Assignment 5: Research Paper Weight: 30% of your final course grade Due: At the end of Unit 9 Length: 2,000–2,500 words Instructions This assignment builds on your research proposal (Assignment 3) and

Unit 8: Overview

Overview

This unit addresses the concepts of social cohesion and social exclusion in Canada, including an examination of political, policy, and legal structural racism that have always undermined social cohesion. Nation-building policies based on assimilating non-white settler immigrants to the British or French colonial models ignored Indigenous sovereignty at best, and at worst, excluded Indigenous people from every facet of society. Exclusion from the mainstream settler society meant social, economic, and political hardship, resulting in the wicked problems faced by marginalized groups today. What were the relatively cohesive liberal democracies of the post-Second World War period (due in large part to the legalized suppression and marginalization of Indigenous Peoples) are now in a state of turmoil, given the fundamental changes introduced by neoliberal reforms, globalization, the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, and the social and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such times certainly test the boundaries of social cohesion.

Learning Objectives

When you have completed Unit 8, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives.

1. Define social cohesion.

2. Explain why social cohesion and the problems of social exclusion have become so important in relation to the problems of modern governance.

3. Explain how structural racism and discrimination relate to social exclusion.

4. Describe the challenges to social cohesion in Canada.

Required Readings

George, R. Y. (2017). Inclusion is just the Canadian word for assimilation: Self-determination and the reconciliation paradigm in Canada . In K. L. Ladner & M. J. Tait (Eds.), Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples celebrate 150 years of betrayal (pp. 49–62). Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Lightfoot, S. R. (2017). Adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Canada’s existential crisis . In K. L. Ladner & M. J. Tait (Eds.), Surviving Canada: Indigenous Peoples celebrate 150 years of betrayal (pp. 440–459). Arbeiter Ring Publishing.

Taylor, A., & Foster, J. (2015). Migrant workers and the problem of social cohesion in Canada . Journal of International Migration and Integration, 16(1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-014-0323-y

United Nations. (2008, March). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) . https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Unit 8: Commentary

Commentary

In Unit 6, we broached the subject of social cohesion in relation to the voluntary sector. As we saw, social cohesion is about how well societies can bind together and form communities capable of generating wealth and stability. A closely related concept is that of social capital: the value created by social networks. Social networks that are based on shared values and trust facilitate reciprocity and inclusion. Interactions that occur in dense social networks foster the consensus and civic engagement that underpins cooperation and fellowship within communities (Putnam, 2000).

Social capital is not only important for such things as civic engagement, it is foundational to economic success—social strife and large numbers of marginalized people create instability that undermine business investment and economic productivity. Thus, the state of social cohesion within a society is intimately tied to critical economic outcomes. Societies with a healthy stock of equitably distributed social capital, and which enjoy greater social cohesiveness, are much better placed to succeed in a hyper-competitive global economy. Conversely, societies with a lack of cohesion, characterized by the chronic exclusion of certain demographic groups, will continue to struggle to compete effectively.

Pressure on social cohesion has compounded since the 2007–2008 financial crisis. One of the by-products of the crisis was increased unemployment, and indicators show that youth were particularly hard hit, despite signs of recovery for other age groups (CBC, 2012). Women were also disproportionately affected, giving rise to the term she-cession. High levels of unemployment for sectors of Canada’s population, combined with neoliberal fiscal policies had important consequences for income equality in Canada. Income inequality reached levels that had been unseen since the 1920s (Osberg, 2012, pp. 10–11).

