Review of Arrival City

I recently purchased a copy of Arrival City by Doug Saunders. I’d heard a bit about the book, and was hoping that it would provide some great additional information for me on cities and the importance of them as engines of growth and prosperity.

The book largely delivers, with a collection of interesting stories about the transition from rural to urban life. The arrival city is a bit of a slippery concept, but I think still provides a useful analytical way of thinking about the specific places mentioned in the book. Arrival cities, according to the book, represent those often marginal areas of large cities, where rural migrants are able to get to the first rung on the urban ladder.

The book argues that it is this first crucial step that is often overlooked when we think of what is really transforming the world into a truly urban place. The transition between village and rural life is the focus of the book, and it really highlighted for me the challenge of becoming an urbanite. In fact many of the stories he covers are about the failures of this transition both in the West and the developing world.

The book covers a good deal of territory both geographically, and metaphorically. It includes stops in Turkey, Brazil, Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Iran among others.
As a journalist, Saunders is able to weave the personal stories into a compelling narrative, and these individual personal stories are the best part of the book..

Saunders is able to link these personal stories together and highlight the importance of local and urban issues for the national context. Indeed this is the most interesting part of the book, where he is able to link the improving improvements and changes to a given favela to the largest context of President Lula and Brazil’s recent success. He does the same in linking the success of the Gecekndu in Turkey to the rise of its President Recep Ergodan These good examples, are unfortunately is lacking in some of the other sections.

One thing I found fascinating, was the importance of providing a path to citizenship, as a way of bringing immigrants into the formal economy. This is one thing Canada does better than any else, as a large majority of immigrants to Canada are able obtain citizenship in three years. This much faster than other countries. It also was interesting to note that this "path to citizenship" has also been provided in the U.S. through amnesties, which seems to come up often in their debate about immigration. Hopefully for their own sake they will get around to sometime soon.

The book does a good job of combining Saunders obvious skill as a journalist with obvious scholarship and research into the topic. The book is a good read, and even attempts at times to deal with the larger national political issues. It's a refreshing take to see national politics as fundamentally urban, which one imagines it is in some of these countries. I wish there was a bit more here on structural issues, on the macro context, but generally speaking it's covered off.

CBC 75th Anniversary

A few weeks ago, I went on a free tour of the CBC studio here in Ottawa. They offered the tour as part of their 75th anniversary celebrations, as part of Culture Days.

It prompted me to write a letter to my MP in support of the CBC, something that appears to be important, given the attacks by SUN TV what the increasingly call the "state broadcaster"(see discussion here ). They seem to be using the fact that the CBC is now subject to the Access to Information Act, to harass the broadcaster and also to attempt to get information they can use to either embarrass them or tow gain a commercial advantage.

Here's an excerpt from the letter:

An offhand comment made by someone at the CBC studios, which I visited during Culture Days here in Ottawa this past weekend, prompted this letter. She remarked that "public broadcasting is about the public, and about you". This comment reflects something I strongly believe about the important role of the CBC. In my case, as the son of two immigrant parents, I understand how important the CBC was in enabling them to become Canadian citizens in the fullest sense of the word. I know this is the same for others, who have also remarked how listening to CBC radio enabled their immigrant parents to understand their adopted country.

The importance of the CBC to the development of the Canadian fabric is of course not limited to immigrants. In my case, listening to the CBC has enabled me to identify with Canada as a whole. This particularly the case with radio. Radio has an incredible immediacy and ability to engage listeners in conversations.

All countries can be defined as an act of faith or imagination. This especially true in Canada given its huge geography, the diversity of its landscapes, symbols and local identities. I have learned so much about the North of this country, the various parts of Atlantic Canada including Newfoundland (places I have only been in my imagination), through listening to CBC radio. It has provided a window into other conversations about Canada that include these places.

Despite the Toronto centric view of things, I believe in particular that CBC radio offers Canadians great programming that challenges and inspires. This programming is typified by the wonderful annual Massey lectures, is not provided by any other broadcaster in Canada. The kind of programming provided by the CBC will never be provided solely by the market.

The CBC is an important cultural institution that deserves taxpayer support. I urge you to protect it, and ensure that any decisions made within the context of deficit reduction respect the importance of the institution and are in keeping with the maintenance of its important role.

Evidence in public policy and decision making

This week has seen a series of articles that touch on evidence in public policy. Unsurprisingly several are about the crime bills being debated in Parliament.

I however thought the most interesting development this week was actually found in the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision on Insite. Insite is the safe injection site in Vancouver, which is exempted from the federal controlled drug substances act. While an extremely narrow defeat for the Conservative government, it was nonetheless a unanimous 9-0 decision.

