ESNSurvey

The ESNSurvey is a project of the Erasmus Student Network exploring current issues connected to student mobility. First launched in 2005, every year around 8,000 people answer the online survey. Such a high number of respondents is attained thanks to the support of the whole ESN network, many other associations in the field of education and mobility and various institutions. The ESNSurvey provides valuable insight into students' needs and current developments in education and mobility. The team compiling the report entirely consists of volunteers making it a unique pan-European research project.

Many stakeholders in higher education and mobility take notice of the yearly ESNSurvey report: The European Commission, National Agencies of the Erasmus Programme, higher education institutions and other associations in the field. The main aim is to make a contribution to the improvement of the quality of international study and, to some extent, work periods.

The ESNSurvey 2011 mainly explores how student mobility is related to employability and flexibility on the labour market. In times where economic problems are plentiful and many economists identify the lack of intra-European labour mobility as a key problem of the faltering Eurozone, this is a crucially important topic. The 2011 edition additionally includes a part evaluating the satisfaction with the services ESN provides and the impact of mobility on the environment. It is also the first time the ESNSurvey turns to all students at higher education institutions to be able to compare mobile and non-mobile students.

Please find the questionnaire 2011 here. I would be happy if as many as possible could support us. It takes less than 10 minutes and you can win 1 out of 3 iPods.

http://esn.org/survey

Time goes by...

Having some free minutes I just realized that I have not written any post in more than a year. Certainly must have been a busy time, which it was. Since I got quite engaged in international mobility and education, I will start sharing thoughts about this as well. Economics and politics are not gonna miss out though. Stay tuned for more to come soon.

Who will pick up the bill? And when?

Some voices have prematurely claimed that the economy is on its way out of the crisis and getting back to normal. The recent speech of FED chief Ben Bernanke and newly emerging turmoil in European sovereign debt markets suggest that dark clouds might still persist on the horizon. Taking the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in mid 2007 as a starting point most of the industrialized world has been in economic troubles for almost three years now. What has been done to solve the crisis? A lot and nothing at the same time. To be fair to policy makers, it must be conceded that a Great Depression style abyss has been prevented. However, the debt problem has merely shifted from the private sector to the public sector and the mess has not been cleaned up.

One essential part of the current crisis is that many people thought they were richer than they actually are. The financial collapse has made this quite evident. Imagine an economy with a more or less fixed amount of wealth. Modern economies have become so complex that the actual ownership of this wealth is not immediately obvious to everyone. Individuals hold bonds, stocks, cash, derivatives, to name just some. If, as happened in the recent crisis, those claims where as a whole overvalued and people therefore thought they are richer than they actually are, some individuals will have to lose claims on real assets. The question is now which parts of the economy will pick up the mess and give up on their perceived wealth.

Next to the question who will lose is how fast the process will be carried out. This is the more essential challenge and to put it simple, the faster the better. Recent economic history has two prominent examples on the extreme ends of debt resolution. Sweden has chosen the fast way and Japan gone down a long and dragging path. While Japan's lost decade might soon amount to twenty years of foregone economic growth, Sweden has recovered quickly and gone back to business as usual. My guess is that both Europe and the U.S. will not end up quite as bad as Japan, but the tendency goes towards it at the moment. Policy makers will most likely choose too start loosening monetary policy in ways not seen before in order to prevent a Fisher-type deflation spiral at any cost. This will, if successful, not solve the initially mentioned problem that certain economic agents have to give up on some of their claims. Overly loose monetary policy will only create high inflation, possibly the lesser of the two (inflation/deflation) evils. Overall, this hardly allows for a positive outlook on the economy.

What is Europe’s role in a increasingly bipolar world shaped by the USA and China?

If it had not been clear before, the global catastrophe of World War II manifested that no single European nation would be a dominant global power in the decades to come. Although once mighty colonial England and the proud French had won the war, their global dominance was predestined to further wane not to mention the defeated block of Germans, Italians, and Austrians. The world has seen the rise and demise of the Soviet Union in the second half of the last century and recently the final “emerging” of developing nations with China in the vanguard. Europe has mended its wounds since and it has united – or at least tried to do so.

Having come a long way from a conflict torn continent, Europe’s top politicians were convinced their turn on the world stage would come. Now it seems they are running out of time. The most recent push in terms of the Lisbon treaty has been an uneasy compromise partly lacking democratic foundation. The exhausting process has revealed clearly what Europe’s top officials were so reluctant to acknowledge: Europe has been too slow, too occupied with itself and the vision of a single voiced Europe remains elusive. This understanding has been painful for Europe’s political elite. Where does Europe go from here? Where can it go?

