Search results

By: Noelle Fuchs We are constantly reminded that individual contributions matter greatly in the fight against climate change. Reduce waste. Reuse bags. Recycle. While all of this is undoubtedly important and does make a difference,Continue reading

The Negative Income Tax (NIT) and the Universal Basic Income (UBI) schemes are often mistakenly interpreted as the two sides of the same coin. This is mainly because both policies aim at tackling poverty through redistributive taxation. However, both from an economic and ethical standpoint, these two policies present differences that should not be disregarded.Economically, a NIT can be understood as a tax system associated with a tax deduction, as it proposes a scheme where at the "break-even" level of income, households pay no income tax. Above this level, households pay tax at a constantly increasing marginal rate on each additional pound while, below this level, they receive a payment of such rate at an inverse ratio. In the case of NIT, we can therefore observe a tax transfer (represented by the area NTO in Figure 1) that diminishes as income increases at a rate of -t and becomes zero when an individual's income reaches the threshold T. Once income surpasses this threshold, taxpayers begin to pay a positive tax, quantified by the area TAB.On the other hand, the UBI scheme entails the regular distribution of a uniform cash payment to individuals, irrespective of age, without any conditions attached. Realistically, a millionaire will receive the same payout as those currently on Universal Credit. Hence, in the case of UBI, the implementation of a universal and unconditional transfer ON' to all individuals causes a permanent shift along the 45° line. Following the redistribution, individuals with a gross income below OT' receive a positive benefit resulting from the disparity between the sum of UBI (represented by ON') and the taxes paid, measured by the vertical gap between the translated 45° line and the income paid by the firm. Conversely, taxpayers with an income exceeding OT' will incur a net tax payment.












































































Figure 1: Economic assessment of NIT and UBITo ensure that the total benefits provided by a NIT and UBI program are equivalent, the area ONT in the NIT scheme must equal the area ONT' in the UBI scheme, considering a normal distribution of individuals.As clearly evident in Figure 1, a NIT scheme benefits individuals with low pre-tax income, but beyond the threshold T, it disadvantages individuals who would receive a higher disposable income under the UBI option. By ensuring equal net costs for both schemes, in a NIT scheme, a minority of poor individuals is therefore supported by middle and high-income taxpayers whereas, in a UBI one, wealthier individuals contribute to redistributing income to middle and low-income individuals. A NIT program has therefore a more pronounced impact on reducing labour supply among low-income earners compared to UBI. From a distributive perspective, NIT exhibits greater effectiveness in combating poverty, but the presence of high marginal tax rates on low incomes might discourage the same individuals to work. Conversely, in the case of UBI, the lower benefits for impoverished individuals, coupled with lower marginal tax rates, incentivize greater participation of low-income individuals in the labour market at the cost of a lower effectiveness in tackling poverty.

In my previous blog, which you can find here, I investigated the economic rationale behind a Negative Income Tax (NIT) and a Universal Basic Income (UBI), arguing that the former exhibits greater effectiveness in combating poverty but might discourage individuals to work, while the latter incentives greater participation of low-income individuals in the labour market at the cost of a lower effectiveness in tackling poverty. However, this economic assessment is not the only lens through which these two policies can be analysed and usually fails to explain why right-wing parties tend to support a NIT while left-wing ones prefer an UBI. This political divide is mainly to be connected to the ethical – rather than the economic- differences of the two policies, with a NIT relying on a libertarian view of freedom and equality while the UBI arising from an egalitarian one.The first key aspect that distinguishes the ethical foundations of NIT and UBI relates to their perspectives on freedom. Examining freedom from a negative standpoint involves considering an individual free when they can carry out their actions without interference from others or groups (i.e., they are free from). Emphasising the concept of negative freedom is intrinsic to libertarian thinking, as it necessitates the establishment of minimal legal frameworks and a governing authority to safeguard individuals' self-determination. In contrast, from an egalitarian standpoint, an individual is deemed unfree if they lack the means necessary to pursue a goal and be autonomous, even if no other individual or institution obstructs their path. Positive freedoms can therefore be described as opportunities (i.e., they are free to), and their maximisation necessitates redistributive measures, which are ensured by a stronger and more active state.A second factor is individuals' approach to uncertainty. On one hand, the libertarian stance acknowledges that different individuals possess varying degrees of risk aversion when engaging in economic activities. This implies that individuals make choices regarding their employment status, investments, and consumption based on their unique risk preferences. In this view, the market system ensures equality of treatment among individuals. On the other hand, the egalitarian viewpoint perceives and justifies redistribution as a response to the widespread risk aversion exhibited by all individuals. This argument is rooted in the notion that, given individuals' lack of knowledge beyond moral considerations (referred to as the veil of ignorance), they would collectively support the existence of institutions dedicated to redistributing the products and benefits stemming from the arbitrary distribution of abilities and talents.Based on a libertarian view, a negative perception of freedom and a probabilistic approach to uncertainty would reject any form of equality beyond equal rights, thus opposing any form of compulsory fiscal imposition. However, assuming the necessity for the existence of such a policy, state intervention should be limited to preserving the essential tenets of libertarianism. Therefore, any public redistributive scheme should exclude any form of needs, the link with the market should be as weak as possible and the role of the state should be as less invasive as possible. In this context, a NIT scheme is often argued to be a redistributive policy that adheres to these constraints by implementing exemptions and deductions from taxable income and only taxing the portion that exceeds a certain threshold. On the other hand, a positive perception of freedom, which asserts that true freedom encompasses both the means and the rights to pursue one's desires, along with a risk-averse approach to uncertainty, leads to a policy that addresses people's needs with an unconditional requirement. This is exemplified by a UBI, which aims to meet individuals' purchasing power without imposing specific conditions.

