Accounting for Brazilian migration

To a workshop/seminar on Brazilian migration in the UK last night: some interesting statistics, including indications that around 60% of the population is here illegally and that the number entering really began to increase from 2002 on. This would make sense, especially given Brazilians’ greater visibility beginning in that year through the new media and easier availability of Brazilian products in London.

But I had to ask why it’s only been in the last decade that Brazilians began coming to the UK in such greater numbers. Cathy McIlwain of Queen Mary who presented the data said it had much to do with US borders becoming much tighter, especially in the wake of 9/11 on the one hand and London becoming more open to migrants.

Yet I find it odd that this is the case: why wasn’t there a boom after 1994 when the real plan led to a current revaluation – and therefore making it relatively cheaper to buy a plane ticket. Similarly, shouldn’t the economic tightening of the later 1990s and especially the 1998-99 financial crisis have also encouraged migration? (one participant suggested that the devaluation may have made it more difficult for Brazilians to buy a plane ticket). But then I’m also bemused why more middle class Brazilian migrants would choose to leave for the UK and experience (initial) downward mobility (another finding by Cathy), given the boom in the domestic economy after 2002.

So many questions...

A return to 1970?

Sebastian Piñera has been elected as Chile’s next president. For the first time since democracy returned in 1989 the Right has finally managed to win a majority share of the vote. Alongside the expected internal criticism within the centre-left Concertación coalition and demands for the heads of the Christian Democrat and Socialist parties to resign, questions will be asked about the ability of the centre-right Alianza coalition parties to work together in Congress with an ideologically similar president.

Piñera and the Right have been getting closer to electoral victory has been some time coming. Following first round defeats in 1989 and 1993, it was able to push the centre-left into second rounds in 2000, 2006 and 2010.

But what already seems to be overlooked in the Chilean media is the effect that abstentions and electoral registration may have played in the result. Since 1989 both figures have been in decline, with yesterday’s poll the lowest yet with around 87% of voters voting and 67.5% of the voting age population registered respectively. In 1989 the turnout was 94.5% and fell to 91.3% in 1993, 90.6% in 2000 and 87.1% in 2006 while registered voters fell from 88.5% in 1993 to 79.2% in 2000 and 71.9% in 2006.

That voting turnout and registered voters have fallen may well be due in part to growing public disillusion with the Concertación-dominated government of the past two decades. The coalition will therefore no doubt spend the next few months reviewing why that is and how they might reconnect with the public, especially as the education and Trassantiago protests and demonstrations during the last presidency demonstrate.

But while they do that they might also spare a thought for the last time that Chilean politics took such an electoral re-direction – then to the Left. Following the highly turbulent 1960s and deep antipathy between the Left, Centre and Right, Salvador Allende’s election as president in 1970 was achieved with a similarly low turnout of 83.7%. In the years that followed until the 1973 coup, opponents claimed that Allende did not have a sufficient mandate and failed to represent the population sufficiently. One can only wonder whether similar yardstick will be applied to Piñera.

Anticipating a Piñeira victory

By this time next week Sebastian Piñeira could be Chile’s president-elect. If so this would be the first time in 20 years that the country had a right-wing politician in that position.

Piñeira’s leading position for the second round should not be surprising. Although President Michelle Bachelet continues to receive good approval ratings, she has not been able to transfer them to the Concertación candidate, Eduardo Frei. That this is so shows how much Chile has changed since 1990.

The past 20 years has seen a generational change in Chilean politics, with the Pinochet era an increasingly distant memory for older voters and a chapter in the history books of the young. Significant in this respect were the mass protests against the education system in 2006, which were led by secondary school students. That moment marked an end to fear of repression. In addition the Concertación government had become increasingly disconnected from the electorate, as the Transsantiago fiasco demonstrated.

But the implications of the Piñeira victory go beyond Chile. 2010 may see the election of other presidents of the Right, including Alvaro Uribe in Colombia in May and José Serra at the head of an increasingly right-wing coalition in Brazil in October. Added to this is the decline of the Left in both Peru and Argentina, which might presage its defeat in 2011.