The background is that Insite had requested and received an exemption when it opened up. It had received several extensions until 2008 when the then Health Minister Tony Clement denied the exemption. The ongoing court case(s) allowed the site to continue until it was finally resolved

What intrigued me and relates back to the evidence in public policy, was that the SCC decision rested largely on evidence around Insite. The most intriguing element of the decision for me is in the following paragraph 137 of the decision

The goals of the CDSA, as I have stated, are the maintenance and promotion of public health and safety. The Minister’s decision to refuse theexemption bears no relation to these objectives; therefore they cannot justify the infringement of the complainants’ s. 7 rights. However one views the matter, the
Minister’s decision was arbitrary and unsustainable.

Now I am not a lawyer, and therefore am not qualified to give a definitive opinion on the matter, but it would seem to me based on a layperson's reading, that essentially the decision was arbitrary in that it was not based on evidence. Essentially the court said that the decision was not based on any available evidence. Strike a win for the requirement for evidence based public policy.

I'm not a fan of the SCC being so involved in such determinations, but in this case where a government decision is based on no evidence whatsoever, where all available evidence points to the fact that lives are saved and is seen by all around it as a success. In a situation where, the city, the policy, the surrounding community including an immigrant business association (in fact as Paul Wells notes, what normally would qualify as the Conservative coalition), it would seem to me that one should at least have some evidence for making a decision.

Dan Gardner's recent column with the title A crime debate without facts or arguments highlights the challenges faced by those who believe in evidence based policy on emotional issues such as crime. Deeply felt ideology or emotion can make marshalling the evidence and convincing people difficult, but I would argue it is exactly on these issues that it is most important.
He writes:

Not long after they took power in 2006, I heard a minister say in an interview that mandatory minimum sentences reduce crime by deterring criminals. So I called the minister's office and asked for the evidence that supported the minister's claim.

The minister's office sent a list of five criminological studies. I was impressed. An assertion backed with evidence: That's the way serious people deal with policy.

But then I found and read the studies.

It turned out that most were old, badly done, and, even if correct, actually only supported the deterrence hypothesis in certain very limited circumstances. More remarkably, the newest and best study actually concluded that mandatory minimums do not work.

The challenge is exacerbated when those proposing the policy have little interest in the outcome, or the impact of their proposed approach. Another example here, where Ian Brodie notes that

Despite economic evidence to the contrary, in my view the GST cut worked,” Brodie said in Montreal at the annual conference of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. “It worked in the sense that by the end of the ’05-’06 campaign, voters identified the Conservative party as the party of lower taxes. It worked in the sense that it helped us to win.

In other words the evidence doesn't matter. Electoral results matter more than anything else. Now some will argue that this is always the case, and they have a point. That doesn't make it right, and that certainly doesn't make it any easier to deal with serious challenges. One can only get away with ignoring evidence for so long. The problems are real, the issues are real and they have costs.
One has to believe that in the end the evidence matters, and that it will have real impacts. Though it would appear these days that many who don't believe in science, who don't believe in evidence are in the ascendancy, at the end of the day the evidence does matter. How else can one have a society based on the rule of law. The Supreme Court bases its decisions on evidence, and it must be that way, and it why having an independent judiciary is an important component of democracy.
What an interesting decision they made yesterday, and I'll be curious to see what impact it has on decision making going forward.

For additional reading

On Insite:
Dan Gardner or Paul wells here or here


On crime:
Jeffrey Simpson or Alex Himelfarb

On multiculturalism

I read this article this week reflecting on the supposed failure of multiculturalism and I was shocked at how shoddy the piece was. Given that it was an opinion piece in the National Post, perhaps I shouldn’t be that surprised.

It came at an interesting time, as it echoes comments made by Gordon Brown a few years ago and referenced by Alberto Manguel in his wonderful 2007 Massey Lectures which I’ve been re-listening to this week. I liked his discussion of the issue, which discusses a similar pronouncement as the above article. Even including the use of the past tense in describing multiculturalism.

Manguel said:

[Gordon] Brown proposed unity at the cost of multiplicity, identifying a national 'Us' as a means not to identify with 'Them' - whoever the other might be. The point Brown missed is that it is not the 'separateness' that is detrimental to unity, but the labelling of the 'separate' others as inimical..."

This is exactly right, and his labelling of the new immigrants where Joans writes: "No: The new type was a conqueror whose quest was to alter Canada to suit him and his tribe."
Thereby labelling all the new immigrants as problematic, no matter where they come from, no matter who they are, no matter what they bring to the country.

