All in Public Policy
In the United States, as in other countries, immigration is the subject of intense public debate. Disagreements persist on many components of policy, including levels of enforcement, treatment of entrants to the destination country, and levels of acceptable immigration, notably by quotas. However, what is perhaps most unique about the United States immigration system, and the way that debates surrounding it are structured, is the extent to which immigrants are viewed in extremes.
In part 1 of our discussion, we talked about how import-substituting strategies have their unique and crucial contributions to the progress of a developing country, like Ethiopia. Domestic control over far-reaching input capital goods, such as cement, metal, natural resources, etc. provides robust support to virtually all other industries. Contrary to import-substituting policies, export-oriented ones provide fast rides to advanced technologies, mature management, and a larger market, though at a high cost of local control and path certainty.
The involvement of the private sector in the provision of water supplies is a highly controversial topic. Typically, water supplies across the United States are handled and managed by not-for-profit entities which are overseen by state and local municipalities, meaning the public sector, and more specifically the government. With the public sector at the helm of water provisions, citizens can typically expect to see reasonable prices and clean water. Most have not considered the possibility of their local water supplies being privatized, but the US economy is currently being battered by exogenous effects that are unabating. It is during these times, where cash flows are diminishing, that companies and individuals alike begin to explore ways to cut costs. State and local municipalities face the same set of issues. In some cities and towns, the burden of debt becomes too heavy to bear, and the municipal governing boards have to make hard decisions. The sale of a city’s water system can shift a substantial debt burden over to a private sector company all while providing the city a monetary windfall. Multiple cities in Indiana have gone through this (Douglas, Elizabeth). This can be more likely to occur in small towns that are highly levered who are not able to raise funds as quickly compared to bigger, well-capitalized towns.
In part 1 of our discussion, we talked about how import-substituting strategies have their unique and crucial contributions to the progress of a developing country, like Ethiopia. Domestic control over far-reaching input capital goods, such as cement, metal, natural resources, etc. provides robust support to virtually all other industries. Contrary to import-substituting policies, export-oriented ones provide fast rides to advanced technologies, mature management, and a larger market, though at a high cost of local control and path certainty.
In the midst of emerging from the pandemic, it is important to look at the next steps to get the economy back on track. Within his first hundred days in office, president Joe Biden announced his lofty infrastructure plan. President Biden noted that this plan “is a one-in-a-generation investment in America” that has the potential to redefine the country (Tankersley, 2021). This extensive plan will inject money directly into the economy and could possibly be changing the United States for the foreseeable future. When considering what steps to take forward, it is crucial to analyze what the long term results are. So far, implementations like stimulus checks have provided a degree of short-term, immediate relief to some, but such policy action is not something that will help them get jobs and prosper growth. Families are able to pay for their immediate expenses to support themselves, but the checks are not providing them with secure jobs with stable income. In contrast, the infrastructure plan aims to create jobs for millions of Americans and improve the current crumbling infrastructure. According to the World Economic Forum, at its current state, the United States’ infrastructure is ranked 13th among other rich countries, with the score having gone down in recent years (Duncan). The United States is behind countries like Switzerland and Singapore, but this doesn’t have to be the case. White House correspondent for the New York Times, Jim Tankersley, stated that this plan has the potential to “create millions of jobs in the short run and strengthen American competitiveness in the long run,” demonstrating that this is a plan for the future, not just a small fix (Tankersley, 2021).
Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, recalled this plan as a “common sense investment” that will create jobs and help alleviate the budget deficit (King, 2021). Such an investment in public good will benefit everyone, not just a small group of people. President Biden notes that it will also set up the United States to be “more competitive around the world,” especially against those with fast-growing economies like China (King, 2021).
Joe Biden ran as an antithesis to his predecessor, but what does what mean now that he is in office for those most affected by his decisions? As a candidate, Biden promised to not only reverse the unjust immigration policies of the previous administration but to prioritize protecting immigrant families who are essential to our country. Since Inauguration Day, most of Biden’s immigration actions have been centered around reversing Trump’s policies. Biden ran on promises to go beyond rolling back Trump administration policies, but his time in office has not exactly mirrored those campaign promises.
There’s more that made your food than just some dirt and fertilizer.
Who's benefiting from America's notorious culture of lawsuits?
Natural gas buses, electric street cars, monorail, subway, and more. What's the most economic option for cities to provide transportation to their citizens for navigating the sprawl?
