On Earth Day 2013, Monday, April 22^nd, a panel of Geo-science, technology, engineering and mathematics Master Teachers convened at the Wilson Center to discuss several innovative endeavors to engage teachers and students in Earth science studies using state-of-the art technologies and education resources.  The event was co-hosted by the Program on America and the Global Economy (PAGE) and the Global Sustainability and Resilience Program.  The event was moderated by Kent Hughes, Director of PAGE.

John Moore, Director of Geo-science STEM Education at Palmyra Cove Nature Park and Environmental Discovery Center in New Jersey, former Albert Einstein Distinguished Education Fellow, and Executive Director for the American Council of STEM Teachers opened the panel discussion by pointing out two very important and influential opportunities for reform in STEM education: the PCAST Report to the President on plans for improvements in K-12 STEM education released on September 15, 2010 and the recently released Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) report which outlines the new voluntary, rigorous, and internationally benchmarked standards for K-12 science education.  Moore emphasized the importance of, “developing the teachers’ voice,” providing several examples of projects for leadership and professional development of teachers such as the DataStreme Project, a distance learning course designed by the American Meteorological Society,  and Global Learning and Observation to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE), a worldwide network for sharing resources for primary and secondary earth science education.

Marcia Barton spoke next about the opportunities and challenges for STEM educators.  She agreed that the NGSS report provided an opportunity to transform science in the United States by integrating the sciences instead of using current standards of teaching the sciences separately.  The NGSS report also elevated earth and space science, including them more in the proposed curriculum.  The challenges for geo-science, according to Barton, were taking advantage of this increased focus and engaging the students in this material, and training the next generation of teachers.  She proposed starting an academy for innovation and sustainability to engage students in geo-science and engineering, especially with the increase in job opportunities for geoscientists.  Based on President Obama’s initiative to prepare 100,000 new STEM teachers in the next decade, Barton suggested making 30,000 of those earth and space system science teachers.

Vicky Gorman discussed efforts to promote geo-science education in her community with the Citizen Science Education Program (CSEP).  CSEP was designed by middle school students and tailored for their own community.  The program seeks to increase scientific literacy within the community and is part of the Weather Ready Nation network, a NOAA initiative.  Gorman stressed the importance of communication and leadership skills within students to prepare them for the workforce, with development of those skills starting in middle school.  She stated, “Unless students are marketable, all their education goes to waste.”  Gorman emphasized the importance of geo-science education as it encompasses chemistry, physics, and biology and applies to real-life situations and the global economy and where our workforce needs to be.

Peter Dorofy commented on the technology challenges of teaching earth science.  Traditionally, earth science is a non-lab course but with increasing technological advances such as GPS, GIS, remote sensing, and real-time data, that is changing.  He spoke of the challenges at his technical college in New Jersey, such as budget cuts and shifting programs, and how to make earth science relevant to students who have already chosen a career.  Dorofy stated it was key to identify real-life situations in which earth science can be applied and to take advantage of all the technology in the field to excite students.

John Moore recapped the first part of the panel and reiterated that teachers have a unique opportunity to push earth science.   The problem is in implementation.  Moore stated that in many schools the 1996 NGS Standards are barely implemented today, therefore, the responsibility will lie with the next generation of teachers to ensure that these new standards are realized.

Kevin Simmons and Jin Kang explained new technology in the geoSTEM field: cubesats, microsatellites, which are powerful, interactive tools that can be used by schools to provide data from space.  Cubesats introduce children to systems engineering and allow them to put the engineering method, which Simmons distinguished from the scientific method, into practice.  Kang emphasized the two essential factors of effective education: motivation and hands-on education which are key to encouraging creativity and innovation.

The panel responded to audience questions about the integrity of the geoSTEM programs, differences between the U.S. and Korean education systems, and the new common core standards and standardized testing.

Drafted by Elizabeth White

Click here to view the video recording of this event.