Social Cohesion and Social Exclusion

Let us consider the question of social cohesion in relation to the problem of social exclusion. It is difficult to fully understand the importance of social cohesion without considering social exclusion. Social exclusion, as a concept applicable to policy discourse, was first used in western Europe in the 1970s, and has since become a major focus of public debate. Social exclusion emerged as a policy concern because of the increased threats of marginalization among new and other significant segments of the population. Problems that came to the fore included the increased incidence of people without homes, long-term unemployment, exclusion of youth from the labour market, ghettoization, the growth of child poverty, increased incidence of family breakdown (and intimate partner violence), and difficulties integrating immigrants and refugees into mainstream Western society (Haan, 1998). Yet, at the same time, others in society were enjoying the benefits of uneven economic growth associated with trade liberalization and globalization. Accordingly, the debate surrounding social exclusion and social cohesion arose in response to the need to improve the position of those who had been left behind (Ebersold, 1998).

Until the 1970s, policy discussion was largely centred on issues of poverty, with concern focussed on inequalities of income. The notion of social exclusion, however, reaches beyond the problem of poverty as such and “directs our attention to the social mechanisms that produce or sustain deprivation” (Giddens, 2000, p. 104). The inverse of social exclusion is often presented as “social inclusion” and “social integration” into broader society (Byrne, 2005, p. 3; Richmond & Saloojee, 2005). Social exclusion and social inclusion discourse has been influential on policy thinking in Canada and elsewhere (Coles, 2003; Government of Canada, 2003). Note, however, it is only in recent years that the Indian Act’s forced assimilation of Indigenous Peoples into larger Canadian society has been recognized as an unacceptable method of attaining social inclusion, which ultimately exacerbates social exclusion (for example, residential schools or the pass system, to name two of the most egregious).

Intensified levels of both economic and social polarization, and questions about the role of the modern welfare state in helping to perpetuate this situation, shifted the terrain of the debate. The welfare state was condemned by its neoliberal critics for its supposed failure to check the growth of poverty and prevent the rise of new social problems. The charge was that the welfare state assists in creating “poverty traps” and a culture of welfare dependency (Richards, 1997). As well, welfare state spending was said to be an impediment to economic growth in the new competitive global economy (Evans, 1998). The problem, according to neoliberal critics, was that social programs were not designed to respond to the demands of the new economy. These programs were focussed on supplying income supports for those on social assistance and unemployment insurance, rather than concentrating their efforts on such schemes as welfare-to-work—that is, training and education programs that equip the “socially excluded” with the tools necessary for finding their way back into the mainstream of the labour market and society (see, for example, Ebersold, 1998; Kloprogge, 1998; and Mierendoff, 1998).

Recall the discussion of British Poor Laws from Unit 6. From the neoliberal perspective, there have been and continue to be attempts to reify these values, drawing a distinction between the so-called “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor” (Katz, 1989; Russell, 2000). For the “undeserving” (those who are deemed fit to work but who have become “dependent” upon the passive supports of the social security state), welfare should be restructured toward active programs that offer “opportunities” to upgrade skills and provide “incentives” to become self-sufficient. Those who fail to take advantage of these opportunities deserve to be cut off from social support, according to neoliberals, belying the discourse of creating choice. The primary motto for neoliberal social policy is “no rights without responsibilities.” For example, access to unemployment benefits “should carry the obligation to look actively for work, and it is up to governments to ensure that welfare systems do not discourage active search” (Giddens, 1998, p. 65). This approach views the problem of social exclusion from a more individualistic perspective, within the realm of personal choice. The state may play a role in assisting individuals in getting skills training and in such things as job preparedness (for example, in resume writing and job search skills), but it is up to individuals to take the initiative to use these opportunities to prepare themselves to enter and succeed in the job market. Once equipped for the labour market, individuals must take ultimate responsibility for the provision of their own and their families’ well-being (Clarke, 2005, p. 58).