Indeed, over the past year there has been increasing interest and concern about the Right in Latin America, especially following the coup in Honduras in June 2009. Indeed, the manner of President Zelaya’s departure and the moves against him following his declaration to hold a non-binding public consultation to change the constitution had echoes in Salvador Allende’s own call for a referendum before the 1973 coup.
The rise of the Right in both Chile and Honduras highlight diverging trends in Latin America. On the one hand the Honduran example was similar to events in those states practicing ‘21st century socialism’, through a failed coup in Venezuela in 2002 and a potential one in Bolivia in 2008. On the other hand Chile seems to conform to the ‘loyal’ Right which exists in social democratic states including Brazil and Uruguay, where confrontation is limited to the electoral arena.

The reason for the differences in the Right’s development in Latin America owes much to the so-called ‘pink tide’ that swept the region during the last decade. This was a reaction to the unrepresentativeness of representative democracy and the rising economic uncertainty and vulnerability resulting from structural adjustment and liberalisation. Whereas social democratic governments in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile sought to mitigate those changes through the introduction of targeted social programmes, 21st century socialism in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela coincided amid high levels of social polarisation and pressure by the Left to ‘refound’ the state through constitutional reform on the other.

But even if the Right differs in its political strategy across the region, what are its constituent parts? Regardless of where it is based, it does seem accurate to talk of a Latin American Right. On one hand it shares a commitment to its previous 1980s-90s incarnation through continuing support for liberal economic and socially conservative positions (e.g. being against abortion and freely available contraception). On the other hand it differs from that version by being inclined to maintain many of the social programmes of the Left, particularly the cash conditional transfers paid to families to send their children to school or to feed them. The reasons for doing so not only include the support that governments gain as a result, but that such programmes are cheap, at around 1% of GDP. In addition, their foreign policy, especially in relation to the US, is likely to be similar to that of social democratic governments by being both nationalist and independent. In part this is due to changes in Washington as well, following the more confrontational Bush by the relatively enigmatic Obama.

This then, would seem to the parameters of a Piñeira government: it would not mean a return to the unrestrained capitalism of the 1980s, but rather a development or reimagining of the Concertación model of the 1990s and 2000s. In other words, just as the Concertación inherited the structure of the military regime and adapted it, so would Chile’s first right-wing president since 1989 face a similar situation.


(Posted here since I don't expect anyone to take it up in the Chilean newspapers this week)

The viva: a year on
In a couple of days' time it will have been a year since my PhD viva.  How much have things changed since then!  My new year goals for 2009 effectively ended after that date (OK, a few days later, when I finished making the revisions that needed doing), since I hadn't made any plans beyond completing the PhD (so really the viva should count as a 2008 holdover...).

In the absence of any other plans, I quickly had to make some new ones (I started 2008 with the aim of finishing my PhD and 2007 with being well on the way to completing the research for it - and 2006 with just getting through the upgrade...).  Consequently, I reoriented myself and for the rest of the year I directed myself to applying for jobs (academic and otherwise), initially in the full glow and flush of a job well done and self-confidence.  Increasingly though, that confidence took a battering, to the point that by mid-2009 I wasn't sure I'd accompolished much.

A few months later, the situation was even more grim.  From September I had entered into the second (academic) year of applying for post-docs and teaching positions.  And as with the period around submitting and finishing my PhD, I had no success.  In fact, even less than last year: at least I was asked for additional materials and managed one or two phone interviews last January.  This year I've heard nothing or had rejections, including from post-docs.

This should be a source for concern, but I'm becoming increasingly reconciled to my fate.  Getting an academic job - even a post-doc - at the best of times is difficult.  And in the current climate even more so.  I've mentioned to a few people that I'm contemplating pulling out of the process altogether and benn told to give it time, that things will pick up.  Be that as it may, this was before the government's announcement before Christmas that it would be reducing funding for higher education.  This won't mean job losses but there will probably be a hold on hiring into the future - by which time I'll be several years down the line and competing with other new PhDs.

And the situation in the US isn't any better, as this article shows (it's about humanities I think it's as relevant for social sciences as well).  Couldn't have said it better, although he's clearly got many more years' experience of the market than I do.

Which explains my thinking for this year: last year I was caught out by finishing my goals in the first week of January.  This year I have a few ideas in the pipeline - and they do not involve academia.  I therefore hope in 12 months' time to be feeling a lot more satisfied - and have achieved something - than I did a few days ago.

