Thinking About the Women in Think Tanks

Aug 4, 2014Hannah Zhang

Women are still lagging behind their male counterparts in the policy arena, and changing that requires engaging younger women.

Women are still lagging behind their male counterparts in the policy arena, and changing that requires engaging younger women.

In recent years, several prominent women have replaced their male predecessors in top think tank leadership positions. Last year, Anne-Marie Slaughter replaced Steve Coll as president of the New America Foundation; in 2011, Neera Tanden took over for John Podesta as president of the Center for American Progress. In early 2012, Felicia Wong took over as President and CEO here at the Roosevelt Institute, replacing Andy Rich. While these women leaders are touted as examples of greater female representation in public policy, this is hardly the full picture.

Women are taking on leadership roles in think tank management, but men still dominate the thinking roles, making up the majority of scholars and “Senior Fellows” who influence policy. According to their public rosters, only a quarter of CAP fellows, 19 of 59 Brookings Institution experts, 20 out of 65 fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations, and seven of 33 Heritage Foundation fellows are women. In academia, an incubator of think tank experts, women hold only 24 percent of tenured positions at doctoral-granting institutions, and merely 19 percent of tenured full professor positions.

Perhaps contrary to common assumption, women’s lack of representation in think tanks isn’t due to their lack of academic expertise. In fact, women are quickly edging to surpass men in higher education. The World Economic Forum’s 2013 Gender Gap Report ranked the United States number one for gender equality in educational attainment among more than 130 countries. Last year, 31.4 percent of American women 25 years and over had completed college, compared to 32 percent of men. 27,300 men and 27,600 women received doctoral degrees.

Why does equal education attainment fail to translate into equal representation in policy research institutions?

Possible answers to this question range from women having more family obligations to self-selecting against policy areas like defense and finance. Other potential explanations include difficulty securing mentorship early in their careers and systemic biases.

A related problem is the lack of women in political positions, since many policy wonks rise from the ranks of former politicians and government officials. Less than 20 percent of federal and state legislators are women. They occupy only six of 23 cabinet and cabinet-level positions. If fewer women enter politics, fewer women join think tanks after serving their term.

We may be able to find a better answer in looking at a woman’s career ambitions, where a fundamental gap exists between young men and women’s political ambitions. The School of Public Affairs at American University conducted a survey last year of more than 2,100 college students ages 18 to 25 and found that young women are less likely to be socialized by their parents to consider politics as a career path and less likely to think they will be qualified to run for office.

Yet we need young women more than ever to step up and ensure that the next generation of American policymakers remains committed to full gender equality. According to a recent World Bank Report, women’s participation in government results in greater responsiveness to citizen needs and policies that prioritize families and women. When at least a quarter of a country’s legislators were women, laws discriminating against women were more likely to be repealed.

We cannot change existing structures in governments and think tanks today. Rather, we must invest in women of the future to change the gender gap in political ambition. Currently, a number of programs exist that encourage young women to run for office, develop female graduate students in public policy, or offer brief leadership trainings for college women. However, these programs lack a long-term support network to engage undergraduate women in public policy at the beginning of their careers.

With chapters at 115 colleges and universities, the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network is well positioned to fill this gap, beginning with the Eleanor Roosevelt Policy Initiative. This summer, the Campus Network is hosting an essay contest on gender equality, selecting six young people to attend the Women and Girls Rising Conference. In September, the winners will engage with prominent activists, officials, and scholars on the past and future of international women’s movements.

Following the conference, these individuals will continue to work with the Campus Network on promoting young women in policy spheres. To move forward with a vision of equality, we must tell young women today that their ideas are vital in creating stable governments and societies of tomorrow.

If you are a current college student or recent graduate, enter the contest here

Hannah Zhang interned for the Roosevelt Institute's Women and Girls Rising initiative as a Summer Academy Fellow this year. She is Campus Network's External Relations Coordinator for the Northeast.

Share This

Gar Alperovitz: The Worker-Owned Small Business Revolution

Aug 4, 2014

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, political economist Gar Alperovitz speculates on what could happen if workers claim power over small businesses.

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, political economist Gar Alperovitz speculates on what could happen if workers claim power over small businesses.

Gar Alperovitz, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Maryland, describes the potential for a future economic revolution: starting in Cleveland, small businesses will democratize ownership. From there, the model will spread to cities across the country. As MBAs begin to understand that productivity in worker-owned companies is higher than in traditional firms, the movement will continue to grow.

