Mass Transit Affirmative 1AC
Download 0.65 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Despite the need for repairs and expansion, the House just slashed funding for Mass Transit
- Plan Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in mass transit infrastructure. Economy Advantage
- Renewed investment in public transit creates short-term construction jobs, long term operations jobs, and revitalize the industrial sector
- Best experts agree – Job creation is critical to jumpstarting the economy
- No alternative policies can achieve the same job creation rate – transit investment is comparatively best.
- Specifically, revitalizing investment is Mass Transit creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector
- The manufacturing sector is critical to economic growth but failing now due to job loss – plan is a necessary step to revitalize job growth
- And, the manufacturing sector is by far the largest internal link to the economy – outweighs alt causes
- US economic competitiveness prevents multiple scenarios for global nuclear conflicts
- Studies prove – economic decline creates global conflict
Mass Transit Affirmative1ACInherencyMetro areas are increasing in population and economic importance, but mass transit not up to the taskBAF, 2011 Transportation Infrastructure Report 2011 Building America’s Future Falling Apart and Falling Behind Building America’s Future Educational Fund Building America’s Future Educational Fund (BAF Ed Fund) is a bipartisan coalition of elected officials dedicated to bringing about a new era of U.S. investment in infrastructure www.bafuture.com And it’s not just business that has changed faster than our infrastructure. America’s transportation network is not set up to accommodate the needs of our 21st-century lives. Passenger travel is expected to rise as the economy recovers and our population grows, with total vehicle-miles traveled likely to increase by 80% in the next 30 years.11 An additional one billion commercial air passengers are expected to fly each year by 2015, a 36% increase from 2006.12 The vast majority of this increased traffic will occur in the urban centers and surrounding suburbs where the U.S. population—and its economic activity—is overwhelmingly concentrated. The 100 largest U.S. metropolitan regions house almost two-thirds of the population and generate nearly three-quarters of our GDP. In 47 states—even those traditionally considered ‘rural,’ like Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa—the majority of GDP is generated in metropolitan areas.13 And over the next 20 years, 94% of the nation’s economic growth will occur in metropolitan areas.14 Metropolitan areas are already home to the most congested highways, the oldest roads and bridges, and the most overburdened transit systems—and the strains on the transportation system are only bound to get worse. By 2035, an estimated 70 million more people will live in U.S. metropolitan regions. More people bring more commerce and greater transportation demands. Every American accounts for about 40 tons of freight to be hauled each year—so an additional 2.8 billion tons of freight will be moved to and from major metropolitan regions in 2035.15 Our transportation system is simply not up to the task. Our transportation system has also not adapted to the energy realities of the 21st century. Air pollution and carbon emissions—the majority of which in the United States are generated by transportation—threaten the environment. Reliance on foreign oil has imperiled our national security. And fluctuating gas prices are making Americans’ car-dependent lifestyles simply unaffordable. We are increasingly aware that for all these reasons a trans-portation system largely run on gasoline is environmentally and economically unsustainable. In a global economy, businesses need access to manufacturing plants and distribution centers, to international gateways like ports and airports, and to consumers in both metropolitan and rural regions. People need reliable and efficient ways to commute to work and go about their daily lives. We need a modern infrastructure system if we are to meet both needs. And if we don’t create a transportation system that functions reliably and cost-effectively in the 21st century, companies operating in this globalized world can simply choose to do their business elsewhere—taking U.S. jobs and revenues with them. Despite the need for repairs and expansion, the House just slashed funding for Mass TransitBuilding America’s Future, 12 – a bipartisan coalition of elected officials dedicated to bringing about a new era of U.S. investment in infrastructure that enhances our nation’s prosperity and quality of life (“BAF Strongly Opposes House Effort to Slash Mass Transit Funding,” 2/3, http://www.bafuture.org/news/press-release/baf-strongly-opposes-house-effort-slash-mass-transit-funding) The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee overturned 30 years of bipartisan policy today by removing the certainty of funding for our public transit systems. This change will make it impossible for transit systems to plan for the future and serve their ever growing constituencies. In response, Building America’s Future co-chairs Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I-NYC) and former Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) issued the following: Mayor Bloomberg: "The bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee today illustrates once again how dysfunctional Congress has become. By removing the gas tax as the method of funding mass transit, House leadership is threatening the future of a program, in place since the Reagan administration that is actually working well. The lifeblood of New