New Year resolutions


Ok, so I'm a few days late, but things haven't changed that much!  So here goes:

1. stop worrying about finding a job (that was 2009)

2. do things that I want to do, even if they're not going to lead directly to anything (I have a couple of things lined up for the first half of the year)

3. come up with some resolutions for the second half of the year (some time over the next few months would be useful - we'll revisit this topic in the future)

4. give up on any hang-ups from last year, like...

5. stop worrying about finding a job (!)

A perspective on PhDs and prostitution

It was one of those illicit pleasures, but I rather enjoyed reading the Belle de Jour blog from time to time over the years. That I did so was despite a sense that its point was lost after she stopped being a call girl. I put it down partly to the fact that she started blogging around the same time as me and for relatively similar reasons (prostitution for her, electoral politics for me!) but mainly because she wrote so well.


What I liked wasn’t just her strong opinions, but both her eye for detail combined with a capacity to stand back and look at the bigger picture. So I wasn’t too surprised to learn yesterday that she’s a PhD-educated research scientist. Her perspective is what I think sets PhDs apart from others. Having completed one myself, it’s a way of looking the world which I’ve found hard to describe to non-PhDs; I know it when I see it, but to explain it other than in general terms or in a specific case is rather difficult.

To give an example: I’m reminded of a conversation with a successful non-PhD friend over the summer when he told me that their approach to policy delivery was to identify what worked and then develop it into a model of best practice that can be applied across different sectors. My immediate response was questioning rather than positive: how could he be sure that the model would work across different sectors? Was there something in that on policy area which meant that it worked well but not elsewhere? In other words, what about context, contingency? Had he conducted before and after assessments before imposing the model? To all of this my friend’s reaction was a bit defensive; he had found the Holy Grail and it was to be applied across the board.

I didn’t think that I was being particularly negative or personal in my response. But I’d claim that our respective attitudes said much about the way we look at the world. And that was something that Belle was rather good at.

Having read Belle’s interview in the Sunday Times, I also understand the difficulty of combining a PhD while working. During my own it wasn’t easy, balancing assistant teaching and research duties for others alongside my own. And I sympathise entirely with Belle’s predicament of trying to balance completing her dissertation with the need to earn – doing something that netted a considerable amount for a few hours seemed like a good idea.

In fact, it doesn’t end only with the PhD. As I’ve been learning on my endless and fruitless job search this year, having the PhD is only one of several necessary conditions to even get one’s feet under the interview table. Aspiring candidates have to juggle writing interminable applications (letter, CV, writing samples, research statements, teaching philosophies, three letters of reference...) for academic posts while also keeping an eye on expanding their research agenda and publications list in order to become more credible. Little wonder then that another friend of mine suggested a few weeks ago that I should consider going on the game!

The sheep in wolf's clothing?

I don't know whether this will be appear on the LSE Ideas Centre blog today (I hope so), but just in case (not), I'm attaching it here as well.  Some reflections following my attendance at Rafael Correa's speech at LSE last night:

"Tony Blair’s star seems to be rising, not just in Europe but globally. In Europe he is currently the frontrunner for the post of EU president, despite leaving the British prime minister’s office under a cloud just over two years ago. His departure then could be attributed to his unpopularity for his foreign policy in Iraq and his close relations with George W Bush.


"Globally, Blair’s brand of Third Way social democracy also seems to be in the ascendance – and from an arguably surprising quarter. Although the LSE and its former director, Anthony Giddens, became synonymous with the Third Way in the latter half of the 1990s, it was another speaker that last night seemed to breathe new life into the concept.

"Last night Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, came to speak at the LSE. Having been elected in late 2006, between 2007 and 2008 he was involved in a far-reaching constitutional reform which included land redistribution, greater controls on industries and fewer monopolies and environmental rights. It also enabled him to stand for re-election, which he did successfully in April this year.

"In Latin America Correa’s attitudes and positions place him alongside Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez (since 1998) and Bolivia’s Evo Morales (since 2006). This places him at the sharper end of the supposed ‘red tide’ that has swept the region since the mid-2000s rather than among its ‘pinker’ associates in Brazil (Lula), Chile (Michelle Bachelet) and Uruguay (Tabaré Vasquez).

