– John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own –

Resounding defeats for Democratic Party gubernatorial candidates in Virginia and New Jersey on November 3 have killed any lingering hope Congress will enact climate change legislation this year, and may doom the prospect of passing a cap-and-trade bill this side of the 2010 mid-term elections.

Prospects for eventually passing legislation may now depend on winning Republican support with nuclear loan guarantees and more offshore drilling.

While the president remains personally popular, with high approval ratings, and does not need to face the voters again for another three years, 16 Democratic senators and 256 Democratic members of the House of Representatives will be on the ballot in November 2010.

The Virginia and New Jersey off-cycle elections are often idiosyncratic. But crushing defeats for Democrats at the top of the ticket in both states are already sparking a bout of soul-searching over the lessons that need to be learned if the party is to retain firm control of both houses of Congress next year.

What worries many Democrats is that turnout among the young voters who helped propel them to victory last year fell away sharply, self-identified independents broke heavily for the Republican candidates; and voters overwhelmingly cited the economy and jobs rather than healthcare or climate change as their major concern in exit polls.

Democrats face the classic dilemma for any party after a defeat — press ahead trying to enact a difficult agenda or pull back, re-focus on simpler and less controversial measures.

The White House insists both defeats were due to local factors (a poor candidate in Virginia, a souring economy in New Jersey) and will not change the president’s determination to press ahead with an ambitious domestic agenda centered on healthcare reform and climate change.

But the party’s congressional wing is divided. Liberals (mostly from safe seats at little risk next year) argue the administration and party should press ahead; voters will rally behind a record of accomplishment next year. Moderates and conservatives (mostly from swing seats or those carried by John McCain in 2008 or George W Bush in 2004) as well as those from heavy industrial states are pressing to scale-back and refocus on cutting unemployment.

In this context, it seems unlikely the administration can find the 60 predominantly Democratic votes it needs to pass a climate bill on the floor of the Senate; hammer out a compromise between the differing House and Senate versions in conference; then secure simple majorities in both houses to pass the agreed bill into law.

Even before this week’s election results, the prospects for passing climate change legislation this year were dimming rapidly. But the arithmetic, already challenging, has now become very tricky as the administration loses momentum.

60-VOTE DOUBT IN SENATE

In the Senate, only two Democrats are up for re-election in Republican-leaning states carried by John McCain (North Dakota’s Byron Dorgan and Arkansas’s Blanche Lincoln).

Both have already taken a cautious approach to climate legislation. Both broke ranks with the majority of their colleagues earlier this year to vote for a Republican amendment preventing the budget reconciliation process being used to push through cap-and-trade on a 51-vote straight majority rather than the 60-vote super-majority normally needed to end a filibuster.

But the party remains ambivalent over cap-and-trade, split between liberals from coastal states who want a commitment to tough emissions reduction objectives, and senators representing industrial areas or conservative states anxious about supporting anything that could be portrayed as a costly, job-killing energy tax by their opponents at election time.

In theory, the Democratic Party (together with its independent allies) has the 60 votes needed to push a climate bill through despite almost uniform Republican opposition. In practice, the party broke 26-31 in favor of the Republican amendment to the budget resolution earlier this year, in what many saw as a straw poll on cap-and-trade.

Some Democrats have fallen into line since then, and the administration may be able to pick up one or two Republican votes such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham with the promise of loan guarantees and other government help for the nuclear power industry.

With several Democrats harbouring concerns, though, there are not yet 60 votes for an ambitious climate bill.

The bill will not be openly defeated on the Senate floor. If it dies or gets delayed it will be in the cloakroom. Majority Leader Harry Reid will not bring it up for a vote unless and until 60 firm votes are in his pocket. So Democrats with doubts will be able to delay the bill indefinitely by holding out and asking for more concessions, without having to come out explicitly against it.

RISK OF REVERSAL IN HOUSE

The arithmetic looks as daunting in the House of Representatives. While the lower chamber has already approved its own climate bill (HR 2454) legislators will have to vote again to pass the consolidated version if and when it is agreed in conference.

There is nothing to stop congressmen changing their minds. As the election draws closer and the already bitter partisanship in the chamber intensifies, some of the bill’s earlier supporters may withdraw.

The original bill passed only by the narrowest of margins (219-212), with 44 Democrats voting “No.”

A total of 84 Democrats represent Republican-leaning districts carried by John McCain or George W Bush in 2004. It will take only a handful of further defections to sink the measure if it returns from conference.

