2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Dissolution of parliament
Former governor general Adrienne Clarkson wrote in her memoirs, Heart Matters, that she would have allowed the then prime minister, Paul Martin, a dissolution of parliament only after at least six months following the 2004 election: "To put the Canadian people through an election before six months would have been irresponsible", she wrote, especially considering that she had received a letter co-signed by then opposition leader Stephen Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton, and Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe, asking her to consider letting them attempt to form a government without an election if the Liberal government should fall.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Dissolution of parliament
Maclean's columnist Andrew Coyne noted that, while a coalition government is neither unconstitutional nor illegitimate, there are several concerns that the Governor General must address in considering installing such a government. The coalition's ability to govern in a stable manner would be a factor. Coyne also noted that the opposition parties' plan was defeating an established government weeks after an election.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
The option of prorogation (ending the parliamentary session without dissolving parliament in advance of new elections) presented various possible scenarios: One was a long-term prorogation, lasting up to a legal maximum of one year, while another was a short prorogation period lasting a few weeks to a few months. Each would delay parliamentary activity, including the introduction of a motion of non-confidence, and the Conservative government would therefore continue, though without new funding, which requires parliamentary approval.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
After discussions with the Governor General, Harper advised parliament be prorogued until January 26, 2009, with a budget scheduled to be tabled the following day. On December 3, Dion wrote to the Governor General with his opinion that she must refuse the prime minister's advice to prorogue parliament; in his opinion, it would be an abuse of power to deny or delay the right of the legislature to give or withhold confidence in the government. He also suggested that the government had already, in effect, lost the confidence of the House of Commons and that Harper was therefore incompetent to tender official advice as prime minister.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
Constitutional scholar C. E. S. Franks of Queen's University suggested that the Governor General could have agreed to prorogue parliament, though on the condition that the government only manage day-to-day affairs until parliament was reconvened; the Governor General would not approve orders-in-council requiring Cabinet decisions, meaning that the government could not undertake any major policy initiatives, much like the way governments govern during an election campaign.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
However, a prime minister advising prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote, as well a governor general refusing or implementing conditions on such a request, would all be unprecedented in Canadian history; "there is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth", Franks stated. Constitutional scholar and former advisor to governors general Ted McWhinney said that the Governor General would have no choice but to accept the Prime Minister's advice concerning prorogation, though the Prime Minister would have to defend to the electorate why he had advised this particular course.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
Former governor general and NDP politician Edward Schreyer stated that if the Conservative government were to lose a vote of confidence, Michaëlle Jean would have no choice but to offer the coalition the opportunity to govern. He also said that prorogation would be a difficult judgement call and said that a short prorogation might be reasonable as long as it was not "used in the longer term as a means of evading, avoiding and thwarting the expression of the parliamentary will" by avoiding a confidence vote.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Role of the Governor General, Prorogation of parliament
In 1873, during the 2nd Canadian parliament, Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald advised Governor General the Earl of Dufferin to prorogue parliament to stop the work of a committee investigating Macdonald's involvement in the Pacific Scandal. While the Governor General did reluctantly grant prorogation, he insisted that it be limited to a period of ten weeks. When parliament returned, Macdonald was censured and had to resign.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3
Both Harper and Dion addressed the nation on December 3, 2008, with televised statements broadcast on Canada's major television networks. Harper's five-minute pre-recorded statement, televised nationally in English and French at 7 pm Eastern Time (ET), outlined the steps the government had taken to address the economic crisis and attacked the Liberals for forming a coalition with the Bloc Québécois. Harper said: "at a time of global economic instability, Canada's government must stand unequivocally for keeping the country together. At a time like this, a coalition with the separatists cannot help Canada. And the opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." The press noted that while he used the word sovereigntist in the French version of his speech, Harper used separatist in English.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3
The networks also agreed to air a response from Dion, which aired around 7:30 pm ET. In it, Dion attacked the Conservatives, stating they did not have a plan to weather the economic crisis and he claimed that Canadians did not want another election, instead preferring that parliament work together during this time. "Within one week, a new direction will be established, a tone and focus will be set. We will gather with leaders of industry and labour to work, unlike the Conservatives, in a collaborative, but urgent manner to protect jobs."


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3
This statement, intended to air immediately following Harper's, was late in arriving to the networks and was of low video quality, prompting the party to apologize; CBC Television network anchorman Peter Mansbridge compared the quality of Dion's video to YouTube. CTV Television Network had already signed off its special broadcast before Dion's statement arrived. CTV commentator Robert Fife stated that the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois were "angry" with the quality of Dion's address.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3
Layton unsuccessfully requested his own airtime and later addressed Canadians live on the national news channels where he said: "tonight, only one party stands in the way of a government that actually works for Canadians ... Instead of acting on these ideas ... Mr. Harper delivered a partisan attack." Duceppe said: "Stephen Harper showed a serious and worrisome lack of judgment by putting his party's ideology before the economy."