Rival accounts of social exclusion do not emphasize individual failure or welfare state policies, but rather see it as a result of structural forces in the economy. They claim there are not enough good jobs in the new economy, particularly since the 2007–2008 financial crisis. This is a consequence of an economic environment dedicated to promoting increased labour market flexibility, which results in the casualization of work (increased use of insecure forms of employment such as temporary, contract, part-time, and self-employment) and a drop in real incomes. The demand is for “just-in-time workers” to match the needs of the “just-in-time economy.” Thus, it should be of little surprise that, at the level of the labour force, there is increasing exclusion, polarization, and marginalization (Silver, 2000; Silver et al., 2005). Similarly, structural racism and other barriers to inclusion of certain groups are exacerbated in the new economy.

The COVID-19 pandemic changed the discussion of social exclusion and the “deserving poor” when middle-class citizens were suddenly faced with economic ruin because of physical distancing and isolation requirements that prevented them from working. Lost revenue due to restrictions on entertainment including dining-out, leisure travel, and sport and cultural events were of particular concern. The creation of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), a four-month grant of up to $2,000 / month for COVID-related unemployment, was implemented as part of the federal government’s emergency response. This is one example of many supports provided to those who were unemployed, unable to find work (students), and businesses impacted by COVID. The inevitable problems associated with targeted programs revived the push for guaranteed income support for everyone in Canada, not just the “deserving poor,” such as senior citizens. Universal programs such as these do not target particular groups of people who are determined to be deserving of help, but conceptualize services (be it education, healthcare, or income) as a right of citizenship. Programs such as these include everyone and are the antithesis of exclusion.

It is important to note, however, that social exclusion occurs at both the bottom and the top of society. At the bottom end, we are witnessing considerable growth in the population that finds itself shut out of meaningful participation in the labour market and in other key institutions of society—the growth of poverty (especially among children) and lack of affordable housing is vivid evidence of this. At the top end, we are witnessing the voluntary exclusion of affluent groups who are increasingly choosing to withdraw from public institutions, such as education and healthcare, and to live in gated communities (Giddens, 1998, p. 103; Leonard, 2000, p. xviii). Lasch (1995) refers to this as the “revolt of the elites.” As noted earlier in the course, the pandemic underscored the differences in citizen capacity to protect themselves, as well as differential benefits that accrued by those positioned to profit from economic instability. The notion that “we are all in this together” ignores the fact that some have the means—the social capital—to secure their own positions without external assistance. Indeed, the gap between the rich and poor accelerated during this period.

Most interestingly, after consistently ranking first throughout the 1990s as being the best place to live by the Human Development Index of the United Nations, Canada declined markedly during the 2000s, reaching a low of eighth in 2010. This decline indicates growing challenges with respect to governance in Canada and the fact that unresolved disparities with marginalized groups will continue to impact the well-being of everyone. Among the gravest of these is the threat to social cohesion. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, draws a direct link between generalized well-being (especially economic well-being) and social cohesion. As the OECD has observed, “a world where life is characterised by stability, continuity, predictability, and secure access to material well-being . . . garner[s] more easily the commitment and adherence that sustain societal cohesion over time” (OECD, 1997, p. 7). In fact, a 2011 OECD report warned Canada of the negative economic and social consequences of rising inequality (OECD, 2011). In his book The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future, Stiglitz (2012) argues that growing inequality undermines the very nature of democracy. In the case of Alberta, Shrivastava and Stefanick (2015) also demonstrate how Alberta’s oil-dependent economy is related to the decline of democracy in the whole country. Written at a time when there were handsome rewards to corporations and particular individuals in Alberta’s oil industry, the authors tracked growing economic, social, and political inequality. While a crash in oil prices worldwide provided some relief to growing inequalities, the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the subsequent economic shocks created by the sanctions of Russian oil will undoubtedly reverse the slowdown in that sector, and inequality will grow once again.