Share This

Daily Digest - August 1: Too Big to Fail vs. Too Small to Matter

Aug 1, 2014

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

An In-Depth Look at Campaign Finance Reform (MSNBC)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

An In-Depth Look at Campaign Finance Reform (MSNBC)

In this extended online segment, Roosevelt Institute Fellow Dorian Warren speaks with Zephyr Teachout about using multiple matching funds as a tool to increase the power of small donors.

Playing the ‘Who’s the Boss?’ Game with Employees (WaPo)

The National Labor Relations Board ruling that McDonald's can be held accountable for franchise labor violations sheds light on the ways employers try to dodge responsibility, writes Catherine Rampell.

  • Roosevelt Take: Roosevelt Institute President and CEO Felicia Wong and Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch commented on the NLRB decision earlier this week.

‘Pension Smoothing’: The Gimmick Both Parties in Congress Love (NYT)

Josh Barro says pension smoothing, which increases revenues by allowing smaller pension contributions, and other gimmicks provide funding on too-short timelines, requiring another hunt for funds soon after.

Feds Say Big Banks Are Still Too Big to Fail (MoJo)

Despite Dodd-Frank's financial regulations, a new Government Accountability Office report says investors still expect bailouts if the largest banks fail, giving those banks advantages over smaller ones, writes Erika Eichelberger.

Hope Springs Eternal, But The Data Is Actually Pretty Mixed About Whether Or Not Recovery Is Accelerating (Working Economics)

Josh Bivens cautions against excitement about GDP and job growth as signs of a speedier recovery. The data isn't actually that strong, and he sees the potential for job growth to slow.

New on Next New Deal

Let's Hope the GAO Report Ends the Too-Big-to-Fail Subsidy Distraction

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal writes that the existence of a too-big-to-fail subsidy isn't as important or potentially destructive as the systemic problems of the financial system.

Education Left Behind

Edyta Obrzut, the Campus Network's NextGen Illinois Research Fellow, examines the challenges facing education policy in Illinois today, and the potential solutions put forward by NextGen caucuses.

Share This

The GAO Can't Distinguish Between a Good and a Bad Liquidation

Aug 1, 2014Mike Konczal

To emphasize a point I made yesterday, we need to think of ending Too Big To Fail (TBTF) as a continuum rather a simple yes-no binary. The process of failing a large financial firm through the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) can go very well, or it could go very poorly. It's important to understand that the recent GAO report, arguing that the TBTF subsidy has largely diminished, is incapable of telling the difference.

What would make for a successful termination of a failed financial firm under OLA? To start, bankruptcy court would be a serious option as a first response. Assuming that didn't work, capital in the firm is structured in such a way that facilitates a successful process. There's sufficient loss-absorbing capital both to take losses and give regulators options in the resolution. There's also sufficient liquidity, both within the firm due to strong new capital requirements and through accountable lender-of-last-resort lending, that prevents a panic from destroying whatever baseline solvency is in the firm. As a result, less public funding is necessary to achieve the goals.

Living wills actually work, and allow the firm to be resolved in a quick and timely manner. The recapitalization is sufficient to repay any public funding without having to assess the financial industry as a whole. There's no problems with international coordination, and the ability of the FDIC to act as a receiver for derivatives contracts is standardized and clear in advance, reducing legal uncertainty.

That's a lot! And it's a story about what could go right or wrong that is becoming more and more prevalent in the reform community [1]. Let's chart it out, along with the opposite happening.

Again, from the point of view of the GAO report, these are identical scenarios. Both would impose credit losses on firms. Thus the GAO's empirical model, scanning and predicting interest rates spreads to imply credit risk, picks up both scenarios the same way. Whether OLA goes smoothly or is a disaster doesn't matter. But from the point of view of taxpayers, those trying to deal with the uncertainty and panic that would come with such a scenario, and the economy as a whole, the bad scenario is a major disaster. And we are nowhere near the point where success can be taken for granted. Tightening the regulations we have is necessary to making the successful scenario more likely, and the apparent lack of a subsidy should not distract us from this.

