Not Getting the Points: Our Changing Immigration Paradigm focuses on the trend in Canada away from out historic practice of permanent status upon arrival to the  increasing prevalence of two-step paths to permanent immigration that go via the temporary foreign worker program.

This is the undefended, as of yet, version. I’ll post the final version post-defense.

Neoliberalising Immigration in Canada: The Pilot Project for Occupations Requiring Lower-Levels of Formal Training and the Expansion of Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program

I recently spent six weeks in China as part of a trip focused in part upon gaining an understanding of the current state of communist China. Since returning, various people have asked me for my impressions of China, and so I have undertaken here to sketch some of what I learned about the country, based upon my own study and observations and upon conversations with various people, ranging from party officials to academics to working people.

One thing that I’ve learned about China is that any discussion of its politics, society and economy quickly elicits controversy and strong opinions. In sketching my impressions here, though my remarks will undoubtedly fall on one or the other side of various heated debates. I aim simply to present China as I experienced it, and to attempt to encourage understanding of a fascinating country which is rapidly resuming its historic position as the world’s leading society.

Where the dictators at?

The elephant in the room, when it comes to China, is communism. As such, I was surprised about the level of consumerism present in China, particularly in the cities. Billboards large and small are everywhere, advertising mostly foreign brands. Ipods, computers, cameras, designer clothing, and many other products are sold from new, fancy-looking stores. The stores are full of people, especially young people, who are clearly excited by these products and by shopping in general.

China’s embracing of capitalism and consumerism has happened gradually over the past thirty-five years, following the death of Mao Zedong in 1976. Since then, the ideas of Deng Xiaoping have been the driving force of the policies of the Communist Party of China.

Where Mao focused on the establishment of China’s independence as a state, the building of an industrialized socialist economy, the redistribution of land, and other tasks oriented towards building a socialist society, Deng changed the course of China dramatically, embracing the capitalist economic and social ideas that have resulted in growth of both wealth and inequality in China over the last thirty years.

Interestingly, the Chinese people have a deep appreciation for both Mao and Deng despite their ideological differences: for Mao because he “helped the Chinese people stand up” after centuries of oppression by emperors and foreign imperialists, and for Deng because he helped people become wealthy and have more possessions.

The Chinese political system, with the leadership of the Communist Party of China inscribed in the constitution, seems dictatorial to outsiders. Legitimacy in the eyes of many Chinese is typically based on the fact that communists have brought to the Chinese people what no ruler had previously delivered: an end to the domination of the majority of the population by fascists, tyrants, landlords, emperors, and foreigners.

The Booming Economy

After the consumerism, the most omnipresent feature of China is the pace and scale of construction, of buildings, of subways, of trains, of roads, of bridges. The skyline of every city is marked by dozens of large cranes, working from dawn till dusk. The adventurous architecture of many of the new tall buildings is astounding and is especially present in Shanghai. In Chengdu, we rode the subway to the stop called “Financial City” only to discover a half-built collection of new office towers that will dwarf Toronto’s financial district, and will help to absorb some of China’s rapidly urbanizing economy.

Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province and a city of 11 million, opened its first subway line recently and there are three more under construction, and a further three planned. Similarly in Chongqing, a brand new subway was recently opened and fifteen more lines are planned. Not to be outdone, Beijing is building or expanding eleven lines, many of which will be completed ahead of schedule, bringing its total to nineteen lines. Impressive bridges are also a frequent sight and cruising down the Yangtze River, I passed under several of these bridges. I learned later that until 1957 there were no bridges across the Yangtze; trains would have to be ferried across. Now there are sixty bridges across the river, almost all of which were built in the last twenty years.

The Environment

China’s record on the environment is mixed. From the window of one China’s numerous long-distance trains, I observed numerous massive coal-fired electricity plants pumping out large clouds of smoke, while nearby a factory produced reams of solar panels.

I also saw a few very large solar energy and wind installations built on the edge of the Gobi Desert, surely a sign of China’s energy future. And, more impressively, household rooftop solar hot water heaters were present on most buildings, from the most humble homes to the newest condos.