In Canada, social exclusion particularly affects those who have been historically marginalized: Indigenous Peoples. In recent years, the Canadian state has begun to take its first tentative steps to reconciliation, which includes the acknowledgement of past atrocities and certain mechanisms of redress. In spite of Canada’s international prestige as a major human rights advocate, the country faces serious challenges in terms of social inclusion. For George (2017),

what the state suggests is “reconciliation,” and the expression of our self-determination, is an unambiguous inclusion in the capitalist structure of Canadian society—an inclusion that is nothing more than thinly veiled assimilation, drawing us further into the colonial system and subjugation to the will and assumed sovereignty of the Canadian state. (p. 50)

The 2022 occupation of Ottawa by the so-called “Freedom Convoy” demonstrates how the concept of social exclusion can be mobilized by groups that are not typically thought to be marginalized. It is urgent that we recognize the complexity of social exclusion in Canada and that there are no quick fixes: wicked problems such as inequality created by colonialization and the anger generated from growing economic inequalities require perseverance, work, and commitment.

Conclusion

Globalization, the growth in social and economic polarization, neoliberal deregulation, and the shrinking social safety net have all contributed to greater insecurity and widening disparities. Changing patterns of employment resulting from changes in the global political economy are an especially important factor in accounting for the loss of loyalty and community at both work and within society (Reich, 1991). Emerging inequalities in the workplace are exacerbated by employment precarity, the gig economy, stagnant wages, and the declining influence of labour. Societal well-being has been put at risk by the new inequalities because it “paves paths to the top” for a few, while “digging holes” for many others. This is the kind of dynamic that fosters enduring cleavages and creates an environment in which alienation is deeply ingrained (Dahrendorf, 1998, p. 82). As Burke and Shields (2000) observe, “rising levels of economic polarization and poverty place enormous stresses on the social fabric. A labour market characterized by too few good job opportunities weakens social cohesion and well-being” (p. 122). In the post-COVID era, it is increasingly recognized that social cohesion requires that these “good jobs” also be available to women, Indigenous people, people of colour, immigrant populations, and people with disabilities. Finally, it must be recognized that economic possibilities are increasingly truncated for everyone due to increasing technology dependence. Changes to the very nature of capitalism will continue to erode the social fabric and make good governance increasingly difficult.

Unit 8: Key Concepts

assimilation

global financial crisis

poverty trap

social cohesion

social capital

social and economic polarization

social exclusion / inclusion

UNDRIP

Unit 8: Study Questions

Study Questions

Once you have completed Unit 8, test the depth of your familiarity with it by answering the following study questions.

1. Based on the readings, how do you define social cohesion?

1. Explain the relationship between social cohesion and the problem of social exclusion. How does social exclusion affect social capital?

2. How is structural racism and discrimination related to social exclusion?

3. In view of this unit’s readings, what do you think the state’s role should be in managing economic crises and social cohesion? Explain.

Unit 9: Overview

Overview

COVID-19 triggered a generalized global crisis affecting public health, as well as the economy, politics, and social life. This pandemic has exposed and accelerated existing inequities across the globe. This wicked problem constitutes a huge challenge for governance structures in the local, regional, national, and global spheres, and it requires a collaborative approach among the public, the private, and the third sectors, as well as of society in general to find solutions. This unit reflects on the growing failures of capitalism and uses contemporary crises such as the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis to critically analyze the responses to inequality from global authorities, the Canadian federal and provincial governments, the private sector, and the voluntary sector. Also, we will explore the continued state failure to address systemic inequalities with respect to Indigenous communities in Canada, as well as First Nations’ responses to the COVID crisis.

Learning Objectives

When you have completed Unit 9, you should be able to achieve the following learning objectives.

1. Assess the impact of the neoliberal policy legacy on Canada.

1. Discuss the relationship between neoliberalism and periodic economic crises.

2. Identify the main contributors to the 2007–2008 financial crisis.

3. Identify and explain the impact of COVID-19 in Canada and the various national responses to this crisis.

4. Analyze the continued state failure to address systemic inequalities with respect to Indigenous communities and other marginalized populations in Canada.

