Category: Uncategorized

Korean App Economy Update 2022

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

INTRODUCTION

Korea is one of the leading technology countries in the world. By some measures, Korea’s manufacturing sector is more diversified and complex than U.S. manufacturing.

In this report, we focus on one aspect of Korea’s technological strength: the App Economy, which reflects the employment of workers to develop, maintain, and support mobile applications. The global App Economy expanded rapidly during the pandemic. Individuals and businesses were suddenly dependent on the internet, their smartphones, and their mobile applications for critical daily activities like work, shopping, and communication with loved ones. The App Economy, already important, became an increasingly indispensable part of the real economy.

In Korea, the pandemic was much more controlled compared to the United States and Europe. Still, almost overnight, huge swathes of economic activity that relied on face-to-face interactions were forced into virtual mode. In Korea, time spent on mobile applications rose from 4.1 hours in 2019 to 5.0 hours in 2021, the third highest in the world.

Even as the pandemic enters a milder stage largely due to vaccines, many jobs and economic interactions are still remote, placing an increased premium on mobile communications. After a slow start because of government regulations, Korean health organizations have learned about the usefulness of telemedicine apps. Korean financial companies like Toss and Kakao Bank are increasingly doing transactions through their mobile apps. Delivery apps are also still experiencing booming business.

In Korea, as in other countries, the increased prominence of the App Economy is reflected in the growing number of jobs that required App Economy skills. We did our first report on Korea’s App Economy in 2018, using detailed data on job postings as our major tool for analysis. In this 2022 report, we update our previous estimate, finding that Korea has 516,000 App Economy jobs as of July 2022, a number that is highly competitive globally. We end with a brief discussion of policy.

MEASURING THE APP ECONOMY

As the App Economy grows in significance globally, it becomes essential to have a consistent set of App Economy job estimates so that policymakers can compare their country’s performance with that of other countries. However, official economics statistics do not provide an easy way to measure the size of the App Economy. In response, PPI developed a methodology based on a systematic analysis of online job postings. In particular, we look for job postings that call for app-related skills such as knowledge of iOS or Android. We issued our first App Economy report for the United States in 2012. Since then, this methodology has been applied to a wide variety of countries, languages, and economic environments.

Our goal is to produce a set of globally-consistent and credible estimates for App Economy employment by individual countries, by broad geographical regions, and in some cases by major cities. The ultimate objective is to be able to track the growth of the App Economy globally, and to see which countries are benefitting the most. Ideally, we should be able to link App Economy growth to policy measures implemented by governments. For this study, a worker is in the App Economy if he or she is works in:

• An information and communications technology (ICT) related job that uses App Economy skills — the ability to develop, maintain, or support mobile applications. We will call this a “core” App Economy job. Core App Economy jobs include app developers; software engineers whose work requires knowledge of mobile applications; security engineers who help keep mobile apps safe from being hacked; and help desk workers who support use of mobile apps.

• A non-ICT job (such as human resources, marketing, or sales) that supports core App Economy jobs in the same enterprise. We will call this an “indirect” App Economy job.

• A job in the local economy that is supported by the income flowing to core and indirect App Economy workers.

These “spillover” jobs include local retail and restaurant jobs, construction jobs, and all the other necessary services.

To estimate the number of core App Economy jobs, we use a multi-step procedure based on data from the universe of online job postings. Our first observation is that online job postings typically describe the skills and knowledge being sought by the employer. For example, if a job posting requires that the job candidate have experience developing apps for iOS or Android, then we can reasonably conclude that the posting refers to a core App Economy job. The methodology section at the end of the paper describes the procedure in detail.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents an estimate of App Economy jobs in Korea. We estimate that Korea has 516,000 App Economy jobs as of July 2022. This figure includes a conservative estimate of spillover jobs. Our methodology also allows us to estimate the relative share of mobile operating systems in Korea’s App Economy. We find that the iOS ecosystem includes 252,000 jobs, and the Android ecosystem includes 379,000 jobs. The two numbers sum to more than the total because many App Economy jobs belong to both ecosystems.

These figures are 23% to 25% higher than our previous 2018 estimates for Korean App Economy employment. Because of improvements in the implementation of the methodology, the number are not directly comparable. Nevertheless, this increase across the pandemic years is similar to what we see in other countries.

Table 2 compares Korea’s App Economy with the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom, three large technologically advanced countries (we currently do not have a public estimate for China or a recent report for Japan). Korea has roughly the same number of App Economy jobs as Germany, somewhat less than the U.K., and much fewer than the U.S.

However, a better measure for comparing the App Economy of countries of different size is “App Intensity.” We define App Intensity as the number of App Economy jobs divided by the total size of employment. We see from Table 2 that Korea’s App Intensity of 1.8% is higher than the U.K., the U.S., and Germany.

Another way of assessing the strength of Korea’s App Economy is to look at the nationality of the companies who are doing well in terms of downloads and consumer spend. In 2021, measured by number of downloads, 9 out of the top 10 companies are headquartered in Korea, led by NAVER, Kakao, and SK Group. Measured by consumer spend, 8 out of the top 10 companies are Korean.

It’s useful to compare Korea with Germany’s App Economy. The two countries have roughly the same number of App Economy workers. But in Germany, only 3 out of the top 10 companies measured by downloads are headquartered in Germany, and only 2 of the top 10 by consumers spending. Five are headquartered in the United States, two are headquartered in the U.K., and one is headquartered in China.

POLICY AND CONCLUSIONS

Korea’s App Economy has entered an interesting period of development and regulation. Up to now, the Korean App Economy has been a sizable contributor to national employment. But notably, it was based on a system where much of the cost of building, maintaining, and supporting the Korean app infrastructure has been provided by non-Korean firms, Apple and Google. At the same time, these companies received a share of download fees and in-app purchases. In effect, Apple and Google were getting a financial return on investing in the Korean App economy.