Rapidly rising wages have led to a systemic shift in the way China’s economy currently operates and have caused the country to move away from its traditional reliance on low cost manufacturing. China is looking towards a transition to a more sustainable economic growth model and these numbers might be indicative of the growing pains that China is currently facing. In fact, according to Ms Yao of Societe Generale,”Given Beijing’s goal of restructuring the economy, a relatively moderate economic growth is not a bad thing in the longer term.” While China will likely remain a manufacturing hub thanks to its relatively mature investment environment, superior infrastructure, and skilled workforce, it is the higher-knowledge industry sector and domestic consumption that will be the future drivers of Chinese growth.

Improving wages and job opportunities have created an optimistic and vibrant consumer class that has demanded both a higher standard of living and higher quality goods and services. Metaphorically speaking, Chinese citizens are emerging from the factories and entering the malls. Rather than being a mere base of production, China has become a prime market to sell into as consumption continues to increase. This massive and complex market holds huge commercial potential for those businesses that can successfully adapt and gain a foothold. Meanwhile, China itself can benefit greatly from increased foreign direct investment as its economy continues to mature.

Despite China’s economic dynamism, it is still a place that is plagued with many dilemmas that limit its potential. Some of the most infamous issues revolve around corruption, which is especially rampant at the local level leading to staggering pollution, serious quality control issues, and enormous levels of inequality. In addition, China’s educational system is stunted by its singular focus on testing and needs to be reworked to foster creativity and innovation, skills that are vital in an increasingly connected global marketplace. These concerns may limit China’s global economic potential, especially when major policy efforts are still needed to address these critical domestic problems.

Overall, China is still dealing with the disorder commonly found during major economic transition. Its switch from a primarily manufacturing economy to a consumer economy may take time as growth rates begin to rebalance. In fact, it is likely that  these declining numbers indicate not economic problems in China, but an economic changing-of-the-guard that will result in less dramatic, healthier, and more reliable economic growth.

Posted by: Matthew Goldberg

Sources: The Economist, BBC News, Bloomberg, CME Group

Photo Credit: China Pavilion courtesy of flickr user Wojtek Gurak

The Program on America and the Global Economy and the Global Sustainability and Resilience Program Present:

The Next Generation of Earth System Education

Monday, April 22, 2013

3:00 – 5:00 p.m.

5^th Floor Conference Room, Woodrow Wilson Center

Panelists: 

John D. Moore, Albert Einstein Distinguished Education Fellow Emeritus, Director for Geoscience STEM Education, Palmyra Cove Nature Park and Environmental Discovery Center

Marcia Barton, Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellow, NSF, Directorate for Geosciences

Peter Dorofy, NESTA Eastern Regional Director, American Meteorological Society K-12 Distinguished Educator

Vicky Gorman, AMS DataStreme Atmosphere Resource Teacher, GLOBE Program

Kevin Simmons, Albert Einstein Distinguished Education Fellow Emeritus, Senior Policy Analyst, EDJ Associates Inc., Industrial Innovation and Partnerships Division Engineering Directorate, NSF

Jin Kang, Assistant Professor, Aerospace Engineering, U.S. Naval Academy

Moderator: 

Kent Hughes, Director, Program on America and the Global Economy

Celebrate Earth Day as a select panel of GeoSTEM Master Teachers discuss how teacher-leaders have come together to put policy into practice.  GeoSTEM is an ongoing educational endeavor to engage teachers and students in an innovative study of Planet Earth using state-of-the-art technologies and educational resources. Through programs such as the American Meteorological Society’s DataStreme Project, the GLOBE Program, and others, teachers are enhancing content knowledge, developing projects, and collaborating in projects that utilize real time and remote sensing data, promote 21st Century Workforce Development Skills, involve the local community and contribute to building the next generation of geoscientists.

Visit The Program on America and the Global Economy website for more information and to RSVP or send an email (acceptances only) to page@wilsoncenter.org

The Wilson Center is located in the Ronald Reagan Building at 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. (Federal Triangle Metro stop on the Blue/ Orange Line) For a map and directions see: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/directions.  Please bring a photo ID and arrive 15 minutes ahead to allow time for the security checkpoint. 