If the consolidated bill has been toughened in line with the Senate version (S 1733), congressmen will have a ready-made excuse to claim it has gone too far.

Parties controlling the White House usually lose seats at the mid-term elections, so pressure on Democrats in Republican-leaning areas will be immense.

The party’s heavy losses in Virginia and New Jersey this week will make them very cautious.

CROWDED AGENDA, LOSING MOMENTUM

Arguably, the president has tried to push through too many ambitious reform proposals and stretched his political capital too thinly.

At the best of times, it would be difficult to get either healthcare reform or climate change through Congress when the president’s majority is an uneasy coalition of liberals and centrists. But when the president is having to deal with a recession, financial regulation, and whether to increase the military commitment to Afghanistan, it has proved impossible to rally support for them both at the same time.

Hopes that healthcare and climate change legislation could be rammed through early in the year, long before the mid-term elections, while the Republican Party was still consumed by infighting after losing heavily in 2008, have evaporated.

Climate change has become a second-order priority. The political capital needed to assemble winning coalitions for a bill in both chambers is being deployed elsewhere.

The best option for the administration may be seeking to broaden its coalition, buying more Republican support through a combination of nuclear financing guarantees and greater access to offshore drilling.

But if an agreed climate bill does not go through before the year end, its prospects next year, when legislators will be fixated on the looming elections, are no better.

In the protracted Washington debate over the war in Afghanistan, the most concise analysis so far has come from America’s top soldier: “If we don’t get a level of legitimacy and governance (there), then all the troops in the world aren’t going to make any difference.”

Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was speaking two days after Hamid Karzai was declared the winner, by default, in August elections so massively rigged that a U.N.-backed electoral complaints committee threw out about a million Karzai votes. That forced a run-off from which his challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah withdrew, saying the second round would be just as fraudulent as the first.

So much for an exercise in democracy President Barack Obama had used as his rationale for escalating the war a few months after he took office. “I did order 21,000 additional troops there to make sure that we could secure the election, because I thought that was important.”

It was. It showed that the United States and its NATO allies are fighting on the side of a corrupt and discredited government in a war, now in its ninth year, for which, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, there can be no purely military solution.

An angry assessment of the Afghan leader last year by Thomas Schweich, a former top anti-narcotics official in Afghanistan, has proved prophetic. Karzai, he said, had been playing the Americans like a fiddle ever since he came to power. “The U.S. would spend billions of dollars on infrastructure improvement; the U.S. and its allies would fight the Taliban; Karzai’s friends would get rich off the drug trade; he could blame the West for his problems; and in 2009 he would be elected to a new term.”

U.S. officials, including Admiral Mullen, are now calling on Karzai to purge Afghanistan of corrupt officials by arresting and prosecuting them. This is an unlikely prospect. In his victory speech, Karzai said he would work to wipe off “the stain of corruption” but said that could not be done simply by removing corrupt officials.

The implicit notice that there would be no major house-cleaning followed a telephone call Obama made to Karzai to say it was time for “a new chapter based on improved governance (and) a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption…” If previous promises from Karzai are any guide, the new chapter will remain unwritten.

BOXED IN BY RHETORIC

Obama is close to making a decision on a request by General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan for as many as 40,000 additional troops. If the president followed the logic of Admiral Mullen’s analysis, he would send none. But he will, because he is boxed in by his own portrayal of Afghanistan as the “good war” (as opposed to the war in Iraq) and his definition of why the U.S. must be in Afghanistan.

“This is not a war of choice,” he said in a speech in August. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people.”

One of the most passionate arguments against this reasoning has come from Matthew Hoh, the first State Department official to resign in protest over the war. Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain, said in his letter of resignation that if the U.S. strategy really was to prevent al-Qaeda from regrouping in Afghanistan, then America should also invade and occupy western Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen - all countries with an al-Qaeda presence.

“Our presence in Afghanistan has only increased destabilization and insurgency in Pakistan where we rightly fear a toppled or weakened Pakistani government may lose control of its nuclear weapons. To…follow the logic of our stated goals we should garrison Pakistan, not Afghanistan.”

Instead, he wrote, the U.S. was following the example of the Soviet Union, a previous and unsuccessful occupier, by bolstering a failing state.

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

Emerging markets could be the first to suffer destabilizing inflation, courtesy of a strong economic rebound, a weak dollar and extremely loose monetary policy in the developed world.

Inflation, in faster growing emerging markets, was not high on the list of worries even months ago, but the speed and strength of the rebound and red-hot asset markets in some places show that it may be a rising threat.

