la suite de la phrase a été ajoutée bien plus tard. (2) « The fiscal impact of immigration in OECD countries », International Migration Outlook 2013, OCDE.

      (3) Voir notamment le projet de recherche MOBGLOB : http://www.sciencespo.fr/mobglob

      http://plus.lesoir.be/136106/article/2018-01-25/bart-de-wever-raison-il-faut-discuter-de-louverture-des-frontieres-pour-
      #sécurité_sociale #frontières

    • "Fermer les frontières ne sert à rien"

      Est-il possible de fermer les frontières ? Dans certains discours politiques, ce serait la seule solution pour mettre à l’immigration illégale. Mais dans les faits, est-ce réellement envisageable, et surtout, efficace ? Soir Première a posé la question à François Gemenne, chercheur et enseignant à l’ULG et à Science Po Paris, ainsi qu’à Pierre d’Argent, professeur de droit international à l’UCL.

      Pour François Gemenne, fermer les frontières serait un leurre, et ne servirait à rien : « Sauf à tirer sur les gens à la frontière, dit-il, ce n’est pas ça qui ralentirait les migrations. Les gens ne vont pas renoncer à leur projet de migration parce qu’une frontière est fermée. On en a l’illustration sous nos yeux. Il y a des centaines de personnes à Calais qui attendent de passer vers l’Angleterre alors que la frontière est fermée. L’effet de la fermeture des frontières, ça rend seulement les migrations plus coûteuses, plus dangereuses, plus meurtrières. Et ça crée le chaos et la crise politique qu’on connait actuellement ».

      Pour lui, c’est au contraire l’inverse qu’il faudrait envisager, c’est-à-dire les ouvrir. « C’est une question qu’on n’ose même plus aborder dans nos démocraties sous peine de passer pour un illuminé, et pourtant il faut la poser ! L’ouverture des frontières permettrait à beaucoup de personnes qui sont en situation administrative irrégulière, c’est-à-dire les sans-papiers, de rentrer chez eux. Ca permettrait beaucoup plus d’aller-retour, mais aussi, paradoxalement, de beaucoup mieux contrôler qui entre et qui sort sur le territoire ». Il explique également que cela neutraliserait le business des passeurs : « C’est parce que les gens sont prêts à tout pour franchir les frontières que le business des passeurs prospère. Donc, il y a une grande hypocrisie quand on dit qu’on veut lutter contre les passeurs, et qu’en même temps on veut fermer les frontières ».
      Des frontières pour rassurer ceux qui vivent à l’intérieur de celles-ci

      Pierre d’Argent rejoint François Gemenne dans son analyse. Mais sur la notion de frontière, il insiste un point : « Les frontières servent aussi, qu’on le veuille ou non, à rassurer des identités collectives au niveau interne. La frontière définit un corps collectif qui s’auto-détermine politiquement, et dire cela, ce n’est pas nécessairement rechercher une identité raciale ou autre. Dès lors, la suppression des frontières permettrait d’éliminer certains problèmes, mais en créerait peut-être d’autres. Reconnaissons que la vie en société n’est pas une chose évidente. Nous sommes dans des sociétés post-modernes qui sont très fragmentés. Il y a des sous-identités, et on ne peut manquer de voir que ces soucis qu’on appelle identitaires, et qui sont exprimés malheureusement dans les urnes, sont assez naturels à l’être humain. La manière dont on vit ensemble en société dépend des personnes avec qui on vit. Et si, dans une société démocratique comme la nôtre, il y a une forme d’auto-détermination collective, il faut pouvoir poser ces questions ».
      Ouvrir les frontières : quel impact sur les migrations ?

      François Gemenne en est persuadé : si l’on ouvrait les frontières, il n’y aurait pas forcément un flux migratoire énorme : « Toutes les études, qu’elles soient historiques, sociologiques ou prospectives, montrent que le degré d’ouverture d’une frontière ne joue pas un rôle dans le degré de la migration. Par exemple, quand on a établi l’espace Schengen, on n’a pas observé de migration massive de la population espagnole ou d’autres pays du sud de l’Europe vers le nord de l’Europe ».

      Pour Pierre d’Argent, il est cependant difficile de comparer l’ouverture de frontières en Europe avec l’ouverture des frontières entre l’Afrique et l’Europe, par exemple. Pour lui, il est très difficile de savoir ce qui pourrait arriver.

      https://www.rtbf.be/info/dossier/la-prem1ere-soir-prem1ere/detail_fermer-les-frontieres-ne-sert-a-rien?id=9951419

    • Migrants : l’#irrationnel au pouvoir ?

      Très loin du renouveau proclamé depuis l’élection du président Macron, la politique migratoire du gouvernement Philippe se place dans une triste #continuité avec celles qui l’ont précédée tout en franchissant de nouvelles lignes rouges qui auraient relevé de l’inimaginable il y a encore quelques années. Si, en 1996, la France s’émouvait de l’irruption de policiers dans une église pour déloger les grévistes migrant.e.s, que de pas franchis depuis : accès à l’#eau et distributions de #nourriture empêchés, tentes tailladées, familles traquées jusque dans les centres d’hébergement d’urgence en violation du principe fondamental de l’#inconditionnalité_du_secours.

      La #loi_sur_l’immigration que le gouvernement prépare marque l’emballement de ce processus répressif en proposant d’allonger les délais de #rétention administrative, de généraliser les #assignations_à_résidence, d’augmenter les #expulsions et de durcir l’application du règlement de #Dublin, de restreindre les conditions d’accès à certains titres de séjour, ou de supprimer la garantie d’un recours suspensif pour certain.e.s demandeur.e.s d’asile. Au-delà de leur apparente diversité, ces mesures reposent sur une seule et même idée de la migration comme « #problème ».