Well, the question should rather be where does it want to go. While people identifying themselves as European are primarily found among the younger generations, the idea of Europe is hard to grasp. Nevertheless, there is one unifying element: The almost complete lack of imperial ambition in people’s ideas about Europe. Maybe this results from the virtual inexistence of European armed forces or the relatively early stage of forming a European identity. Supporting the view that geo-political influence is not a top-priority are the developments in important individual member states. Germany’s attitude towards the Afghanistan war and the ongoing discussion on whether its troops are on a combat mission or merely acting as peace keepers shows it has no intention of getting anywhere close to its troublesome past. Even in the formerly more war-prone UK the public has become increasingly wary of its nation's involvement in the both Iraq and Afghanistan. Intellectuals have always understood that political influence comes at a price they seldom had to pay themselves. With mass media covering every detail of armed conflicts the wider public is understanding this as well. The waning opportunity of installing Europe as a heavy-weight in global politics is difficult to accept for politicians seeking ever more power and influence. It might bother citizens much less if at all.

From a western European perspective security concerns in the eastern states of the Union are sometimes easily put aside. The persistent fears result from historical experiences and are mostly based on suspicion when it comes to Russian foreign politics. However, an imminent threat for any country being already a member of the EU seems insubstantial and can, in the worst case, be resolved within the NATO framework. The point is that both the willingness and the opportunity costs of not investing resources in expanding political influence are low. Even if the latter statement might not be left unchallenged, there is plenty of evidence that Europe will most likely fail in attempting to increase its geo-political clout. The conflict on the lack of fiscal discipline in some of Europe’s more peripheral economies and the resulting internal power struggles are just another indicator. In addition, it might be a futile attempt to deepen Europe’s integration without voters’ consent, making it quite likely that Europe will not manage to be on a par with the U.S. and China any time soon.

So the world is indeed steering towards something like the “G2” that is to speak a world dominated by the U.S. and China. This is bad news for Europe’s favored political approach of multilateralism. Fortunately, a bipolar world dominated by China and the U.S. will be much different from the one with the Soviet Union as an antagonist. The main actors will not be as powerful and the lines not be as clear cut, leaving plenty of space for multilateralism. Europe has mastered multilateralism unlike any other union of sovereign states in history. Imperfect and at times chaotic the European Union may be, yet its achievements in bringing together different values, cultures, and languages are unprecedented. Being the mediator and a buffer between different powers might be the most fitting role for Europe.

If Europeans choose to focus on applying such a soft power profile it might not be maximising economic growth expressed in the form of its traditional measure, the GDP. This is exactly where most critics of such a relative withdrawal from power politics will point at. Europe will lose some ground in securing natural resources and political leverage in trade matters. The old continent might be willing to pay that price and actually fare better by doing so. GDP as the long uncontested sole measure of prosperity is about to be seriously questioned. Recent comments by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, show that the ideas of measuring prosperity as Gross National Happiness (GNH) or similar are not merely intellectual constructs, but have made their way into the highest political circles. Applying such alternative measures of growth and development will give European-style soft power a further competitive edge and make it welfare maximizing. Moreover, shifting attention towards a broader measure of prosperity makes Europe’s decline in world politics one of choice not necessity.

Europe will in fact have little choice other than accepting its future regression of geo-political importance. It can try to prevent its faith as long as possible, but such efforts will most likely be in vain. Instead, the old continent can embrace its role as a bloc in relative decline and concentrate its resources on what it is best at. Europe will possibly be happier and more prosperous place in the days to come albeit a less powerful one.

Inflation on its way

I have been writing on the return of inflation politics before (last year when the FED resumed printing money I discussed the topic as well). Now the bail-out package of the European Union, admittedly a bold move that few expected to be as comprehensive and as large in scale, will bring us a step further (The New York Times compares the Euro with the Rubel in 1998). It is not only the bail-out money itself that is worth noting in that context. Much more important is a at first glance less spectacular detail of the deal: the ECB is bowing to political pressure and is going to start buying the junk bonds of states when investors turn their back on them. This might mark the end of central bank independence as foreseen in the Maastricht treaty and insisted on by Germans that were so reluctant to give up their beloved Deutsche Mark. It will also mark the end of stabilization politics as we have seen it before.