The reasoning behind this reinvigoration of free trade deals is expressed clearly in a study commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, as explained below:

The transatlantic free trade initiative needs to be considered against the backdrop of (i) eroding competitiveness of industrialized countries relative to emerging nations such as China and India, (ii) the long-lasting standstill in multilateral negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), and (iii) the need for growth-stimulating structural reforms, as vividly highlighted by the current crisis in the EU.

The impetus and goals of these agreements are not only economic in nature, but also geopolitical. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) describes “a battle being fought now for the soul of the global trading system”, in which these free trade deals can promote high standards for reducing barriers to trade and set the agenda for future multilateral trade talks.

However, as  ITIF notes, there are many obstacles to overcome in this process. Agriculture, automobiles, cultural industries, and textiles are all industries that are historically reluctant to liberalize. Non-tariff barriers such as incompatible regulatory systems are even more problematic, but liberalizing these areas will bring the most benefits. The services market is another complex area, but because 30% of manufacturing costs are business services, there are strong economic incentives to liberalize trade in services. Since a large part of trade volume between these countries is intra-industry and intra-firm trade, companies’ costs for intermediate goods will be substantially reduced. Although most studies focus on the static and immediate gains from these trade deals, the dynamic and ongoing benefits will create positive feedback that renews the economic foundations of industrialized nations.

This is an opportune moment for trade deals, and the window may be closing fast. The political will is currently there to complete these deals, but may not last after the woes of the latest recession have tempered. Europeans and Americans are trying to stimulate their languishing economies, and Japan is pursuing radical new policies to end stagflation. Geopolitical considerations and a renewed emphasis on international competitiveness are the final pieces of the puzzle that make the deals more plausible at this point in time.

There are reasons for optimism in trade policy circles, but the battle is only just beginning.

Posted By: Ben Copper

Sources: IFO Institut, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Foreign Affairs

Picture Credit: Cargo Ship Terminal Burchardkai (Hamburg, Germany), courtesy of flickr user      Reinhard_Schuldt

Utilizing women to their full potential can play a crucial role in raising productivity and economic output. According to the World Bank’s 2012 World Development Report, women now represent 40 percent of the global labor force and more than half of the world’s university students. It seems obvious that allocating women’s skills and talents in activities that make the best use of those abilities will result in tangible economic benefits. In 1950, only one-third of American women of working age had a paid job. Yet today, US girls now do better at school than boys, more women are getting university degrees than men are, and females run some of the world’s best companies, such as PepsiCo, Archer Daniels Midland and W.L. Gore. Furthermore, a study by McKinsey found that when women went from holding 37 percent of all US jobs to nearly 48 percent over the past 40 years, the productivity gains associated with this modest increase accounted for approximately one-quarter of our current GDP. Undoubtedly, unlocking the economic potential of women has contributed to the sustained economic growth of the US over the last decades.

However, economies where women are not well integrated in the work force face significant disadvantages. This loss of productivity and economic duress is illustrated in the case of Japan, which has faced persistent economic stagnation. According to Kathy Matsui, chief Japan equity strategist and co-head of Asia Investment Research at Goldman Sachs, “Narrowing the gap between male and female employment rates, through increased participation of women in the labor market, could help Japan’s economy grow.” For example, 70% of Japanese women leave the workforce after their first child, and only 65% of college-educated women are employed. Barriers to higher female employment include insufficient childcare and nursing care support, tax distortions, and inadequate focus of the private and public sectors on diversity. It is no coincidence that Japan’s economy has struggled as women continue to be systemically underused.

Better enabling women to enter the labor force should be a key priority in nations looking to increase economic growth. The Economist reports that the increase in employment of women in developed countries during the past decade has added more to global growth than even the economic emergence of China. Therefore, it would serve countries well to eliminate obstacles that prevent women from entering the workforce and create programs that encourage the participation of women in the economy.