Nor are slavery and or colonialism the cause(s) of current wealth. Now, if you want the detailed calculations there's a source:Slavery and colonialism did not make Britain rich, and may even have made the nation poorer, a new study has found.The riches of the slave trade were concentrated in a few families while the nation footed the bill for extra military and administrative spending, according to a book by Kristian Niemietz at the Institute of Economic Affairs."Profits earned from overseas engagement were large enough to make some individuals very rich, but they were not large enough to seriously affect macroeconomic aggregates like Britain's investment rate and capital formation," he said.Mr Niemietz argued that that the slave trade had little overall impact on the economy or the country's ability to industrialise.The Full Monty is available here.It's also possible to approach this with some simple logic. Everywhere had slavery. Many places had colonies. Only some places got rich. There's therefore - obviously and clearly - something else which caused the getting rich. It's certainly possible to say that the other thing was that societal change which led to the profits of slavery and or colonialism (to the extent that were those were large enough, if that's what someone wants to try and argue) being effectively used to produce an Industrial Revolution made the difference. But that then is to insist that it was the societal change, not the slavery nor colonialism, which made the difference. For example, the Arab slave trade lasted longer than the Atlantic by many centuries, was larger in volume and human misery. The Arab colonisation process covered all of North Africa, large non-Arab areas of the Middle East and reached up into Spain for centuries. Yet near no modern Arab nation is or has become rich in the absence of fossil fuel deposits. It's not the slavery or the colonies that produced an industrial revolution nor modern wealth. QED.

Apparently Chinese competition in electric cars is worrying the Germans:German car makers must do more to make electric vehicles cheaper and more appealing because manufacturers are losing out to China, the head of Berlin's top group of economic advisers has warned.Monika Schnitzer, chair of the Germany's Council of Economic Experts, said car makers needed to "get their act together" and "do their homework" as people increasingly turn to cheaper Chinese-made cars.Our word. People on the other side of the planet have worked out how to do something - it matters not what it is - better than those closer to us. That those far foreigners look a little different, don't share our political system, speak wildly different languages, matters not. For trade, just trade alone - the freedom of the individual to buy whatever it is from whoever the individual cares to alight upon - means that the local capitalists are forced to rip us off a little less. For that is what is happening here. And it doesn't matter a fermented mung bean why those Chinese are making cheaper cars than Germans. Chinese government subsidies, simple skill, application, lower wages - all make no difference to the important point here. That there is competition in electric vehicles forces those German - and every other in the world - factories to up their game and make better and cheaper. The beneficiaries are, entirely obviously, us. Us consumers, us going about our daily lives. As we've recently noted people will try near any argument to show that trade's a bad idea. And yet think about this. Every producer of everything is, all the time, forced to compete with those who are the best in the world at doing that thing. Which is why things just get cheaper and cheaper for us out here the people the economy ought to be run for. You know, us, the people.True, a problem with Chinese cars could be that we'd just want another one an hour later but if they're cheap enough why not?

Erec Smith


There is no such thing as a panacea; few things are actual cure‐​alls in themselves, especially when it pertains to social issues. However, the closest thing to a panacea for contemporary social injustice—both actual and perceived—is the concept of individualism. It is the closest foil to what is, arguably, the most dangerous aspect of critical social justice activism: race fatalism, i.e., the idea that especially minoritized groups have no locus of control and are at the mercy of their hegemonic oppressors.
Unfortunately, too many social justice activists embrace this fatalism and, both implicitly and explicitly, demonize individualism as an inherently oppressive, white supremacist concept.
Race fatalism cannot exist without the idea that all people from a given race experience the world similarly (race essentialism), and that we are forever defined by our home environments (linked fate), concepts that could not be more opposed to individualism. Thus, to embrace individualism is to relinquish faith in the fundamentals of critical social justice.
Fortunately, when individualism destroys these fundamentals steeped in powerlessness, it gives birth to agency and freedom conducive to an empowered and fulfilled life.
The most egregious aspects of critical social justice activism—now wryly and/​or disdainfully referred to as "woke" activism—can be considered footnotes of fatalism: skin‐​color and or gender determine if you are a perpetual oppressor or a perpetual victim; racism will never go away and can only be managed; black kids can't learn math like other kids; all people who look the same or live in the same area are bound to a particular outlook and particular fate. All these suggest the "truth" of race essentialism, that racism is always already present, and that even words, if coming from an oppressor, are literal violence.
The power of this fatalism is weakened by the concept of methodological individualism, what can be understood as an embrace of free will with an acknowledgement that we live an interdependent existence, i.e., "no man is an island."
In recent essays, I describe such individualism as an antidote to race essentialism and linked fate. In "Individualism is a Social Justice Issue," I insist that the embrace of individualism can enhance racial justice through its implied refutation of linked fate and its conduciveness to defensive confidence.
Regarding linked fate, I write, "linked fate denotes the use of the social standing of a group as a proxy for one's individual identity, i.e., an individual's fate is inevitably and intricately linked to that of the group. Any individual that seems to escape this fate is considered an exception." Linked fate depends on the debunked stimulus‐​response theory in behavioral science: the idea that people who share the same race or culture experience the world the same way. Senator Tim Scott's passionate rebuttal of linked fate focuses on the idea that educational reform is the thing that can unlink fate most efficiently and instill a sense of agency in students, a sentiment elaborated upon by Ian Rowe.
Agency, or "agential fate," a concept of individual efficacy I support in "Ditching Our Discourses of Doom" (excerpted here), "can be construed as a confluence of pre‐​established circumstances—one's life experiences—combined with free will." This concept necessitates the belief "that each individual in a particular context may react to stimulus in different ways; that they each may have a different desired future state; and that their decisions and choices matter in relation to achieving those future states, we enter into a place of agency, possibility, and hope."
This agency, possibility, and hope imply the concept of defensive confidence I reference in a recent Discourse article. If people have defensive confidence—the confidence that one can successfully defend one's ideas in given situations—they are more likely to engage the world more courageously as individuals unbeholden to a group and is, ironically, more likely to have one's mind changed precisely because of this willingness to engage.
These concepts suggest the benefits individualism can have to a sense of social justice and, especially, in combatting the fatalism of social justice activism. Individuals can think independently, adapt to circumstances, and, therefore, more effectively exercise agential fate and defensive confidence, thus better ensuring an attempt to communicate across differences.
Sadly, the concept of individualism is almost anathema in critical social justice circles, in which group identity is favored and individualism is considered an oppressive concept. Race essentialism, which implies concepts like linked fate and group consciousness, is a foundational concept in critical social justice that is diametrically opposed to individualism.
Individualism is not only the best thing for curing the ills of social injustice; it is also, by nature, the downfall of critical social justice ideology. For this reason, maybe "panacea's" more colloquial synonym, "magic bullet" would be more apropos.