Car ownership is a major problem in China, and one that the government seems to be devoting increasing attention to. There are strict rules about who can own a car, and where it can be driven. And, as noted above, transit infrastructure is being built at a frenzied pace, including new roads to absorb car traffic, but also new trains that will provide an alternative to car travel.

Public Life

Returning to Canada, the first thing I noticed was a sense of absence, that the airport, then the subway, then the city streets, seemed somehow empty of people. It is hard to find yourself alone any place in China; even the smallest cities seemed to have a few million people.

People practice their hobbies in the public parks, playing instruments, singing loudly, practicing calligraphy with water brushes on stone walkways, dancing waltzes and folk dances in groups, practicing martial arts, flying kites, exercising, and a host of other activities. This appreciation for and engagement with art and beauty must, I think, be deeply rooted in China, and is certainly reflected in the centuries old bureaucratic system that rewarded intellectual and scholarly competence. Someone remarked to me that while Japan was ruled by warriors (the Samurai), China was ruled by poets.

What China has accomplished in the past sixty years is by any measure incredible. Life expectancy has risen from thirty-five years to over 73 years, and the economy has grown dramatically over this time as well. Marx once wrote that capitalism cannot abide a limit. Having visited China, it seems that China cannot abide a limit either. The interesting question will be how, as opposed to whether, the Chinese government, and the Chinese people, confront and overcome economic and social challenges like safe working conditions, inequality, and democratic reforms.

Here’s the abstract:

There has been a significant expansion in Canada’s Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP) over the past ten years. The Pilot Project for Occupations Requiring Lower Levels of Formal Training (PPORLLFT), a sub program of the TFWP, has been leading this expansion. Drawing upon testimony given to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, this thesis examines the development and expansion of the program, since its inception in 2002, and shows that it is connected to the ongoing process of neoliberalisation in Canada. One significant example of this connection is the program’s support for increases in two-step immigration streams that involve employer sponsorship for successful transition to permanent residency; this increase represents a privatisation of citizenship decisions. More than this, the neoliberal aspects of the PPORLLFT have increased inequality and the ability of employers to have a more disciplined workforce. This has decreased the ability of working people to have influence in their workplace and over economic policy more generally.

]]> http://www.andycragg.ca/wordpress/thesis-abstract/feed/ 0 http://www.andycragg.ca/wordpress/jim-stanfords-economics-for-everyone/ http://www.andycragg.ca/wordpress/jim-stanfords-economics-for-everyone/#comments Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:01:16 +0000 admin http://www.andycragg.ca/wordpress/?p=328 This book is a great, comprehensive, and accessible overview of the economics of capitalism.

Two things I learned from this book:

The purpose of a corporation is to protect the individual wealth of the corporation’s investors and owners.

The fundamental conflict between employers and workers. Employers pay the workers to do a task; they are buying task completion. But workers aren’t selling task completion, they are selling their time.

The use of the word free does have a crucial double meaning. It suggests that a balance of power exists between capital and labour, that they face each other as equals, otherwise any bargain struck could scarcely be viewed as one which was freely achieved. It also suggests that the state’s role is akin to that of an umpire who works to be involved in applying, interpreting, and adjusting impartial rules. In the case of the first meaning, the structural inequality between capital and labour is obscured; in the second, the use of the state’s coercive powers on behalf of capital falls from view. (13)

In Canada, the right to freedom of association underpins the ability/right to bargain collectively

Myth of gradualism, that things get gradually better over time. Inevitable progress.

On the certification process:

The certification approach to union recognition did more than just weaken the apparent importance of militant organization. It directed the efforts of union leaders away from mobilizing and organizing and toward the juridical arena of the labour boards. In this context different skills were necessary. It was crucial, above all, to know the law–including legal rights, procedures, and precedents. These activities tended to foster a legalistic practice and consciousness in which union rights appeared as privleges bestowed by the state, rather than democratic freedoms won, and to be defended by, collective struggle. The ban on strikes during collective agreements and the institution of compulsory arbitration to resolve disputes while agreements were in force has a similar effect. Under these circumstances it was unnecessary to maintain and develop collective organization between negotiations. (21)

This recalls to me two things. First, the idea of rights being bestowed rather than taken or enacted is something that I wrote about in my paper on the low-skill TFWP in relation to citizenship. Second, the effects of the institutionalization and bureaucratization union activities is something that I learned about recently in a conversation with a fellow student who is involved with the IWW. The IWW sees the elaborate legal processes surrounding the labour board and labour law in general as a strategy for the control of the labourer’s essential and greatest power: the right to withhold his or her labour.

