Urban central planners threaten our standard of living
Just as central planners devastated Eastern Europe before being tossed out, so too the old central planning model of urban development can do us a lot of harm before people finally come around to see that it is incompatible with the direction our society and economy are headed. Consider that the current fashion in urban planning is towards high density housing and increased urban transit, yet lower density living and travel by car are things that people want, because they reflect a higher standard of living and more personal freedom. In his regular newspaper column, AIMS President Brian Crowley, explains why only a land-use philosophy that supports this natural desire for a higher standard of living will have any hope of creating the conditions in which cities such as ours will thrive, because these are conditions that are in fact attractive to people. Publication: CHH, October 23, 2002
New Cape Breton Starts at Home
Dr. Michael MacDonald, AIMS Senior Fellow, was invited to give this paper at the recent International Business Summit held in Cape Breton. Since the closing of the coal mines and steel industry, business and government have been trying to develop an economic and social transition from the defunct industrial base to a new economy focused on small innovative business and the knowledge economy. The Summit signalled a turning point in business growth in Cape Breton as it grew out of a partnership between the Cape Breton Boards of Trade, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and organized labour. It was a major event bringing together about 65 North American business leaders to investigate doing business in the new economy of Cape Breton. Dr. MacDonald leads two AIMS initiatives that are an ideal fit with the new economy in Cape Breton, the Canada Cities and the Atlantica projects.
Conflicting Interests – AIMS in the Medical Post
Dr. David Zitner, AIMS fellow on Health Policy, believes that there is something odd about government being both the sole legal provider and the regulator of health care. In this opinion piece from the Medical Post he outlines for his colleagues in the health professions why this dichotomy is no-ones best interest. Says Zitner, “Governments have been abysmal failures at regulating public health insurance. There are no rules for timely claims settlement or even a well-defined menu of covered services.” The reason for this is quite simple, when government as regulator applies rules to health care, government as insurer must bear the full cost of regulatory compliance. In that circumstance there is a reverse incentive to ensure compliance costs are kept to a minimum with a resulting lack of strict standards, real accountability and regular reporting. Publication: Medical Post, October 15, 2002
Rags to Riches “The Regions” can lead Canada’s Productivity Growth
AIMS’ response to the TD Forum on Canada’s Standard of Living
AIMS On-Line for early October 2002
An AIMS luncheon with Stephen Harper, Breaking the Glass Wall, Brian Lee Crowley on what continental integration means for Canada's "regional policy", Dr. Michael J. MacDonald on the future of Canada's cities and AIMS Chairman Gerald Pond discusses new business model in Atlantic Progress.
Proportional representation: cure is far worse than the disease
Recently electoral reform, including proportional representation (PR), is back on the national agenda. The BC government has just commissioned a thoughtful former provincial Liberal leader, Gordon Gibson, to look at major changes to the way elections are run in that province. Earlier this week former NDP leader Ed Broadbent teamed up with IRPP President Hugh Segal to make the case for PR in a Globe op-ed. Replying to that article, AIMS President Brian Lee Crowley argues that the fans of PR have misunderstood what elections are really for, and therefore mistake the strengths of our current electoral system for flaws. Noting that he used to be a supporter of PR, and was a co-author of Quebec’s 1970s Green Paper on the topic, Crowley says that he now doubts that it would be an improvement to our democracy. An edited version of this piece appeared in the pages of the Globe and Mail on Friday, October 4, 2002. Publication: G& M, October 4, 2002