Korea implemented new regulations on the Apple App Store and Google Play as of March 2022, which required Apple and Google to give developers more choices for in-app payment systems. In response, the two U.S. tech companies reduced their commission somewhat for developers who used alternative payment systems. In addition, Apple required developers to provide a separate binary for Korean iOS apps that use non-Apple payment systems. That’s one step toward a globally fragmented internet.

The group of Korean companies that monetize their apps through download fees and in-app purchases — many of which are gaming and entertainment companies — would prefer that Apple and Google charge even lower commission rates. However, there is a much larger second group et of Korean companies whose apps do not charge significant download fees or make heavy use of in-app purchases. This second group would likely prefer the current system, because they benefit from distribution and malware screening services for virtually no cost. This second group would include banks, retailers, manufacturers, providers of telemedicine services, providers of travel apps, and virtually any app connected with the physical economy.

Security and privacy concerns will also be important for policy going forward. Apple and Google follow different mobile app development and distribution strategies, with Google taking more of an open approach and Apple restricting app downloads to the App Store. Nevertheless, both companies devote huge technological resources to scanning apps uploaded to their official stores for malware. These investments have helped fuel the success of the Korean App Economy, which has been built on trust that downloaded apps will be safe. Regulators who underestimate security and privacy concerns run the risk of undercutting consumer trust in the mobile app ecosystems, and making it more difficult to use apps for key functions such as banking and health.

Finally, there is a broader issue as well. As one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, Korean companies sell products and services globally, including cutting-edge chips, which embody large amounts of investment and intellectual capital. The question is whether Korea should be in favor of a global regulatory regime which intervenes in new technologies and significantly reduces the return on successfully-invested capital. That’s not the way to achieve global growth or national success.

Read the full report and download the report in English or Korean:

 

New PPI Report estimates 516,000 App Economy jobs in Korea as of July 2022

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

A new report on the Korean App Economy released today by the Progressive Policy Institute shows the prominence of the App Economy in Korea — reflecting the employment of workers to develop, maintain and support mobile applications — has grown as more jobs require app-based skills. The new report shows significant gains in App Economy jobs since our previous report on the Korean App Economy, published in May 2018. The new report also finds that Korea’s “app intensity” exceeds that of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This report is authored by PPI’s Vice President and Chief Economist, Dr. Michael Mandel.

“Korea’s App Economy is highly competitive globally,” said Dr. Michael Mandel. ”The key question is whether a new wave of regulation will help or hurt the functioning of the Korean App Economy.”

Download the full report in English here.

Download the full report in Korean here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Progressive Policy Institute has developed a methodology to measure App Economy jobs and shifting trends, publishing their first report for the United States in 2012. Since, this methodology has been applied to a wide variety of countries, languages, and economic environments. The first Korean App Economy report was published in 2018.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Marshall for The Hill: Ban the culture war from classrooms

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Will Marshall

As America’s children start getting back to school this month, our country needs a grown-up conversation about public education’s future. The odds of having one this fall are slim.

It’s more likely that the midterm election campaign will intensify today’s noxious trend toward politicizing public schools. That’s reprehensible, because our children, who suffered severe learning losses and emotional stress during the pandemic, deserve better than to be treated as hostages in the nation’s vitriolic culture wars.

Republicans, who seem to be at war with all of America’s public institutions, are the worst offenders. But Democrats aren’t blameless, and even as they fend off the right’s demagogic attacks on public schools, they need to come to grips with the valid reasons why parental frustration is boiling over.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Mexico is now the principal source of illicit fentanyl and methamphetamines sold in the U.S.

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

FACT: Mexico is now the principal source of illicit fentanyl and methamphetamines sold in the U.S.

THE NUMBERS: U.S. deaths by drug overdose –
2021 total
 107,500*
Opioids
 73,400 deaths among 9.5 million users
Psychostimulants
 32,500 deaths among 2.6 million users
Cocaine
 26,000 deaths among 5.2 million users
Heroin/other opiates
   8,000 deaths among 0.9 million users
* Mortality from overdoses from the Centers for Disease Control; user totals from HHS’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Many overdose deaths involve use of combinations of drugs, so overdoses measured by individual substances often double- or triple-count.

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

After two decades of steady escalation, drug overdoses caused over 107,000 premature deaths in the United States last year. This was more than double the 41,500 overdose fatalities of 2012 and six times the 17,400 recorded in 2000. Or, alternatively, it is more than the combined total of U.S. deaths to automobile accidents (38,800 in 2020, 42,400 in 2021) and homicides (24,600 in 2020, likely higher in 2021).

Four classes of drugs, often in combination, account for most of these overdoses: synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, whose very high “purity” and variable chemical content make them especially dangerous; “psychostimulants” such as methamphetamines; cocaine; and heroin along with other natural or semi-synthetic opiates refined from naturally grown opium poppies. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s most recent “Annual Drug Threat Assessment” report, released in early 2021, suggests that (a) most of these products are imported, and (b) supply chains for opioids and amphetamines have changed substantially over the past decade and now center on Mexican production and land transport. A precis:

1. Opioids and opiates: A decade ago, fentanyl was mostly made in China and (being very light and cheap to transport) shipped to the U.S. via air cargo. Use of this from-China-by-air route has sharply declined since 2019, however. Most U.S.-consumed fentanyl is now produced in Mexico and moved to the U.S. by land. DEA’s report suggests a complex and adaptable precursor-chemical “supply chain,” with the relevant chemicals “primarily from sources originating in China, including purchases made on the open market, smuggling chemicals hidden in legitimate commercial shipments, mislabeling shipments to avoid controls and the attention of law enforcement, and diversion from the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.” Heroin production appears simpler in the DEA report; about 92% is from Mexico, refined from locally grown opium.

2. Psychostimulants: The methamphetamine supply system has likewise evolved over the past decade, though in this case away from local U.S. lab production. As with heroin, “most of the methamphetamine available in the United States is clandestinely produced in Mexico,” using precursor chemicals purchased from China and India. As with opioids and heroin, the finished products travel mainly by land.