“The surprise could be that inflation in emerging markets really takes off,” Amer Bisat of hedge fund Traxis Partners said on Tuesday at a Euromoney foreign exchange conference in New York.

It is not yet a central case, but should price pressures in countries like China, Korea and Brazil take hold, it will leave policy makers in a bind and would roil financial markets.

Interest rate hikes might only attract more hot capital and may be only partially effective. Rising currencies can be self-fulfilling and higher interest rates in emerging markets make carry trades — borrowing in dollars, for example, and reinvesting in something like Korean won — all the more attractive.

Other methods of stemming currency appreciation, which stokes inflation, may also become more popular; Brazil in October imposed a 2 percent tax on foreign inflows into equities and fixed-income instruments designed to keep the real from appreciating too quickly.

Emerging market central bankers can expect no help from colleagues in the developed world any time soon. The Federal Reserve will find it economically and politically difficult to hike with unemployment near 10 percent.

“Inflation in emerging markets will be U.S. inflation exported,” said Maxime Tessier of Canadian state asset manager Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec.

This might actually argue for China to acquiesce to U.S. calls for it to increase the value of the yuan, which will fight inflation at home and would win it friends and influence abroad. It would not be a surprise for China to return to a “crawling peg” under which the yuan is allowed to appreciate upward slowly. That won’t happen immediately; a negotiation and wooing period will allow China to extract maximum value from the United States for implementing a policy it may well need anyway.

And of course, with significant spare capacity, the decision will not be easy as inflation in the Chinese economy will not be evenly distributed.

RED HOT

While the data on inflation is still fairly tame, asset markets in many emerging markets are now red hot.

The World Bank this week raised its growth forecast for developing east Asia to 6.7 percent this year from 5.3 percent, but said the strong recovery brought with it new dangers in booming asset prices.

“As liquidity is working its way through the system, and demand is relatively low, the credit is finding its way to stock exchanges and real estate markets. It’s a danger,” said Vikram Nehru, the World Bank’s chief economist for East Asia and the Pacific. The IMF chimed in, citing surging property prices in Hong Kong and “a risk that prices could become driven more by short-term liquidity conditions, divorced from fundamental forces of supply and demand.”

Authorities in South Korea have also reacted to a surge in real estate price in and around Seoul, imposing regulations to tighten access to mortgage finance.

Officials have taken some steps to slow the flood of loans they unleashed via Chinese banks this year, but not entirely effectively. Loans by Chinese banks have disproportionately found their way into property and financial speculation, but moves over the summer to limit lending sent the stock market into a tailspin which may have scared off officials. China’s  four largest banks extended about 136 billion yuan ($20 billion) in yuan-denominated new loans in October, up 23.6 percent from September’s 110.4 billion yuan, the China Securities Journal reported on Tuesday.

And it’s not just property — the MSCI Emerging Markets Index is up more than 60 percent this year and currencies in many emerging markets have recorded strong returns.

All of this comes with one very large caveat; if, as is very possible, the recovery in the United States and Europe falters in the new year, then the risk of actual inflation in emerging markets will recede along with their exports to the West. A relapse lower too might bring with it a recovery in the dollar, which would inflict huge pain on speculators who are running dollar carry trades and investing in emerging markets assets and property.

Taking a very long view, strong emerging markets make good sense. Capital should flow to emerging markets. Returns there over the long run will be better, at least if the rule of law prevails. Unless policies can tread a very narrow path, that growth will bring with it inflation and rising volatility.

(Editing by James Dalgleish)
(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

– Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own –

Everyone agrees that China’s economy must be rebalanced, but few have bothered to delve into the costs. Japan’s experience has shown that even well-meant changes could sow the seeds for a bubble.

China cannot stay with its current economic model forever. But as the economy has become extremely unbalanced, to some extent even more so than Japan’s in the 1980s, rocking the boat too much risks tipping it over. Instead of rushing into changes, it would be better to make reforms gradually.

Most observers believe an extremely loose monetary policy was the root cause of Japan’s bubble. But Tomo Kinoshita, an economist at Nomura, reckons that efforts to liberalise the economy, such as sharply revaluing the yen, developing a deeper bond market and deregulating interest rates were among the fundamental reasons behind the bubble.

The challenges facing China’s economy are similar to those seen in Japan in the 1980s. Foreigners are calling for a currency revaluation because the undervalued yuan gives China’s exports an extra boost. Capital markets need to play a bigger role because investment has been directed mostly by state-owned banks.