"Despite this fearsome reputation though, Correa’s speech at the LSE last night provided a far more nuanced and pragmatic approach than is sometimes assumed. Indeed, what was remarkable about the so-called ‘21st century socialism’ that he, Chavez and others have expounded upon, was quite how similar it was to the Third Way.

"Among the main themes Correa stressed the importance of its basis on principle rather than on dogma or particular models. In particular he stressed its adaptability to different countries and settings, rejecting a standard form. He wanted to see a greater role for the state and more public intervention in markets, since the latter are only concerned with monetary (as opposed to social) value. He noted its collective nature (as opposed to neo-liberalism’s independence and isolation) and the influence it could play in achieving justice across different dimensions, including gender, ethnicity, etc.

"Where 21st century socialism was different from the ‘classical socialism’ of the last century was not just in relation to its relative pragmatism. He criticised classical socialism’s slaving adherence to dialectic materialism and its over-emphasis on unchangeable laws governing society. This had given rise to an almost theological commitment to the ideas of a few rather than a wider discussion about how best to improve society. In contrast to classical socialism he rejected violence, saying that the only ‘bullet’ should be the vote. He took issue with absolute state control of the means of production, instead stressing that it should be ‘democratic’. But most pertinently of all, he noted that classical socialism had fallen into the same development trap as capitalism, by emphasising consumption and accumulation rather than alternative, more human and nature-oriented versions.

"What is striking about this vision though is how remarkably similar it is to the Third Way. In 1998 Giddens put forth the ideas of a ‘renewed’ social democracy that sought to update it for the age of globalisation. This meant not a return to the old way of doing things but their adaptation. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the role of the state. Instead of a dominant state role Giddens envisaged the involvement of both public and private working alongside each other, but overseen by a state that would be ‘active’ or ‘enabling’. In other words the state’s role would be pragmatic, stepping in when and where it saw it necessary. This meant that like Correa’s 21st century socialism, it could be shaped and adapted depending on local circumstances. The result was that social democracy was everywhere and nowhere, being able to include individuals who called themselves social democrats but weren’t and those who were carrying out social democratic aims while denying the political affiliation. Furthermore, underpinning these ‘social democracies’ were similar core values identified by Correa, including the rejection of violence (class conflict) and its aims to break out of the development paradigm dominated by capitalism and previous forms of socialism.

"Not only was Giddens’s presentation of the Third Way subjected to considerable criticism after 1998, but it arguably became increasingly discredited through its association with the politician most closely identified with it: Tony Blair. It therefore does seem rather ironic that just as Blair may be achieving a political rehabilitation through Europe, so might the Third Way similarly be experiencing a renaissance. That it should be gaining this recognition from a trio of Latin American political leaders who (rightly or wrongly) have been on the receiving end of negative publicity is especially surprising."

The next logical step
In some ways it was exactly what I expected.  I think it made sense to have Nick Griffin on Question Time last night as it finally exposed his and his party's loony ravings to a wider andience.  That said, that he was on effectively overshadowed the rest of the week's news and discussion.  And did it help that the other guests and audience (which seemed much less white than previous occasions) were virtually salivating at the prospect of getting stuck into him?

Tellingly, when they did get onto the question of immigration, the political parties' positions became rather weak.  The mainstream politicians' should have acknowledged their own increasingly strident language and how it's contributed to the BNP's rise.  Instead Jack Straw seemed to hem and haw while Baroness Warsi's words suggested that Griffin and his ilk was just at the more extreme end of such views.

And that's essentially the problem with the BNP that the establishment seem unable - or unwilling? - to address.  They insist on seeing it as outside the political system when I'd suggest that they're actually the nex logical step  in a politics that has become increasingly negative, fearful and intolerant.