York City is our buses, subways and commuter rails. Eight million people take mass transit every day in New York which helps to cut traffic, reduce pollution, spur our economy and improve public health. The bill passed today ignores the needs of cities across the country by relegating transit to an "alternative" transportation with an uncertain funding stream. Our country is being left behind as the world races ahead with 21st century infrastructure investments, this bill would take us even further from our competitors.” Former Governor Rendell: “Transit has had a vital role to play in our nation’s transportation system. At a time when our roads are choking under growing traffic congestion, it makes no sense to take away a dedicated source of funding and force public transportation to compete against education and other important programs for increasingly scarce dollars. A transportation bill without transit is no transportation bill at all. The nation’s millions of transit riders deserve better than this.” PlanPlan: The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in mass transit infrastructure.Economy AdvantageEconomic recovery is slowing to a halt due to unemployment rateReuters 7/6 “WRAPUP 6-Dismal US hiring shows economy stuck in low gear” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/06/usa-economy-idUSL2E8I56V020120706 WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - U.S. employers hired at a dismal pace in June, raising pressure on the Federal Reserve to do more to boost the economy and dealing another setback to President Barack Obama's reelection bid. The Labor Department said on Friday that non-farm payrolls grew by just 80,000 jobs in June, the third straight month below 100,000. Job creation was too weak to bring down the country's 8.2 percent jobless rate and the report fueled concerns that Europe's debt crisis was shifting the U.S. economy into low gear. "We're just crawling forward here," said Nigel Gault, an economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. While Obama holds a narrow lead in most national polls, many voters are critical of his handling of the economy. Speaking at a campaign rally in Ohio, Obama said the pace of job creation needs to pick up. "It's still tough out there," he said. Mitt Romney, Obama's Republican challenger, assailed the president for not doing enough to get people back to work. "This kick in the gut has got to end," Romney told reporters in New Hampshire. U.S. stocks closed about 1 percent lower, while yields on U.S. government debt fell on bets the Fed would launch a new round of bond purchases to lower borrowing costs and spur hiring. The dollar fell against the yen, but rose against the euro as investors sought a safe haven. Renewed investment in public transit creates short-term construction jobs, long term operations jobs, and revitalize the industrial sectorWeisbrod 09 (Glen Weisbrod, economic researcher, Economic impact of public transportation investment, October 2009, APTA, http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/economic_impact_of_public_transportation_investment.pdf) Public transportation services are important in many ways. They¶ provide mobility, can shape land use and development patterns, generate jobs and¶ enable economic growth, and support public policies regarding energy use, air¶ quality and carbon emissions. All of these characteristics can be important when¶ considering the benefits, costs and optimal investment levels for public¶ transportation. This report focuses solely on just one aspect – how investment in¶ public transportation affects the economy in terms of employment, wages and¶ business income. It specifically addresses the issue of how various aspects of the¶ economy are affected by decisions made regarding investment in public¶ transportation.¶ Capital investment in public transportation (including purchases of vehicles and¶ equipment, and the development of infrastructure and supporting facilities) is a¶ significant source of jobs in the United States. The analysis indicates that nearly¶ 24,000 jobs are supported for a year, per billion dollars of spending on public¶ transportation capital Public transportation operations (i.e., management, operations and maintenance¶ of vehicles and facilities) is also a significant source of jobs. The analysis¶ indicates that over 41,000 jobs are supported for a year, for each billion dollars of¶ annual spending on public transportation operations.¶ Combining investment in public transportation capital and operations within the¶ US, the analysis indicates that an average of 36,000 jobs are supported for one¶ year, per billion dollars of annual spending on public transportation, given the¶ existing mix of operations (71 percent) and capital (29 percent) expenditures. Other economic impacts are associated with the job impacts. Corresponding to the¶ 36,000 jobs is approximately $3.6 billion of added business output (sales volume),¶ which provides $1.8 billion of GDP (gross domestic product, or “value added”) --¶ including $1.6 billion of worker income and $0.2 billion of corporate income.