 

[1] Note the common similarities along these lines in the critical discussion of OLA from across the entire reform spectrum. You can see this story in different forms in Stephen Lubben's "OLA After Single Point of Entry: Has Anything Changed?" for the Unfinished Mission project,  the comment letter from the Systemic Risk Council, Too Big to Fail: The Path to a Solution from the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the "Failing to End Too Big to Fail" report from the Republican Staff of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

To emphasize a point I made yesterday, we need to think of ending Too Big To Fail (TBTF) as a continuum rather a simple yes-no binary. The process of failing a large financial firm through the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA) can go very well, or it could go very poorly. It's important to understand that the recent GAO report, arguing that the TBTF subsidy has largely diminished, is incapable of telling the difference.

What would make for a successful termination of a failed financial firm under OLA? To start, bankruptcy court would be a serious option as a first response. Assuming that didn't work, capital in the firm is structured in such a way that facilitates a successful process. There's sufficient loss-absorbing capital both to take losses and give regulators options in the resolution. There's also sufficient liquidity, both within the firm due to strong new capital requirements and through accountable lender-of-last-resort lending, that prevents a panic from destroying whatever baseline solvency is in the firm. As a result, less public funding is necessary to achieve the goals.

Living wills actually work, and allow the firm to be resolved in a quick and timely manner. The recapitalization is sufficient to repay any public funding without having to assess the financial industry as a whole. There's no problems with international coordination, and the ability of the FDIC to act as a receiver for derivatives contracts is standardized and clear in advance, reducing legal uncertainty.

That's a lot! And it's a story about what could go right or wrong that is becoming more and more prevalent in the reform community [1]. Let's chart it out, along with the opposite happening.

Again, from the point of view of the GAO report, these are identical scenarios. Both would impose credit losses on firms. Thus the GAO's empirical model, scanning and predicting interest rates spreads to imply credit risk, picks up both scenarios the same way. Whether OLA goes smoothly or is a disaster doesn't matter. But from the point of view of taxpayers, those trying to deal with the uncertainty and panic that would come with such a scenario, and the economy as a whole, the bad scenario is a major disaster. And we are nowhere near the point where success can be taken for granted. Tightening the regulations we have is necessary to making the successful scenario more likely, and the apparent lack of a subsidy should not distract us from this.

 

[1] Note the common similarities along these lines in the critical discussion of OLA from across the entire reform spectrum. You can see this story in different forms in Stephen Lubben's "OLA After Single Point of Entry: Has Anything Changed?" for the Unfinished Mission project,  the comment letter from the Systemic Risk Council, Too Big to Fail: The Path to a Solution from the Bipartisan Policy Center, and the "Failing to End Too Big to Fail" report from the Republican Staff of the House Committee on Financial Services.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

 

Share This

Let's Hope the GAO Report Ends the Too-Big-to-Fail Subsidy Distraction

Jul 31, 2014Mike Konczal

The GAO just released its long-awaited report on whether Wall Street receives an implicit subsidy for still being seen as Too Big To Fail (TBTF). I'm still working through the report, but the headline conclusion is that "large bank holding companies had lower funding costs than smaller ones during the financial crisis" and that there is "mixed evidence of such advantages in recent years. However, most models suggest that such advantages may have declined or reversed."

For a variety of reasons, whether this subsidy exists has become a major focal point in the discussion about financial reform. The Obama administration wants the headline that TBTF is over, and the President's opponents want to argue that Dodd-Frank has institutionalized bailouts. Hopefully this GAO report puts that "permanent bailouts" talking point to rest.

More generally, however, I find that there are three problems with this emphasis on a possible Wall Street subsidy in the financial reform debate:

The first is that it makes it seem like the bailouts were the only problem with the financial sector. Let's do a thought experiment: imagine that in September 2008, Lehman Brothers went crashing into bankruptcy and...nothing happened. There was no panic in interbank lending or the money market mutual funds. The Federal Reserve didn't do emergency lending, and nobody suggested that Congress pass TARP. There was nothing but crickets out there in the financial press.

Even if that had happened, we'd still have needed a massive overhaul of the financial system. Think of all the other things that went wrong: Wall Street fueled a massive housing bubble that destroyed household wealth and generated bad debts that have choked the economy for half a decade. Neighborhoods were torn apart by more than 6 million foreclosures while bankers laughed all the way to the bank. A hidden derivatives market radically distorted the price of credit risk and led to the creation of instruments designed to rip off investors. Wall Street failed at its main job -- to allocate capital to productive ends in the economy. Instead, it went on a rampage that did serious harm to investors, households, and ultimately our economy. 