3. Cocaine: Coca leaf is grown and refined into cocaine principally in Colombia and secondarily in Bolivia and Peru. DEA believes total cocaine production is around 1,900 tons per year. Cocaine trafficking routes appear to have remained stable over the last two decades, with cocaine transported in smuggling boats and planes, or using cargo containers, through the Caribbean with smaller quantities arriving by land through Central America and Mexico.

 

 

FUTURE READINGS:

CDC’s grim estimates of death by drug overdose in the United States, 2000-2021, summarized by year:

2021 107,500
2020   92,500
2019   71,100
2016   63,600
2012   41,500
2000   17,400

And the numbers in detail by year and substance.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has tables for use of narcotics, abuse of prescription drugs, marijuana, alcohol and tobacco use.

The White House releases the 2022 National Drug Control Strategy, including health and overdose prevention, data improvement, DEA and CBP funding, anti-money laundering programs, and international police coordination.

And DEA’s 2020 National Drug Threat Assessment reviews use, production, and trade of narcotics.

And three global economy context questions:

(a) How large is the international narcotics trade? A 2019 RAND study estimates that in 2016 Americans were spending $150 billion on narcotics. This total included $50 billion on marijuana and $100 billion on heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamines, but did not venture a guess on opioids. Accepting RAND’s estimate for the sake of argument, a guess at the value of the imports would require understanding the markup from border to distributor to retail. As a guidepost, the National Coffee Association put U.S. consumer spending on coffee (also almost entirely imported) at $74 billion, or about 12 times that year’s $6 billion in coffee imports. A 10:1 markup for heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines would suggest an import value of around $10 billion, but presumably a criminal business’ markup would have to be much higher.  At 20:1, a figure of $100 billion in U.S. retail spending on narcotics would imply $5 billion in import value, the equivalent of about 1 percent of the $385 billion in legitimate imports from Mexico in 2021, and not far from the value of total U.S. coffee imports.  Obviously the 20:1 figure is arbitrary and could be quite different, and may also vary by narcotics type.

(b) How large is the criminal economy? On a world scale, a 2017 paper by the DC-based Center for Global Financial Integrity guessed at a total of $426 billion to $651 billion for illicit drug trade as of 2014, including both intra-country and cross-border transactions, as part of a larger $1.8-$2.2 trillion global shadow economy. (The other elements include counterfeiting, human trafficking, illegal wildlife/fishery/logging exports, and other illicit activities.) Cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and opioids accounted for about 60% of the illegal drug business, and marijuana and hashish-type products 40%. The ~$2 trillion estimate, if correct, would have been about 2.5% of that year’s $77 trillion global GDP.

(c) How many drug users are there, and which countries are the largest narcotics markets? UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime’s annual World Drug Report reviews production, transport, health, and other policy matters, and also estimates users counts worldwide.  Their most recent guesses:  209.2 million users of cannabis, 61.3 million of opioids, 34.1 million of amphetamines and other stimulants, 31.1 million of opiates, and 21.5 million of cocaine.  The analysis of use in UNODC’s 2022 report covers regions rather than countries, but suggests (though not stating explicitly) that the U.S. is the world’s largest narcotics market and largest importer: “North America” is the largest market for cocaine and amphetamines, and at par with Asia for opioids.  By population, comparing HHS user estimates for the U.S. to the UN’s worldwide estimates, American narcotics use seems slightly above the world average rate for amphetamines (2.6 million of the UN’s 34.1 million users), below the average for heroin and other opiates, and well above average for fentanyl-type opioids and cocaine.  Read more in the UNODC’s World Drug Report 2022.

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank Progressive Economy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007).  He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week

PPI Statement on Student Debt Cancellation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future project at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following statement regarding President Biden’s executive order to cancel up to $20,000 of student debt for most borrowers:

“We are disappointed that the Biden administration has caved in to left-wing demands to pursue mass debt cancellation through executive action. This decision will cost taxpayers much more money than the Inflation Reduction Act will save for the foreseeable future and undermine the administration’s claim that it is doing everything it can to bring rising prices under control.

“Whether it’s through inflation today, or higher taxes and spending cuts tomorrow, workers who don’t reap the benefits of a college education will bear the costs of canceling debt for those who do. Policymakers should instead be focusing on finding ways to control the underlying problem of skyrocketing tuition and provide stronger post-secondary pathways to good jobs that are more affordable and flexible than a traditional four-year degree.

“Attempting to grant mass debt cancellation by executive order also risks setting a dangerous precedent that would allow future presidents to unilaterally spend over a trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money without explicit approval from their representatives in the House and Senate. Congress and the courts must set clear guardrails to prevent future presidents from abusing their discretion and usurping the power of the purse.”

Read More on student debt cancellation from PPI:

Six Reasons Biden Should Not Cancel Student Debt
Broad Student Debt Cancellation Would Backfire
The Right Way To Do Student Debt Relief

Listen to Ben’s recent TV and radio interviews on student debt cancellation.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Ritz for The Hill: Six reasons Biden should not cancel student debt

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Ben Ritz

Next week, President Biden’s executive order imposing a freeze on student loan repayments and interest accrual is set to expire. It’s almost guaranteed that the president will extend the freeze for a fifth time because no effort has been made to notify borrowers that payments are resuming, and to do so now would be providing too little time to prepare.

But in addition to extending the current freeze, Biden is under tremendous pressure from a years-long campaign by leftwing activists to cancel at least $10,000 of debt per borrower under a certain income threshold. This is a regressive and fiscally irresponsible demand likely to further estrange Democrats from working-class voters. Here are six reasons why he should develop a plan to resume payments in a timely manner that doesn’t include mass debt cancelation by executive order.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

Big transformative change is sometimes slow

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Earlier this month, a new report showed that the United States reached the lowest uninsured rate ever recorded, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This was the result of Democrat persistence of the last decade: the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the subsequent Medicaid expansions, the additional subsidies for ACA plans passed under Biden, and because throughout the pandemic, people have kept their Medicaid coverage.