Posted by: Matthew Goldberg

Sources: The Economist, Goldman Sachs, World Bank, McKinsey, AARP International

Photo Credit: Woman working courtesy of flickr user SMU Central University Libraries

The conventional belief is that innovation is born through competition in the private sector. However, this may overlook the crucial role that government plays in the development of key technologies. The government provides something that the private sector cannot: cost-is-no-object engineering. With their singular aims and large purse, government programs are not restrained by profit-making like the industries in the private sector. It often takes patient, determined, or plain foolish capital, and a lot of it, to turn high-concept ideas into functional prototypes and a body of knowledge capable of driving private innovation and production. Government support for innovation obviously turns up its share of duds, representing a waste of real resources that could have gone toward some other end. Yet, as history has shown, amazing things happen when government investment succeeds. Take the initiative shown during the formative years of the computing era; the government was an enormous source of demand for all the intermediaries of computing power production and computing power itself. America’s military machine brought brilliant people together, demanded they do work requiring extraordinary computational power, and plied them with the funds to develop and build early computers. That work created expertise, component supply, and even private demand that fueled subsequent private investments.

This of course does not diminish the private sector’s vital role in innovation development. In fact, government investment and free-market improvement are almost symbiotic. Forbes lays out two key points that explains the co-dependent nature of the government and the private sector in innovation advancement.

1.)     Reliance on the government to invest in early innovative research because free-market actors cannot do so profitably by themselves;

2.)     Reliance on the free-market to competitively finish the later part of the innovation process because the government cannot realize its return on research investment otherwise

Therefore, it is vital that Congress adopts a budget plan that does not hamper the government’s ability to invest in innovation. US economic success is firmly rooted in technological innovation and this budget debate is a key moment in determining the future of the US economy.

Posted by: Matthew Goldberg

Sources: The Economist, Forbes

Photo Credit: Army scientists energize battery research courtesy of flickr user RDECOM

Economists disagree over whether or not rising health care costs harm American businesses’ competitiveness in global markets, a crucial question due to the fact that the US spends far more on health care than any other country. The Council on Foreign Relations recently released an “Expert Roundup” on this topic. Robert Graboyes of the National Federation of Independent Business took the position that new health care legislation is hurting American competitiveness because it creates an uncertain financial planning environment and Neeraj Sood of the University of Southern California claimed that “rising healthcare costs have significantly reduced employment and output growth among U.S. businesses”.  Jennifer Baron of Harvard University insists that the indirect costs of poor employee health, such as low productivity, are twice the cost of benefit spending and so the emphasis should be placed on improving wellness rather than controlling spending on insurance plans.

Rapidly rising health care costs have been shown to negatively impact both businesses and workers. It is a common view among economists that increases in health care costs are offset by lower wages in the market-based system of employer-provided health care. A study by the RAND Corporation claims that since wages are generally sticky and do not react quickly to market value changes, rising health care costs can have negative impacts on businesses’ cost competitiveness, employment levels, revenues, and value added. This effect is exacerbated in industries that offer coverage to most of their employees, such as the automobile industry, and have less of an effect on industries that do not, such as retail. To make matters worse, a study by the Institute of Medicine posits that up to 30% of national health care expenditures are wasteful due to excessive cost, unnecessary treatment, and missed prevention opportunities.

Obviously, health care is a rising concern for the U.S. government, American businesses, and individual Americans. The issue will take years if not decades to be corrected, but a sustainable trajectory for health care costs must be found to ensure U.S. economic stability. It will be up to lawmakers to decide whether a focus on costs, value, or employee wellness is most appropriate (or most likely some combination of these factors). No matter what decisions are made, they are sure to affect every American in this “Health Care Nation”.

Posted by: Ben Copper

Sources: Fortune, Bank of America, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Council on Foreign                          Relations, The Economist, RAND Corporation, Health Affair, Institute of Medicine

Photo Credit: Hospital Bed, courtesy of flickr user: APM Alex

From an economic perspective, allowing exports would lead to some increase in domestic prices, but the price of natural gas in the U.S. is far lower than in many other markets, for example, $2.66 per thousand cubic feet on average in the U.S. in 2012 compared to some $10 in the U.K. Somewhat higher prices in the U.S. because of exports would encourage greater U.S. production, but prices in the U.S. would still be lower than in most markets because of transportation costs, and this would continue to give manufacturers that use natural gas a cost advantage.  From an environmental perspective, natural gas is less polluting than other fossil fuels.  Until renewable energy such as wind and solar can meet the world’s energy needs – a prospect that is likely to be at least a decade away – encouraging the use of natural gas probably has a positive environmental impact.