Anastasia P. Boden


Today was a watershed moment in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. For all intents and purposes, racial preferences in higher education are no longer allowed. Over the course of 237 pages, the nine Supreme Court justices traded barbs over affirmative action with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion. But Justice Thomas's concurrence was the star.
As expected, the majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina was written by Chief Justice Roberts, who has long authored vigorous defenses of race‐​neutrality in government policymaking. He coined the (depending on who you ask) much lauded or much mocked phrase, "the best way to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race is to get rid of discrimination on the basis of race." He included a similar statement in this case, remarking that "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."
In typical Justice Roberts fashion, the Chief never explicitly overruled Regents of the University of California v. Bakke or Grutter v. Bollinger, the two primary Supreme Court cases permitting race‐​based college admissions for the purpose of "obtaining the benefits that flow from a diverse student body." Instead he concluded that the challenged admissions programs failed to satisfy those opinion's safeguards. For instance, they amounted to quotas, relied on stereotyping, penalized some students based on race, and had no ending point in sight. Though Chief Justice Roberts never explicitly said so, the implication is that the diversity rationale is no longer permissible, since preferences will always act as a negative for some students (after all, admissions is a zero‐​sum game) and the diversity rationale is inherently stereotypical (because it assumes that students bring something to the table by virtue of their race alone).
Justice Thomas's individualist concurrence, by contrast, was a strident show‐​stopper that beautifully defended the principles of equality before the law and individualism. His opinion began with a lengthy history of the Fourteenth Amendment and concluded with a whopper of a line accusing Justice Jackson of engaging in racial determinism.
The concurrence covers a lot of ground beginning with an Originalist analysis of the original public meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Though the dissenting justices argue that the Clause does not require race‐​neutrality, Justice Thomas persuasively demonstrates that the Clause was passed to forbid "all legal distinctions based on race or color," including purportedly benign ones.
He also wrote at length about the inherent arbitrariness of racial classifications (covered in David Bernstein's new book, Classified), mismatch theory (which posits that affirmative action perpetuates stereotypes by placing recipients in classes where they are "less likely to succeed academically relative to their peers"), and the pernicious effect race‐​based admissions has had on Asian students, who are placed at a significant disadvantage by Harvard's and UNC's preference system. But he reserves the most powerful language for rebutting Justice Jackson's assertion that racial preferences can be justified as a remedy for societal discrimination.
Justice Thomas begins his rebuttal by noting that there's a difference between genuine remedial measures for racial discrimination (which are permissible under the Equal Protection Clause) and racial balancing for its own sake. To prevent the former from becoming the latter, proponents of government sponsored racial classifications must demonstrate a traceable link to government perpetuated discrimination. Justice Jackson has no such evidence and instead relies mainly on statistical disparities. Or, as Justice Thomas puts it:
As she sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today. The panacea, she counsels, is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society's riches by racial means as necessary to "level the playing field," all as judged by racial metrics. I strongly disagree.

As Justice Thomas notes, not all disparities can be ascribed to race, let alone discrimination. Disparities can arise from socio‐​economic status, geography, and myriad other factors. And while Justice Jackson focuses on group outcomes, Justice Thomas focuses on individuals. Even where disparities exist, they don't exist for everyone in the group. But "[e]ven if some whites have a lower household net worth than some blacks," Justice Thomas says, "what matters to Justice Jackson is that the average white household has more wealth than the average black household." He continues:
This lore is not and has never been true. Even in the segregated South where I grew up, individuals were not the sum of their skin color. Then as now, not all disparities are based on race; not all people are racist; and not all differences between individuals are ascribable to race. Put simply, "the fate of abstract categories of wealth statistics is not the same as the fate of a given set of flesh‐​and‐​blood human beings." T. Sowell, Wealth, Poverty and Politics 333 (2016). Worse still, Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth, and well‐​being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do so is unfathomable to me. I cannot deny the great accomplishments of black Americans, including those who succeeded despite long odds.

To the extent individual Black Americans have fewer means, or poorer health, or any of the disparities Justice Jackson describes, universities can take those factors into account. What it can't do, says Justice Thomas, "is use the applicant's skin color as a heuristic, assuming that because the applicant checks the box for 'black' he therefore conforms to the university's monolithic and reductionist view of an abstract, average black person." In other words, individuals are more than the skin color they are born into.
He uses as an example Justice Jackson's hypothetical regarding John and James, two applicants competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh‐​generation legacy at the school and James is black applicant would be the first member of his family to go to UNC. Putting aside that the university could take into account James's first‐​generation status rather than his race, Justice Thomas asks, "why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great great‐​great‐​grandparents? And what would Justice Jackson say to John when deeming him not as worthy of admission: Some statistically significant number of white people had advantages in college admissions seven generations ago, and you have inherited their incurable sin?" As Justice Scalia wrote elsewhere, "under our Constitution, there can be no debtor or creditor race." Instead, "in the eyes of the government, we are just one race here. It is American."
Contrary to the dissenters' view of equality, which seeks equality based on group outcome, Justice Thomas emphasizes individual traits over group membership, noting that "All racial groups are heterogeneous, and blacks are no exception—encompassing northerners and southerners, rich and poor, and recent immigrants and descendants of slaves. Eschewing the complexity that comes with individuality may make for an uncomplicated narrative, but lumping people together and judging them based on assumed inherited or ancestral traits is nothing but stereotyping."
Contrary to being mere products of their race, "Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments." Whereas the dissenters consider individuals passive actors in an inherently and inexorably racist scheme, Justice Thomas believes individuals have agency. "What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything—good or bad—that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals' skin color to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism."
Justice Thomas concludes that "the great failure of this country was slavery and its progeny. And, the tragic failure of this Court was its misinterpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments, as Justice Harlan predicted in Plessy." He's right. Some of the biggest injustices have occurred because of the Supreme Court's narrowing of civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment (looking at you, Slaughter‐​house and Cruikshank) and its upending of equality before the law. If we want all people to achieve the American Dream, the Court must protect individuals' liberty and prevent government created barriers from getting in the way.
It's true, of course, that society has never been colorblind, but as Justice Thomas says, the government must be—lest we start a vicious and self‐​perpetuating cycle of race‐​based balancing. So will it follow that command given today's opinion?
There's a very real possibility schools will just drive their discrimination further underground. It took a great deal of discovery to get to the bottom of Harvard's and UNC's systems, which though multi‐​factored on their face amounted to quotas in practice. There will likely be litigation over covert racial balancing or the use of "neutral" proxies in the future. But for now, the Court has affirmed its commitment to treating people without regard to race or other immutable characteristics, which is a win for our individualist Constitution.