      Cela fait pourtant plusieurs décennies que les chercheurs spécialisés sur les migrations, toutes disciplines scientifiques confondues, montrent que cette vision est largement erronée. Contrairement aux idées reçues, il n’y a pas eu d’augmentation drastique des migrations durant les dernières décennies. Les flux en valeur absolue ont augmenté mais le nombre relatif de migrant.e.s par rapport à la population mondiale stagne à 3 % et est le même qu’au début du XXe siècle. Dans l’Union européenne, après le pic de 2015, qui n’a par ailleurs pas concerné la France, le nombre des arrivées à déjà chuté. Sans compter les « sorties » jamais intégrées aux analyses statistiques et pourtant loin d’être négligeables. Et si la demande d’asile a connu, en France, une augmentation récente, elle est loin d’être démesurée au regard d’autres périodes historiques. Au final, la mal nommée « #crise_migratoire » européenne est bien plus une crise institutionnelle, une crise de la solidarité et de l’hospitalité, qu’une crise des flux. Car ce qui est inédit dans la période actuelle c’est bien plus l’accentuation des dispositifs répressifs que l’augmentation de la proportion des arrivées.

      La menace que représenteraient les migrant.e.s pour le #marché_du_travail est tout autant exagérée. Une abondance de travaux montre depuis longtemps que la migration constitue un apport à la fois économique et démographique dans le contexte des sociétés européennes vieillissantes, où de nombreux emplois sont délaissés par les nationaux. Les économistes répètent qu’il n’y a pas de corrélation avérée entre #immigration et #chômage car le marché du travail n’est pas un gâteau à taille fixe et indépendante du nombre de convives. En Europe, les migrant.e.s ne coûtent pas plus qu’ils/elles ne contribuent aux finances publiques, auxquelles ils/elles participent davantage que les nationaux, du fait de la structure par âge de leur population.

      Imaginons un instant une France sans migrant.e.s. L’image est vertigineuse tant leur place est importante dans nos existences et les secteurs vitaux de nos économies : auprès de nos familles, dans les domaines de la santé, de la recherche, de l’industrie, de la construction, des services aux personnes, etc. Et parce qu’en fait, les migrant.e.s, c’est nous : un.e Français.e sur quatre a au moins un.e parent.e ou un.e grand-parent immigré.e.

      En tant que chercheur.e.s, nous sommes stupéfait.e.s de voir les responsables politiques successifs asséner des contre-vérités, puis jeter de l’huile sur le feu. Car loin de résoudre des problèmes fantasmés, les mesures, que chaque nouvelle majorité s’est empressée de prendre, n’ont cessé d’en fabriquer de plus aigus. Les situations d’irrégularité et de #précarité qui feraient des migrant.e.s des « fardeaux » sont précisément produites par nos politiques migratoires : la quasi-absence de canaux légaux de migration (pourtant préconisés par les organismes internationaux les plus consensuels) oblige les migrant.e.s à dépenser des sommes considérables pour emprunter des voies illégales. La #vulnérabilité financière mais aussi physique et psychique produite par notre choix de verrouiller les frontières est ensuite redoublée par d’autres pièces de nos réglementations : en obligeant les migrant.e.s à demeurer dans le premier pays d’entrée de l’UE, le règlement de Dublin les prive de leurs réseaux familiaux et communautaires, souvent situés dans d’autres pays européens et si précieux à leur insertion. A l’arrivée, nos lois sur l’accès au séjour et au travail les maintiennent, ou les font basculer, dans des situations de clandestinité et de dépendance. Enfin, ces lois contribuent paradoxalement à rendre les migrations irréversibles : la précarité administrative des migrant.e.s les pousse souvent à renoncer à leurs projets de retour au pays par peur qu’ils ne soient définitifs. Les enquêtes montrent que c’est l’absence de « papiers » qui empêche ces retours. Nos politiques migratoires fabriquent bien ce contre quoi elles prétendent lutter.

      Les migrant.e.s ne sont pas « la misère du monde ». Comme ses prédécesseurs, le gouvernement signe aujourd’hui les conditions d’un échec programmé, autant en termes de pertes sociales, économiques et humaines, que d’inefficacité au regard de ses propres objectifs.

      Imaginons une autre politique migratoire. Une politique migratoire enfin réaliste. Elle est possible, même sans les millions utilisés pour la rétention et l’expulsion des migrant.e.s, le verrouillage hautement technologique des frontières, le financement de patrouilles de police et de CRS, les sommes versées aux régimes autoritaires de tous bords pour qu’ils retiennent, reprennent ou enferment leurs migrant.e.s. Une politique d’#accueil digne de ce nom, fondée sur l’enrichissement mutuel et le respect de la #dignité de l’autre, coûterait certainement moins cher que la politique restrictive et destructrice que le gouvernement a choisi de renforcer encore un peu plus aujourd’hui. Quelle est donc sa rationalité : ignorance ou électoralisme ?

      http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2018/01/18/migrants-l-irrationnel-au-pouvoir_1623475
      #Karen_Akoka #Camille_Schmoll #France #répression #asile #migrations #réfugiés #détention_administrative #renvois #Règlement_Dublin #3_pourcent #crise_Des_réfugiés #invasion #afflux #économie #travail #fermeture_des_frontières #migrations_circulaires #réalisme #rationalité

    • Karine et Camille reviennent sur l’idée de l’économie qui ne serait pas un gâteau...
      #Johan_Rochel a très bien expliqué cela dans son livre
      Repenser l’immigration. Une boussole éthique
      http://www.ppur.org/produit/810/9782889151769

      Il a appelé cela le #piège_du_gâteau (#gâteau -vs- #repas_canadien) :