Required Readings

Al Jazeera English. (2020, April 16). Canada’s First Nations: Indigenous communities counter outbreak  [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=227bh4j34Ag

Hawthorn, A. (2021, April 25). Why have Indigenous communities been hit harder by the pandemic than the population at large?  CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/apocalypse-then-indigenous-covid-1.5997774

Saad-Filho, A. (2020). From COVID-19 to the end of neoliberalism  . Critical Sociology, 46(4–5), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520929966

CBC News: The National. (2020, April 16). The week COVID-19 changed Canada  [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a6vyXx3wFk

Unit 9: Commentary

Commentary

This unit addresses one of the major challenges facing modern Western democracies: the erosion of state power. What were relatively cohesive liberal democracies of the post-Second World War period are now in a state of turmoil, given the fundamental changes introduced by neoliberal reforms, globalization, the 2007–2008 global financial crisis, and the COVID-19 crisis. The twenty-first century has been a period of challenge and crisis, but also of opportunity. Such times also test the boundaries of social cohesion. Two cases, the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis, illustrate the challenges of governance structures in the regional, national, and global spheres.

Contemporary Challenges to State Power

Neoliberals assume that unfettered global markets and a consumer-based, individualist ethic will transcend national interest and harmonize global economic exchange. In order to facilitate the global market, there is a need for harmonized standards and rules to level the playing field so that no one, at least in theory, gets special favours in the long run. As with liberalism, neoliberalism presumes equality of opportunity among actors and favours the conditions under which everyone will be treated the same way. Neoliberalism is an ideology—that is, it is a worldview that largely serves the interests of the powerful by legitimating prevailing economic structures and current (and inequitable) distributions of power. Institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization operate according to neoliberal principles and policies. Criticism of these institutions includes that they reflect the interests of the powerful Euro–American elite and, as such, conditions for loans and development projects demand that economies restructure in ways that serve the interests of the Euro–American elite, rather than the interests of the countries and populations that they fund.

The flaws of neoliberalism highlighted the need for alternatives. The rise of the third way in the mid-1990s in several countries engendered hope that a new political formation had emerged that reconciled the economic imperatives of neoliberal policies with social cohesion—particularly the election in 1997 of the New Labour government in Britain under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Blair. Third way advocates asserted that new times required a new politics based on a new pragmatism. A changed world meant that the old welfare-state structures also had to be modernized (Powell, 2003, p. 102).

The third way was distinguished by a number of features. For one, the third way accepted the neoliberal idea of government failure, and with it the need to be more reliant on market mechanisms to increase society’s wealth and provide services. However, it also recognized that market failure is an issue, and there is consequently a greater need for the state and civil society to correct the resulting deficiencies than is allowed for by hard-line neoliberals. The third way seeks to harness the market to increase efficiency, but it also claims to use the state and civil society to provide a measure of equity necessary to support a socially cohesive society (Powell, 2003, p. 103). However, this approach ignores that a vision of “equity” that allows for colonialism and racism is unjust and fails to promote social cohesion.

In a seeming paradox, the promising pragmatism of the third way did not survive the 2007–2008 financial crisis. It might seem that social democratic parties throughout western Europe would be well-positioned to capitalize on the market failure of the financial crisis; however, the left-wing social democratic and labour parties of western Europe suffered a string of electoral defeats in the wake the financial crisis. Ryner (2010, pp. 554–555) argues that this was due to those parties being so deeply embedded within the neoliberal financial system, which contributed to the financial crisis, that their political landscape was bereft of any significant alternative. In fact, in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, third way political parties played an important role in the financial deregulation that contributed to the financial crisis. The failure of social democrats to articulate a feasible policy alternative in the wake of the financial crisis explains, in part, why, beyond an initial round of stimulus packages, austerity-based reforms were provided as solutions to the economic stagnation that afflicted most of the Global North since the events of 2007–2008. The next section explores this crisis in more detail.