He also goes beyond this in response to a question about identity. For some reason it struck a chord with me as I listened this week in a way it had not before. His passion for Canada is obvious in the answer, but it also strikes me as something amazing about Canada. Canada allows one to have an open identity. Canadians aren’t forced to choose their identity in the way they might be in many other countries. Or more accurately to have an identity imposed on them. Often it is the labelling that causes problems and challenges, especially when done from the outside.

We have found a way to live together in a world without labelling each other by race or creed. I’m always astonished at the degree to which this makes some people uncomfortable, particularly conservatives. Perhaps it comes from a desire to see things in black and white which I also have a tendency to see among conservatives.

I see this reflected in the way that Barack Obama is forced to choose to identify as black, despite his bi-racial heritage. It becomes obvious in reading his book Dreams of my father that the question is largely settled for him though perhaps he struggles with it at times. What is so interesting is to compare his experience with that of growing up biracial in Canada as highlighted in Black berry sweet juice,. Which chronicles the experience of Insert name here, and to my mind highlights the difference here in Canada, and the fact that one does not have an identity or a label imposed on them.

George Jonas’s article is ridiculous, from the way the opening section highlights the complaints of a Korean immigrant asking “where all the nice white people went”, to his suggestions that multiculturalism was a secret plot to get rid of the influence of the church, to his linking of Trudeau’s policies to today’s Islamic terrorism.

First of all, multiculturalism removed barriers on immigration that restricted it by race. In response people from around the world chose to immigrate to Canada. One thing that has to be remembered is that immigration is a choice made by people. All immigrants to Canada chose to come here. No-one forced them, and certainly Canada did not go around rounding up people from all over the world and force them to live here, as is suggested by the tone of the article.

Second it is amazing to imagine that the country does not change according to its ethnic make-up. This is the lie Manguel so rightly points out in his lecture. To imagine that there ever was such a thing as an unhyphenated Canadian belies the point that the definition of who is Canadian changes over time. On the prairies the influx of Ukrainians in the early part of the 20th century was greeted with much suspicion, and yet despite the last names, many of their descendants would not be distinguishable from your ordinary average Canadian.

The black and white nature of this analysis is highlighted by Manguel, where he says:

"For Brown or [Nicholas] Sarkozy, assimilation or exclusion are the only methods to ensure the sruvival of a society's identity. A social policy of open identity in a society that accepts the evolution is in their eyes too dangerous because that society might then be transformed out of all recognition"

This highlights the problem I see in a lot of conservative analysis. It posits simple black and white problems and pretends that it covers everything. Those that oppose such empty ridiculous notions, or suggest a more nuanced approach are labelled as elitists, or worse traitors.

This isn't to say that there are real challenges. The new immigrants are doing worse that the previous generation of immigrants, taking longer to get up to the Canadian average in terms of wages, despite being more educated. A big problem relates to credentials, and the problem of getting "Canadian" experience.

Canada will continue to exist, depsite what George Jonas says, but perhaps he won't recognize it. I'm sure glad Canada has changed since the 1950s, even if it scares many conservatives.

Election(s) time

Well it seems like there are potentially a lot of changes coming on the Provincial scene here in Canada, with I think 6 or 7 elections this fall, and the choosing of a new premier in Alberta, usually more consequential than their elections. The interesting thing is that there are likely a few big changes on the horizon, potentially in Ontario and in Manitoba in particular both of which might go Conservative.

That would feed into the emerging narrative in some circles in which there is an emerging governing coalition in Canada in which the West and Ontario have now become Conservative. This means that it is now possible to govern federally without winning many seats in Quebec.

Although it appeared for a long time that the Progressive Conservatives (yes they still exist provincially in Ontario) were heading towards a victory, the polls have been tightening for a while now and the latest numbers show the Liberals ahead. That would be a big blow to the idea that Ontario has been trending conservative, but we’ll have to await the results to see what happens. It appears to be turning into a close race. I

Recent comments by the Tories about “Foreign workers”, may end up being the wedge issue that allows the Liberals to govern. These comments are despicable and ridiculous. They come after the Liberals announced some funding to employers to hire new immigrants in their fields of study helping them to get their credentials recognized. I was surprised that Hudak even when given the chance, refused to back away from his “foreign workers” line. Playing up the xenophobia in my books is despicable. Foreign workers are different from immigrants, and he should know better.

I think it will be interesting to see how long it takes those commentators like John Ibbitson who write
things like this “What matters most is that Canada appears to have grown out of the era of earth-shaking federal-provincial conflicts. The will to struggle has faded, replaced by the will to accommodate.” See here here. It doesn’t take much to stir the federal provincial pot, and even Ibbitson acknowledges that the 2014 Health Accord negotiations may be somewhat acrimonious.

