[LINK] "Bloc's involvement no threat to federation"

One very notable element of the plan for a Liberal-NDP coalition government is the promise of the separatist Bloc Québécois to support the coalition government for the next year. Some--i.e. the Conservatives--denounce this as an unnecessary empowerment of separatists, but Graeme Hamilton in yesterday's National Post very likely came to the correct conclusion in his article "Bloc's involvement no threat to federation".

As Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe rose in the House of Commons Monday to ask his first question, he was met with an unusually loud ovation. Not only his own MPs but the Liberals and New Democrats cheered him. And if the Liberal-NDP plan to replace the Conservative government with their own coalition succeeds, there will be plenty more fawning over the one federal party committed to the breakup of Canada.

To many, the notion of a committed separatist pulling the strings of the Canadian government is anathema. Prime Minister Stephen Harper Monday attacked the opposition parties for handing a veto to "people who want to break up the country" and said he was disappointed to see "the party of Laurier and Trudeau applauding the Bloc."

The coalition would certainly give unprecedented clout to the Bloc; the support of its 49 MPs will be required for the coalition to govern. Already, Mr. Duceppe is boasting that his support was conditional on meeting certain Bloc demands, such as restoring funding to federal culture programs and increasing aid for the forestry and manufacturing sectors. He has signed on only until June, 2010, a year earlier than the NDP and Liberals, because he was unable to extract "concrete measures" recognizing Quebec's status as a nation.

Still, it is far from certain that inviting the Bloc into the decision-making realm will necessarily weaken the federation, particularly given the current situation in Quebec.

Jean-Claude Rivest, an independent Senator and former advisor to Robert Bourassa when he was Quebec premier, said support for sovereignty is at such a low that the Bloc has no desire to stir the pot. Polls suggest Liberal leader Jean Charest is headed for re-election in the provincial vote next Monday, and the Parti Québécois is not even talking about a referendum if it took power.

"There will be within the sovereignty movement, over the next year or two, a great deal of discussion over what to do with their option. So for the Bloc, there is an interest in keeping things calm in Ottawa," Mr. Rivest said.

"The timing is good for all of Canada in the sense that there will not be threats or attempts by the Bloc to take the Canadian government hostage. That's rubbish in my opinion. The Conservatives will raise that point, but it's really not serious."

In fact, the Conservatives were only too happy to have the Bloc MPs on their side when they needed them. After the 2006 election, the Bloc House leader at the time, Michel Gauthier, announced that his party would prop up the minority Conservatives. "We want to help the government function for a while," he told the Globe and Mail. "I have no shame in saying I will be urging my colleagues ... to conduct ourselves in a way that the government stays in place for a good while to do what needs to be done."

[LINK] "Migrants: From Remittance to Pittance"

S. Adam Cardais' "Migrants: From Remittance to Pittance" at Transitions Online takes a look at the effect of the global economic downturn on economically essential labour migration in the poorer countries of post-Communist Europe.

The former Soviet Union and post-communist Eastern Europe are filled with immature economies rife with poverty, corruption, and unemployment and lacking any comparative advantage to attract investment. Many have seen large-scale emigration in recent years as workers left for opportunity in Russia or Western Europe. This work force has subsequently become a geographically distant yet vital economic foundation for their home countries – places like Moldova, Tajikistan, or Albania – through the money they send home every year, money that, for their families, can mean the difference between falling below or hovering barely above the poverty line.

[. . .]

In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Moldova and Tajikistan are most at risk. Both have large emigrant populations in Russia (many Moldovans also go to Italy, which is in recession and not expected to be back in the black until 2010, according to a European Commission forecast) and remittances account for more than 35 percent of GDP in each country, making them the world's most remittance-dependence economies, according to the World Bank's Migration and Remittances Factbook 2008. And neither has much to fall back on.

"If you look at places like … Moldova, it's tougher because [remittances] are a large percentage of the economy, but also because there's nothing going on there," said Jon Levy, an analyst at the Eurasia Group global consultancy in New York. "The countries that have these competitive issues should be extremely worried."

Albania is also vulnerable, with money sent home from its emigrant populations in Greece and Italy comprising a hefty percentage of GDP. Likewise in Romania. Around 1.5 million Romanians work in Spain, whose economy will contract next year, according to the EC, and Italy. Many of those jobs are in construction, an especially vulnerable trade in hard times. Banks are already seeing a downward trend in the money they send home.