      « La discussion sur les bienfaits économiques de l’immigration est souvent tronquée par le piège du gâteau. Si vous invitez plus de gens à votre anniversaire, la part moyenne du gâteau va rétrécir. De même, on a tendance à penser que si plus de participants accèdent au marché du travail, il en découlera forcément une baisse des salaires et une réduction du nombre d’emplois disponible.
      Cette vision repose sur une erreur fondamentale quant au type de gâteau que représente l’économie, puisque, loin d’être de taille fixe, celui-ci augmente en fonction du nombre de participants. Les immigrants trouvant un travail ne osnt en effet pas seulement des travailleurs, ils sont également des consommateurs. Ils doivent se loger, manger, consommer et, à ce titre, leur présence stimule la croissance et crée de nouvelles opportunités économiques. Dans le même temps, cette prospérité économique provoque de nouvelles demandes en termes de logement, mobilité et infrastructure.
      L’immigration n’est donc pas comparable à une fête d’anniversaire où la part de gâteau diminuerait sans cesse. La bonne image serait plutôt celle d’un repas canadien : chacun apporte sa contribution personnelle, avant de se lancer à la découverte de divers plats et d’échanger avec les autres convives. Assis à cette table, nous sommes à la fois contributeurs et consommateurs.
      Cette analogie du repas canadien nous permet d’expliquer pourquoi un petit pays comme la Suisse n’a pas sombré dans la pauvreté la plus totale suite à l’arrivée de milliers d’Européens. Ces immigrants n’ont pas fait diminuer la taille du gâteau, ils ont contribué à la prospérité et au festin commun. L’augmentation du nombre de personnes actives sur le marché du travail a ainsi conduit à une forte augmentation du nombre d’emplois à disposition, tout en conservant des salaires élevés et un taux de chômage faible.
      Collectivement, la Suisse ressort clairement gagnante de cette mobilité internationale. Ce bénéfice collectif ’national’ ne doit cependant pas faire oublier les situations difficiles. Les changements induits par l’immigration profitent en effet à certains, tandis que d’autres se retrouvent sous pression. C’est notamment le cas des travailleurs résidents dont l’activité ou les compétences sont directement en compétition avec les nouveaux immigrés. Cela concerne tout aussi bien des secteurs peu qualifiés (par exemple les anciens migrants actifs dans l’hôtellerie) que dans les domaines hautement qualifiés (comme le management ou la recherche).
      Sur le plan éthique, ce constat est essentiel car il fait clairement apparaître deux questions distinctes. D’une part, si l’immigration profite au pays en général, l’exigence d’une répartition équitable des effets positifs et négatifs de cette immigration se pose de manière aiguë. Au final, la question ne relève plus de la politique migratoire, mais de la redistribution des richesses produites. Le douanier imaginaire ne peut donc se justifier sous couvert d’une ’protection’ générale de l’économie.
      D’autre part, si l’immigration met sous pression certains travailleurs résidents, la question de leur éventuelle protection doit être posée. Dans le débat public, cette question est souvent présentée comme un choix entre la défense de ’nos pauvres’ ou de ’nos chômeurs’ face aux ’immigrés’. Même si l’immigration est positive pour la collectivité, certains estiment que la protection de certains résidents justifierait la mise en œuvre de politiques migratoires restrictives » (Rochel 2016 : 31-33)

    • Migrants : « Ouvrir les frontières accroît à la fois la liberté et la sécurité »

      Alors que s’est achevé vendredi 29 juin au matin un sommet européen sur la question des migrations, le chercheur François Gemenne revient sur quelques idées reçues. Plutôt que de « résister » en fermant les frontières, mieux vaut « accompagner » les migrants par plus d’ouverture et de coopération.

      Le nombre de migrations va-t-il augmenter du fait des changements climatiques ?

      Non seulement elles vont augmenter, mais elles vont changer de nature, notamment devenir de plus en plus contraintes. De plus en plus de gens vont être forcés de migrer. Et de plus en plus de gens, les populations rurales les plus vulnérables, vont être incapables de migrer, parce que l’émigration demande beaucoup de ressources.

      Les gens vont se déplacer davantage, car les facteurs qui les poussent à migrer s’aggravent sous l’effet du changement climatique. Les inégalités sont le moteur premier des migrations, qu’elles soient réelles ou perçues, politiques, économiques ou environnementales.

      On est face à un phénomène structurel, mais on refuse de le considérer comme tel. On préfère parler de crise, où la migration est vue comme un problème à résoudre.

      Pourquoi les inégalités sont-elles le moteur des migrations ?

      Les gens migrent parce qu’ils sont confrontés chez eux à des inégalités politiques, économiques, environnementales. Ils vont quitter un endroit où ils sont en position de faiblesse vers un endroit qu’ils considèrent, ou qu’ils espèrent meilleur.

      Une réduction des inégalités de niveau de vie entre les pays du Nord et les pays du Sud serait-elle de nature à réduire l’immigration ?

      À long terme, oui. Pas à court terme. La propension à migrer diminue à partir du moment où le revenu moyen des personnes au départ atteint environ 15.000 $ annuels.

      Dans un premier temps, plus le niveau de la personne qui est en bas de l’échelle sociale augmente, plus la personne va avoir de ressources à consacrer à la migration. Et, tant qu’il demeure une inégalité, les gens vont vouloir migrer. Si on augmente massivement l’aide au développement des pays du Sud, et donc le niveau de revenus des gens, cela va les conduire à migrer davantage. Du moins, jusqu’à ce qu’on arrive au point d’égalité.

      L’essentiel des migrations aujourd’hui proviennent de pays un peu plus « développés ». Les migrants arrivent peu de Centrafrique ou de la Sierra Leone, les pays les plus pauvres d’Afrique. Ceux qui peuvent embarquer et payer des passeurs sont des gens qui ont économisé pendant plusieurs années.

      D’un point de vue cynique, pour éviter les migrations, il faut donc soit que les gens restent très pauvres, soit qu’ils parviennent à un niveau de richesse proche du nôtre.

      Non seulement à un niveau de richesse, mais à un niveau de droit, de sécurité, de protection environnementale proches du nôtre. Ce qui est encore très loin d’arriver, même si cela peut constituer un horizon lointain. Il faut donc accepter que, le temps qu’on y arrive, il y ait de façon structurelle davantage de migrations. On entre dans un siècle de migrations.

      Mais plutôt que de se dire « essayons de faire face à cette réalité, de l’accompagner et de l’organiser au mieux », on reste dans une logique de repli. Alors que vouloir « résister » à ce phénomène, à travers des camps au bord de l’Europe, au bord de nos villes, est une bataille perdue d’avance.