Federal provincial relations seem good these days because the federal government is withdrawing from many areas of provincial jurisdiction (many in areas of social policy), while concentrating on areas of Federal jurisdiction. We’ll see what kind of things happen though if the National Securities regulator supreme court reference goes the federal government’s way how calm the relations will be, as the federal government moves to occupy an area that arguably should always have been federal, but had been occupied by provinces.

One final challenge I think facing Canada will be in a few years when the federal government emerges from the current economic malaise and finds itself in a more powerful position vis a vis the provinces, especially as Ontario and Quebec face significant challenges on the fiscal and economic front. I think that it will be hard for any government to ignore their challenges, particularly if the federal government is relatively stronger in a few years time.

I think we are in a bit of lull period, where everything seems quiet on the federal-provincial front but one never knows or can predict how things will turn out. If as Ibbitson suggests a Conservative government emerges in Ontario, thing will likely be more difficult, as traditionally the worst relations between Toronto and Ottawa have been when parties of the same stripe are in power.

The decline of an important institution?

I was listening to a podcast from Australia this week in which they debated the question " Both Major Parties are Failing the Australian People".

It was an interesting debate, and many of the themes were the same as those being expressed in Canada.

Themes such as:
• Concern about diminishing numbers of members
• Increasingly controlled by leaders and by small numbers of people
• Concern about the role of parties in engaging people in discussion about issues and bringing people together

Here in Canada, an organization called Samarra released its own report about Canadian political parties called It's my Party: Parliamentary Dysfunction Reconsidered The report is part of a series based on "exit interviews" with Parliamentarians.

What struck me as I heard some of the coverage of the release of the report, was how toxic the relationship between the Members of Parliament(MPs) and their party had become. The report itself states that "the consistent observation from the MPs that the greatest frustrations they faced during their political careers came from within their own political party."

As in Australia, there were comments about the small number of behind the scenes officials running the party, and tension around the amount of control being exercised by the political party.

Both these views from Australia and especially from the insiders in Canada, seem to suggest that political parties as an institution are no longer performing as well as they used to. Their ability to engage the general public and serve as an aggregator of interests, seems to be diminished, in part due to declining membership, particularly among young people.

This raises some interesting questions about how to engage citizens in the political process. If young people in particular are abandoning political parties, how do we engage them in the formal political process. They seem to be moving towards membership in advocacy organization outside the formal process, joining NGOs, starting NGOs and advocating their beliefs this way.

This shift towards being involved in ways that are outside the political process poses two problems, one it leaves a smaller tent, more filled with true believers and ideologues within the traditional party, while also leaving those involved outside, as frustrated by the lack of movement on their issues.

I have wondered what a political party would be like if it could include all those who criticize from the outside, were actually involved in building the parties from within. Part of the cynicism that seems to be increasingly to be a part of our political culture relates to the fact that there are so many outsiders taking shots and attacking political parties.

In the end political parties are an entrenched part of our political system, and we need them. They need to modernize to be sure, but they also need people within them to push them in that direction. Perhaps now is the time given the NDP and Liberals are under interim leaders to think more about ways to properly engage people outside the current parties and figure out a way to bring in new and future leaders.

The hiss factor

This post is slightly dated as it is about the Budget, which obviously did not pass given that we are in election season, however I think it is still something worth writing about.

Preston Manning wrote an interesting article in the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago, with the interesting title "The hiss factor and the art of taxation". In the article he suggests that those focusing on only the economics, miss the fact that the politics are important.

It follows a few articles from economists complaining about the huge number of politically motivated tax credits, and the lack of substantive economic policy changes in the Budget.

The issue goes beyond the ever expanding list of tax credits, (see a take on the ever growing list of credits here ), and points to the challenge of bringing the public with you on complicated issues.

I actually think that there are two possible paths, one is the cynical one, of which the explanation for the GST cut by the Conservatives is a good example. This was a situation in which politics, was the only concern when the government cut the GST by two percentage points. Many now point to this move as creating a structural deficit and undermining the governments long term revenues, despite the impact of the "Great Recession".

The second approach would be to explain clearly the choices faces Canadians. It's a difficult path, in part because the general public doesn't always recognize the trade-offs involved in some of these decisions. One can only hope that new ways of presenting the information could help. The Finance department's site "Where does your tax dollar go" should be rolled out and highlighted to more people, so that people can understand basic facts about where government money goes.

In the end the only real answer is to do both, find something that makes sense economically, and politically. It's hard in practice, as often they pull in opposite directions, and in many cases splitting the difference isn't possible.