In 2009, before the ACA was passed, roughly 50.7 million people, 16.7% of population, were uninsured. Today, despite narrow majorities and Republican opposition, the uninsured rate is half that. Since the passage of the ACA, 38 states and the District of Columbia expanded their Medicaid programs to cover people up to 138% of the federal poverty level. During the pandemic, in exchange for increased funds from the federal government, states were asked not to disenroll people from Medicaid. As a result, more people have received coverage and kept it over the past 2.5 years.

Medicaid expansion improves access to health care, financial security, and health outcomes. The states that have expanded the program have lower uninsured rates, better hospital budgets, and lower mortality rates compared to states who haven’t.

While more people were receiving Medicaid coverage, President Biden and Congress pushed to enhance the subsidies for ACA plans for people in the individual market. The expanded subsidies were recently extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act, and will save the average enrollee $800 per year. This led to approximately 2 million additional enrollees in ACA plans, increasing it to its highest ever enrollment of 14.5 million people.

But there is evidence that these policies will continue to grow. More states are considering Medicaid expansion: The Supreme Court made Medicaid expansion optional more than a decade ago and the question of expansion has seemed to be stuck in the mud in recent years. But, there is evidence that some of the last holdouts are beginning to warm to the idea as some rural hospitals have struggled to survive. Expanding Medicaid in the 12 non-expansion states would bring health care coverage to 3.7 million people and reduce the already low uninsured rate by a third. The remaining uninsured are largely low-income families, undocumented workers, and people who churn between coverage options.

Lasting change is hard, and in the U.S. our system is designed to make large, systemic change nearly impossible. But when lawmakers can coalesce around a policy, and build on it with time, big transformative change is possible. The ACA started by plugging holes in our current system: it created a marketplace for people who don’t have coverage through work, expanded Medicaid, and tweaked some Medicare programs. In the years since, lawmakers have built on the success of those policies, and today we are seeing the fruits of those efforts.

The work isn’t done: The system still costs far too much and doesn’t deliver high quality results for everyone. But the groundwork has been laid and it’s important to note how far we’ve come.

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Energy makes up nearly a fifth of U.S. exports this year

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

FACT: Energy makes up nearly a fifth of U.S. exports this year.

THE NUMBERS: Energy share of U.S. merchandise exports –

2022*   18.1%
2021    16.8%
2020   10.5%
2010    6.4%
2000    1.7%
1932    13.2%**
* Six months of available data, January-June 2022
** Previous record

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

Export growth figures are usually boring and small: A 2.3% growth rate might suggest a weak year; 7.5% or 10.2% a very good one; a drop of -2% would be exceptionally bad. Here are this year’s U.S. natural gas export rates to a string of European countries, based on the data available for the first six months of 2022:

 

Sweden 884%
Belgium 588%
Spain 394%
Italy 357%
France 352%
Poland 347%
Lithuania 274%
Netherlands 175%
U.K. 155%

 

What is going on here? Three things, one transitory and the other two suggesting an accelerating revolution in energy trade:

(a) The usual answer in natural-resource trade is the commodity markets. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, oil prices are up from $41.30 to $107 per barrel since 2020, and the International Monetary Fund’s index of natural gas prices is nine times its 2020 level. These effects are typically transitory – with prices up, export money goes up too; when they go back down, export earnings fall with them.

(b) The U.S. produces much more energy than before, propelled by investments made during the high-price China boom era, circa 2004-2012. The Department of Energy’s figures (measured by energy content) show U.S. production of oil, natural gas, and renewable energy up from 41 quadrillion BTUs in 2010 to 71 quadrillion BTUs in 2021. With a lot more available, the U.S. is accordingly exporting more than ever before.

(c) Russia is no longer a reliable supplier. Russia’s use of energy supply as a political tool has convinced European buyers to find new sources, as PPI’s Paul Bledsoe very presciently advised three months before the invasion of Ukraine.  American liquefied natural gas (LNG) is the logical replacement on security grounds, and a lower-methane emissions option as well). Louisiana in particular, home to two of the U.S.’ seven LNG terminals, has seen its exports double in two years; Gov. Edwards, noting that “market forces disrupting the world economy are creating a historic opportunity for our state,” plans a set of new infrastructure investments to help make the shift permanent.

Taken together, the figures reveal an incipient revolution in world energy trade. At 16.8% of American merchandise exports in 2021, and 18.1% through June of 2022, energy is already well above the 89-year-old record set in the Hoover administration. (At 13.2%, or $208 million of that year’s Depression-shrunken $1.58 billion in total U.S. exports.) Internationally, having surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia last year, the U.S. is the world’s largest energy* exporter for the first time in a century. The dollar figures look like this:

2022    $420 billion?**
2021     $240 billion
2020      $151 billion
2015      $105 billion
2010       $82 billion
2000       $13 billion

*  Crude and refined petroleum, natural gas, coal, electricity, other.
** Annualized based on six months of available data.

A graph from the Energy Information Administration (link below):

 

 

FUTURE READINGS:

PPI’s Paul Bledsoe on natural gas exports, lower-methane emissions, and European/Asian security:

December 2021, on Europe’s ability to reduce overall emissions and ease a security threat by replacing Russian with American natural gas.

And following up, June 2022, on cleaner/less dangerous energy for Asia.

Two takes from Louisiana: 

Governor John Bel Edwards and associates on European markets, infrastructure development, and Louisiana export growth.

And the Acadian Advocate looks at soaring LNG shipments from the six U.S. LNG terminals.

Data and a bit of explanation:

The Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration explains liquefied natural gas.

… and tracks U.S. energy imports and exports.

The European Union’s Eurostat on energy imports from Russia (though only through 2021).

Sweden’s Energy Ministry reviews vulnerability to Russian energy coercion, March 2022.

 

 

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank Progressive Economy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007).  He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week

PPI Announces Hiring of Louie Kahn as New Congressional Communications Fellow, Supporting the New Democrat Coalition

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Kahn will be placed within the New Democrat Coalition for a one-year period to support NDC’s communications efforts 

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) announced Louie Kahn has been hired as its second Congressional Communications Fellow, supporting the office of the New Democrat Coalition (NDC). This is a year-long fellowship, which supports Congress’s most important ideological caucus.