Jeffrey Miron


This article appeared on Substack on June 19, 2023
A common view attributes economic inequality to the evils of markets—greed, corruption, family connections, luck, and so on—rather than to differences in economic productivity.
Some wealth is no doubt "ill‐​gotten," or at least not directly related to one's own contribution to the economic pie.
Yet many differences in economic success result from government interventions that create winners and losers, and in arbitrary or even perverse ways.
Government licenses to become a lawyer, doctor, hair braider, plumber, or other professional raise the income of those who obtain these licenses, regardless of whether more talented.
Zoning regulation protects the wealth of those lucky enough to have bought land before such restrictions existed.
Much regulation, of all kinds, imposes substantial fixed costs. Larger firms more easily absorb these, while small firms face a greater barrier to entry. Regulation also creates the opportunity for less principled businesses to game the system, implying honest firms lose out.
When governments build schools, roads, hospitals, office buildings, military equipment, and other infrastructure, they contract out with private firms. Ideally government chooses the most efficient firm, but in practice cronyism and corruption play substantial roles.
Restrictive immigration policies prevent people in poor countries from earning substantially higher wages.
Medicare reimbursement rules reward less scrupulous health care providers, who manipulate billing codes to maximize their revenues.
Taxpayer‐​funded universities transfer wealth to families with more college‐​bound children.
Government protections for unions raise member wages but cause others to be underemployed. Minimum wage laws have similar effects.
Rent controls discourage construction of new housing, raising costs for those who fail to secure controlled apartments.
The corporate income tax penalizes not just shareholders but customers and employees, who are often less well off.
Progressive or complicated tax codes create lucrative incomes for the lawyers and accountants who help individuals and businesses avoid or evade these features.
I could go on, but you get the point!
The fact that government causes these arbitrary redistributions is not, by itself, reason to avoid all intervention. If a policy generates large benefits, any resulting mal‐​distribution might be a necessary evil.
In a few cases, moreover, redistribution is the flip side of a potentially beneficial effect. Patents and copyright create monopoly profits that incentivize innovative or creative activity, perhaps benefitting society overall.
Nevertheless, policy evaluations should recognize the scope for arbitrary redistribution as one negative side effect of interfering with free markets.
Likewise, any discussion of redistribution should recognize that government, rather than the free market, is often the bigger offender.

Why do we have a bigger welfare state than is good for us?But then, before I tell you why, I'd better justify that assertion. So just take the case of my own country, the UK. Here, the government spends nearly half of everything its citizens earn—and then it borrows. And the biggest chunk of its spending goes on the three big-ticket welfare-state items: health, education and welfare (including housing). That makes the welfare state a significant cost on taxpayers. And of course high taxation is very damaging for individuals and businesses, particularly small and new businesses, while the interest payments on the government's debt raises those costs even further and reduces its scope to spend on something useful.There are also the dependency and incentive issues. With state welfare focused on the poorest, many find themselves trapped in dependency. If they try to improve their own condition, they find their benefits being reduced, often very quickly. That tapering, combined with the high taxes needed to sustain the welfare system, discourages individuals from seeking work, or moving to better-paid jobs. The result is a lower national income, and reduced labour market flexibility, leading to a fall in the productivity of the economy.State welfare is also poorly targeted and wasteful. The amount of money we spend on it could make our poorest citizens relatively rich; but much of it lingers in the pockets of those who administer the system, while much more goes to people who do not genuinely need it. Nor does it really help people out of poverty: it simply pays them cash, rather than looking at what they need in order to prosper.Moreover, state welfare crowds out more targeted and effective interventions such as private charity and philanthropy. And it suggests to taxpayers that their obligations to their fellow citizens have been dealt with for them, making them less willing to take on responsibility themselves. I could go on, but you get the picture. We all know the system is inefficient, badly targeted, bureaucratic, wasteful and often counter-productive. So why do we keep voting for it?I think the answer may lie in what economists call 'expressive choice' — as opposed to the phenomenon of 'instrumental choice'. An instrumental choice is one such as you would make in a marketplace. Perhaps you want a new coat. You go into the shops and choose one from the variety of different coats on offer. You pay your money, and your choice turns into reality—you have the new coat you wanted.Expressive choices are those such as you make in elections. The chance of your vote making an actual difference—being the single vote that decides if one candidate defeats another, or whether a referendum succeeds or fails—is miniscule. Usually, it is millions to one. So, unlike your coat transaction, you do not always get what you choose. You vote for one candidate, but another succeeds. You vote for one policy, but another is put into effect.How, then, do people respond to that? One answer is that they vote for things that make them feel good. You can vote for anything you like, because your choice is not actually going to make a difference. So, people vote for high-spending pro-welfare candidates because they see it as a way of 'helping the poor'—and indeed a way of 'helping the poor' that is absolutely costless to them (unlike the coat transaction). So why not?The trouble is that it isn't absolutely costless. The costs of all those welfare state programmes mount up, and voter-taxpayers feel the burden of it. And the inefficiencies and disincentives mount up too, which burdens them and everyone else too. I don't see any way out of this welfare ratchet in a democratic system. Perhaps we need to lay down limits on what that system is there to do, and can do and can spend. But I can't see politicians voting for that.