I’ve seen statistics about the stagnation of real wages since the early 1980s. Given what the authors describe was happening in the 1980s (i.e. the legislation of wage stagnation) it seems that the changes in wage levels (or restraints in wage levels) that occurred then have never been overcome–they laid the groundwork for the lack of increase in real wages.

The 1980s featured ‘permanent exceptionalism’ where along with supposedly temporary wage restraints, public and private sector employees’ workplace rights were restricted in a long-term manner.

Another crucial aspect of this book is its focus on the public sector employees and their relationship to their employer, i.e. the state itself. There is an inherent conflict of interest that the state has in so far as it is both an employer and at the same time is the highest authority in the land. Employers in the private sector are beholden to labour laws set out by the legislature and the courts, but the state as employer is not restricted by the law insofar as it can change laws that it sees undesirable. In order for free collective bargaining to take place, both sides of the table (i.e. employers and employees) must be in a relatively equal place. But this can never be the case with public sector employees. Panitch and Swartz demonstrate that since the early 1980s the state in negotiations with its employees the state has increasingly exploited its position as a super-employer, mostly by enacting back-to-work legislation and restricting the right to strike, a right which trade unionists see as a fundamental right of workers. One way that the government has increased its control over the ability of its workers to strike has been by designating certain occupations as essential services, thereby removing their right to strike. The extent to which successive governments have pushed the definition of essential services has even come to the attention of the International Labour Organization (ILO); from 1974 to 1991 fully 34% of all complaints to the ILO of violations of trade union rights in the G7 group of countries came from Canada.

The The tone of the ILO rulings are invariably diplomatic expressing “concern” and suggesting appropriate “ammendment,” but a degree of exasperation has crept in even here. As one ruling pertaining to Nova Scotia put it:

‘The Committee of Frreedom of ssociation recalls that the right to strike could be restricted in the strict sense of the term, i.e. services whose interruption would endanger the existence or well-being of the whole or part of the population. The ban on strike activity for employees of the Art Gallery, Boxing Authority and Communications and Information Centre appears to the Committee to go far beyond this criterion.’

By the end of the 1980s, this tone of exasperation was unmistakable even in relation to the federal government. in their ruling on complaints two against two instances of federal back-to-work legislation enacted within two months of each other in 1987, the ILO dismissed out of hand the federal government’s defense that such legislation was ‘relatively uncommon’ in Canada, and flatly asserted that the Canadian government’s actions were “not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association.” (57)

Challenges by unions to this increasing use of coercion by the state have mostly come via asserting that the freedom of association guaranteed in the charter must imply the right to strike and bargain collectively.

The development of liberalism as a political idea is closely conjoined with the end of feudalism and the beginnings of capitalist modes of production. Besides the social aspects of liberalism, like support for individual rights, fair treatment under the law, and democracy, liberalism is also fundamentally about the sanctity of private property and the superiority of the so-called free market as a means of organizing economic exchanges. Neoliberalism is a reinvigoration of the economic aspects of liberalism, drawing upon the branches of economic theory known as neoclassical economics and monetarism. Fundamental economic principles of neoliberalism, as described by one of its best proponents, Thomas Friedman, include a set of so-called ‘golden rules’ like,

making the private sector the primary engine of [a nation’s] economic growth; maintaining a low rate of inflation and price stability; shrinking the size of [the] state bureaucracy; maintaining as close to a balanced budget as possible, if not a surplus; eliminating and lowering tariffs on imported goods; removing restrictions on foreign investment; getting rid of quotas and domestic monopolies; increasing exports; privatizing state-owned industries and utilities; deregulating capital markets; making [the] currency convertible; opening industries, stock and bond markets to direct foreign ownership and investment; deregulating [the] economy to promote as much domestic competition as possible; opening up [the] banking and telecommunications systems to private ownership and competition; and allowing citizens to choose from an array of competing pension options and foreign-run pension mutual funds. (Qtd in Albo 2002, pp. 46-47)