True, property price increases appear to be milder than in the Japan of the 1980s. Household loans only account for 30 percent of disposable incomes in China, versus about 90 percent in Japan in 1989, according to Nomura. But there are warning signs. New mortgages recently hit a record. And ratings agency Fitch has cited China’s property market as a cause for concern.

The Chinese stock market also looks less overvalued than Japan’s did. The ratio of Chinese stock prices to earnings is only a third of the peak levels reached in Japan. Stock market capitalization as a percentage of GDP is 62 percent, much lower than Japan’s 150 percent at end of 1989. But China is catching up fast, and the ChiNext market, China’s long-awaited Nasdaq-style market, debuted last week with a speculative surge.

Moreover, China has been more aggressive in terms of monetary easing as it tries to prop up the economy while waiting for exports to return. The broad money supply in China has been rising at almost 30 percent this year, twice as much as in Japan back in the 1980s. So if there is a bubble, it could grow bigger than the one in Japan.

Even much-needed efforts to liberalise and rebalance the economy may lead to asset price inflation. Similar to China, Japan’s banks were too big and small companies had trouble getting financing. So developing a corporate bond market and encouraging banks to lend more to small firms was seen as a healthy change.

But policymakers underestimated the negative impact on banks. After Japan developed a liquid corporate bond market, large corporations issued cheap equity-linked bonds to repay bank loans. Because Japanese financial institutions lacked other revenue sources, they targeted smaller corporations and consumers. Total bank loans made to small- and medium-sized companies and individuals rose to 71 percent of total loans in the late 1990s from 47 percent in the late 1980s.

Due to a lack of information on their new clients, the banks’ bad loans started to rise. Their lending standards deteriorated as they scrambled to make up for lost business. This could very well happen in China as the country encourages consumers to take on more debt to stimulate domestic demand.

Moreover, Kinoshita argues that in Japan interest rate deregulation “put a cat amongst the banking pigeons” because banks were forced to lend out more when their margins became compressed due to more competition. Pressure from the United States played a role, and the Japanese authorities were eager to internationalize the yen anyway. Letting banks set deposit and lending rates was one of the requirements for the yen’s internationalization.

The policy lesson for China is that when Beijing takes business away from banks, it needs to balance things out by allowing them to take on new business, such as securities underwriting and broking.

But that leads to the question of how to compensate securities firms for their lost business and prevent them from engaging in reckless behavior. This just underscores the complexity of China’s problems.

Most of the world believes that China risks moving too slowly, not too fast. President Barack Obama might give Chinese leaders another ear bashing during his upcoming trip to China. But without the right systems in place, big bang reforms could be disastrous. It is important that China, as well as the rest of the world, learns from Japan’s mistakes.

– Wei Gu is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are her own —

China has finally given a green light for Disneyland to build a theme park in Shanghai. Negotiations that started when Bill Clinton was in the White House have concluded just before President Barack Obama is due to visit. The approval looks like a coup for Walt Disney Co, but it will take all of Mickey’s magic to prevent the park from becoming another government-financed loss maker.

Disney’s last theme park in the region was anything but a hit. Hong Kong Disneyland was created in 2005 in an effort to boost employment in the epidemic-stricken region, but attendance numbers have fallen short of target. This hits the Hong Kong government harder than Disney, because the former not only took an initial 57 percent equity stake in the venture, but also spent $1.75 billion building related infrastructure like a metro line and ferry piers.

Shanghai Disneyland is likely to be financed in the same way. Estimates for the park’s price tag are around $4 billion. The government and a group of Chinese companies will contribute about 60 percent of equity, with Disney paying for the rest. The Shanghai government is also likely to pay for the roads leading to the park.

The Hong Kong park has been a disappointment for a number of reasons, some of which might equally be relevant in Shanghai. It is the smallest Disneyland in the world, so it is crowded and not worth visiting for a second day. Culturally, locals identify more with the Ocean Park, which features pandas and sharks and is cheaper. Hong Kong Disneyland’s public image has also taken a hit from a bout of food poisoning and accusations that it has exaggerated visitor numbers.

The Shanghai park will be 3-4 times bigger than the one in Hong Kong, making space for more visitors. But this will also increase the cost of relocating current residents. Some locals are busy adding a second floor to their homes so they can demand more compensation when they move out.

Shanghai has twice Hong Kong’s population, but average income is only about a quarter that of its wealthier neighbour, so it’s far from clear how many visitors will be able to afford a ticket that will cost the equivalent of two days of earnings for a college graduate. Then there is the possibility that the Shanghai park will divert visitors from Hong Kong.