TBTF is the most egregious example of the out-of-control financial system, and it's a major problem that needs to be checked. But if emphasized too much, it makes it seem as if the problem is only how much damage a firm can do to the economy when it fails. In fact, the problem is much broader than that, and solving it requires transparency in the derivatives market, consumer protections, accountability in the securities Wall Street makes and sells, a focus on actual business lines, and regulation of shadow banking as a whole, not just last rites for individual firms.

This is important because the second problem is that some will take this report as evidence that reform is just right, or has even gone too far. And scanning the coverage, I see that the commentators who are applauding the GAO's conclusions are often the same people who have said that, for instance, liquidity rules in Dodd-Frank have gone too far, or that the Volcker Rule should be tossed out. This is even as the GAO points to these provisions as necessary reforms.

We can debate whether a subsidy for failing banks exists or how big it is, but the goal of regulation should not be to fine-tune that number. The subsidy is only a symptom of much larger problems with the financial system, and the point of regulation is to build a system that works. 

Finally, the third issue is that emphasizing the subsidy makes us think of ending TBTF as a binary, check-yes-or-no, pass-fail kind of test. Again, there are political reasons for this emphasis, but TBTF isn't a switch that can be flipped on or off. Addressing the problem is an ongoing process that will be carried out through the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), and that process can be either more or less robust.

It's good that the financial markets have confidence in the OLA, but the FDIC is still crafting the living wills and the details of how they will be implemented. Major questions and challenges still remain. For instance, a rule has not yet been written to determine how much unsecured debt firms are required to carry. And conservatives are already floating the idea that a successful OLA would be a "bailout" anyway

The success of an orderly liquidation process will depend on many different factors, but we should think of it not as a binary, but as a continuum -- a continuum on which one end has more capital and slimmer business lines to protect taxpayer dollars and keep the risks contained, and the other end has us crossing our fingers and hoping that the aggregate damage isn't too bad. [UPDATE: See more on this point from me here.]

The GAO report is welcome news. We've made progress on the most outrageous problem with the financial sector. But that doesn't mean the work is done by any means.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

Header image via Thinkstock

The GAO just released its long-awaited report on whether Wall Street receives an implicit subsidy for still being seen as Too Big To Fail (TBTF). I'm still working through the report, but the headline conclusion is that "large bank holding companies had lower funding costs than smaller ones during the financial crisis" and that there is "mixed evidence of such advantages in recent years. However, most models suggest that such advantages may have declined or reversed."

For a variety of reasons, whether this subsidy exists has become a major focal point in the discussion about financial reform. The Obama administration wants the headline that TBTF is over, and the President's opponents want to argue that Dodd-Frank has institutionalized bailouts. Hopefully this GAO report puts that "permanent bailouts" talking point to rest.

More generally, however, I find that there are three problems with this emphasis on a possible Wall Street subsidy in the financial reform debate:

The first is that it makes it seem like the bailouts were the only problem with the financial sector. Let's do a thought experiment: imagine that in September 2008, Lehman Brothers went crashing into bankruptcy and...nothing happened. There was no panic in interbank lending or the money market mutual funds. The Federal Reserve didn't do emergency lending, and nobody suggested that Congress pass TARP. There was nothing but crickets out there in the financial press.

Even if that had happened, we'd still have needed a massive overhaul of the financial system. Think of all the other things that went wrong: Wall Street fueled a massive housing bubble that destroyed household wealth and generated bad debts that have choked the economy for half a decade. Neighborhoods were torn apart by more than 6 million foreclosures while bankers laughed all the way to the bank. A hidden derivatives market radically distorted the price of credit risk and led to the creation of instruments designed to rip off investors. Wall Street failed at its main job -- to allocate capital to productive ends in the economy. Instead, it went on a rampage that did serious harm to investors, households, and ultimately our economy. 

TBTF is the most egregious example of the out-of-control financial system, and it's a major problem that needs to be checked. But if emphasized too much, it makes it seem as if the problem is only how much damage a firm can do to the economy when it fails. In fact, the problem is much broader than that, and solving it requires transparency in the derivatives market, consumer protections, accountability in the securities Wall Street makes and sells, a focus on actual business lines, and regulation of shadow banking as a whole, not just last rites for individual firms.