Election Uncertainty

One reason for restarting this blog has been the silence from other media regarding my work. Back in June I penned a piece for the Guardian's 'Comment is Free' section reflecting on the relationship between elections and civil society but which received zero interest. Moreover, given the recent and apparent fraud in Afghanistan's election, it still seems relevant. And here I have editorial license, so here you go:

"Iran is the latest election where the result has been contested, prompting protests in the street. President for the last four years, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claimed victory with 66% while his principal challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, states that there have been vote irregularities. Thousands of mainly young people have taken to the street in arguably the biggest protests seen in that country since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

"Iranians’ resort to the street follows several other countries that have experienced political instability after the polls ended. Last year in Zimbabwe the failure to release the results of the presidential election for more than a month prompted suspicions about the nature of the polls. This was followed by a delayed second round election during which time President Robert Mugabe sought to bolster his position against the opposition through political violence, prompting his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw a week before the poll. Months earlier in December 2007, Raila Odinga claimed electoral manipulation against Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki, setting off two months of violent protest and targeted ethnic conflict against the Kikuyu people, of whom Kibaki is a member. And in July 2006 centre-right candidate Felipe Calderón beat the leftist Andrés Manuel López Obrador by a margin of 0.6%, prompting cries of electoral fraud and widespread protest.

"And it hasn’t only been in recent democracies that election results have been contentious. Although the first round result of the 2002 French presidential election wasn’t questioned, thousands of protestors took to the streets against the presence of the far-right National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen against the incumbent, Jacques Chirac, in the second round. And two years previously the problem of political instability was kicked off in the United States. For it wasn’t at the ballot box that George W Bush could claim legitimacy for his first presidential mandate in 2000, but rather the verdict of seven judges of the Supreme Court.

"One thing that these countries have in common is that these crises have all occurred after presidential rather than legislative elections. This is explainable for two main reasons. First, presidential elections polarise societies. Their winner-takes-all nature means that only one candidate and his or her supporters can triumph. The rest are therefore excluded. The situation is exaggerated further in cases where the difference between victory and defeat is marginal, ensuring that the difference between majority and minority is slight. By contrast legislative elections tend not to result in the same degree of social and political polarisation. While different electoral systems will contribute to more or less proportion between votes and seats, the all-or-nothing features associated with presidencies is reduced.

"Second, presidents have arguably become more powerful in practice than theory presumed. Here the American case is especially instructive as it was here that the presidential model was introduced. The Founding Fathers sought to prevent the excesses of an overreaching executive with legislative and judicial checks and balances. In contemporary political systems though, the cult of leadership has arguably grown to the extent that such constraints tend to be overlooked. Despite Bush’s questionable legitimacy such considerations were soon put aside in the aftermath of 9/11 as legislative scrutiny all but evaporated over the Patriot Act and planning for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The response by political elites to these crises has followed two main forms. In some cases the beneficiaries of these elections have sought to brazen it out, hoping that social opposition will eventually dissipate. In Mexico and the US this largely happened following the inauguration of Calderón and Bush as presidents and their exercise of power. To a lesser extent the same occurred in France, with Chirac relying on a boosted turnout to defeat Le Pen, including from disgruntled socialists. In other cases incumbents have come to realise that the only way to achieve political stability is to establish governments of national unity with their political opponents, as happened in Kenya and Zimbabwe.

"However, while Ahmadinejad may still be able to opt for either path at the moment, neither the persistence of social exclusion of limited inclusion of rival political elites will deliver a long-term solution. The rise of social protest over the past decade reflects a more deep-rooted crisis than the institutional nature of presidential systems. Instead it suggests a more problematic issue of social incorporation into representative democracy since the 1990s when democracy emerged as the principal game in town.

"That isn’t to say that the ‘third wave’ of democratisation in the last quarter of the twentieth century was problem-free. But what appears to have changed over the past decade is the promise of what democracy can offer by society. Previously representative democracy had come hand in hand with economic liberalisation. Consequently its impact was largely procedural; while masses could vote there seemed to be an implicit acceptance that this would not lead to any substantial change.

"By contrast today the rules seem to have changed – at least for the voters if not the political elite. Increasingly public are demanding a more responsive form of democracy, a democracy that is substantive rather than procedural. It means going beyond the mere inclusion of rival political elites to accommodate the demands of the masses. It means making electoral choice more meaningful. It involves challenging the winner-takes-all mentality of presidential systems and the sustained representation of the minority in the face of the majority.

"For Iran and other countries that have experienced post-electoral instability, it seems clear that voters are taking democracy increasingly at its word. The question for political elites is whether they are prepared to dispense with their current preference for periodic ballots in favour of meeting social demands for a more engaged and participatory form of democracy."