      Quand j’étais lycéen, au milieu des années 1990, nos professeurs tenaient le même discours vis-à-vis d’Internet. On organisait des grands débats au lycée — « Est-ce qu’Internet est une bonne ou une mauvaise chose ? Internet une opportunité ou un danger ? » Ce sont exactement les mêmes débats que ceux qui nous animent aujourd’hui sur les migrations !

      Et Internet s’est imposé, sans qu’on puisse l’empêcher.

      Nous avons tous accepté qu’Internet transforme tous les aspects de notre vie et de l’organisation de la société. Personne ou presque n’aurait l’idée de brider Internet. On tente d’en maximiser les opportunités et d’en limiter les dangers. Mais pour les migrations, on n’est pas encore dans cet état d’esprit.

      À très long terme, il faut donc équilibrer les niveaux de vie. À court terme que peut-on faire ?

      Il faut essayer d’organiser les choses, pour que cela se passe le mieux possible dans l’intérêt des migrants, dans l’intérêt des sociétés de destination et dans celui des sociétés d’origine.

      Parce qu’aujourd’hui, notre posture de résistance et de fermeture des frontières crée le chaos, crée cette impression de crise, crée ces tensions dans nos sociétés, du racisme, du rejet et potentiellement des violences.

      Il faut permettre des voies d’accès sûres et légales vers l’Europe, y compris pour les migrants économiques, pour mettre fin aux naufrages des bateaux et aux réseaux des passeurs. Il faut également mutualiser les moyens et l’organisation : la compétence de l’immigration doit être transférée à un niveau supranational, par exemple à une agence européenne de l’asile et de l’immigration. Et il faut davantage de coopération au niveau international, qui ne soit pas de la sous-traitance avec des pays de transit ou d’origine, comme on le conçoit volontiers dans les instances européennes.

      Paradoxalement, cette question qui, par essence, demande une coopération internationale est celle sur laquelle il y en a le moins. Les États sont convaincus qu’ils gèreront mieux la question dans le strict cadre de leurs frontières.

      À plus long terme, la plus rationnelle et la plus pragmatique des solutions, c’est simplement d’ouvrir les frontières. On en est loin. Les gouvernements et une grande partie des médias véhiculent l’idée que la frontière est l’instrument du contrôle des migrations. Si vous fermez une frontière, les gens s’arrêteraient de venir. Et si vous ouvrez la frontière, tout le monde viendrait.

      Or, toutes les recherches montrent que le degré d’ouverture ou de fermeture d’une frontière joue un rôle marginal dans la décision de migrer. Les gens ne vont pas se décider à abandonner leur famille et leur pays juste parce qu’une frontière, là-bas, en Allemagne, est ouverte. Et, des gens qui sont persécutés par les bombes qui leur tombent dessus en Syrie ne vont pas y rester parce que la frontière est fermée. À Calais, même si la frontière est complètement fermée avec le Royaume-Uni, les migrants tenteront cent fois, mille fois de la franchir.

      Par contre, le degré d’ouverture de la frontière va déterminer les conditions de la migration, son coût, son danger. Ouvrir les frontières ne veut pas dire les faire disparaître. Les États restent là. On ne supprime pas les passeports, on supprime simplement les visas. Cela permet aussi de mieux contrôler les entrées et les sorties, car les États savent exactement qui entre sur le territoire et qui en sort. Cette solution accroit à la fois la liberté et la sécurité.

      Est-ce qu’il y a des régions où cela se passe bien ?

      Il y a plein d’endroits en France où cela se passe très bien, au niveau local. Les fers de lance de l’accueil des migrants sont souvent les maires : Juppé à Bordeaux, Piolle à Grenoble, Hidalgo à Paris, Carême à Grande-Synthe.

      Au niveau d’un pays, la Nouvelle-Zélande développe une politique d’accueil relativement ouverte, qui fonctionne bien. Il y a des pays paradoxaux, comme l’Inde, qui a une frontière complètement ouverte avec le Népal, bouddhiste, et une frontière complètement fermée avec le Bangladesh, musulman. Ce cas illustre le caractère raciste de nos politiques migratoires. Ce qui nous dérange en Europe, ce ne sont pas les Belges comme moi qui émigrent. La plupart des gens sont convaincus que les Africains partent directement de leur pays pour traverser la Méditerranée et pour arriver en Europe. Or, 55 % des migrations internationales depuis l’Afrique de l’Ouest vont vers l’Afrique de l’Ouest.

      Les migrants qui arrivent de Libye vers l’Europe sont généralement classés comme des migrants économiques parce qu’ils sont noirs. Or, ils migrent avant tout parce qu’ils sont persécutés en Libye, violentés et vendus en esclaves sur les marchés. Par contre, les Syriens sont classés comme des réfugiés politiques parce que nous voyons les images de la guerre en Syrie, mais pour la plupart, ils migrent avant tout pour des raisons économiques. Ils n’étaient pas persécutés en Turquie, au Liban ou en Jordanie, mais ils vivaient dans des conditions de vie misérables. Ils migrent en Europe pour reprendre leur carrière ou pour leurs études.

      Quel rôle joue le facteur démographique dans les migrations ? Car la transition démographique ne se fait pas en Afrique, le continent va passer de 1 milliard d’habitants à 3 milliards d’ici 2050.

      Le meilleur moyen de contrôler la natalité d’Afrique serait de faire venir toute l’Afrique en Europe (rires) ! Toutes les études montrent que, dès la deuxième génération, le taux de natalité des Africaines s’aligne strictement sur celui de la population du pays d’accueil.

      Ces taux de natalité créent une peur chez nous, on craint le péril démographique en Afrique, qui va se déplacer vers l’Europe. Les gens restent dans une identité relativement figée, où l’on conçoit l’Europe comme blanche. La réalité est que nous sommes un pays métissé.

      La France black, blanche, beur, c’était il y a vingt ans ! Maintenant, le Rassemblement national et aussi la droite mettent en avant les racines et la tradition chrétienne de la France.

      Ils veulent rester catholiques, blancs. Le problème est qu’aucun autre parti n’assume la position inverse.