¶ This additional economic activity generates nearly $500 million in federal, state¶ and local tax revenues. [Note: these figures should not be added or otherwise¶ combined, because a portion of the business output provides the worker income¶ and other elements of GDP, which in turn are sources for tax revenues. Definition. Capital investment in public transportation supports purchases of¶ equipment and facilities (including rolling stock, tracks, other guideways, rightsof-¶ way, control equipment, and construction of terminals, stations, parking lots,¶ maintenance facilities and power generating facilities). Operations of public¶ transportation services supports associated jobs (drivers, maintenance workers,¶ administrative and other transportation agency workers) as well as purchases of¶ supplies needed for continuing operations (including motor fuel, electric power,¶ maintenance parts and materials, etc.) Thus, investment in public transportation¶ projects and services can directly support short-term construction jobs and longer term¶ operations jobs, as well as purchases of products that lead to further indirect¶ impacts on industry activity and jobs. Best experts agree – Job creation is critical to jumpstarting the economyWray 2009 PhD, Prof of Economics @ UMKC, Senior Research Scholar @ Levy Economics Institute [L. Randall Wray, “When all else has failed, why not try job creation” http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-all-else-has-failed-why-not-try.html] The US continues to hemorrhage jobs even as some purport to see “green shoots”. All plausible projections show that unemployment will rise even if our economy begins to grow. Personally, I think those green shoots will die this winter because the stimulus package is far too small and because the financial system is going to crash again. The longer we wait to actually address the unemployment problem, the worse are the prospects for a real recovery. In his recent piece, Paul Krugman writes: Just to be clear, I believe that a large enough conventional stimulus would do the trick. But since that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, we need to talk about cheaper alternatives that address the job problem directly. Should we introduce an employment tax credit, like the one proposed by the Economic Policy Institute? Should we introduce the German- style job-sharing subsidy proposed by the Center for Economic Policy Research? Both are worthy of consideration. The point is that we need to start doing something more than, and different from, what we’re already doing. And the experience of other countries suggests that it’s time for a policy that explicitly and directly targets job creation. As Krugman reports, Germany has avoided massive job losses by subsidizing firms that retain workers but reduce hours worked. The EPI’s proposal follows a similar strategy. This is fine so far as it goes—in a sense it allows workers, firms, and government to share the burden of reduced output and thus reduced work hours required. That is more equitable but in my view it is not a path toward recovery. While I do agree with Krugman that greater aggregate demand stimulus is required, there is no reason to believe that would provide a sufficient supply of jobs for all who want to work. The final sentence in the Krugman post makes far more sense: let’s create MORE jobs, MORE work hours, and MORE payroll. A new, New Deal program with a permanent and universal job guarantee that will supply as many jobs as there are job seekers. Not only will this provide jobs in the New Deal style program, but it will also save jobs and increase work hours in the rest of the economy. Why go for second or third best when the best option is available? Winston Churchill remarked "The Americans will always do the right thing.......... after they`ve exhausted all the alternatives". Direct job creation is the right way to put the economy onto a sustainable path to recovery. No alternative policies can achieve the same job creation rate – transit investment is comparatively best.Kathryn Phillips, health economist, November 22, 2009 (A stimulating investment - mass transit http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/A-stimulating-investment-mass-transit-3209741.php) ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ The nation's unemployment rate has hit the highest level in 26 years, 10.2 percent, so policymakers are searching for ways to stimulate the economy again. The hottest proposition so far is the federal transportation bill. ¶ ¶ In the past two weeks, House Speakers Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell separately have suggested that reauthorizing a transportation bill soon could be the best way to create jobs. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has been pushing since last summer for a new federal surface transportation bill that would invest nearly $500 billion in transportation infrastructure. ¶ ¶ ¶ Whether such a bill can be put to the best use for jobs depends on whether Congress and the Obama administration invest in the right type of transportation infrastructure. One good approach would be to focus on repairing existing infrastructure: fill the potholes and refurbish old bridges that cost Americans time, money and wear and tear on vehicles. ¶ ¶ However, the best approach would be to direct new investment in public mass transit because it creates the most jobs per dollar spent, according to the Surface Transportation Policy Project. It also responds to the growing demand for good transit that began with rising gasoline prices in 2008. In addition, mass transit investment also cuts air and global warming pollution. ¶ ¶ In fact, a report by the Duke University Center on Globalization, Governance & Competitiveness shows that increasing investment in conventional and green transit bus systems would cut greenhouse gas pollution around the country. It would also create high-quality, long-term manufacturing jobs in nearly every state in the eastern United States as well as Northern California. ¶ ¶ For example, a transit bus manufacturer in Hayward, Gillig, is the second-largest producer of transit buses in North America, with a 27 percent market share. In 2001, the company pioneered the first heavy-duty transit bus built with parallel hybrid technology: The fuel tank provides gasoline for the engine while batteries simultaneously supply power to the electric motor. Most of the buses Gillig builds today are powered by the world's cleanest and most efficient diesel engines, which emit up to 90 percent less exhaust emissions. In addition, Alcoa Wheels, a bus wheel product manufacturer, employs more than 32,000 people in Visalia and three other plants in the United States.