The 2007–2008 Financial Crisis

In 2007, global capitalism entered a severe crisis. The 2007–2008 financial crisis was singular in relation to previous financial crises that occurred during the 1990s and early 2000s in that it did not originate in the Global South, but rather in the very centre of global capitalism (the Global North). This was significant since the crisis put into question the ideological underpinnings of the global capitalist economy, notably neoliberal economic policies. The cause of the crisis could not be explained by pointing to economic policies that were inconsistent with neoliberal policies promoted by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or World Bank, such as profligate spending or protectionist economic policies. In fact, it was the very policies of financial deregulation in the United States (including no state control on interest rates and predatory banking practices) throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s that created the conditions for the sub-prime crisis to occur. Specifically, deregulation not only permitted the growth of high-risk mortgages and the subsequent spread of these “toxic” assets throughout the market, but the dismantling of policy mechanisms, which could have prevented or at least mitigated the bankruptcy and collapse of banking institutions both in the United States and elsewhere, also facilitated this crisis (McBride & Whiteside, 2011, pp. 1–5). Helleiner (2010) argues that the close link between neoliberal policies and the financial crisis “generated a legitimacy crisis for the neo-liberal globalized financial regime that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s” (p. 627). In the US, the crisis severely increased unemployment, and home values radically plummeted. In total, “Americans lost $9.8 trillion in wealth as their home values plummeted and their retirement accounts vaporized” (Merle, 2018).

As the financial crisis spread beyond the United States, a pattern of policy responses emerged throughout the Global North. A first element of these policy responses was the bailout of troubled financial and banking institutions with taxpayer money. For example, the United States committed $700 billion to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which purchased stock in troubled financial institutions, as well as in General Motors and Chrysler who were on the verge of ruin (The New York Times, 2011). A second element of these policy responses was interest rate reductions by central banks throughout the world as a means of economic stimulus. A third element was the application of stimulus packages to galvanize the economy in the face of recessions, which began to affect the economies most afflicted. The scale and characteristics of these stimulus packages varied from country to country, but they all included various combinations of spending measures, such as investments in infrastructure; and revenue measures, such as tax cuts (McBride & Whiteside, 2011, pp. 6–8). Notwithstanding these efforts, the lull that beset the economies of the Global North persisted in different forms.

Despite its close economic integration with the United States, Canada was spared the worst consequences of the financial crisis in comparison to other Global North countries. During the financial crisis, however, the Canadian economy was afflicted with several episodes that threatened its stability and that pointed to the necessity for more robust regulation of that sector (Harris, 2010, p. 69). Although the Conservative government was initially reticent to acknowledge that the financial crisis was significantly affecting the Canadian economy, it was eventually prompted to take action. Although less publicized than the bailout in the United States, Canadian banks received over $114 billion from Canada’s federal government. The biggest portion of the total bailout amount included a $69 billion Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation program that bought up mortgages held by Canadian banks (CBC, 2012). As well, Canada lowered its interest rate to approximately 1.5% in 2009, followed by a bailout that same year valued around $30 billon. It is important to note the conservative and modest nature of the bailout, given that 35% of the total amount went towards corporate tax cuts and that the program was declared temporary (McBride & Whiteside, 2011, p. 12).

The financial crisis compounded several political problems related to neoliberal reforms that impacted the Canadian state. Among these is a decline in the level of trust in Canada’s political institutions. The financial crisis also underscored the importance and vulnerability of social cohesion.

The COVID-19 Crisis in Canada

The global spread of coronavirus impacted every corner of the world. Hundreds of millions of contagions, millions of deaths, a devastating decline of entire economies, and social crisis in general resulted. The COVID-19 crisis also questioned the role of global health governance, as the global responses to the pandemic were criticized for being delayed and ineffective. Later, states were accused by some of being heavy-handed in their clumsy responses, exacerbating social division.