From a trade policy perspective, restricting exports would likely run afoul of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and it would weaken our complaints about other countries’ export of vital minerals, which many believe is an attempt by China to gain a competitive advantage at its trade partners’ expense.

The economic impact of allowing natural gas exports is likely to be small, as is the environmental impact.  So perhaps this debate is more like “much ado about nothing.”

(Click here for a paper that sets out these issues in more detail.)

William K. Krist is a Senior Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  He is a former Senior Vice President of the American Electronics Association.  He has written extensively on trade, development, and the environment.

Taking a look at exports trade data, a country like Ireland looks inconsequential to US trade with only $7,276 million (USD) in exported goods. However, Ireland is actually an important hub for transnational companies, and rakes in huge amounts of investment as shown by the foreign affiliate sales which puts Ireland at around $171,895 million, a number that eclipses Mexico at $143,478 million. Using only exports, Mexico is our number two trading partner for exports, but when we use the Sales/Export ratio, Mexico stands at 0.9, whereas Ireland is at 23.6.Without accounting for foreign affiliate sales, policy makers would have no idea of the importance of Ireland to US commerce. In addition, using foreign affiliate sales sheds light on other trade relationships, including Germany a country that many policymakers are worried about due to our supposed trade imbalance. In actuality, while US exports with Germany are only at $48,161 million, the US foreign affiliate sales are at $244,785 million and a ratio of 5.1. This means that the US is very much invested into Germany and the trade imbalance is not as nearly as significant when looking at both sets of metrics. This also presents an interesting note on the relative significance of trading partners. Policy-makers often stress the importance of China to US trade, but when looking at foreign affiliate sales, China is only at $138,991 million compared to Germany’s $244,785 million. This has the implication that the US actually has more trade interests in Germany, which is something that is completely unacknowledged when measuring using only export trade.

Using only export numbers presents an incomplete depiction of US trade. It is very difficult to make smart policy that improves US trade potential if the true trade relationships between the US and foreign countries are not understood. In terms of trade importance to the United States, opportunities lie with the newly proposed Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement at almost $1,473,483 million in foreign affiliate sales. The United States must begin to rely more on foreign affiliate trade data or at least use it to supplement traditional import/export measurements to get a more accurate representation of US trade interactions.

Posted by: Matthew Goldberg

Sources: U.S. International Trade Commission, Vox, OECD, U.S. Census Bureau

The Program on America and the Global Economy Presents a Book Launch:

Money and Banks in the American Political System

Thursday, March 14, 2013

3:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Featuring:

Katie Lavelle, Author, Ellen and Dixon Long Professor at Case Western Reserve University, and Wilson Center Fellow ‘08-‘09

Moderated by:

Kent Hughes, Director, Program on America and the Global Economy

About the author: Kathryn C. Lavelle is Ellen and Dixon Long Professor of World Affairs in the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University. She is the author of Legislating International Organization: The US Congress, the IMF, and the World Bank (2011) and The Politics of Equity Finance in Emerging Markets (2004). She served as the William A. Steiger Fellow in the American Political Science Association’s congressional fellowship program, where she worked on the staff of the House Committee on Financial Services. Kathryn also served as a United States Studies Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center from 2008 until 2009.

About the book: “With the 2008 financial crisis still sending shockwaves through the US economy, debates over money are embedded in national politics and contemporary conceptions of the American dream. In Money and Banks in the American Political System, Kathryn C. Lavelle explores the complexity of the political institutions that surround finance, and traces the modern instability to the nexus between market innovation and regulation in a society that is wary of allowing business and state to interact and suspicious of any concentrated power in one political or economic institution.”

Please RSVP acceptances only to page@wilsoncenter.org

For a map and directions see: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/directions

Please bring photo ID and arrive 15 minutes ahead to allow time for the security checkpoint.