This is important because the second problem is that some will take this report as evidence that reform is just right, or has even gone too far. And scanning the coverage, I see that the commentators who are applauding the GAO's conclusions are often the same people who have said that, for instance, liquidity rules in Dodd-Frank have gone too far, or that the Volcker Rule should be tossed out. This is even as the GAO points to these provisions as necessary reforms.

We can debate whether a subsidy for failing banks exists or how big it is, but the goal of regulation should not be to fine-tune that number. The subsidy is only a symptom of much larger problems with the financial system, and the point of regulation is to build a system that works. 

Finally, the third issue is that emphasizing the subsidy makes us think of ending TBTF as a binary, check-yes-or-no, pass-fail kind of test. Again, there are political reasons for this emphasis, but TBTF isn't a switch that can be flipped on or off. Addressing the problem is an ongoing process that will be carried out through the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), and that process can be either more or less robust.

It's good that the financial markets have confidence in the OLA, but the FDIC is still crafting the living wills and the details of how they will be implemented. Major questions and challenges still remain. For instance, a rule has not yet been written to determine how much unsecured debt firms are required to carry. And conservatives are already floating the idea that a successful OLA would be a "bailout" anyway

The success of an orderly liquidation process will depend on many different factors, but we should think of it not as a binary, but as a continuum -- a continuum on which one end has more capital and slimmer business lines to protect taxpayer dollars and keep the risks contained, and the other end has us crossing our fingers and hoping that the aggregate damage isn't too bad. [UPDATE: See more on this point from me here.]

The GAO report is welcome news. We've made progress on the most outrageous problem with the financial sector. But that doesn't mean the work is done by any means.

Follow or contact the Rortybomb blog:
 
  

Header image via Thinkstock

Share This

Education Left Behind

Jul 31, 2014Edyta Obrzut

Young people in Illinois recognize that many aspects of the state's education system are broken, and they have some first steps for improving it.

Young people in Illinois recognize that many aspects of the state's education system are broken, and they have some first steps for improving it.

“Part of what is at risk is the promise first made on this continent: All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself’”   — A Nation at Risk, 1983

In August of 1981, Secretary of Education Terrell Bell chartered the National Commission on Excellence to review and synthetize scholarly research on public schools nationwide, with a special focus on the educational experience of teenage youth. In their report, A Nation at Risk, they promised a comprehensive change to the students, their parents, and teachers. Years after National Commission on Excellence’s promise was made, The Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network and Young Invincibles have banded together under the NextGen Illinois project in order to bring a youth-led agenda to state government officials. It is time to assess what has been done and what needs to be improved to completely fulfill the dream of equal access to the quality education and equality of opportunity for young people in the state of Illinois.

To that end, the NextGen project is hosting a series of caucuses across the state that offer an opportunity for young people to brainstorm and create a youth-lead policy agenda for the state of Illinois on issues that matter most to them. They foster discussion about state level politics and some of the most significant problems that are facing Illinois today. Through their participation, young adults offer their own insight about potential solutions to those problems that can result in positive change in their communities.

The NextGen project held its second caucus at DePaul University on Tuesday, May 27, where students pointed out several problems with the current education system in Illinois, including inequality in the distribution of education funding and challenges created by a centralized curriculum. In this system both teachers and students feel pressures created by the demands of accountability and insufficient resources.

Youth from the DePaul caucus further explained that demand for academic achievement and penalties for low-test scores have put extraordinary emphasis on accountability with both students and teachers being measured on their efficiency. The idea of consequences vs. high achievement creates a problem in which teaching in public schools is mostly directed toward test preparation rather than challenging and interesting classes. The lowest scoring schools are struggling with fewer funds and risk being placed on probation or being closed.

The use of standardized tests in high stakes decisions about the individual student is also problematic, as not all students receive an equal opportunity to learn. As recently as 2010, Illinois received a grade of F in equitable distribution of funds per pupil and in relation to the students’ poverty. Education funding distribution in Illinois has been assessed as regressive and unfair. And to make matters worse, in 2009, Illinois law makers cut assistance for P-12 education from the General Fund by more than $861 million (12%). Without addressing these problems, current practices focused on test scores and accountability may only deepen inequality. The top-down accountability model is shifting responsibility for the failure of the educational system from the state to the individuals and hurts not only teachers and parents, but most of all, kids. NextGen youth believe that market-style competition is not working well for them and that it is time to change it.