¶ ¶ Unfortunately, U.S. transportation policy greatly favors funding highways over public transit. The result is small and sporadic bus orders, making it difficult for the bus industry to grow. ¶ ¶ The Duke study authors conclude: "If federal, state, and local policy were to shift to a clear, sustained commitment to public transit, the nation would have the manufacturing capability to meet the resulting increased demand for transit buses." ¶ ¶ In short, American companies have the know-how and the talent; they just need sustained funding.¶ ¶ Ironically, things are better abroad for U.S. bus manufacturers. The study notes that U.S. companies have established themselves as global leaders in hybrid-bus manufacturing. Unfortunately, European firms are rapidly catching up because their countries' governments more consistently invest in transit, so unless U.S. bus systems have funds to invest, hybrid-diesel bus manufacturing here could suffer. ¶ ¶ Buses are the main U.S. transit mode, accounting for 40 percent of all transit passenger miles. Continuing growth in transit demand could translate into larger and more consistent bus orders - if the funding is available. Domestic demand is dependent largely on the availability of public funding for bus transit. Bus manufacturers in the United States primarily manufacture on a built-to-order basis, and the economic downturn means many agencies can no longer meet federal financing formulas that require a local funding match of 20 percent. ¶ ¶ Whether it be through transportation bill reauthorization or a new stimulus bill, new transportation funding needs to flow to transit.¶ ¶ We have a great opportunity to create manufacturing jobs during tough economic times and cut greenhouse gas emissions. We only need the political will to make it happen. Specifically, revitalizing investment is Mass Transit creates hundreds of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sectorFitzgerald et al 10 (Joan Fitzgerald is a professor and director of the graduate program in Law, Policy and Society and a Senior Research Fellow at the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, Lisa Granquist is aPh.D. student in the Law, Policy and Society Program in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, Ishwar Khatiwada is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Joseph Mclaughlin is aSenior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Michael Renner is a Senior Researcher at the WorldWatch Institute, Andrew M. Sum is a Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeaster University, Reviving the US Rail and Transit Industry: Investments and Job Creation, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/Reviving-the-US-Rail-and-Transit-Industry.pdf WorldWatch Institute, Northeastern University September 2010 ) Modeled on its previous analyses of the hybrid truck and public transit bus supply chains, the Center on Globalization,¶ Governance & Competitiveness mapped the supply chain for the U.S. passenger railcar industry.¶ The study details nearly 250 existing manufacturing locations in 35 states that are currently producing rail¶ vehicles or component parts. While domestic manufacturers exist in many of the industry subsectors, the¶ U.S. supply chain has several gaps, and many higher-value added activities are still performed abroad. The¶ U.S. passenger and transit rail supply chain currently supports between 10,000 and 14,000 employees,¶ numbers that could grow with scaled-up U.S. investments in public transit and intercity rail.¶ Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry,¶ Worldwatch Institute¶ To inform ongoing discussions at the U.S. federal, state, and local levels regarding public investments in rail¶ and urban transit, the Worldwatch Institute analyzed global rail industry trends and profiled four countries—¶ Germany, Spain, Japan, and China—that have made major commitments to public transportation and¶ that offer important lessons for the United States. The report finds that at least half a million people in total¶ are directly employed in rail vehicle manufacturing in these countries. The creation of strong rail manufacturing¶ industries has depended to a significant degree on steady domestic markets for these products, driven¶ by substantial and sustained investments in rail and transit infrastructure. Northeastern University and the Worldwatch Institute estimated potential manufacturing job creation in the¶ transit bus and passenger railcar supply chains under different scenarios of federal investment: the current¶ funding levels, increased domestic investment, and international comparative investment. Building on the¶ supply chain analyses conducted by Duke University, the study finds that the United States could gain over¶ 79,000 jobs in rail and bus manufacturing and related industries if public transit were funded at a level that¶ would double transit ridership in 20 years, and more than 250,000 jobs if the country were to invest as much¶ in transit as China does. Employment gains across both rail and bus supply chains could increase by up to¶ 30 percent if stronger domestic supply chains allowed for greater domestic content. The authors conclude¶ that the United States needs a more coherent industrial policy to link public transportation and manufacturing¶ goals.