Colleen Hroncich


Denisha Merriweather Allen says her life would be very different today if not for school choice. She grew up in an impoverished community in Jacksonville, Florida. Her family had lived in poverty there for at least four generations. They were well‐​known in the community and in the local schools. "She's a Merriweather," teachers would say, with the implication being not to expect anything from her.
Not surprisingly, Denisha's behavior reflected these expectations the adults had of her. "I remember days when I would walk into the classroom and everyone would sigh, including my teacher," she shared with The 74. "I grew disheartened. To hide my hurt, I often lashed out in physical fights with my classmates. The principal's office became my new classroom, and I got used to being suspended. D's and F's filled my report cards." Denisha failed 3rd grade twice because she couldn't read.
As she entered 6th grade, Denisha's life changed. She began living with her godmother, who used a tax credit scholarship to send Denisha to Esprit de Corps Center for Learning, a private school her church had started. "The nurturing environment at Esprit de Corps made a huge difference," says Denisha. "They didn't just see me as a person who came to school with a lot of baggage and not the best outlook. I was a challenging student and spent a lot of time in in‐​school suspension. But they were so nurturing and consistent that it changed my attitude. They encouraged me to use my voice and gave me ways to channel my strengths. I went from making D's and F's to graduating with honors, going to college, and getting a master's degree. I don't think that would have been possible if I hadn't been given a different opportunity."
Denisha became a school choice advocate because she witnessed first‐​hand the tremendous impact it had on her own life. Fast forward to 2020. The country is in the midst of social unrest after the killing of George Floyd. "The entire country was looking at our systems and thinking about how we can become more equitable," says Denisha. "But I was frustrated that there wasn't enough focus on the inequities in our education system and the reforms that really could make a difference in the lives of students and especially Black students. The academic outcomes for Black students nationwide according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress are really dismal."
But Denisha didn't just complain about the situation or sit back and hope someone else would do something. She created Black Minds Matter, a national movement to celebrate black minds, support excellence, and promote the development of high‐​quality school options for black students. "There's a lot of research that shows when Black students have choice in education, their academic outcomes improve drastically. And not just academics—even crime and teen pregnancy rates improve when students have school choice," Denisha points out.
Black Minds Matter works to "encourage and empower elected officials, community members and families to be innovative, demand excellence in education, and increase the number of schools founded by Black individuals." A key piece of this effort is a Black‐​Owned School directory, which is the first online directory to promote schools founded by African Americans and currently includes 416 schools.
Last week, Denisha hosted the second annual Black Minds Matter Summit. It gave parents, students, teachers, school leaders, education reformers, and lawmakers a chance to connect with and inspire each other in their efforts to transform education for black students. The participants included founders of homeschool co‐​ops, microschools, charter schools, and traditional private schools. Students from a local black‐​owned school surprised the audience with a lesson on financial literacy. And former school choice beneficiaries shared their stories along with ways to activate and engage communities.
Prior to this year's summit, Black Minds Matter partnered with the State Policy Network to host a mini launchpad with black school founders who are looking to expand. It was a great opportunity for the founders to receive feedback and tips from a diverse group of entrepreneurs, innovators, and education reformers.
In her journey from school choice beneficiary to advocate, Denisha has been an inspiration to countless people. But she's also been inspired herself—by the parents who are finding better options for their children, the students who are working to improve their futures, the school founders who are creating new opportunities for those students, and the lawmakers who are willing to face strong opposition when they pass school choice programs that help disadvantaged kids escape bad environments. Through Black Minds Matter, she's created a way to help cultivate and sustain a growing movement centered around ensuring every black student has access to a high‐​quality education they've chosen.