There is also a risk of a culture backlash. Chinese children are less familiar with Disney characters than their counterparts in, say, Japan, home to Disney’s most successful overseas theme park. That said, the Chinese have so far appeared to be receptive to the American cultural icon: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse appears on national TVs and Disney has opened a chain of language schools in Shanghai.

China’s decision to relent after ten years says a lot about its changed priorities. Before, the government was concerned about the economy overheating, but now growth has become the top priority. While it is probably better to build a theme park than more empty highways, a second Disneyland might prove to be one too many.

– At the time of publication Wei Gu did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. She may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund. —

(John Kemp is a Reuters columnist. The views expressed are his own)

Warren Buffett’s acquisition of the remaining 77.4 percent of Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad his Berkshire Hathaway does not already own looks like a strategic bet that America’s future energy needs will be met, in large part, through a massive expansion in coal-fired power generation coupled with carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Coal is the most important item moved on BNSF’s railroads. It accounted for almost half the tonnage moved by BNSF in the first nine months of the 2009 (214 billion revenue ton miles out of a total of 444 billion) and a quarter of the company’s revenues ($2.7 billion out of a total of $10.4 billion).

BNSF’s track and rights of way are perfectly positioned to benefit from a massive expansion of the country’s coal-fired output in the next 20 years, coupled with CCS technology to curb the carbon-dioxide emissions.

BNSF controls the crucial rails linking the massive domestic reserves of the Powder River Basin, the Northern Great Plains, the Western Interior Basin and the Illinois Basin east to the main industrial centres of the Midwest and west to the major electricity demand centres in southern California.

* http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/of96-092/Comp/main.gif
* http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/reserves/chapter1.html#fig1
* http://www.bnsf.com/tools/reference/division_maps/?menu=5&submenu=0
* http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/109/US_ENRGY1009.gif

(James Saft is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own)

So it can be done after all.

Britain is poised to take tough steps to break up the large banks it rescued, setting it in stark contrast to the United States, which seems set on a policy of shoring up the unfair advantages it grants its too-big-to-fail banks while regulating around the edges.

It is quite a change for Britain, which has a sorry history of self-serving self-regulation in financial services combined with limp and outgunned official control.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling on Sunday told the BBC that Lloyds, RBS and Northern Rock would be partly broken up and assets sold to new entrants into the banking market. Large existing competitors such as HSBC are expected to be blocked from making bids for the assets.

Britain took over Northern Rock after a run on the bank and its rescue of Lloyds and RBS left it with stakes of 43 and 70 percent, respectively.

It is worth noting that if anything Britain is more dependent on its financial services sector than the United States.

Could it be that Britain has determined that a level playing field, strong competition and a lower risk of a crisis might actually make it more competitive internationally? I certainly think so.

It will without doubt improve the situation for the small businesses and individuals that can’t access international capital markets and depend on the banks for access to credit and other financial services.

Before we get all excited and expect the United States to follow suit with Citibank and Bank of America, it is important to recall that Britain’s Labour government is more or less on its death bed and faces an election in 2010 which the bookies and almost everyone else think it is highly unlikely to win.

There is also the matter of the European Union, which has a say over subsidies such as the ones Britain has showered on the banks. RBS said on Monday that it may be forced by the EU to sell more assets than it had planned. Lloyds is also seen likely to raise additional new capital to allow it to stay outside of an asset insurance scheme Britain is running for the banks and which would involve the government taking yet more equity in the participants.

OH WHAT A CONTRAST

The fact remains that Britain and the EU are saying that more competition is needed and taking steps to ensure that the banks which ended up needing state care are broken up. This must have an impact on how other big banks are ultimately treated, even if they did not receive the same level of direct state aid.

The equity buffer that is being required is also remarkable; the banks should end up with core tier one equity of about 10 percent, four times what they were expected to hold before the crisis.

Contrast all of this with the hopefully named Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, now wending its way through Congress. As Harvard Business School professor David Moss points out, as currently drafted this bill won’t even allow the systemically important banks it is designed to control be named, a real Monty Python-esque touch.

Think about it: we won’t even be allowed to know the identities of the firms we are potentially on the hook for. Moss points out that this neatly side-steps the idea of taxing too-whatever-to-fail status as a means of encouraging the behemoths to sell up and avoid the costs. The costs remain with the taxpayer, or potentially with a group of big firms after the fact.