      Parce que cela semble inassumable politiquement, ainsi que les solutions que vous proposez. Pour le moment, l’inverse se produit : des gouvernements de plus en plus réactionnaires, de plus en plus xénophobes. Cela fait un peu peur pour l’avenir.

      C’est encore très optimiste d’avoir peur. J’ai acté que l’Europe serait bientôt gouvernée par l’extrême droite. Je suis déjà à l’étape d’après, où s’organisent des petites poches de résistance qui accueillent clandestinement des migrants.

      En Belgique, malgré un gouvernement d’extrême droite, dans un parc au nord de Bruxelles, il y a un grand mouvement de solidarité et d’accueil des migrants pour éviter qu’ils passent la nuit dehors. Près de 45.000 personnes sont organisées avec un compte Facebook pour se relayer. Ce mouvement de solidarité devient de plus en plus un mouvement politique de résistance face à un régime autoritaire.

      Les démocraties, celles pour qui la question des droits humains compte encore un peu, sont en train de devenir minoritaires en Europe ! Il nous faut organiser d’autres formes de résistance. C’est une vision de l’avenir assez pessimiste. J’espère me tromper, et que l’attitude du gouvernement espagnol va ouvrir une nouvelle voie en Europe, que les électeurs vont sanctionner positivement cette attitude d’accueil des migrants.

      https://reporterre.net/Migrants-Ouvrir-les-frontieres-accroit-a-la-fois-la-liberte-et-la-securi

    • There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

      Why a brave Democrat should make the case for vastly expanding immigration.

      The internet expands the bounds of acceptable discourse, so ideas considered out of bounds not long ago now rocket toward widespread acceptability. See: cannabis legalization, government-run health care, white nationalism and, of course, the flat-earthers.

      Yet there’s one political shore that remains stubbornly beyond the horizon. It’s an idea almost nobody in mainstream politics will address, other than to hurl the label as a bloody cudgel.

      I’m talking about opening up America’s borders to everyone who wants to move here.

      Imagine not just opposing President Trump’s wall but also opposing the nation’s cruel and expensive immigration and border-security apparatus in its entirety. Imagine radically shifting our stance toward outsiders from one of suspicion to one of warm embrace. Imagine that if you passed a minimal background check, you’d be free to live, work, pay taxes and die in the United States. Imagine moving from Nigeria to Nebraska as freely as one might move from Massachusetts to Maine.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/16/opinion/open-borders-immigration.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

  • The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure on JSTOR
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228

    Article très intéressant qui repositionne les Etats dans la gestion de l’infrastructure globale de l’internet. En fait, une infrastructure globale pour le déploiement du capital (une autre approche de la géopolitique, issue de David Harvey).

    According to many observers, economic globalization and the liberalization of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States. The dominant roles of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have also led to charges of US internet imperialism. This article, however, argues that while these internet giants dominate some of the most popular internet services, the ownership and control of core elements of the internet infrastructure—submarine cables, internet exchange points, autonomous system numbers, datacenters, and so on—are tilting increasingly toward the EU and BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and the rest of the world, complicating views of hegemonic US control of the internet and what Susan Strange calls the knowledge structure.

    This article takes a different tack. It argues that while US-based internet giants do dominate some of the middle and top layers of the internet—for example, operating systems (iOS, Windows, Android), search engines (Google), social networks (Facebook), online retailing (Amazon), over-the-top TV (Netflix), browsers (Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Microsoft Explorer), and domain names (ICANN)—they do not rule the hardware, or material infrastructure, upon which the internet and daily life, business, governments, society, and war increasingly depend. In fact, as the article shows, ownership and control of many core elements of the global internet infrastructure—for example, fiber optic submarine cables, content delivery networks (CDNs), autonomous system numbers (ASN), and internet exchange points (IXPs)—are tilting toward the rest of the world, especially Europe and the BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This reflects the fact that the United States’ standing in the world is slipping while an ever more multipolar world is arising.

    International internet backbone providers, internet content companies, and CDNs interconnect with local ISPs and at one or more of the nearly 2000 IXPs around the world. The largest IXPs are in New York, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Seattle, Chicago, Moscow, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. They are core elements of the internet that switch traffic between all the various networks that comprise the internet system, and help to establish accessible, affordable, fast, and secure internet service.

    In developed markets, internet companies such as Google, Baidu, Facebook, Netflix, Youku, and Yandex use IXPs to interconnect with local ISPs such as Deutsche Telecoms in Germany, BT or Virgin Media in Britain, or Comcast in the United States to gain last-mile access to their customers—and vice versa, back up the chain. Indeed, 99 percent of internet traffic handled by peering arrangements among such parties occurs without any money changing hands or a formal contract.50 Where IXPs do not exist or are rare, as in Africa, or run poorly, as in India, the cost of bandwidth is far more expensive. This is a key factor that helps to explain why internet service is so expensive in areas of the world that can least afford it. It is also why the OECD and EU encourage developing countries to make IXPs a cornerstone of economic development and telecoms policy work.

    The network of networks that make up the internet constitute a sprawling, general purpose platform upon which financial markets, business, and trade, as well as diplomacy, spying, national security, and war depend. The world’s largest electronic payments system operator, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications’ (SWIFT) secure messaging network carries over 25 million messages a day involving payments that are believed to be worth over $7 trillion USD.59 Likewise, the world’s biggest foreign currency settlement system, the CLS Bank, executes upward of a million trades a day worth between $1.5 and $2.5 trillion over the global cable systems—although that is down by half from its high point in 2008.60 As Stephen Malphrus, former chief of staff to the US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, observed, when “communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt, rather it snaps to a halt.”61

    Governments and militaries also account for a significant portion of internet traffic. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of US government traffic, including sensitive diplomatic and military orders, travels over privately owned cables to reach officials in the field.62 “A major portion of DoD data traveling on undersea cables is unmanned aerial vehicle video,” notes a study done for the Department of Homeland Security by MIT scholar Michael Sechrist.63 Indeed, the Department of Defense’s entire Global Information Grid shares space in these cables with the general public internet.64

    The 3.6 billion people as of early 2016 who use the internet to communicate, share music, ideas and knowledge, browse, upload videos, tweet, blog, organize social events and political protests, watch pornography, read sacred texts, and sell stuff are having the greatest influence on the current phase of internet infrastructure development. Video currently makes up an estimated two-thirds of all internet traffic, and is expected to grow to 80 percent in the next five years,69 with US firms leading the way. Netflix single-handedly accounts for a third of all internet traffic. YouTube is the second largest source of internet traffic on fixed and mobile networks alike the world over. Altogether, the big five internet giants account for roughly half of all “prime-time” internet traffic, a phrasing that deliberately reflects the fact that internet usage swells and peaks at the same time as the classic prime-time television period, that is, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Importance des investissements des compagnies de l’internet dans les projets de câbles.