On Wednesday, President Joe Biden announced that he would stop sending offensive weapons to Israel "'if they go into Rafah." It is the most notable sign of his administration's shift in its support for Israel's war to date, but questions remain over how and when the president will follow through on his words. Meanwhile, the administration paused a recent shipment of bombs to Israel, but it is not a permanent decision, and the president's claim that "they haven't gone in Rafah yet" — despite the fact that Israel is continually striking the southern Gazan city, have tanks positioned on the periphery, and took control of the the Rafah crossing — suggests that U.S. support may otherwise continue so long as the campaign remains relatively limited.Behind the scenes in the U.S. government, there has been a bit of turmoil.At least four federal employees, including three from the State Department, have publicly resigned, explicitly in protest of the administration's response to the war. This comes amid a number of stories about internal tension in the Biden administration concerning its largely unwavering rhetorical and material support for Benjamin Netanyahu's government as it prosecutes a war that has now killed nearly 35,000 Palestinians. In addition, hundreds of civil servants from various government agencies have signed a series of open letters calling on Biden to push for a ceasefire in Gaza and de-escalation in the wider region. Unfortunately, one federal employee with more than 15 years of service in two government agencies told RS, "the internal messaging to staff mirrors the external messages. And that has been a source of both disappointment and deep frustration." (Sources asked for anonymity in order to discuss internal dynamics.) In other words, the informal 'dissent channel' doesn't seem to be moving the needle, seven months into the war.Critics within the administration are not motivated by their moral qualms alone. There is a growing sense among staff, according to another source, that the long-term alliance with Israel does not serve U.S. interests. Specifically, they are worried that Washington is itself being drawn into a regional war, that its actions are increasing instability in the region, and that "ironclad" support for Israel's conduct in Gaza is undermining any claim that the U.S. is a champion for global human rights and democracy. The dissent also extends beyond the departments that are typically considered responsible for implementing Gaza policy, such as the State Department or USAID. It includes officials in other agencies whose work is tangentially related to the war and still others who are simply outraged by American complicity in the rising death toll and humanitarian crisis. "Having worked in the administration during the Afghan withdrawal and also the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so many efforts were spearheaded and led, and normal procedures were bypassed given the urgent humanitarian situation. Here, however, it has been a totally different ballgame. There are systemic issues with how we issue Palestinian cases," says a homeland security official. "Any kind of initiative to expedite help for Palestinians has been blocked or quelled or slowed down dramatically in a way that I've never seen before." The signs were there in the early days of the war, sources say. "The decision was made from the top very early on," says an official with 25 years of national security experience. "Experts have been shut out from the decision-making process, making it very hard to change that policy."Annelle Sheline, a former staffer in the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, who resigned in protest of the administration's Gaza policy in March, says her experience was similar."There are so many people who know the region really well working at State, who were raising concerns from all kinds of angles: the U.S. national interest angle, the legalistic angle or the human rights angle," Sheline tells RS. "People who spent their whole careers working on these things, and nobody was being listened to. Even relatively senior officials inside State who are very concerned and very opposed were not being listened to." (Sheline was previously a research fellow at the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.) Federal employees who are disillusioned with the approach to Gaza say they have explored multiple avenues to make their position clear. One federal employee told RS that when staffers raised concerns about unconditionally supporting Israel in the early stages of the war, they realized that doing so through formal channels was ineffective."As the months dragged on, it became evident that the dissent channels that the State Department likes to tout are about placating staff more than actually listening to those with deep regional and policy expertise and making changes," says the 15-year federal employee. The dissidents say only a handful of individuals in the upper echelons of the State Department, at the National Security Council and, and ultimately Biden himself, have decision-making power, and no amount of dissent has made a difference. According to one report, Biden's own staunch pro-Israel position has been solidified over five decades in Washington, and his commitment to the Jewish state is not easily shaken. In the months since October 7, a number of staffers have resorted to quieter and more informal forms of protest — having unsanctioned conversations with journalists; changing social media avatars to express solidarity with Palestinians; or wearing keffiyehs during work meetings — to express their unhappiness or distress within the administration.When RS spoke to these federal employees, they noted the importance of May 8, the day the Biden administration was supposed to produce a report for Congress on Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law. It would have been a clear sign of how far Biden and other top officials are willing to go to back the war effort. That date came and went with no report on Wednesday. There are conflicting reports on whether the report is delayed "indefinitely" or whether it is expected to be delivered soon. As the staffers noted, the Israeli blockade of aid — at the very least — has been so blatant that it would be hard to believe that any official acting in good faith would sign a report asserting the contrary. And this is an argument that many other notable individuals have made publicly."The determination regarding compliance with international law is one of fact and law. The facts and law should not be ignored to achieve a pre-determined policy outcome. Our credibility is on the line," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the lawmaker who led the effort to require a report be submitted to Congress, recently said. In late April, more than 90 lawyers signed a letter to the Biden administration calling on it to suspend military aid to Israel. "The law is clear and aligned with the majority of Americans who believe the U.S. should cease arms shipments to Israel until it stops its military operation in Gaza," read the letter. At least 20 of the signatories work in the administration, according to Politico. Politico reported on Tuesday that there has been an uptick in the number of non-public resignations by officials and that more resignations, both public and non-public, will soon follow.Sources tell RS that there have been discussions of larger-scale resignations, though ultimately it remains unclear whether such dramatic steps would make much difference, given how little impact the public dissent has made to date. Many staffers are reluctant to quit their jobs because of family or financial considerations.Sheline, who was the third official to publicly resign over Gaza policy, says that there have been efforts to delegitimize her resignation, as well as those that preceded it. "I think if there were a lot more public resignations, I do think it would be very hard for the administration to pretend that it was just a one-off. So I do hope that there will be more."

Our memory of philosphy is that all the really hard work comes at the beginning, with the definition of terms. Only once it is clear that we are using words to describe things both accurately and precisely is it possible to then go on to use words to walk through a discussion of those things. Admittedly, some here have a deeper understanding of the subject than that but even so we really are sure that definitions are vital to the subject.We are therefore surprised to see this from a philosopher: Common to both approaches is a wrongheaded presumption that we can carry on growing while managing to hold off the floods and fires of growth-driven capitalism. Both also take it for granted that the consumerist lifestyle is essential to the wellbeing of rich societies and the ideal to which less developed economies should aspire.It is true that measures to alleviate poverty will be an integral part of any national or international green transition. And some economic growth will be required in areas such as renewable energy, housing, care and education. But overall growth is not, as many of its advocates seem to presuppose, essential to any effective economy.Nothing much wrong with that. Growth isn't essential, it's merely something humans desire. Of course we don't want growth that then consumes us - sustainable growth is indeed a desire. And so on - we might not agree with what's said there but it's all defensible. This isn't:Conversely, there is much to recommend a slower-paced, less work-centred and more community-oriented way of living. A work culture less dominated by profit-driven ideas of efficiency would free time for other activities.The first sentence, sure, why not? None of us do work every hour God gave therefore we all agree, to greater or lesser extent, with the idea. How much we agree, 70 hours a week or 10 is something probably best left to the individual - as long as they're willing to accept the corollary, the living standard, rich though it is in other compensations, that will accompany the associated income.The second sentence is simply nonsense. Profit is the value added in an activity. Inputs are this, outputs that, profit is the difference between them. The greater the efficiency with which we do things then yes, the greater the profit. But then that means that the greater the efficiency the more value we gain from any specific amount of effort or resource use. Which means, for any specific amount of value to be enjoyed by us all collectively, greater efficiency means more time for other activities. Start this simply, we're growing wheat for the daily bread. If we sow by hand, plough with a stick, scythe the stalks and hand sort the chaff then there's an enormous amount of human effort in a slice. Effort that cannot be used for other activities at risk of not gaining our necessary 2k calories a day. So, now we do this more efficiently. We spend less time on the bread, we have more time for everything else. As we've noted before it's the invention of the tractor which allows civilisation - the NHS, ballet, libraries, schools, would not exist if 90% of all human labour had to be in fields. Efficiency in the use of human time is exactly what allows all those other things which lead to a greater richness of human existence. Profit-driven efficiency is not what prevents us from having that richer and less grubbing life, it's exactly the thing which allows it.As we say, philosophy really does start with the definitions of terms. Profit, efficiency, these are desirable things. Clearly so, for without them we'd not have the societal surplus to enable the existence of philosophers emerita.