Put in less economistic terms, by David Harvey, neoliberalism is,

in the first instance, a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices. (Harvey, 2007, p. 2)

Neoliberalism arguably extends these economic principles into the political, cultural, and social realms in ways that support and encourage its economic policies. Philosopher Slavoz Zizek describes that “for most people under twenty in Europe and North America, the lack of alternatives to capitalism [and its current form, neoliberalism,] is no longer an issue. Capitalism seamlessly occupies the horizons of the thinkable” (Fisher, 8). It has become difficult to see the forest for the trees; indeed, it is difficult to imagine in the current era of cutbacks and austerity, a time in Canada when the creation of massive public programs like medicare and the Canadian Pension Plan were even thinkable let alone politically achievable. Privatization of public goods; commodification, especially of the previously uncommodified, like water and air; privileging the individual over the collective; free trade agreements; increasing inequality the world over; increasing presence and acceptance of advertizements; ubiquitousness of fears of liability; the marketization of environmental movements and international aid; all of these disparate processes are characteristic of neoliberalism, but what connects them all?
There is nothing obviously or directly connecting all of the ideas associated with neoliberalism but there is a “family resemblance” between all of these ideas. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein in his explorations of the workings of language in the book Philosophical Investigations, develops this idea of family resemblance. Rather than looking for one common trait that runs through a set of obviously connected words, he postulates that the members of this set would all have a connection to each other that is like the common physical traits that make members of the same family look like each other. Two sibling might have similarly-shaped noses, while one of them shares a jaw line in common with a cousin, and the other has similar eyebrows to a different cousin. All of these traits combine to create a family resemblance. Another metaphor is the construction of rope: there is no one long strand that runs through a length of rope; rather, the rope is made up of a number of shorter strands that combined make up the longer rope. All of the concepts and processes that describe neoliberalism are like the strands of a rope or particular family traits: though these concepts and processes do not share any one thing in common, they combine to describe a coherent whole.
But how coherent is neoliberalism really? As described by its proponents as a set of economic principles that will lead to the creation of an ideal society, neoliberalism is not coherent. There is no connection between the way that neoliberal policies are supposed to work and the way that they are actually enacted and received. Neoliberalism in theory is utterly different from neoliberalism in practice. This is because neoliberalism is not fundamentally about economic policies for sustained growth. It is really about the restoration of elite class power. In Harvey’s words, neoliberalism can be interpreted “either as a utopian project to realize a theoretical design for the reorganization of international capitalism or as a political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites” (2007, p. 19). Greg Albo insists that, “neoliberalism cannot be reduced to a discourse about market society, ‘golden rules’ for public policy… It is a particular form of class rule within capitalism” (2002, p.?). Stephen Gill, echoing the ideas of Karl Polanyi, calls neoliberalism starkly utopian arguing that “a pure market system is a utopian abstraction and any attempt to construct it fully would require an immensely authoritarian of political power through the state” (1995, p. 420). So, on the one hand neoliberalism could be about rejuvenating (international) capitalism in response to the economic crises that occurred in the 1970s, which is how it is described in the mainstream, or on the other hand it could be seen as opportunism designed to counter the general progress that had been made between the end of the Second World War and the 1970s towards a more equitable distribution of wealth and power within a capitalist system (i.e. Keynesianism and ‘embedded liberalism’). Only if seen in this light, as intentional elite opportunism, can a coherent description of neoliberalism be constructed.

Every form of socialism is based on the hope of mankind to attain to a form of social being in which people could normally in their every day existence actualize their responsibilities to their fellows because they would know how their commissions and omissions affect them, and they would be able to act accordingly. Life in society is not free. We influence, burden, harm, and disturb the lives of our fellows whether we will it or not. We must bide by the truth that we humans are condemned to live upon the freedom of our fellows, that we are condemned to live upon the work and toil, upon the health and life, of others.

-Letter to a friend, 1929

Here is my version:

Also, the song is, I believe, based on the traditional Scottish tune The Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond:

Stream it for free here: Finding Farley