Latin American contemplation

At the request of a friend, I've also penned a few articles, either book reviews or surveys of (Brazilian local) elections over the past couple of years.  For those who find such things of interest, they can be found here:

Viva South America! http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/3am-brasil-viva-south-america/

Open Veins of Latin America http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/3am-brasil-open-veins-of-latin-america/

Brazil's 2008 local elections http://www.citymayors.com/politics/brazil-elections-08.html

Latin America and the 'credit crunch'

Earlier this year I had a small job taking notes and writing up a report about the financial crisis and its impact on Latin America that was sponsored by the Foreign Office and hosted by the Insitute for the Study of the Americas.  This went up on their website in July and with the anniversary of the Lehman Brothers' collapse this month, it seems appropriate to make the link available here:

http://americas.sas.ac.uk/events/docs/EconomicCrisisPapers/RapporteurReport.pdf

Other work I've been doing

Even if some of my writings aren't easily available at the moment, I do have some other material that is up on the web.  This includes two projects that I worked on for the LSE during the three years I was doing my PhD.  They included a project on social scientists' attitudes to digital repositories (i.e. online databases which house both publications and the research used to produce them) and electronic identity management systems (meaning systems to control people logging on and accessing electronic data at universities).  If this grabs you, the material can be found here:

Social scientists and repositories: http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/1842/1418/1/SocialScienceFinalReport.pdf

Electronic management systems: http://www.angel.ac.uk/identity-project/index.html

Other writings (and shameless self-promotion)

The past few years has also resulted in a few other publications, either online or in print that I've been working on.  Alongside the PhD I've published a few articles related to my research, including on social democracy at both state and national level in Brazil and on left-wing education policy across the region.

Last June Zed Books published a chapter on social democratic education policies in the Ceara and Rio Grande do Sul governments in Brazil in this book, http://www.zedbooks.co.uk/book.asp?bookdetail=4302, while in 2008 I published articles on education policy and the Latin American Left and differences between the Cardoso and Lula governments' educational approaches in Enfoques Educacionales in Chile and the International Journal of Contemporary Sociology respectively.  Unfortunately neither journal has updated their site in years, so once I've worked out the new-fangled (at least for me) blogger site, then maybe I can post them myself.  Until then, if anyone wants a copy, just email me!

Accounting for my absence

Since I stopped this blog I have spent most of that time researching and writing my PhD, which I passed earlier this year.  However, I noticed during the course of it that a number of my respondents had their own blogs, which suggested that I should get back to mine at some point.  One of those, Jose Joaquin Brunner, an academic and former official in the Chilean education department, very generously posted my dissertation when I sent him a copy recently.  Since he's done it I suppose it makes sense for me to do the same and let anyone who happens across know what I spent the last few years slaving over.

http://mt.educarchile.cl/MT/jjbrunner/archives/2009/09/chile_y_brasil.html

Return of the Blog... For Now.

Hi and welcome back.  I doubt anyone's reading this after all the three-year 'sabbatical' I've taken from this blog - although there were good reasons for doing so.  At the time I last wrote I felt the blog had lost focus.  I'd originally set it up as an election campaign blog (back in the heady days when IT was supposedly going to change politics) and eventually it shifted towards interests in Brazilian politics that I pursued prior to and during my postgraduate studies (along with observations on my fellow doctoral colleagues' work during our first year).  Eventually I lost interest and wasn't sure what to do with the blog.

So why am I back?  Who knows how long it'll last time time.  But I feel I have things to say (after all, that's what a blog's for, right?), I've now finished my PhD and I have time on my hands as I search for the right job.  And given the lack of another space to do it in, this will do - for now.

Massive apologies!

Yes, I've been slack. There's no excuse. More than two monthe since my last posting. But I fear it may continue for awhile yet. Am off to Brazil next week to start my fieldwork, with stops in Rio, Sao Paulo and Brasilia. The last few months have been taken up with preparing for the annual upgrade (passed thankfully), seeking funding for the impending trip and trying to get my part time job completed before I go.

But not to worry, I will be back. Isn't everyone entitled to a break from blogging from time to time?!

I do hereby declare...

It won't come as any surprise that last week I managed not to be elected as councillor for Spitalfields and Banglatown. I polled 354 votes - not so bad given the lack of campaigning I was able to do and the three winners' totals of between 850-900 or so.