Marc Joffe


Most state and local governments file their financial statements on time, but there are some notable exceptions. Among those are the last two cities to declare bankruptcy—Fairfield, AL and Chester, PA—as well as Puerto Rico, the largest municipal bond issuer to ever file a bankruptcy petition. Now another perennially late financial statement filer is getting attention from local media and its state government.
Hopewell, VA, a city south of Richmond, with about 23,000 people, is four years behind in producing audited financial statements. Further, its audits for the years 2015–2018 did not receive "clean" opinions from the Certified Public Accountants hired to review them, suggesting serious irregularities. The 2018 opinion was especially negative, with the auditor observing:
There were material differences between the Treasurer Office's June 2018 bank reconciliation and the City and Component Unit School Board's adjusted general ledger and financial statements. The City, Treasurer's Office and Component Unit School Board were unable to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence for these material discrepancies in cash transactions.

In connection with federal grant oversight, the auditor also assessed Hopewell's accounting systems and procedures and found them to be inadequate. City management accepted these findings and attributed the problems to "staff turnover, minimal documented procedures/​guidelines."
Hopewell last issued municipal bonds in 2011. At that time, it received strong ratings from all three of the major credit rating agencies. But the city's mounting financial reporting challenges have compromised its credit. In 2017, both Moody's and Standard and Poor's withdrew their ratings due to Hopewell's failure to provide timely disclosure. Fitch followed in 2018.
At a City Council meeting, Ward 1 Councilor Rita Joyner noted the lack of credit ratings and concluded that, as a result, the city could no longer fund capital expenditures. That is not necessarily the case. Many governments issue unrated bonds and Hopewell's bonds traded in the secondary market multiple times (albeit at significantly elevated yields) in late 2022, suggesting that some investors are willing to shoulder the city's elevated credit risk if the city chooses to issue "junk bonds".
In recent months, the State of Virginia has been investigating Hopewell's financial status and offering assistance. The state government took a largely hands‐​off approach to local government finance until the City of Petersburg suffered a financial crisis in 2016. (Petersburg is just a ten‐​mile drive from Hopewell.) In 2017, the state legislature directed the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) to create a local fiscal distress early warning system.
But, although the state can now identify distress situations, its intervention options are limited. State law allows the governor to allocate up to $500,000 to provide technical assistance to distressed local government but cannot compel the governing body to accept this assistance.
After determining that Hopewell was in distress, the state hired the firm of Alvarez and Marsal to assess the situation and make recommendations. In May, the consultants issued a 161‐​page report with 27 recommendations including the establishment of a fiscal turnaround project management office, the development of a multi‐​year financial plan, and the creation of new monthly and annual accounts closing processes.
In July, Virginia Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings sent City Council members a letter, offering to fund an interim City Manager and Finance Director to help implement the consultant's findings if those individuals are approved by state officials. The Council rejected the state's offer by a 4–3 vote. Without Hopewell's cooperation, there is little more the state can do.
North Carolina has a much more aggressive local intervention law. If the state's Local Government Commission determines that a local government's finances have become unsustainable, it can take over "all of the powers of the council as to the levy of taxes, expenditure of money, adoption of budgets, and all other financial powers conferred upon the council by law." Further, the Commission has the power to merge or dissolve local governments which lack a path back to sustainability.
Hopewell's problems illustrate the need for Virginia to adopt a similar set of policies.

It is hard to overstate the impact of digital transformation on democracies and the daily lives of citizens around the world. The developing world is coming online at an extraordinary pace; there are places in which NDI works that are receiving the most significant innovation of the 20th century – electrification – at the same time as that of the 21st – instant global communications. Past technology revolutions such as the printing press or broadcast media have transformed democracy and politics in rapid, profound, and hard to anticipate ways. While disruptive, innovations can reinforce existing power structures: dominant languages are magnified; usage reflects traditional gender imbalances surveillance is automated. Recognizing this incredible rate of change, NDI is changing the toolkit of approaches we use in our programs, embracing new forms of political engagement, and changing the ways we manage the nuts and bolts of international development.
Technology is as much a social, economic, and political phenomenon as it is code or engineering. The democracy community, therefore, cannot afford to treat it as a single issue and must approach it with a nuanced understanding of the range of ways it is changing society and democracy:
The internet has become critical infrastructure for democracy, – and it is under attack. Organizing, advocacy, and political communication are increasingly digital, and so preserving a democratic internet is core to the success of all other social change goals - however, many of the trends are negative. The internet needs to be accessible and available to all, free of unjustified censorship, surveillance, or punitive taxes. Organizations need to be able to maintain a digital presence without fear of having their content destroyed or confidential data shared. An information space choked with disinformation and the chilling effects of hate speech robs individuals of informed choice. The digitization of all human activity as data creates new potential for authoritarians to track citizens and perpetuate discriminatory systems. Incredible power is now vested in the hands of the major technology platforms. Through NDI's work with the Design 4 Democracy Coalition, grassroots civic groups around the world are working together to ensure that the technology sector plays a role in supporting democracy.
Policymakers and citizens need to be better informed. Making the internet safe for democracy requires supportive digital policy at the global, corporate and domestic level. Legislators and political leaders are often lacking in basic knowledge of technology to regulate them appropriately or to procure tech; easy solutions often include subsidized Chinese surveillance state-in-a-box tools or commercial offerings that may turn around and monetize citizen data. Tech companies may not understand the impacts of their products. Too often, new regulation is used as a trojan horse for anti-democratic legislation, as with cybersecurity or "fake news." Successful political engagement in the internet age requires digital literacy of citizens: effectively using tools, understanding rights, keeping themselves safe, and to be intelligent consumers of information. As with most things in the technology space, the details of the topic may be new but the concept is not; NDI has always focused on education on citizen's rights in a democracy and how to engage with existing power structures.
New forms of democracy, governance and citizen engagement are possible. There are radically new capabilities for partners who are pillars of democracy using new communication systems, more data applied in radically different ways, and new ways to gather and sort citizen preferences. Further, new forms of human organization have emerged, such as Hong Kong's leaderless protest movement, that would have been impossible without the internet. Any new innovations, even if well-meant, will have unintended consequences that NDI and partners need to be able to foresee and if possible avoid. Other technologies will may provide compelling features for citizens or governments -- but entrap them with built-in surveillance capabilities, the monetization of citizen data by corporations, or new forms of government control. NDI works with civic innovators around the world, including shepherding the Code for All Network and engaging with leaders who are building new forms of citizen engagement such as Audrey Tang in Taiwan.
Tech specifics matter but there are no easy solutions. The difference between an accurate understanding of how a technology works instead of a general one can make the difference between having a positive impact and an extremely negative one. Often, emergent technologies are misunderstood based on conceptual oversimplification or slick sales pitches. Given the trend toward integrated data, mass surveillance, and ever more powerful analysis tools, it is critical for organizations that hope to make change or mitigate democratic harm to have the ability to understand technical specifics. Conversely, changemaking organizations must be wary of tech solutionism and create internal capacity to tie technology to mission. The complexity of technology requires cultivating relationships with new actors, including academic institutions and corporations – but communicating with them requires mastery of the technology under discussion, the ability to speak to them in their language, and to engage at their cadence. The internet is privately owned, from cables in the ground to the servers on which systems run to the devices in our pockets and the apps sitting on them. Therefore, tech firms are critical to the conversation -- though engagement does not imply approval of all their activities.
Change will continue. A new range of technologies such as AI, augmented reality, voice assistants and ubiquitous sensors are here today. When widely applied, this new generation of tools will continue to reshape politics and the relationships between citizens and their governments. In the period when they are emerging, there is time to mitigate foreseeable negative consequences and aid positive ones.
Conclusion. It can be tempting to ignore the technology transformations sweeping the world in the context of international development and democracy, attempting to continue with traditional programs. Alternatively, one can look at technology as an unalloyed evil, focusing on the negatives and attempting to push back in as many ways as possible. NDI has taken a more realistic approach. The tech revolution is here to stay, and the pace of change will only continue. As our lives change based on the tools we use, so does the nature of democracy – and the threats it faces. NDI will continue engaging with our partners on the ground and helping them build more just societies based on the realities of life in the digital age.