Fitzgerald et al 10 (Joan Fitzgerald is a professor and director of the graduate program in Law, Policy and Society and a Senior Research Fellow at the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, Lisa Granquist is aPh.D. student in the Law, Policy and Society Program in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, Ishwar Khatiwada is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Joseph Mclaughlin is aSenior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Michael Renner is a Senior Researcher at the WorldWatch Institute, Andrew M. Sum is a Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeaster University, Reviving the US Rail and Transit Industry: Investments and Job Creation, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/Reviving-the-US-Rail-and-Transit-Industry.pdf WorldWatch Institute, Northeastern University September 2010 )
Fitzgerald et al 10 (Joan Fitzgerald is a professor and director of the graduate program in Law, Policy and Society and a Senior Research Fellow at the Kitty and Michael Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy at Northeastern University, Lisa Granquist is aPh.D. student in the Law, Policy and Society Program in the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University, Ishwar Khatiwada is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Joseph Mclaughlin is aSenior Research Associate at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, Michael Renner is a Senior Researcher at the WorldWatch Institute, Andrew M. Sum is a Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeaster University, Reviving the US Rail and Transit Industry: Investments and Job Creation, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/Reviving-the-US-Rail-and-Transit-Industry.pdf WorldWatch Institute, Northeastern University September 2010 ) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of¶ 2009 (ARRA) made a small start toward putting the¶ country back on track. Under ARRA, the federal government¶ committed an initial $1.3 billion for the rail¶ operator Amtrak in addition to the $8 billion for new¶ high-speed rail corridors and intercity passenger rail¶ service. Many cities and states are advocating that the¶ government commit further funds. U.S. cities are eager¶ upgrade and expand their transit systems to meet rising¶ public demand for cost-effective, clean, and convenient¶ bus and rail service.¶ ‡¶ Currently, there are¶ proposals for new streetcars in more than 30 cities;¶ some 400 light-rail projects in 78 metropolitan areasin 37 states; and subway expansions in several cities.¶ With the federal transportation bill up for renewal,¶ the United States has an opportunity to invest in public¶ transportation and renew its manufacturing base.¶ Manufacturing is essential to the U.S. economy. In¶ 2008, it accounted for $1.6 trillion, or 12 percent, of¶ gross domestic product (GDP)—more than real estate,¶ finance and insurance, or health care. Manufacturing¶ accounts for 60 percent of U.S. exports and 70 percent¶ of private sector research and development (R&D)¶ funding.¶ 3¶ Yet the U.S. goods deficit in 2008 exceeded¶ $836 billion; the annual trade deficit with China alone¶ that year was $266 billion, about 75 percent of the¶ manufactured goods deficit. The United States cannot prosper with ongoing¶ large trade deficits. Nor can it prosper while losing¶ millions of well-paying manufacturing jobs. In just the¶ past two years, U.S. manufacturing lost 2.1 million¶ jobs. Blue-collar workers accounted for 74 percent ofjob losses between the onset of the economic recession¶ in September 2008 and November 2009. For experienced¶ production workers, the unemployment rate in¶ 2009 was 14 percent. US economic competitiveness prevents multiple scenarios for global nuclear conflictsFriedberg & Schoenfeld 2008 (Aaron Friedberg is a professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior editor of Commentary, is a visiting scholar at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J., “The Dangers of a Diminished America,” Wall Street Journal, Ocbtober 21, 2008,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html] With the global financial system in serious trouble, is America's geostrategic dominance likely to diminish? If so, what would that mean? One immediate implication of the crisis that began on Wall Street and spread across the world is that the primary instruments of U.S. foreign policy will be crimped. The next president will face an entirely new and adverse fiscal position. Estimates of this year's federal budget deficit already show that it has jumped $237 billion from last year, to $407 billion. With families and businesses hurting, there will be calls for various and expensive domestic relief programs. In the face of this onrushing river of red ink, both Barack Obama and John McCain have been reluctant to lay out what portions of their programmatic wish list they might defer or delete. Only Joe Biden has suggested a possible reduction -- foreign aid. This would be one of the few popular cuts, but in budgetary terms it is a mere grain of sand. Still, Sen. Biden's comment hints at where we may be headed: toward a major reduction in America's world role, and perhaps even a new era of financially-induced isolationism. Pressures to cut defense spending, and to dodge the cost of waging two wars, already intense before this crisis, are likely to mount. Despite the success of the surge, the war in Iraq remains deeply unpopular. Precipitous withdrawal -- attractive to a sizable swath of the electorate before the financial implosion -- might well become even more popular with annual war bills running in the hundreds of billions. Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow. Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the center of that system. The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things, made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern. If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures. As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power. What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership. Are we up for the task? The American economy has historically demonstrated remarkable resilience. Our market-oriented ideology, entrepreneurial culture, flexible institutions and favorable demographic profile should serve us well in whatever trials lie ahead. The American people, too, have shown reserves of resolve when properly led. But experience after the Cold War era -- poorly articulated and executed policies, divisive domestic debates and rising anti-Americanism in at least some parts of the world -- appear to have left these reserves diminished. A recent survey by the Chicago Council on World Affairs found that 36% of respondents agreed that the U.S. should "stay out of world affairs," the highest number recorded since this question was first asked in 1947. The economic crisis could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Studies prove – economic decline creates global conflictRoyal ‘10 (director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense (Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215) Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.65 Mb. Share with your friends:
|