The argument the U.S. administration is making, more or less, is that our complex global economy somehow demands that we have complex huge banks. If we don’t allow huge banks to persist, we’ll choke off growth. If we think we can go back to mom and pop banking, we are simply kidding ourselves. And anyway, if the U.S. doesn’t allow it, foreign banks will just scoop up the cream. With Britain and the European Union taking strong steps, that argument is losing traction. And as for complexity, well I’d have to say that the record of complexity in banking is mixed, to be kind, as far as the deal it gives to taxpayers and consumers of banking services. It would be one thing to argue for huge economies of scale for plain vanilla banking processes like clearing, but it is hard to see why that needs to be combined with derivatives and trading.

It would be nice to think the winds are blowing west across the Atlantic, but this is not usually the case.

(Editing by James Dalgleish)

(At the time of publication James Saft did not own any direct investments in securities mentioned in this article. He may be an owner indirectly as an investor in a fund.)

– Joan Wasser Gish is a consultant in the Boston area. A former senior policy adviser to Senator John Kerry, she recently testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship. The views expressed are her own. –

When the toys are put away and the last youngster is picked up for the day, early childhood education providers like all other entrepreneurs sit down to assess their revenues, account for expenses and make difficult business decisions. And though their services are rife with hugs and games and songs, their work has serious implications for the economy. The child-care sector is a critical driver of economic growth and workforce development. That is why financial leaders and policymakers should do more to support providers as both educators and small-business entrepreneurs.

There are more than 400,000 licensed child-care facilities across the country. They span the economic sectors, with the majority run as sole proprietorship home-based businesses, and the rest split between for-profit and non-profit centers offering early education and care. Most are run by women, and a significant proportion are owned and operated by members of minority groups. Because of the early education and care services they provide, they contribute to both short- and long-term economic growth.

Quality early childhood education is associated with improved worker availability and productivity. Early childhood education enables parents to participate in the labor force. Studies have shown that availability of good early childhood education can reduce employee turnover by 37 to 60 percent.

Conversely, breakdowns in child-care availability are associated with absenteeism, tardiness, and reduced concentration at work. One study estimates that unstable care arrangements leading to absences cost American businesses $3 billion annually.

Early childhood education establishments also contribute to the economy as employers and catalysts of community development. The Oakland-based Insight Center for Community Economic Development estimates that the child-care industry generates more than $50.6 billion in annual gross receipts and 1.85 million full-time equivalent jobs nationwide. When centers locate in low-income urban and rural communities, which many non-profits and some for-profits do, they hire from the local community, enable low- and moderate-income families to participate in the labor force, and purchase and renovate facilities.

But the greatest economic impact of high-quality early childhood education is its beneficial effect on enrolled children. Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman argues that high-quality early education provides “the advantage of an early start to their skill development improving their chances of successfully participating in the job market in later years.”

Longitudinal studies have demonstrated that children who attend first-class early education and care programs are 40 percent less likely to repeat a grade, 30 percent more likely to graduate from high school, and more than twice as likely to go to college. It is estimated that universal access to voluntary, quality early education would add 3 million jobs and almost $1 trillion annually to U.S. GDP over the long term.

In short, investing in high-quality early childhood education is an efficient way to build human capital and strengthen the overall economy.

Few of these economic benefits, however, are achieved by warehousing children in sub-standard programs so that parents can work. The key is quality. To realize the positive economic impacts of early childhood education providers must offer first-rate services, and that means that they have to succeed as both educators and small-business operators.

Legislation pending in Congress and supported by the Obama administration would incentivize states with eligibility for grant funds if they improve educational standards, raise teacher qualifications, and develop a rating system that would provide parents a tool for selecting quality early childhood education programs. These policies would build upon existing state-level initiatives designed to strengthen the educational quality of early learning programs, and present important changes and promising investments.

Economists at the Minneapolis Federal Reserve estimate that there is a 16 percent return on every public dollar invested in high quality early childhood education.

Yet scant attention is being paid by state and federal policymakers to strengthening early childhood education through the existing network of entrepreneurial supports. The U.S. Small Business Administration works with lenders to provide $28 billion in loan guarantees to small businesses, has a robust network of technical assistance and business development supports, and is dedicated to fostering women and minority entrepreneurship. Relatively few early education providers, however, are aware of these small business supports. The SBA should do more to reach early childhood education providers with these resources.

Today, solitary initiatives to forge connections between the vast network of small-business resources and child-care providers are sprouting up from California to Massachusetts and many places in between.