What can we do to get education back on track? Young people who participated in the caucus at DePaul argue that Illinois has to reevaluate its budget and increase funding for education. Students believe that improved support from the state to schools, granted on a per student basis, will be more effective. They believe that each student should have the same access to quality education and resources so youth can obtain proper preparation for college and competition on the job market. NextGen participants also stress the importance of early career exploration courses and financial counseling, which will help students in their life after high school.

Students’ commitment to the issue of improving the Illinois public schools demonstrates the significance of the problem. They emphasize that improving educational outcomes of students in Illinois requires an effective educational reform that can only take place by including parents, teachers, and most of all- youth into the policy making process. High rate of participation in the NextGen caucuses by Illinois youth proves that if we try hard, we can make a difference!

Edyta Obrzut is the NextGen Illinois Research Fellow for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network.

Share This

Daily Digest - July 31: The IRS Can't Follow the Money When It Has None of Its Own

Jul 31, 2014

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

IRS Failing to Regulate Dark-Money Political Spending (Real News Network)

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

IRS Failing to Regulate Dark-Money Political Spending (Real News Network)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Thomas Ferguson explains how reduced funding for the IRS is preventing the agency from properly determining what groups need to report political spending.

3 Reasons Subsidized Jobs Should Be Part of an Economic Mobility Agenda (CAP)

Rachel West says that subsidized job programs are effective at bringing people who have been left out into the labor force, even in non-recessionary times.

It’s a Reasonable Goal: Wages That Pay the Bills (Boston Globe)

Steven Syre questions why public support is so much higher for groups fighting to maintain their hard-won living wages than it is for fast food workers seeking the same level of stability.

Obama Plans New Scrutiny for Contractors on Labor Practices (NYT)

A new executive order will require federal contractors to disclose any labor violations from the past three years, and give preference to cleaner records, report Steven Greenhouse and Michael D. Shear.

Why the House of Representatives Just Voted to Sue President Obama (Vox)

Neither legislative body has ever sued the President for failing to enforce the law, explains Andrew Prokop, so this has broad implications for who controls how policy is implemented.

New on Next New Deal

Leadership Wanted: The College Access Crisis Needs You, Mayor de Blasio

Kevin Stump, Leadership Director for the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network, says that Mayor de Blasio must invest in programs that increase college access alongside those that help at-risk students.

In the Artisanal Economy, Work Is What You Make of It

In his speculation for the Next American Economy project, Harvard economics professor Lawrence Katz suggests that an economy of craftsmanship could create higher wages out of low-end work.

Share This

Leadership Wanted: The College Access Crisis Needs You, Mayor de Blasio

Jul 31, 2014Kevin Stump

Focusing on programs that help at-risk college students achieve doesn't get them in the door, so the mayor must put more energy and funding into college access.

Focusing on programs that help at-risk college students achieve doesn't get them in the door, so the mayor must put more energy and funding into college access.

This time a year ago, New York City residents were knee-deep in sorting through the promising rhetoric offered by hopeful bureaucrats vying to become the next Mayor of New York City. "The Tale of Two Cities" – the signature campaign phrase that helped propel Bill de Blasio into becoming the next chief executive of America’s largest city – speaks to the severity of the economic inequality that exists in New York City and across the country.

Mayor de Blasio’s election was an overnight mandate for progressive reform, which greatly emphasized increasing resources for New York City’s schools. This year’s final New York City 2014 budget did take steps in the right direction by investing more in the City University of New York (CUNY) and programs like the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs and the Black Male Initiative to help the most at-risk students succeed while at college. These investments are necessary – especially given that 42 percent of CUNY community college students experience housing insecurity, 39 percent experience food insecurity, and 65 percent come from households with incomes less than $30,000.

However, let's be clear: the mayor is not placing equal priority on college access, a choice that is dangerously shortsighted and will be much more costly in the end. The programs and opportunities that at-risk New York City high school students have available to help them access college are just as important as the programs that help students after admission.