    Several things stand out from this analysis. First, in less than a decade, Google has carved out a very large place for itself through its ownership role in four of the six projects (the SJC, Faster, Unity, and Pacific Cable Light initiatives), while Facebook has stakes in two of them (APG and PLCN) and Microsoft in the PLCN project. This is a relatively new trend and one that should be watched in the years ahead.

    A preliminary view based on the publicly available information is that the US internet companies are important but subordinate players in consortia dominated by state-owned national carriers and a few relatively new competitors. Keen to wrest control of core elements of the internet infrastructure that they perceive to have been excessively dominated by United States interests in the past, Asian governments and private investors have joined forces to change things in their favor. In terms of the geopolitical economy of the internet, there is both a shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and an increased role for national governments.

    Return of the State as Regulator of Concentrated Markets

    In addition to the expanded role of the state as market builder, regulator, and information infrastructure policy maker, many regulators have also rediscovered the reality of significant market concentration in the telecom-internet and media industries. Indeed, the US government has rejected several high-profile telecoms mergers in recent years, such as AT&T’s proposal to take over T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile’s bid for Sprint in 2014, and Comcast’s attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable last year. Even the approval of Comcast’s blockbuster takeover of NBC Universal in 2011, and Charter Communications acquisition of Time Warner Cable last year, respectively, came with important strings attached and ongoing conduct regulation designed to constrain the companies’ ability to abuse their dominant market power.87 The FCC’s landmark 2016 ruling to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier further indicated that US regulators have been alert to the realities of market concentration and telecoms-internet access providers’ capacity to abuse that power, and the need to maintain a vigilant eye to ensure that their practices do not swamp people’s rights to freely express themselves, maintain control over the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of their personal information, and to access a diverse range of services over the internet.88 The 28 members of the European Union, along with Norway, India, and Chile, have adopted similar “common carriage/network neutrality/open network”89 rules to offset the reality that concentration in core elements of these industries is “astonishingly high”90 on the basis of commonly used indicators (e.g., concentration ratios and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index).

    These developments indicate a new phase in internet governance and control. In the first phase, circa the 1990s, technical experts and organizations such as the Internet Engineers Task Force played a large role, while the state sat relatively passively on the sidelines. In the second phase, circa the early to mid-2000s, commercial forces surged to the fore, while internet governance revolved around the ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model. Finally, the revelations of mass internet surveillance by many states and ongoing disputes over the multi-stakeholder, “internet freedom” agenda on the one side, versus the national sovereignty, multilateral model where the ITU and UN system would play a larger role in internet governance all indicate that significant moves are afoot where the relationship between states and markets is now in a heightened state of flux.

    Such claims, however, are overdrawn. They rely too heavily on the same old “realist,” “struggle for control” model where conflict between nation-states has loomed large and business interests and communication technologies served mainly as “weapons of politics” and the handmaidens of national interests from the telegraph in the nineteenth century to the internet today. Yet, nation-states and private business interests, then and now, not only compete with one another but also cooperate extensively to cultivate a common global space of economic accumulation. Communication technologies and business interests, moreover, often act independent of the nation-state and via “private structures of cooperation,” that is, cartels and consortia, as the history and contemporary state of the undersea cable networks illustrate. In fact, the internet infrastructure of the twenty-first century, much like that of the industrial information infrastructure of the past 150 years, is still primarily financed, owned, and operated by many multinational consortia, although more than a few submarine communications cables are now owned by a relatively new roster of competitive players, such as Tata, Level 3, Global Cloud Xchange, and so forth. They have arisen mostly in the last 20 years and from new quarters, such as India in the case of Tata, for example.

    #Economie_numérique #Géopolitique #Câbles_sous_marins

  • Allemagne : 12,5 millions de personnes sous le seuil de pauvreté, un record.

    Par Jean-michel Gradt – La pauvreté a progressé de 15 % en 2013 pour toucher 12,5 millions de personnes, un record, indique l’étude publiée par la fédération d’aide sociale Paritätischer Wohlfahrtsverband.


    http://www.anti-k.org/2017/04/14/allemagne-125-millions-de-personnes-seuil-de-pauvrete-record

    #Allemagne #pauvreté #inégalités

    Je ne vois pas la date de publication (dans l’URL on voit 14 avril 2017), mais je mets sur seenthis pour archivage

    • Allemagne : pauvres en pays riche

      L’Allemagne est présentée comme un modèle à suivre et la campagne électorale d’Angela Merkel s’appuie surtout sur une réussite chiffrée. Mais, pour beaucoup d’Allemands, la réalité est tout autre. Un Allemand sur cinq est en situation de précarité. à Berlin, un enfant sur trois est considéré comme « pauvre ». Et 20% des actifs sont condamnés à des emplois mal payés.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/077980-000-A/allemagne-pauvres-en-pays-riche
      #documentaire #film #working_poor #travailleur_pauvre #retraite #retraités #mère_célibataire #sous-traitance #travail #exclusion #mort_sociale (c’est le mot utilisé par une mère de 3 enfants qui se retrouve à l’aide sociale) #exclusion #aide_sociale #flexibilisation_du_marché_du_travail #précarisation #précarité #exclusion #fracture_sociale #survie

    • Welcome to Poor Germany

      How the Merkel government is risking Germany’s future by underinvestment and other ill-applied policy approaches.