Congress is beginning to address the capital needs of early childhood education providers with proposed legislation from my old boss, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, and a separate bill from Senator Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York. These initiatives are designed to help early childhood programs purchase and renovate facilities, an important contributor to program safety and quality.

But if this is all policymakers do, the nation is missing an opportunity.

Coordinated outreach to early education providers by those with entrepreneurial expertise would have compound benefits to the economy and prove to be an efficient use of public funds. For example, Small Business Development Centers could collaborate with Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies and Family Child Care Systems to reach providers with technical assistance.

The federal government spends billions of dollars each year to both improve access to high-quality early childhood education and to support small businesses as engines of economic development.

Private-sector early childhood education providers are positioned to help our nation realize these goals simultaneously. If these providers are properly supported, the positive effects of early childhood education would grow, benefiting both our kids and our economy.

–Joe Cerrell is director of Global Health Policy and Advocacy at the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation. He oversees the foundation’s global health communications, public policy, and international finance. The views expressed are his own. –

I recently took my three-year-old twin daughters to their annual doctor visit, where they received their latest round of routine vaccinations.  Thanks to the miracle of vaccines, I know my daughters will be protected for life against measles, tetanus, and other diseases that were once serious threats. But incredibly, millions of children in poor countries still die from diseases that could easily be prevented with the effective, affordable vaccines that Americans take for granted.

Fortunately, that is starting to change.  This week, a landmark report from the World Health Organization, UNICEF, and the World Bank concludes that a renewed global push on childhood immunization has raised the number of children vaccinated to an all-time high.  The authors find that vaccines now save 2.5 million lives worldwide every year.

(Read related Reuters story: Global immunizations hit record but miss millions.)

As we continue expanding access to basic vaccines that have existed for decades, we also need to ensure that new vaccines quickly reach children in need.  Typically, when new vaccines are invented, they don’t become available in poor countries until years, or even decades, after being introduced in the U.S. What’s more, effective vaccines don’t yet exist for some of the developing world’s biggest killers, like malaria and HIV.

This situation is a classic case of markets failing the world’s poorest people. Because poor countries have limited ability to pay, vaccine makers have little incentive to make the enormous investments required to develop and manufacture new vaccines for the developing world.  So vaccines remain unavailable where they could save the most lives.

Now, innovative thinking on global markets promises to bring long-overdue change.

One of the most exciting new approaches takes aim at pneumococcal disease, a leading killer of children worldwide. While relatively unknown to Americans, pneumococcal disease causes the deaths of more than a million young children worldwide each year, 90 percent of them in developing countries.

If you’re an American parent like me, your kids are probably protected against pneumococcal disease by a vaccine called Prevnar, made by Wyeth.  But this and other pneumococcal vaccines were designed for use in wealthy nations.  They don’t protect against the types of the disease that are common in the developing world.

That is about to change thanks to a groundbreaking partnership launched with financial support from the governments of Italy, the UK, Canada, Norway, and Russia, along with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Known as the Advance Market Commitment, or AMC, the effort could save the lives of seven million children over the next 20 years.

The AMC applies a concept that is simple but had never been tried before.  In essence, the six donors have made a promise:  If vaccine makers develop and produce affordable pneumococcal vaccines designed specifically for poor countries, then the donors will buy them.  By committing $1.5 billion, in advance, they’re helping to create a predictable market where none existed before.   With the necessary incentives in place, vaccine makers can make the investments needed to develop the new vaccines and manufacture them on a large scale.

To qualify for the AMC, participating companies must make long-term, binding commitments to provide the new vaccines at affordable prices.   Thanks to donor funding and the manufacturers’ pricing commitments, developing countries will be able to purchase the vaccines at guaranteed prices of no more than $3.50 per dose.  The first of the new vaccines could become available as soon as 2010.  Developing countries are already signing up to purchase them.

If the AMC for pneumococcal vaccines proves successful, a similar model could be used to quicken the development of other urgently needed drugs and vaccines, such as new vaccines against tuberculosis, the cause of some 1.8 million deaths worldwide each year.

The AMC is one of several new initiatives that are creatively using market principles to save lives in the developing world.  For example, through a partnership launched earlier this year, donors are negotiating with manufacturers to dramatically reduce prices on the most effective drugs against malaria.  By making these prices comparable with those of older, much less effective drugs, they hope to greatly increase the number of patients who are successfully treated.  In another effort, the World Bank and donor governments have quickly raised billions of dollars for childhood immunization by issuing bonds in the global capital markets.  The funding unlocked by these bonds could help to immunize 500 million children worldwide.