“I am excited to join the New Dem team and look forward to strengthening my communication skills while helping advance the goals of the Coalition,” said Louie Kahn. “As I continue pursuing a Master’s degree in Public Policy, I am eager to learn more about the inner workings of the legislative process and work where the fields of policy and communications intersect.”

PPI’s Congressional Fellowship program provides fellows with a unique opportunity to gain valuable Capitol Hill experience and learn more about the legislative process by working within the NDC. As a Communications Fellow, Kahn will report directly to NDC staff and work to support its communications team by helping draft press releases, plan public events, create social media content, and more. Prior to being selected for this fellowship, Kahn worked as a Digital Communications Fellow at PPI. He is currently studying to earn his Masters Degree in Public Policy at The George Washington University.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

The New Democrat Coalition is comprised of 99 forward-thinking House Democrats committed to pro-economic growth, pro-innovation, and fiscally responsible policies. Learn more about the Coalition and its members by visiting newdemocratcoalition.house.gov.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Marshall for The Hill: Where’s the progressive plan to fix government?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Will Marshall, President and Founder of PPI

 

More than 100 election deniers have won Republican primaries across the country this year. It’s a woeful reminder that former President Trump’s seditious assault on U.S. democracy didn’t end with his followers’ failed coup attempt on Jan. 6, 2021.

This ominous trend makes the midterm elections much more than a referendum on President Biden’s job performance. But Republican extremism isn’t the only threat to our democracy.

A more subtle but corrosive danger is nosediving public confidence in the federal government’s ability to function effectively. According to the Pew Research Center, only 19 percent of Americans say they trust Washington to do the right thing “most of the time.” That’s near the historic low point in public confidence since Pew started measuring it in 1958.

At the same time, solid majorities of Americans believe government should play a “major role” in tackling national problems. Their qualms about government are practical, not ideological; centering more on its performance than its size.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

Inflationary state use of American Rescue Plan funds creates fiscal dangers

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARP) passed in March 2021 provided $525 billion in COVID-19 relief to states and local governments, including $350 billion in Fiscal Recovery Funds (FRF) to prevent budget constraints from forcing public services cuts as they did after the 2008 recession. However, many states have ended up with budget surpluses as the economic situation has improved and are now debating the best uses for extra revenue, with some deciding to finance inflationary policies such as tax cuts and stimulus checks. States that are not doing so already should shift their uses of FRF to long-term investment and COVID-19 relief, which will not worsen inflation or create budgetary burdens in future years.

When the ARP was passed, states were given flexibility with funding use, but there were a few federal strings attached. These included prohibitions on making tax cuts above a certain size, funding public employee pensions, and paying off existing debts. However, many states have fought against the prohibition on tax cuts, with attorneys general in 21 states attempting to overturn it. State officials claim that tax cuts will provide consumers with additional resources to compensate for rising prices, but these tax cuts will only worsen inflation rates as people effectively bid up prices. No doubt tax cuts are popular, but states shouldn’t be using federal relief dollars to pump up demand, thereby contributing to a worsening inflationary cycle.

Tax cuts will also damage the states’ long-term fiscal health. After the 2008 recession, states faced funding shortfalls that resulted in public service cuts. This is precisely what the federal government sought to avoid with the ARP. State tax cuts will undermine this goal because some states have constitutional obstacles to raising taxes, like referenda or supermajority requirements, that make it harder politically to reverse tax cuts than to enact them. As a result, states are increasingly likely to face revenue shortfalls once ARP funding is exhausted.

Although Republican-controlled states are leading the tax-cutting craze, other states are pursuing inflationary policies as well. For example, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has proposed giving Californians $400 for every car owned by the household to defray sky-high gas prices. By insulating people from gas price spikes, this proposal would boost demand, putting upward pressure on prices just as they are beginning to fall back to earth. This proposal also comes with a high opportunity cost. As PPI’s Ben Ritz wrote recently for Forbes, the cost of this new fuel subsidy could pay for COVID-19 tests, vaccines, and treatments for the entire nation.

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled government in Georgia approved stimulus checks of up to $500 for constituents, and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) has supported a planned gas tax suspension in October, which would cost $200 million. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle need to focus on their states’ fiscal well-being and keeping prices down instead of throwing federal dollars at their constituents.

The best way for states to help get inflation under control would be to pump the brakes on all un-offset spending for the foreseeable future. But since the federal government is requiring them to spend down their FRF within the next two years, and no governor is likely to leave that money on the table, states should focus on the most effective uses of funds which will improve long-term economic outcomes.

For example, states should start by fully funding public services if they are still experiencing revenue losses resulting from the pandemic. But because the ARP gave states far more money than they needed to fill budget shortfalls, relief funds will mostly need to be spent on new purposes. States should prioritize continuing the fight against COVID-19 infections, particularly as the highly contagious BA-5 variant spreads. More tests, treatments, and vaccines are needed, along with investments in medical facilities and equipment such as ventilators and PPE.

States could also use FRF for mental health and violence prevention programs. As of March 2022, the pandemic had caused a 25% increase in the prevalence of anxiety and depression as people faced fear, isolation, and grief. Increases in violence have also been observed, particularly in domestic violence against women who were isolated with their abusers, and in gun violence as structural inequities fueling gun violence worsened. Along with measures to fight COVID-19 infections, mental health and violence prevention programs can improve and even save lives, making them a worthwhile use of funding.

Another good use of FRF would be responding to pandemic-induced economic losses. Low-income households bore the brunt of COVID-19 deaths and job losses. They face the largest barriers to recovery and ought to be the focus of relief efforts. Investment in education is sorely needed to deal with steep learning losses for kids as well as many parents’ long absences from labor markets. Temporary expansions of tutoring and job apprenticeship programs can be scaled back more easily than tax cuts can be repealed.