It's a relief it's over though. Not just because it means I have Saturdays free again! Last Thursday I went down to the count at Canary Wharf, but at 5.30am gave up to go home as it was taking forever. In fact the first I heard of my result was from an eagle-eyed friend of mine, who saw it on the Respect website before it went on Tower Hamlets's and texted me!

The cheque's in the mail?

Managed to get my request in for conference funding last week. Now we wait and see. Meanwhile I'm still waiting to hear whether I'll get any money to help cover transport costs to Brazil this summer...

Debating social democracy

The Latin American research seminar is also up and running again as well. Last week I presented my chapter on differences within and between Left and Right in Latin America and its implications for education policy. I had an audience of around 6, which was heartening, although I had to explain my way through the project and the way I intended to do it. Not everyone had read the paper, but at least it was a good exercise in preparing and defending myself. I now have my annual review interview scheduled for 31 May, so this was an excellent time to think about potential questions and pitfalls that I might face later in the month.

Yesterday it was Francisco Panizza to present. His article, on the Frente Amplio's first year in government in Uruguay, was the topic for discussion. Again, I don't presume there were many who read the paper, so he spoke for half an hour before taking questions. Francisco had mentioned that the manifesto that the FA was elected on was rather vague in targets, giving Danilo Astori (the economy minister) free reign to develop it in a third way direction (rather than towards the more neo-liberal and radical end of the FA spectrum). What I didn't really understand was why his approach was not challenged by the other currents within the coalition. Furthermore, I was curious to know whether there was any drive to a set of 'hird generation' reforms in public services (as is happening in the UK) and after the 'second generation' market reforms. Francisco said no, the unions were in the way.

One other interesting comments from the discussion was Sara Motta's view that the 'moulding' of the present system in Uruguay was less social democratic than neo-liberal, since there didn't seem to be any corresponding efforts to make Uruguay's political system more democratic and citizen-inclusive. It was a fair point, since to what extent does the third way really engage the grassroots compared to other, more participatory versions of social democracy (this seems to be my oen insight into the subject, e.g. the PT or Evo Morales). Sara, of course, has just been studying the grassroots in Venezuela, so is naturally quite excited about what she sees as a 'juncture' in history there.

First year round-ups

It's been awhile, so time for a roundup of the various research projects being undertaken by first year Government Department students. Two weeks' worth to be getting on with, so here goes!

Last week Eva-Maria Asari presented her ideas on multiculturalism in Canada and Estonia. She wants to examine how minorities are treated and the way they relate to state policies. Questions were asked about the usefulness of comparing these two coutnries, which Eva-Maria explained by saying that Canada had been at the forefront of developing multicultural citizenship. But there are still some issues to be resolved, including the fact that unlike Russian speakers in Estonia, the French in Canada form a majority in Quebec as well as a minority in the rest of the country. Would she take into account that fact? I asked. In addition, to what extent has Estonia's government introduced a more 'liberal' notion of citizenship as a result of external pressures (e.g. EU, OECD, Canada) compared to the Canadians' own 1960s-70s internal drive for reform? Would that affect the substance of the policies?

This week Miika Tervonen explained that he was looking at the way the Roma in Finland had been historically marginalised between the late 19th and mid-20th century. As a visiting student, he's in the advantageous position of not having to do an annual review at the end of this month. However, we were able to get into a discussion about the nature of Roma identity and the reasons behind it - namely that the Roma have always been seen as a problem group, even though many of them can be labelled as Finnish. He also talked about them in social terms rather than cultural/national ones - they speak Finnish and are notable for their mobility. Some questions were made about the Swedish minostiry in Finland and the way in which they are not marginalised.

Finally Umit Sonmez showed his work on electricity and gas liberalisation and regulation in Britain and Turkey. For Umit the interesting thing is that effective liberalisation did not take place until after the independent regulatory bodies were put in place. In both countries' cases that was in the last ten years, despite a 15-20 year difference in the pace of liberalisation reform. I asked whether there were substantial differences between different governments (e.g. Tory and Labour here, secular and Islamist in Turkey) in approaching these themes and the extent to which the regulatory agencies (which became 'culpable' for the process at one remove from government) was either a reflection of government interests or captured by the private sector (probably less the latter since the natural tendency was to create a monopoly).