While most New York City high school students know that a high school diploma is no longer good enough, and acknowledge the need for a college degree, almost 70 percent of students believed that a high school diploma alone would adequately prepare them for college-level coursework. Yet only 25 percent of students are graduating college ready in New York City. Just 29 percent of high school graduates in the class of 2012 had test scores high enough to avoid remedial courses at the City’s public schools. What’s worse is that 74 percent of first-time freshmen entering CUNY community colleges needed remedial coursework in math, up 15 percent from 2002. Nearly three out of four high school students are either failing to graduate on time or lack the basic academic skills needed to hit the ground running at CUNY.

It is clear that the City should be doing more to help the most at-risk communities access college while simultaneously injecting the CUNY system with enough resources to effectively meet the demand.

There’s no debate: public higher education, while not perfect, is a proven and successful model to help socially and economically prepare young people to become life-long contributing citizens. However, the critical four years leading up to a young person's path to college can make or break a student’s college attainment. The Mayor should seize the opportunity and lead the nation’s cities and the people of New York to address this issue head on by jump-starting an inclusive public policy process that will lay out an aggressive plan for other cities across America to follow.

In addition to the obvious players like the NYC Department of Education, New York State Education Department, and CUNY, the Mayor must bring to the policy table local stakeholders like the College Access Consortium of New York and groups like the Goddard Riverside Community Center as well as national models such as College Track and key stakeholders like the Lumina Foundation to put New York City on a collaborative path to increasing college attainment and by doing so, tackling economic inequality.

To start, initial conversations should include how to best leverage existing government infrastructure and systems to think collaboratively and across agencies about policy solutions. For example, we could analyze programs offered by the New York City Department of Housing to integrate effective and proven programs in public housing facilities. The issue of college access is an intersectional problem and requires intersectional solutions. This issue requires Mayor de Blasio to employ a policy process that is inclusive, grounded in research and analysis, utilizes all the resources we have available, and injects even more resources to change this much-talked about but greatly under-addressed issue of college access or the lack thereof.  

Kevin Stump is the Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network Leadership Director.

Share This

Lawrence Katz: In the Artisanal Economy, Work Is What You Make of It

Jul 31, 2014

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, Lawrence Katz imagines a future "artisanal economy" in which crafty workers carve out their own niches.

The Next American Economy project brought together 30 experts from various disciplines to envision tomorrow's economic and political challenges and develop today's solutions. Their assignment: be bold, and leave the conventional wisdom -- and their own opinions -- behind. In today's video, Lawrence Katz imagines a future "artisanal economy" in which crafty workers carve out their own niches.

Lawrence Katz, the Harvard economics professor known for his book The Race Between Education and Technology, speculates on the flourishing of an artisanal economy. He imagines a potential rebirth of craftsmanship in which education and training allow workers to transform low-wage work into high-paid business. 

Share This

Daily Digest - July 30: Technology Builds Community, But Will It Limit Prosperity?

Jul 30, 2014Rachel Goldfarb

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Civic Tech and Engagement: How City Halls Can Help Construct Stronger Neighborhoods (Tech President)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that local governments demonstrating responsiveness through technology can improve public trust.

Click here to subscribe to Roosevelt First, our weekday morning email featuring the Daily Digest.

Civic Tech and Engagement: How City Halls Can Help Construct Stronger Neighborhoods (Tech President)

Roosevelt Institute Fellow Susan Crawford says that local governments demonstrating responsiveness through technology can improve public trust.

Health Insurers Press to Exempt Millions From ACA (The Hill)

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch explains the latest push by insurance companies to lower their own costs by limiting the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Financial Market Oversight, Economic Recoveries, and Full Employment: Some Crucial Linkages (On The Economy)

Jared Bernstein says that implementing Dodd-Frank is essential to achieve full employment. For how to deal with financial oversight, he recommends turning to Roosevelt Institute Fellow Mike Konczal.

Sympathy for the Overdog (Slate)

The employees of Market Basket, a Northeast grocery chain, are protesting their CEO's ousting. Luke O'Neil reports that they credit him with their fair wages and benefits, and fear a backslide.

New on Next New Deal

Roosevelt Reacts: NLRB Holds McDonald's Accountable for Labor Violations

Roosevelt Institute President and CEO Felicia Wong and Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch praise yesterday's National Labor Relations Board ruling for its common-sense support for workers.

Through Innovation, People Will Live Longer and Earn Less

In his video speculation for the Next American Economy initiative, MIT professor Frank Levy predicts the rise of an anti-technology movement as the economy stays stagnant.

Share This

Pages