For Saad-Filho (2020), the crisis exposed the weaknesses of neoliberalism, since more state presence, and not less, was essential to contain a fast moving and evolving crisis. For this author, the pandemic was the tipping point of an ongoing global crisis of capitalism that started in the last few decades. He states,

the pandemic hit after four decades of neoliberalism had depleted state capacities in the name of the ‘superior efficiency’ of the market, fostered deindustrialization through the ‘globalization’ of production and built fragile financial structures secured by magical thinking and state guarantees, all in the name of short-term profitability. (Saad-Filho, 2020, pp. 478–479)

Saad-Filho also points out that the pandemic made evident the increasing inequalities between and within nations. Almost everybody in every corner of the planet was negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but people had varying capacity to protect themselves depending on resources they had at their disposal:

In brief, the uber-rich moved into their yachts, the merely rich fled to their second homes, the middle class struggled to work from home in the company of overexcited children, and the poor, already having worse health, on average, than the privileged, either lost their earnings entirely or had to risk their lives daily to perform much-praised but (needless to say) low-paid ‘essential work.’ (Saad-Filho, 2020, p. 480)

Canada was not an exception. Broad inequalities exposed by COVID-19 became evident and added to existing inequalities. In Canada, this was particularly evident with respect to Indigenous Peoples. As Hawthorn (2021) explains:

Indigenous people are at the highest risk in the COVID-19 pandemic for the same reasons they were so staggeringly affected by contact epidemics. Due to colonization, many Indigenous communities are still faced with food scarcity, overcrowded housing, dirty water and substandard health care.

Following the declaration of coronavirus as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020, Canada began implementing health restrictions, such as requiring travelers to isolate for fourteen days upon their return to Canada (16 March) and closing borders (18 March), as well as multiple financial measures for individuals and business (Canadian Public Health Association, 2021, p. 16). Similarly, First Nations exercised local authority under the Indian Act, and implemented their own restrictions and supports according to their means. By February 2021, Indigenous Peoples accounted for approximately 70% of COVID cases in the province of Manitoba (Hawthorn, 2021). The Canadian state has faced, and will continue facing, multiple challenges in protecting and guaranteeing proper care for historically marginalized populations. This wicked problem, and in particular, the unequal impact of such problems, challenges the neoliberal assumption of equality of opportunity requiring that the state treat all citizens the same way.

Conclusion

This unit reflects on the growing failures of capitalism and the erosion of state power, exemplified in contemporary crises such as the 2007–2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis. Conversely, crisis has also provided opportunity for Indigenous self-determination in this changing political and socio-economic landscape. Through these two examples, we critically analyzed the governance responses to inequality from state and non-state actors in Canada.

The financial crisis compounded, or at least illuminated, several political problems related to neoliberal reforms that have impacted the Canadian state. Among these is a decline in the level of trust in Canada’s political institutions, and further exposed discrepancies in claims of equality and access to government support. In the case of COVID-19, the pandemic not only questioned the role of global health governance, as the global responses to the pandemic were criticized for being delayed, inequitable, and ineffective. For Saad-Filho (2020), the pandemic raises questions about some of the basic tenets of neoliberalism. Whether or not the pandemic proves to be the tipping point for a profound reordering of global capitalism remains to be seen; however, it seems clear that the change we have seen in the last few decades is accelerating.

Unit 9: Key Concepts

Key Concepts

bailout

COVID-19 crisis

financial deregulation

global financial crisis

stimulus package

sub-prime crisis

TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program)

third way

Unit 9: Study Questions

Study Questions

Once you have completed Unit 9, test the depth of your familiarity with it by answering the following study questions.

1. What were the factors that contributed to the 2007–2008 financial crisis?

1. How can we define the third way?

2. How are the 2007–2008 financial crisis and the coronavirus crisis expressions of the erosion of state power? Explain.

3. What factors contribute to the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus crisis on Indigenous communities in Canada?

4. Why, according to Saad-Filho (2020), is the coronavirus crisis evidence of the crisis of neoliberalism?