Skip to main content

Ruling circles in G20 spilt: Will public sector cuts push us into a second recession?

The move to cut public services has gained more speed.  Prime Minister Harper has now praised the (savage) cuts the new British government is proposing and has called it a model for the G20 (which subsequently agreed to pursue deficit reduction).  Harper, in effect, is joining  a growing movement in European counties to move away from the policy of public sector spending to stimulate the economy and towards a policy of public sector cuts to reduce government deficits.

Notably, other ruling circles believe that the world economy is still in danger of falling into a second  recession and that the private sector still needs a public sector stimulus.  Obama falls into this camp, but he is less and less able to deliver the goods, with more and more resistance in Congress.  More successfully, China is spending $123 billion to expand public health care insurance and its economy (like much of the rest of the developing world) is growing strongly.

How this will pay out is unclear, at least to this non-economist. 

But four points do seem apparent: [1] While we had a world united around a policy of economic stimulation through public sector spending, this is no longer true.  Instead, some countries continue to stimulate demand while others are sharply stifling demand by cutting public sector spending.  In short, the various national policies seem contradictory, at least at the moment. [2]   Government policy in the most highly developed countries is moving from stimulus to public sector spending cuts.  [3] While public sector stimulus spending went almost entirely on funding and reviving private business, it is public sector social services that are now being cut.  And that will mean less for working people. [4] While public sector spending helped private business come out of recession, the new, emerging policy of cuts introduces a new element, one with significant risk to the economy. Who is going to buy? Indeed, Paul Krugman, the economist and Nobel laureate, reviewing the G20 proposal to cut public spending concluded this yesterday on the New York Times web site: "We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression."

The British Conservative-Liberal government introduced these cuts to the public sector after campaigning (just last month) on vaguely progressive platforms.  Now they sound like Margaret Thatcher on a bad day.  Policy is changing for Canadian governments too and this will likely have bad consequences for public sector services and working people. -- Doug


P.S. Paul Krugman's article can be found here.   Or, for a Canadian perspective on the threat to the economy of public sector cuts: "The Harper plan for global recession".  It's by James Laxer and was published by rabble.ca, a Canadian news commentary site that is pretty friendly to working people. -- D.

dallan@cupe.ca

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Six more problems with Public Private Partnerships (P3s)

The Auditor General (AG) has again identified issues in her annual reportwhich reflect problems with Ontario health care capacity and privatization.   First, here are six key problems with the maintenance of the 16 privatized P3 ("public private partnership") hospitals in Ontario:
There are long-term ongoing disputes with privatized P3 contractors over the P3 agreements, including about what is covered by the P3  (or “AFP” as the government likes to call them) contract.The hospitals are required to pay higher than reasonable rates tothe P3 contractor for  maintenance work the contractor has deemed to be outside of the P3 contract. Hospitals are almost forced to use P3 contractors to do maintenance work the contractors deem outside of the P3 contract or face the prospect of transferring the risk associated with maintaining the related hospital assets from the private-sector company back to the hospitalP3 companies with poor perf…

Health care funding falls, again

Real provincial government health care funding per-person has fallen again this year in Ontario, the third year in a row.  Since 2009 real funding per-person has fallen 2.6% -- $63 per person. 

Across Canada real per person funding is in its fourth consecutive year of increase. Since 2009, real provincial funding across Canada is up $89 -- 3.6%.
In fact the funding gap between Ontario and Canada as a whole has gown consistently for years (as set out below in current dollars).

Ontario funds health care less than any other province -- indeed, the province that funds health care the second least (B.C.) provides $185 more per person per year, 4.7% more.  
Provincial health care spending in the rest of Canada (excluding Ontario) is now  $574 higher per person annually than in Ontario. 

 Ontario has not always provided lower than average health care funding increases-- but that has been the general pattern since 2005.
Private expenditures on health care have exceeded Ontario government increases …

Ontario long-term care staffing falls far short of other provinces

CUPE and others are campaigning for a legislated minimum average of four worked hours of nursing and personal care per resident per day in long-term care (LTC) facilities.  New research indicates that not only is LTC underfunded in Ontario, it is also understaffed compared to the other provinces. 
LTC staffing falls short:  The latest data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (and based on a mandatory survey undertaken by Statistics Canada) indicates that staffing at long-term care (LTC) facilities falls far short of other provinces. 
Part of this is driven by a low level of provincial funding for LTC.





Ontario has 0.575 health care full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) per bed staffed and in operation.[1]  The rest of Canada reports 0.665 health care FTEs.[2] The rest of Canada has 15.7% more health care staff per bed staffed and in operation than Ontario.[3] 


No other province reports fewer LTC health care staff per resident (or per bed) than Ontario.[4]

Occupancy r…