Finally, states should use spare ARP funds to make one-time investments in infrastructure that will support economic growth for years to come. For example, business and school closings during the pandemic drove home the need for greater access to broadband. While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is providing funding for many new projects, ARP funding gives states the flexibility to meet the immediate needs of their communities without having to apply for specific grants. Investing in infrastructure, especially with one-time investments which will not create burdens in future years, will benefit citizens without harming states’ fiscal health or worsening inflation.

States should focus on projects that will not burden their budgets once FRF runs out and which will help citizens still battling the effects of the pandemic. Making investments in future economic growth and public service delivery, while continuing to fight COVID-19 infections, is a wiser course for states than burning through a one-time federal windfall.

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Greenland is losing 280 billion tons of ice each year

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

FACT: Greenland is losing 280 billion tons of ice each year.

THE NUMBERS: Volumes of fresh water –

Total worldwide:                  ~40.0 million cubic km
Antarctic ice sheets:             ~24.7 million cubic km
Groundwater & permafrost:  ~12.0 million cubic km
Greenland ice sheet:               ~2.9 million cubic km
Glaciers and ice-caps:              ~0.1 million cubic km
Lakes, ponds and rivers:          ~0.1 million cubic km

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

As Congress concludes its work on the “Inflation Reduction Act,” with its arrays of decarbonization and clean industry programs, a note from NASA’s climate program at Caltech:

“The mass of the Greenland ice sheet has rapidly declined in the last several years due to surface melting and iceberg calving. Research based on observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites (2002-2017) and GRACE Follow-On (since 2018) indicates that between 2002 and 2021, Greenland shed approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, causing global sea level to rise by 0.03 inches (0.8 millimeters) per year.”

How much water is this exactly? According to a rough estimate published by the U.S. Geological Survey, the world’s store of fresh water — all the glaciers, ice sheets, lakes, rivers, and groundwater combined — is about 40 million cubic kilometers by volume. About three fifths of this, or 24.7 cubic kms, is locked up in the 30-million-year-old Antarctic ice sheets. Ground water adds 12 million cubic kms. Greenland’s ice sheet — about 2.7 million years old and averaging a mile in height — holds about 2.9 million cubic kms. By volume and height, this makes the ice sheet something like the Mediterranean Sea suspended a few feet above the Arctic Ocean. Alternatively, Greenland holds about 15 times as much fresh water as the 0.2 million cubic kms of liquid in all the picturesque and historic lakes, rivers, and mountain glaciers of the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and smaller islands combined.

How much, then, is 280 gigatons of ice? By one comparison, converted into liquid this would be about half the 530 gigatons of water flowing down the Mississippi River each year. By another, given that by arithmetic the Greenland ice sheet weighs about 2.9 quadrillion tons, losing 280 billion tons means that about 0.01% of it, or one ten-thousandth, is melting off each year. This is likely to accelerate: A recent survey published by the National Academy of Sciences estimates that expected warming through 2100 is likely to melt enough of it to raise sea levels by one meter, implying loss of about an eighth of the ice sheet or twice the above-ground fresh water outside Antarctica. Melting all of it would raise sea levels by about 24 feet, and require about 1000 years under current climate-change trajectory.* So, Congress’ action this week is perhaps not very timely, but it is also not too late.

* The presumably less likely case of an Antarctic ice-sheet melt would raise the seas by 190 feet.

 

FUTURE READINGS:

Flight  

NASA’s GRACE project at Caltech monitors Greenland ice sheet melt rates.

Danish research program EastGrip is a 30-person team investigating the behavior of the ice sheet through radar, drilling for ice cores to a depth of 2500 meters (1.5 miles), and surface observations to understand past climate effects on ice sheets, chemical content at various levels, melting and internal ice flows, etc.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on likely future melting trends.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center’s “Greenland Ice Sheet Today” bulletin shows surface melting at “moderate” levels compared to 2020 and 2021, principally along the western/southern coastal strip with some on the far northern coast.

… and also from the NSIDC, a look at adaptation in southern Greenland polar bear populations.

And the U.S. Geological Survey counts the world’s fresh water.

Policy: 

The Senate Democratic Caucus summarizes the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy and climate change provisions.

The White House’s Office of Science & Technology Policy announces Arctic policies.

And more about Greenland:

The world’s largest island and undisputed fresh-water superpower is roughly one-fifth the size of the United States, and 80% covered by ice. About 56,000 people — 6,000 Danes, 50,000 Inuit — live on the actually “green” bits. Administered by Denmark since 1721, in constitutional terms Greenland is a politically autonomous kingdom under the Danish monarchy, with a right in theory to declare independence. The odd interlude in which the Trump administration suddenly proposed to “buy” it four years ago rested on a complex set of concerns about access to potentially large mineral lodes (Greenland is thought to be home to an array of rare-earth metals useful in clean-energy manufacturing but potentially damaging to mine, as well as messy to mine; also gold, silver, zinc, tantalum, etc.) along with concerns about Arctic sea lanes and intelligence surveillance.  For now, Greenland’s main industry is about $1 billion in cold-water fisheries for snow crab, cold-water shrimp, turbot, halibut, and other northern catch.

The Greenland government’s page, evidently only in Greenlandic (an Inuit language) and Danish.

Denmark reviews mineral resources.

U.S. policy, via the Embassy in Copenhagen.

The NYT looks at metal ores and mining.

…while NPR catalogues big-power interests and motives in the far north.

Perspective from the Inuit Circumpolar Council, with indigenous reps. from the U.S., Canada, Greenland, Denmark, Finland, and (still) Russia.

And the 10-day weather report for Nuuk (50°F and wet all week).

 

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank Progressive Economy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007).  He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week

Shapiro for The Hill: New Digital Privacy Bills Won’t Protect Women Seeking Abortions

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Jordan Shapiro, Economic and Data Policy Analyst

 

Digital privacy laws are not ready for a post-Roe v. Wade future. New bills circulating on the Hill are an important step toward safeguarding Americans’ personal data, but they are not a panacea to protect women seeking an abortion or the friends and family members who might be supporting them, or even just know of their intentions.