Vaccines are arguably humanity’s greatest scientific achievement, and have already saved countless lives over the last 50 years.  Today, the AMC and other new approaches offer more ways to extend the benefits of vaccines to everyone in need.  With millions of lives still at stake, it’s time to use them.

– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own –

Message to Israelis disgruntled with President Barack Obama’s Middle East policies: you’ve got used to U.S. presidents pouring affection on you. Forget that. Obama is not “a lovey-dovey kind of guy”.

That assessment came from an old Middle East hand, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, in an exchange in the closing minutes of the inaugural national conference of J Street, a new pro-Israel lobby for the liberal majority of American Jews (78 percent voted for Obama) who do not feel represented by traditional pro-Israel advocacy groups, chief of them the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The conference, in the words of J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami, marked “the birth of a movement, a coming-out party for those who want to widen the tent and are not stuck in the mindset that because we are pro-Israel, we must be anti- somebody else”.

Now director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, Indyk was on a panel entitled “Why Two States? Why Now?” He responded to a question from the audience on the advisability of American presidents getting personally involved in Middle East peace-making. They shouldn’t get involved in procedural detail, he said, but for Obama it would be “really important” to go to Israel. Why?

His approval rating, according to Israeli polls, hovers around five percent, a sharp contrast to the 88 percent drawn by George W. Bush, a man thoroughly disliked almost everywhere else. The majority of Israelis think Obama is pro-Palestinian and see his visits to Egypt and Saudi Arabia as evidence that he wants to distance himself from Israel and curry favour with the Arabs. Unless he can dispel that public perception, the Israeli government is unlikely to make concessions.

Without major concessions, both from the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is no chance that Obama will succeed where other American presidents have failed. As far as concessions from Israel are concerned, J Street expects to help the Obama administration convince Congress that questioning Israeli policies is not tantamount to being anti-Israel.

Thanks largely to the enormous influence of AIPAC, which calls itself “America’s pro-Israel lobby,” criticism of Israel has been rare in Congress; debate of U.S. policies towards the largest recipient of U.S. economic and military aid even rarer. In a controversial 2006 essay, two prominent political scientists, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, concluded that AIPAC had a “stranglehold” on Congress.

It’s too early to tell whether this will change, now that there is another lobby that calls itself pro-Israel but does not shy away from questioning Israeli policies. J Street reacted to last December’s Israeli attack on Gaza by criticising Hamas for raining rockets on Israeli civilians and Israel for punishing 1.5 million Gazans for the actions of extremists.

OUT OF TOUCH?
That stand drew furious responses both from the political right and the center. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish religious organisation in America, called J Street’s position “morally deficient” and “profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment”.

On the right, the Gaza statement transformed J Street into an anti-Israeli, pro-Hamas organisation. One right-wing blogger called the group’s conference, in the last week of October, an “anti-Israel hate fest”.

(J Street, by the way, takes its name from a gap in the Washington street grid. There’s an I Street and a K Street, home to most lobby firms in the capital, but no J Street. Missing street, missing voice).

Despite his disagreement with J Street over Gaza, Yoffie attended the conference and took part in a debate over what it means to be pro-Israel. There was agreement on a theme that ran through much of the meeting –  Jewish settlements in the heart of the West Bank make it impossible to establish a Palestinian state. Time is running out for a two-state solution. The alternative is worse.

That would be living together in one country in which Jews would be outnumbered (Palestinian birth rates are higher) and faced with the choice of abandoning democracy by exerting apartheid-style minority rule or giving up the idea of Israel as a homeland for all Jews.

The establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, has been reluctantly embraced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but prospects look very bleak for soon resuming the peace talks that stalled last December.

Still, the mood at J Street was upbeat. One of the reasons: an attendance that convincingly ended arguments whether there was an appetite for a left-wing organisation that shuns the reflexive Israel-right-or-wrong attitude of the established lobbies.

“We planned for 1,000 delegates and when I first mentioned this figure, my staff thought I needed psychiatric treatment,” Ben-Ami said. “We got 1,500.” The under-estimate made for conference rooms so tightly packed that many delegates had to sit on floors and debates were frequently simulcast to spillover rooms.

A second reason for high spirits: Obama’s decision to send his National Security Advisor, James Jones, to make the keynote speech. It broke no new ground but ended with a promise that the Obama administration would be represented at all future J Street conferences.

What better sign that the neophyte group has arrived as a serious participant in the foreign policy debate?

(You can contact the author at Debusmann@reuters.com)