For further detailed reading on the subject, you might want to check out Ali Mansoor and Bryce Quillin's January 2007 World Bank study Migration and Remittances: Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union.

[BLOG-LIKE POSTING] Go east, young Icelander!

This Bloomberg article was eye-catching.

Almost 1,200 years after Viking chief Ingolfur Arnarson left Norway to found Reykjavik, the crisis engulfing Iceland is forcing his descendants home.

"There are no jobs here," said Baldvin Kristjansson, an 18-year-old former container repairman from western Iceland, at a European job fair in Reykjavik. "I’m going to move away and go to Norway."

The Atlantic island of 320,000, suffering from its worst financial crisis since gaining independence in 1944, faces the biggest exodus in a century. Iceland’s $7.5-billion economy may shrink about 10 percent next year, according to the International Monetary Fund, which is helping provide a $4.6 billion bailout package.

About half of Icelanders aged between 18 and 24 are considering leaving the country, Reykjavik-based newspaper Morgunbladid said, citing a survey of 1,117 people between Oct. 27 and Oct. 29.

"Tens of thousands" will depart, estimated Jesper Christensen, chief analyst at Danske Bank A/S, the biggest lender in neighboring Denmark.

Iceland’s biggest wave of emigration was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Then, 15,000 out of a total population of 70,000 left, joining a flow to North America from countries including Norway, Sweden and Ireland.

Foreign Debt

A hundred years later, Iceland’s economy is struggling after the nation’s banking system collapsed under the weight of its foreign debt last month.

Inflation surged to an 18-year high of 17.1 percent in November following a currency collapse that drove up prices. A protest against the government turned violent last week as police used pepper spray to battle activists in front of Reykjavik’s main police station.

Unemployment is forecast to rise to 7 percent by the end of January from a three-year high of 1.9 percent in October, the country’s Labor Directorate estimates.

"A lot of people are registering unemployed," said Valdimar Olafsson at European Employment Services in Reykjavik. "It’s very hectic and Icelanders are asking for jobs, especially in Norway."

Norse settlers arrived in Iceland around 874 on sail- powered wooden longships. The country came under Norwegian control in 1262 and then under Danish dominion in 1380. It gained autonomy 90 years ago yesterday and became fully independent from Denmark in 1944.

‘State of Coma’

The Danes and Norwegians, along with Germans and Poles, returned to pluck Icelandic talent at a job fair on Nov. 21 and 22. It drew 2,500 people.

Neither country has been fully spared from the effects of the global crunch. Denmark’s economy will shrink 0.5 percent next year, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation. Norwegian economic growth more than halved to 0.2 percent in the third quarter.

Both remain in much better shape than Iceland, though, and Norwegian and Danish companies are seeking skilled workers.

"Iceland is more or less in a state of coma," said Sigrun Thormar, who runs a consulting business for Icelanders moving eastward. "There’ll be an increase in the number of Icelanders seeking work in Denmark."

Danish unemployment is 1.6 percent. In Norway, the jobless rate rose to 1.8 percent last month from 1.7 percent the previous month. Norway’s Labor and Welfare Administration, or NAV, expects unemployment to stay below 3 percent over the next two years.

Iceland has been implementing the Schengen Agreement since 2001 and was a party to the Nordic Passport Union since 1965 long before Schengen, so there's certainly no legal or other institutional bars to Icelandic migration to the countries of mainland Norden. There's no reason why it can't take on huge proportions, either, judging by the experience of the Faroe Islands in their economic crisis of the early 1990s: "The important fishery sector collapsed (fish makes up approx. 90% of exports), the major Faroese banks went bankrupt and foreign debts were very high. Most of the many fish processing plants were closed and the Faroese economy was put under Danish administration, resulting in the concentration of most fish processing plants in one United Seafood firm. During these years, the population of the Faroe Islands declined from 48,000 to 42,000 (approx.) due to emigration." The subsequent recovery of the Faroese economy has not stemmed the outmigration, with Danish paper Politiken pointing out that twenty-three thousand Faroese live in Denmark versus the forty-eight thousand who live in the Faroe Islands. The Faroes do have a much closer relationship with Denmark than Iceland, but comparison might hold in terms of absolute numbers if not relative proportions.