      “Poor Germany?“ Really? Is that not a crass overstatement? Isn’t Germany the powerhouse of Europe, boosting a huge export surplus, historical low unemployment and shrinking government debt? Yes, it is.

      But this view is superficial and overlooks what is happening behind the shiny facade of a booming economy. The country is wasting its future by consuming too much and not investing in the future. To blame are the various governments led by Angela Merkel.

      In their sum total, the individual causes of this under- and malinvestment, as detailed below, explain much of the sense of profound frustration that voters feel with Germany’s major political parties. They explain a widening sense of national malaise that extends far beyond the oft-cited issue of migration.
      The fetish of the “black zero”

      It all starts with the politics of the so-called “black zero” in government finances, which is nothing else than the commitment to a permanent budget surplus for the government at the national level.

      Achieving this goal was quite easy over the last years. Thanks to ECB policy and the unresolved crisis of the Eurozone, interest rates on German government bonds fell below zero. Due to this effect alone, the German finance minister has saved 300 billion euros in interest expenses since 2009.

      In addition, the economic boom fueled by the low interest environment and the relatively weak euro reduced costs for unemployment support and led to record high tax revenues in Germany.

      Still, the “black zero” is an illusion created by politicians, notably former finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble, to boost their own image. A closer look reveals that the “black zero” comes at a high cost and, if one applies proper accounting, is even not true.
      Crumbling infrastructure

      Fixated on the goal of the budget surplus, the German government continued its practice of taking a very high share of the incomes of the average German citizen (Germany has the highest fiscal burden of all OECD countries behind Belgium). It also cut expenditures in certain areas, notably infrastructure spending.

      As a result, the public infrastructure of Germany is deteriorating. About 50% of Germany’s highway bridges were built between 1965 and 1975. They are in urgent need of replacement. In addition, 17.5% of all motorways need to be urgently reconstructed, as well as 34% of country roads.

      This casts a dark shadow over the long-held idea that Germany has world-class infrastructure. To be sure, the deteriorating quality of German infrastructure is hindering private investment and undermines the country’s future economic growth potential.

      To make up for the underinvestment of the past years, an immediate investment of more than 120 billion Euro is required. Long term, Germany would need to invest at least on the level of the OECD average of 3.2% of GDP, implying additional spending of 33 billion per year, or 1,000 billion over a period of 30 years.

      This one dimension of severe underinvestment alone demonstrates that the “black zero” is pure political fantasy. Instead of addressing these issues, the current government has announced it will reduce investments in the coming years even further.
      Lacking digitalization

      But it is not just country roads and highways that are falling apart. German schools suffer from chronic underinvestment in buildings, never mind the stunning lack of digitalization and tens of thousands of missing teachers. This is in spite of this shortfall having long been visible, given the impending retirement wave of public-school teachers.

      Only 2% of all German households have fast internet via fiber, compared to the 22.3% average in the OECD. In Spain, not as rich as Germany, more than 50% of households have access to fast internet. This not only hinders economic development, but gives German companies a clear-cut incentive for investing outside of Germany.

      The German military, the Bundeswehr, is suffering from outdated and non-functioning equipment. Many of its fighter jets, tanks and ships are not ready for combat. The soldiers do not even have adequate clothing for winter time.

      One would think that this would be a matter of embarrassment for the country’s politicians, but they remain rather nonchalant about it. Perhaps they see it as a politically convenient way to avoid being asked to support the West’s joint international missions.

      Fixing this shortfall will require another 130 billion euros just to get the German military working again. In the long run, the country will need to fulfil the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence. This would imply a budget increase of roughly 26 billion euros per year, or 750 billion over a 30-year period.

      But despite paying lip service to these needs, the junior partner in the government, the SPD, remains opposed to making the required funds available.

      At the same time, the governments of Angela Merkel increased the spending on social welfare to a new record of nearly 1,000 billion euros per year. This is remarkable given that Germany currently experiences record low unemployment and a booming economy.
      Pushing savings abroad

      The obsession of German politicians with the “black zero” not only has significant negative implications for the economic outlook due to lacking investments, but also in light of global trade tensions. The export surplus notably is not only the result of a weak euro and hyper-competitive German industries, as is argued so often (falsely), but significantly also the result of insufficient spending and investment within Germany.

      The corporate sector, private households and the government itself are all net savers, pushing savings abroad and contributing to the significant trade surplus of more than 8% of GDP. A significant trade surplus and excess savings go hand in hand.

      Contrary to folklore, this surplus is not even in Germany’s own interest. For one, Germany’s track record of investing its savings abroad is downright bad. During the financial crisis, German banks, insurance companies and pension funds lost in the range of 400 to 600 billion euros. Today, a significant part of our savings ends up as non-interest bearing receivables of the Bundesbank as part of the ECB system (the so-called Target 2 balance).

      Overall, it is not a good idea, to be a creditor in a world awash with more and more debt. But Germany continues to disregard this fundamental insight, to its own detriment.

      The German government is also blind to the fact that the trade surplus leads to increasing frustration in other countries, not just in the case of U.S. President Donald Trump, but also in France and Italy. The risk of protectionist measures especially targeted against the automotive industry, which German government politicians are otherwise overly keen on protecting, is high.
      There is an alternative

      It would be much smarter if the German government would use the excess savings of the private sector to fund the urgently needed investments in the country. This would:

      • Offer the private sector a safe and attractive opportunity to save within Germany

      • Improve German infrastructure in all dimensions

      • Reduce the country’s trade surplus and therefore reduce the risk of protectionist measures

      • Reduce the exposure of German savers to doubtful creditors abroad.