Women in Zambia during the 2016 General Elections.

Democracy and Technology, #NDI #National Democratic Institute #democracy #technology

Marc Joffe


After numerous delays and extensive cost overruns, Honolulu's Skyline passenger rail system launched on June 30. Skyline is the first U.S. system to use automated trains, hopefully serving as an example to the nation's other urban transit operators. Driverless train technology is common in Canada, Asia, France and at U.S. airports. They offer lower costs and the potential for more frequent service.
Skyline opened with five days of free service through July 4, when daily ridership peaked at 18,108. The elevated train system with its unique views proved to be something of a tourist attraction during the holiday weekend. But when Skyline began to collect fares on Wednesday, July 5 ridership plummeted to only 1,245. (It subsequently revised the total to 3,276 stating that the original figure did not include passengers transferring from buses). The city expects that after a year, daily ridership will stabilize in the range of 8,000 to 10,000.
All of this is a far cry from original projections. The project's 2010 Environmental Impact Statement projected that ridership would reach 116,300 in 2030. As late as 2018, Honolulu officials were offering aggressive ridership projections of up to 121,600 per day in 2030.
One reason that today's ridership is so far below the old forecasts is that only a portion of the system is now in service. The 2030 ridership projections applied to the full 20‐​mile, 21‐​station system originally planned. The phase that just opened encompasses the easternmost 11 miles and nine stations. The two westernmost stations have been dropped from the project to contain cost overruns.
But much of the gap between real and forecast ridership levels is attributable to excessively optimistic modeling assumptions. As recently as 2020, the city thought daily ridership on the initial nine‐​station segment would by over 19,000 or double the city's latest prediction.
A longtime critic of Honolulu's transit plans, University of Hawaii Civil Engineering Professor Panos Prevedouros, previously offered a projection for the full system that was also about half of official forecasts. He came to this conclusion after seeing a decline in Honolulu bus ridership as well as very low ridership on Tren Urbano, a similar rail system in Puerto Rico.
Dr. Prevedouros offered the following reaction to the first day ridership figures:
While the recent numbers are truly abysmal, it'll take till about November of this year for ridership to settle down to a representative number of rail and bus ridership on Oahu, from which one can make a reasonable estimate about the ridership of the full line. If I were placing a bet, I'd be betting on more abysmal levels of ridership, much worse than those I estimated in the 2010s, which were about half of what HART (the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transit) was projecting.

Aggressive ridership forecasts are not unique to Honolulu. Earlier in 2023, San Francisco's $2 billion, 1.6‑mile Central Subway began revenue service with a far lower number of passenger boardings than originally anticipated.
Had ridership projections been more realistic, perhaps Honolulu would have opted to serve the route with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) instead of rail. Individual BRT vehicles can accommodate up to 300 passengers and BRT lines in several international cities handle a peak load of over 10,000 passengers per hour. In the US, the Los Angeles Metro G Line served about 30,000 passengers daily at its peak before the pandemic. If the LA line was grade separated and not impacted by traffic signals, its capacity could be far higher.
Not only does BRT have adequate capacity for the Honolulu Skyline, its use would not have had a major impact on travel times. While trains have much higher maximum speeds than buses, this difference is only material when stations are far apart. On the Skyline, stations are no more than a couple of miles apart and trains will achieve a maximum speed of only 55 mph.
Had Honolulu opted to run large buses rather than trains along the elevated Skyline, it could have started service far sooner and at much lower cost than with a rail‐​based solution. And a less aggressive, more realistic ridership forecast may have led to the conclusion that Skyline was best served by BRT. For other local governments considering new transit services, Honolulu's lessons are worth considering.