It’s no secret that today, personal and health data about human preferences, location, characteristics and behavior are collected through phones, apps, websites, advertisements, internet sites and service providers; if a device is connected to the internet, it probably collects user data. These data are used to provide helpful information and services, but as the United States lacks universal digital privacy protections, firms are solely responsible for data privacy and security.

At the same time, law enforcement has wide latitude to purchase and request personal data from companies. They can obtain a court order about a particular crime and companies are obliged to provide information related to the crime, some companies have made special portals to more easily provide data. Even without a court order, law enforcement can purchase bulk data from data brokers about suspected crimes or general surveillance. These data can contain location information, internet searches queries, among other personal information. Companies can push back but with a court order or subpoena are obliged to comply with law enforcement.

Surveillance of this nature has historically enjoyed wide support as protection against terrorism and other societal harms. But the combination of prolific personal data collection and law enforcement surveillance are predicated on the assurance that data about everyday interactions and behaviors are not under scrutiny by law enforcement. The overturning of Roe v. Wade calls this trust into question.

Read the full piece in The Hill.

How the Good Jobs Challenge provides opportunities and invests in workforce development

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

The past two years have caused unprecedented economic disruption. The pandemic resulted in the displacement of workers and changed the way we work forever, in addition to creating new jobs through technological advancement.

These transformations have had serious workforce implications — changing the skills workers need to be relevant, leaving employers with unfilled positions, and altering the makeup of regional economies. Yet for some time, there was little action from federal policymakers to address these challenges. While many states, local governments, community colleges, workforce boards, and other eligible entities used their flexible stimulus funding to prioritize workforce-related efforts, federal policymakers continued to ignore the importance of investment in workforce development to help displaced workers pursue in-demand employment and help current workers navigate the new world of work.

Finally, the focus shifted with the passing of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). As part of the bill, $3 billion was allocated to the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), providing funding to support community-led economic development efforts. EDA funding included the Good Jobs Challenge, a $500 million grant program to support workforce partnerships that provide education and training opportunities and comprehensive supports to jobseekers and workers while connecting employers with the talent they need to remain competitive.

Last week, the EDA announced the 32 awardees of the Good Jobs Challenge, representing diverse geographical regions across the country. The projects focus on 15 industries that grantees want to grow and support, including agriculture and food production, energy and resilience, health care, manufacturing, and information technology.

While this is an exciting investment, the money designated to this program pales in comparison to other COVID recovery efforts focused on colleges and college-bound students. Through higher education emergency relief efforts across two administrations and two sessions of Congress, about $77 billion was distributed to aid the nation’s higher education institutions. While this money was critical to support the basic needs of students, it also demonstrates the disparity between college and non-college opportunity in this nation.

The Good Jobs Challenge is a much-needed investment that finally gets money out the door to support the unique workforce needs of communities and options outside of traditional college. It also offers a new model of public investment that is flexible, encourages a comprehensive approach to skill development, and puts employers at the center of the equation.

None of this work can be done effectively without employers. The Good Jobs Challenge aims to bring industry together with training providers, community-based organizations, and other key stakeholders to build demand-driven pathways to good jobs. The project plans to do this through public-private partnerships, leveraging public investment to incentivize employers to participate in regional workforce efforts in a robust way. Awarded projects already have employer commitment to support curriculum development, co-delivery of training, mentorship, match investments, earn and learn opportunities, and hiring commitments. Projects also prioritize sector strategies, ensuring there is a collective approach to these workforce efforts within each industry. This helps small and midsize employers participate who often don’t have the resources or capacity to offer these opportunities on their own, but are vital to regional economies, especially in small towns and rural areas.

This grant program not only better supports employers, but also looks out for working Americans. For years, working Americans — specifically those without a college degree — have faced downward mobility. This trend has only worsened, requiring increased attention from federal policymakers. The Good Jobs Challenge is a step in the right direction. Awardees are not only developing critical talent development and career support strategies for these individuals, but they are also offering comprehensive wraparound services, prioritizing services like child care, transportation, language support, mentoring and career counseling. These are critical policies to ensure working Americans get the skills and support needed for economic advancement.

The Good Jobs announcement comes at a good time. With states and communities implementing the Investing in Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IIJA) and our nation still dealing with severe labor shortages across critical industries, communities need a plan to help Americans re-enter the workforce and advance in their careers. PPI is pleased to see a federal grant program that integrates industry throughout every step of the process while also supporting the holistic needs of jobseekers and workers. We are also happy to see a more flexible and modern approach to financing workforce development efforts, prioritizing public-private partnerships and innovative strategies that serve the unique economic needs of American communities

PPI looks forward to seeing what the Good Jobs grantees accomplish. We hope to see more equitable funding for workforce-related pathways in the future and to see federal policy replicate this pragmatic approach to public investment.

PPI Lauds Passage of the Inflation Reduction Act

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released the following statement:

“The Progressive Policy Institute applauds Senate Democrats for passing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This historic bill will help combat the climate crisis and promote American energy security with the largest investment in clean energy ever. The health care provisions will reduce costs for millions of families. New resources to help the IRS crack down on tax cheats will reverse the defunding of our tax police and ensure all Americans pay their fair share. And the bill would not only cover the cost of these policies, it would also reduce deficits by more than a quarter trillion dollars over the coming decade, which will help bring inflation under control.

“As is the case for most bills, the Inflation Reduction Act is not perfect. Its deficit reduction depends on a flawed plan to outsource tax policy to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, a private organization that solely exists to serve the information needs of investors rather than determine an economically efficient tax base. Other, better revenue-raisers were dropped, leaving the bill’s modest savings unable to offset the deficit increases created by legislation Congress passed just last month. And we’re sorry that many other progressive priorities we advocated for throughout the reconciliation process, such as closing the Medicaid coverage gap, could not be included.

“But the final bill is still far better than the mishmash of half-baked social programs and irresponsible budget gimmicks that many on the left were pushing earlier in the reconciliation process. PPI is proud of the role our Reconciling with Reality framework and analysis of various proposals played in shaping this historic legislation. We thank Senator Manchin, Leader Schumer, Speaker Pelosi, President Biden, and all the other lawmakers whose leadership contributed to this great outcome.