      Obviously, it would be in everybody’s interest if Germany were to change its policies.

      https://www.theglobalist.com/germany-angela-merkel-government-spending

      via @wizo

  • Forget Iran. Is the fertility rate the real threat to Israel’s existence? -

    Israel could be home to 36 million people by 2050, according to some forecasts. Prof. Alon Tal explains why irresponsible government policies have created a ticking time bomb, and why the state has to get out of its citizens’ bedrooms

    Netta Ahituv Apr 15, 2017
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.783515

    During its 68 years of existence, Israel has changed from a sparsely populated country to one of the most densely populated in the Western world. That is how Prof. Alon Tal, chairman of Tel Aviv University’s public policy department, opens his latest book, “The Land is Full: Addressing Overpopulation in Israel” (Yale University Press).
    Israel’s population density, he writes, is 1,000 percent higher than the OECD average. Conservative forecasts say that Israel will have 23 million inhabitants by 2050. Less conservative forecasts predict 36 million inhabitants by then. And well before then, in 2030, Israel will have doubled the population it has today.
    Reading this book is like reading a dystopian novel. I thought about my children growing up in such a cruel, crowded place and I was afraid.
    Tal says he wrote the book because of his three daughters. “I’m a diehard Zionist and I want them to continue living in Israel,” he explains. Even though his book is pessimistic and frightening, Tal, surprisingly, describes himself as an optimist. “I’ll tell you why. Our society has a taboo about not bringing children into the world – everyone feels they have to have children. But we’re a developed country, in which it’s relatively easy to break taboos.
    “Over the last 10 years, society’s attitude toward the gay community has changed completely. Society threw out one of the hardest taboos to get rid of and entered a much healthier phase. With regard to childbirth, too, if we tell the truth I think we’ll get there. The very fact that a conversation is happening is important. Ultimately, we’re a pragmatic people.”

  • The global evolution of travel visa regimes: An analysis based on the #DEMIG_VISA database

    Drawing on the new DEMIG VISA database which covers global bilateral travel restrictions from 1973 to 2013, this paper explores patterns and trends in international visa regimes. We construct indices of cross-regional inbound and outbound travel restrictiveness to investigate (i) the extent to which different world regions and regional unions have opened or closed to other regions and (ii) the ways in which the formation of regional unions or the disintegration of countries or unions of countries (e.g. the USSR) has affected international visa regimes. Generally, the analysis challenge the idea of a growing global mobility divide between ‘North’ and ‘South’, and yields a more complex image reflecting the rather multi-polar and multi-layered nature of international relations. While the strongest change has been the decreasing use of exit restrictions, the level of entry visa restrictiveness has remained remarkably stable at high levels, with currently around 73 per cent of country dyads being visa-restricted. While predominantly European and North American OECD countries maintain high levels of entry visa restrictiveness for Africa and Asia, these latter regions have the highest levels of entry restrictions themselves. Although citizens of wealthy countries generally enjoy greatest visa-free travel opportunities, this primarily reflects their freedom to travel to other OECD countries. Visa-free travel is mostly realised between geographically proximate countries of integrated regional blocs such as ECOWAS, the EU, GCC and MERCOSUR. Analyses of global dynamics in visa reciprocity show that 21 per cent of the country dyads have asymmetrical visa rules, but also show that levels of reciprocity have increased since the mid-1990s. Our analysis shows that visas are not ‘just’ instruments regulating entry of visitors and exit of citizens, but are manifestations of broader political economic trends and inequalities in international power relations.

    https://www.imi.ox.ac.uk/publications/the-global-evolution-of-travel-visa-regimes-an-analysis-based-on-the-demig
    #visas #visa #migrations #histoire #statistiques #chiffres
    cc @fil

  • Discriminación de las mujeres: libertades civiles
    https://visionscarto.net/discriminacion-de-las-mujeres

    Título: Discriminación de las mujeres: libertades civiles Palabras-clave: #Mujeres #Derecho_de_las_mujeres #Discriminación #Igualdad #Libertades_civiles Apariciones: El Estado del mundo 2017, « ¿Quién gobierna el mundo? », La Découverte, Paris, 2016. Autores: Philippe Rivière, Philippe Rekacewicz Fuentes de los datos: OECD Development Centre’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) Fecha de creación: julio de (...)

    #Colección_cartográfica

  • Discriminación de las mujeres: acceso a los recursos y a las riquezas
    https://visionscarto.net/discriminacion-de-las-mujeres-acceso-a-los-recursos

    Título: Discriminación de las mujeres: acceso a los recursos y a las riquezas Palabras-clave: #Mujeres #Derecho_de_las_mujeres #Discriminación #Igualdad #Libertades_civiles #Desigualdades Apariciones El Estado del mundo 2017, « ¿Quién gobierna el mundo? », La Découverte, Paris, 2016. Autores: Philippe Rivière, Philippe Rekacewicz Fuentes de los datos: OECD Development Centre’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) Fecha de creación: julio de (...)

    #Colección_cartográfica

  • New index of economic marginalisation helps explain Trump, Brexit and alt.right
    Andrew Cumbers
    Professor of Regional Political Economy, University of Glasgow
    https://theconversation.com/new-index-of-economic-marginalisation-helps-explain-trump-brexit-an

    Our economic democracy index looked at 32 countries in the OECD (omitting Turkey and Mexico, which had too much missing data). While economic democracy tends to focus on levels of trade union influence and the extent of cooperative ownership in a country, we wanted to take in other relevant factors.

    We added three additional indicators: “workplace and employment rights”; “distribution of economic decision-making powers”, including everything from the strength of the financial sector to the extent to which tax powers are centralised; and “transparency and democratic engagement in macroeconomic decision-making”, which takes in corruption, accountability, central bank transparency and different social partners’ involvement in shaping policy.

    What is striking is the basic difference between a more “social” model of northern European capitalism and the more market-driven Anglo-American model. Hence the Scandinavian countries score among the best, with their higher levels of social protection, employment rights and democratic participation in economic decision-making. The reverse is true of the more deregulated, concentrated and less democratic economies of the English-speaking world. The US ranks particularly low, with only Slovakia below it. The UK too is only 25th out of 32.

  • Visualiser les réseaux… sans paniquer, une divagation de Philippe Rivière
    http://visionscarto.net/visualiser-les-reseaux

    Les phénomènes de réseaux se retrouvent partout, et leur complexité empêche bien souvent de s’en faire une représentation posée et rationnelle, utile pour la compréhension ou la décision. Pour peu qu’un danger — réel ou fantasmé — y circule, et c’est la panique assurée.

    #internet #santé #migrations #représentation #méthodologie