Protectionism is bad when Trump does it – so why is it so often welcomed by British cities?

Protectionist in chief, Donald J. Trump. Image: Getty.

Do we stand on the verge of a new trade war? In light of competition from elsewhere, the drawbridge is being pulled up to shelter local industry from these malevolent foreign forces. And that, argue some policy makers, is going to help keep money in the economy and create jobs.

I’m not talking about Donald Trump, steel and whiskey. I’m talking instead about the idea of councils buying their goods and services locally, an idea that has been dubbed ‘Corbynomics’ and has Preston as its poster child. But the parallels are striking.

In recent years Preston City Council in particular has been active in increasing its spend on local businesses, giving them preference over suppliers from elsewhere. This has brought both curiosity from some policy makers and strong support from others, with John McDonnell describing this brand of ‘municipal socialism’ as the kind of radicalism needed across the country.

What is curious though is how differently policies promoting protectionism are viewed at the local and national level. The lines against international trade barriers are well rehearsed, and Donald Trump has been roundly criticised for his approach, with even his economic advisor quitting over it. And yet paradoxically protectionism is welcomed at the local level, somehow viewed as a defence for small businesses rather than the same politics of populism.


The same applies to the idea of local currencies. There are a number of local currencies in the UK, such as the Exeter and Bristol (tagline “Our city. Our money”) and pounds. The principle is that they support independent businesses by encouraging people to shop locally – in a war of David (local independents) versus Goliath (big national or multinational companies), it is argued that these policies help level the playing field. Of course, this is exactly the argument that Trump makes about US steel (David) and China (Goliath).

The struggles of the US steel industry are unlikely to be down to unfair trade practices, nor the deluge of cheap Chinese products. (Chinese steel accounts for just 2 per cent of all steel imports into the USA.) Similarly, the challenges that weaker city economies face have little to do with local authorities spending their budgets with companies outside their areas, nor people choosing to buy from Amazon rather than their local high street. Instead these struggles are caused by the ability of places to attract high-skilled investment into their economies, and the ability of these businesses to ‘export’ their wares to a regional, national or international market. This is caused by a number of issues, of which low skills of the workforce is chief amongst them.

So as US trade tariffs have been criticised by many, we must also view protectionist policies at the local level in light of the same criticism. Successful cities are ones that are open to business, irrespective of where these businesses are based. We should be encouraging them to increase trade, not shut it down.

Paul Swinney is head of policy & research at the Centre for Cities, on whose blog this article first appeared.

You can hear him discuss these issues on a recent episode of Skylines, the CityMetric podcast.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

What can other cities learn about water shortages from Cape Town’s narrow escape from ‘Day Zero’?

Cape town. Image: Pixabay/creative commons.

Cape Town was set to run dry on 12 April, leaving its 3.7m residents without tap water.

“Day Zero” was narrowly averted through drastic cuts in municipal water consumption and last-minute transfers from the agricultural sector. But the process was painful and inequitable, spurring much controversy.

The city managed to stave off “Day Zero,” but does that mean Cape Town’s water system is resilient?

We think not.

This may well foreshadow trouble beyond Cape Town. Cities across the Northern Hemisphere, including in Canada, are well into another summer season that has already brought record-setting heat, drought and flooding from increased run-off.

Water crises are not just about scarcity

Water scarcity crises are most often a result of mismanagement rather than of absolute declines in physical water supplies.

In Cape Town, lower than average rainfall tipped the scales towards a “crisis,” but the situation was worsened by slow and inadequate governance responses. Setting aside debates around whose responsibility it was to act and when, the bigger issue, in our view, was the persistence of outdated ways of thinking about “uncertainty” in the water system.

As the drought worsened in 2016, the City of Cape Town’s water managers remained confident in the system’s ability to withstand the drought. High-level engineers and managers viewed Cape Town’s water system as uniquely positioned to handle severe drought in part because of the vaunted success of their ongoing Water Demand Management strategies.

They weren’t entirely mistaken — demand management has cut overall daily consumption by 50 per cent since 2016. So what went wrong?


Limits to demand management

First, Cape Town’s approach to water management was not well-equipped to deal with growing uncertainty in rainfall patterns — a key challenge facing cities worldwide. Researchers at the University of Cape Town argued recently that the conventional models long used to forecast supply and demand underestimated the probability of failure in the water system.

Second, Cape Town’s water system neared disaster in part because demand management seemed to have reached its limits. Starting late last year, the city imposed a limit on water consumption of 87 litres per person per day. That ceiling thereafter shrunk to 50 litres per person per day.

Despite these efforts, Cape Town consistently failed to cut demand below the 500m-litre-per-day citywide target needed to ensure that the system would function into the next rainy season.

The mayor accused the city’s residents of wasting water, but her reprimanding rhetoric should not be seen as a sign that the citizens were non-compliant. The continuously shrinking water targets were an untenable long-term management strategy.

Buffers are key to water resilience

In the end, “Day Zero” was avoided primarily by relying on unexpected buffers, including temporary agricultural transfers and the private installation of small-scale, residential grey-water systems and boreholes in the city’s wealthier neighbourhoods. The former increased water supply and the latter lowered demand from the municipal system. These buffers are unlikely to be available next year, however, as the water allocations for the agricultural sector will not be renewed and there is uncertainty in the long-term sustainability of groundwater withdrawals.

For more than a decade, Cape Town has levelled demand, reduced leaks and implemented pressure management and water restrictions. This made Cape Town’s water system highly efficient and therefore less resilient because there were fewer reserves to draw from in times of unusual scarcity.

The UN Water 2015 report found that most cities are not very resilient to water risks. As water managers continue to wait for climate change models to become more certain or more specific, they defer action, paralysing decision-makers.

If we really want our cities to be water-resilient, we must collectively change long-held ideas about water supply and demand. This will require technological and institutional innovation, as well as behavioural change, to create new and more flexible buffers — for example, through water recycling, green infrastructure and other novel measures.

Although Cape Town avoided disaster this year, that does not make it water-resilient. Despite the arrival of the rainy season, Cape Town is still likely to face Day Zero at some point in the future.

The ConversationThere’s a good chance that the city is not alone.

Lucy Rodina, PhD Candidate, University of British Columbia and Kieran M. FindlaterUniversity of British Columbia.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.