“The Inflation Reduction Act, together with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the CHIPS and Science Act, represents the largest increase in public investment since the Johnson administration – it is a historic accomplishment for Democratic leaders in Washington. Now we urge them to finish the job by passing the permitting reform legislation they’ve promised to cut red tape, maximize taxpayers’ bang for their buck, and get these critical investments built in a timely manner. We also hope that additional legislation and executive orders they pursue later this year will build upon rather than squander the Inflation Reduction Act’s hard-earned deficit reduction.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

PPI’s Trade Fact of the Week: Over 100 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced from their homes

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

FACT: Over 100 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced from their homes.

THE NUMBERS: UNHCR’s annual counts of refugees, internally displaced people, asylum seekers, and others forced from their homes –

2022        103 million
2021          89 million
2020          82 million
2016          65 million
2012          42 million

 

WHAT THEY MEAN:

From Matthew 2:13, the “Flight to Egypt” story:

“An angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod.”

In modern legal terms, the family would be “refugees”, under the relevant 1951 U.N. Convention: people who have crossed a national border “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” and cannot safely return home. The passage does not recount the family’s reception in Egypt, then a Roman province, though the implication is that they found a place to live and a temporary livelihood. An announcement from the University of Maryland’s Rosham Center for Persian Studies (a 15-year-old center for Persian language and cultural study) provides a modern parallel, combining government support and policy with non-profit charities and individual volunteerism:

“Afghan refugees are currently the largest refugee population in the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia area served by the International Rescue Committee. While making the difficult adjustment to life in a new country they frequently struggle with a variety of problems, including social isolation/integration into the community, developing English language skills, and learning about local community resources and American culture.  UMD students chosen to participate in the ARA Program as ARA interns help our new Afghan neighbors during their transition into their new life in America while themselves benefiting from the opportunity to learn more about Afghan Persian culture and the Dari dialect of Persian spoken in Afghanistan. ARA interns also receive training in refugee care from the IRC and additional training in Afghan culture and Dari (Persian) from Roshan-UMD faculty.”

Background: The U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) keeps an annual count of refugees, along with “internally displaced” people (i.e., those forced to leave home for similar reasons but who have not crossed an international border), and several other categories* of people forced from homes by violence or threat of persecution.  The steadily rising tallies over the last decade, and the acceleration of their growth in the last five years, are a human index of deteriorating world peace and security:

 

  • In 2012, UNHCR counted 41.8 million ‘forcibly displaced’ people, including 10.5 million refugees, 26.4 million internally displaced people, 10.5 million cross-border refugees, and 5.8 million in other classifications.
  • By the end of 2016, this count had risen to 65 million, including 17 million refugees, 40 million internally displaced people, and 8 million other.
  • Five years later, at the end of 2021, the count was at 89 million, pushed up by a series of state breakdowns and civil wars: overthrows of elected governments in Afghanistan and Burma, Russian military intervention in Syria, civil wars in Ethiopia and Yemen, economic collapse in Venezuela. UNHCR’s end-2021 “Global Trends” report finds that children made up 40% of this total, or 36.5 million boys and girls.
  • By mid-2022, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had raised the total above 100 million for the first time, with 4.6 million Ukrainians now refugees and another 6.5 million internally displaced, along with an additional 367,000 in Myanmar and 270,000 in Burkina Faso.

 

Parallel to this is a second story of tenuous hope for shelter and resettlement.  Six countries now host nearly half the world’s refugees: Turkey with 3.8 million, Colombia with 1.8 million, Pakistan and Uganda with 1.5 million each, Germany and Poland with 1.3 million each. In the United States, roughly three million Americans (including two currently serving Members of Congress) came to the U.S. as refugees, and are now permanent residents or citizens. From the turn of the century to 2016, the State Department was admitting 27,000-85,000 refugees per year for resettlement, which was roughly 3% to 8% of net immigration, depending on the year.  The Trump administration cut admissions to 11,411 in FY2021, the lowest level since passage of the 1980 U.S. law defining refugee eligibility. The count has rebounded a bit since, with 15,100 arriving from the beginning of the Fiscal Year in September 2021 through June 2022, including the Afghans now acclimatizing at the University. In parallel with this, the Justice Department runs a “Temporary Protected Status” program, with stays of deportation and work authorization (though not citizenship) for about 400,000 nationals of 15 countries.

* Other classifications in UNHCR’s count of forcibly displaced people include Palestinians in the U.N. Relief and Works Administration’s jurisdiction, asylum seekers, and Venezuelans displaced abroad.

 

FUTURE READINGS:

Flight  

UNHCR reports over 100 million people forcibly displaced from homes worldwide.

… also notes 20-year trends, main source countries, countries with the largest incoming populations, and more.

… and summarizes country situations in:

Ukraine

Afghanistan

Syria

Ethiopia

Venezuela

Burma

Shelter 

The Justice Department’s Temporary Protected Status data.

The State Department’s refugee resettlement program site.

… and State Dept data on refugee resettlement from FY2000 through FY2022 (through June). The largest arriving groups for the first nine months of FY2022: 3,735 from Congo (DROC), 3,525 from Syria, 1,308 from Sudan, 1,129 from Burma, 1,028 from Ukraine, and 846 from Afghanistan.

The Department Health and Human Services explains available services.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on sponsoring Ukrainian refugee arrivals.

And the University of Maryland’s Rosham Center explains its Afghan refugee support program.

And resettlement 

Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., on growing up in a refugee family and support for Afghan allies of the U.S.

Minnesota’s Hmong community celebrates a local girl.

Delaware encourages refugee business creation.

And Atlanta does the same.

D.C.’s African refugee community runs a family support and job center for newly arrived Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syrian and others.

 

ABOUT ED

Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.

Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.

Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank Progressive Economy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.

Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007).  He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.

Read the full email and sign up for the Trade Fact of the Week