For different reasons inflation could be kept remarkably low for years now, but a decisive factor were the rather cautious and hawkish inflation fighting policies of most central banks. This is poised to change now. What the ECB is planning to do is in effect printing new money (as the Bank of England and the FED are already doing). You don't have to study Milton Friedman to guess what that will cause in the not to distant future.

Is the dream of Europe dead?

The times are undoubtedly difficult if not apocalyptic for Europe. The dream of a united Europe is falling apart more quickly than people realize. In the middle of the chaos stands the most controversial issue these days: the common European currency, the Euro (see also my comment on a bailout of Greece from February this year). There is no use of economists who have always seen it coming (and many indeed have) playing the “I told you so” card. We are in this mess and we need to find solutions.

So what is the actual problem? As I see it politicians have either been naïve or have knowingly kept a low profile on the fact that a common currency is much more than having the same coins and bank notes. It means a common faith in many more aspects. Citizens gradually start to realize just that and they don’t seem to like what they got themselves into. As they see it the Euro makes them pay for the mistakes (or profligacy for that matter) of others and they are not really prepared to do that. You may call this a lack of European solidarity, but that is only part of the truth. Some serious policy mistakes have led to a fundamentally wrong public picture of Europe. Disadvantages of European integration were virtually non-existent in people’s minds. The only critical voices were nationalist politicians who usually do not have any arguments other than the value of national sovereignty itself. Although it seems that Europeans turn out to be more inward looking and nationalistic than previously thought, I think that there is more to the apparent reluctance to step in for Greek (and potentially others soon to come) household debts. Citizens were never allowed to consciously choose on whether to be in a union with whole Europe for the good and for the bad. They were told integration will have exclusively positive consequences and were barely ever asked directly anyway. It feels a little bit like being surprised by the small print in a standard contract you never paid attention to. No wonder citizens of countries that are expected to pay for the mess are disinclined and angry to do so.

Feasible solutions are in principle simple because there are only two viable options: much stronger integration close to a political union or disintegration. To avoid the latter solution, Europe needs a much more open dialogue about Europe. Citizens need to understand the pros and cons of a politically and economically fully integrated Europe and then be allowed to make a conscious decision on it. Candy-coating reality will not work anymore or if it does, create future fury. Quite understandably, politicians are trying to fix economic woes right now, but all they do is buying time. Hopefully, they are going to use the time wisely to address those ideological questions on European integration. Only then will a permanent solution of Europe’s existential crisis be conceivable.

Why can climate researchers not stick to the truth?

I am not anywhere close to being able to know whether global warming is happening or not. Taking the weather in Lund of southern Sweden, it is definitely not (coldest winter in 23 years or so). One thing seems to be clear, however: Some scientists and researchers trying to find answers on how our climate changes, tend to exaggerate their results. Together with such in the end counter-productive behavior, news on evidence of accelerating global warming are usually followed by public outcry and met with apocalyptic fears. Those two developments go somewhat hand in hand. Why are we so afraid of a warmer planet? Why are some researchers nourishing those fears further?

A simple explanation of the latter question can be traced back to general human behavior. Scientists are just human beings that seek attention and recognition for their work. In few other areas of modern science there is a similar bias towards going in one direction. In climate questions, the more that’s supposed to change the more interesting the research becomes to the wider public. Naturally, some members of the discipline (just to stress this, not all) cannot resist the temptation to fiddle with some of their results. Those are often equally convinced their “small adjustment” is for the good of humanity as it sends a strong warning signal and will potentially prevent further environmental havoc. The reason why such dramatic predictions do not fall on deaf ears is people’s inherent fear of change. Climate has always been changing if admittedly usually at a very slow pace. It is hard to predict what will exactly happen if the planet becomes a hotter place, but it is certain that huge areas would be transformed in dramatic ways. People might have to migrate to formerly colder areas and their base of living be eroded. Such uncertainty creates fear and explains why this has become such a heated debate.

Don’t misunderstand the point I’m making. I do believe all efforts should be focused on reversing environmental destruction and stopping the depletion of our earth’s natural resources. There are enough clear cut arguments to do so, if it is just that our children need to live off something. Therefore, it should not be the focus of the debate to what extent climate change is precisely happening. Exaggerating the whole scenario of climate change will only backfire, as it has of lately.