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Immediate reaction
In the nine predominantly English-speaking provinces, polls showed the idea of a coalition was unpopular. Strongest support for the coalition came from the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, while the strongest opposition was in Alberta. It was speculated that had the coalition taken power from the Conservatives, it would revive concerns of western alienation that had been tempered by the Conservative victory two years prior. Anti -coalition rally organizers emphasized that their opposition was to the Bloc's association with the coalition, not Quebecers in general.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Immediate reaction
Conservative attacks on the coalition would cost the party future support in Quebec, as Quebecers "tend to view sovereignist parties as legitimate political formations"; Antonia Maioni, head of the Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University, stated that "[Harper] is portraying not only the Bloc Québécois but Quebecers in general as being a threat to national unity in Canada." Dion defended the coalition accord, saying that "fellow Quebecers who believe in separation are more likely to be reconciled with Canada if we work with them than if we marginalize them".


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Other reactions
Statements regarding the upset in Ottawa came from provincial premiers, both past and present: Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who originally started the ABC campaign, stated that he would remain neutral on this issue and that he would work with whomever was prime minister; British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell spoke out against the coalition, stating that if their gamble fails, Canada's economic worries will become significantly worse as a result; Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach urged federal party leaders to take a time out and hold off the non-confidence vote until the new year so a federal budget can be introduced.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Other reactions
Quebec Premier Jean Charest, a federalist and former leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party, condemned the "anti-sovereigntist rhetoric" of the prime minister, emphasizing that the Bloc MPs had been legitimately elected by Quebecers, and stating: "I live in a society in which people can be sovereigntists or federalists, but they respect each other. The same thing should prevail in the federal parliament." He also accused Parti Québécois leader Pauline Marois of using the ensuing discussion about the coalition to attempt to build sovereigntist momentum. Former Quebec premier Jacques Parizeau told Le Journal de Montréal that the deal was an "impressive victory", showing how powerful the Bloc Québécois is in federal politics.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Other reactions
Political satirist and commentator Rick Mercer wrote, "The drama that played out this week was many things: unimaginable, embarrassing and, yes, it made our parliamentary system look like a laughingstock. However, this situation was not, as Mr. Harper insisted, undemocratic, illegal or un-Canadian."


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Leadup to the Governor General's decision, Other reactions
The editorial board of The Globe and Mail echoed Mercer's sentiment, pointing out that Harper's statements on the legality of the coalition were "knowingly erroneous" and, in June 2012, Peter H. Russell said the Conservative's attacks on the legitimacy of the coalition proposal were "deliberately misleading" and that the notion that "a multiparty government must be approved by voters beforehand is 'absolutely B.S.'"


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
On December 2, it was announced that Harper's plan was to ask the Governor General to prorogue parliament, delaying a confidence vote until the new year. The coalition leadership sent a letter to Jean—who was abroad conducting state visits to various European countries—informing her of the events, upon the receipt of which, Jean announced that she would cut her trip short and return to Ottawa "in light of the current political situation in Canada". Harper visited the Governor General at Rideau Hall at about 9:30 am ET on December 4.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
After consulting with the Prime Minister and other advisors for more than two hours, Jean granted Harper's request and parliament was prorogued until January 26, 2009, with the Conservatives scheduled to announce the budget the following day. Near the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the two-hour delay in giving her decision was partly to "send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection." She later stated in an interview on The Hour that "I was in a position where I could have said no ... And the decision had really to, in my mind, to be in the best interests, really, of the country, looking at all of the circumstances. And I have no regrets."


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of the constitutional experts from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard the Governor General's decision to grant Harper's request as an automatic rubber stamp; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present to parliament a proposed budget, a vote on which is automatically a matter of confidence.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
This, Russell said, set a precedent that would prevent future prime ministers from advising the prorogation of parliament "for any length of time for any reason". He in 2012 also speculated that, though it was likely not "an overriding factor", Jean may have been concerned that, should she have refused Harper's advice, the vote of non-confidence proceeded and succeeded, and a new coalition cabinet was installed, the Conservative Party would launch a public campaign painting the new government and, by extension, the actions of the Governor General as illegitimate, creating "a crisis of confidence in Canada's political system". Peter Hogg disagreed with Russell's supposition.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
Most scholars indicated that the privacy of the meeting between Harper and Jean follows "the tradition of regal discretion [going] back centuries, to the era when Britain's Parliament was only a minor branch of government"; the practice protects the viceroy's necessary non-partisan nature. Lorne Sossin, professor at the University of Toronto and a constitutional law expert, offered a counter-opinion, stating that "it is simply not acceptable to have a closed door at Rideau Hall at moments like this", citing that transparency is a necessity in democracy. Joe Comartin, NDP MP for Windsor-Tecumseh, suggested that such decisions should be made by the Chief Justice of Canada after a hearing in open court.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
Andrew Dreschel of The Hamilton Spectator stated proroguing parliament was the right move, imposing a "cooling-off period on the sweaty rhetoric and dank distortions that have been steaming up the political spectrum". Conservative MP Bruce Stanton said the suspension of parliament until late January "was perhaps the last tool in our basket to be able to allow parliamentarians to take a step back".


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
Before Russell revealed the conditions Jean placed on her acceptance of Harper's advice, there was some concern that Jean's decision may have set a precedent for a prime minister to seek prorogation or dissolution when confronting a potential vote of non-confidence.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
Nelson Wiseman, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said the following of Harper's advice "has been a blow to parliamentary democracy in Canada" and Helen Forsey, daughter of Eugene Forsey, claimed that Jean's granting of prorogation was a shameful encouragement of "flagrantly subversive behaviour by a Prime Minister" and that, had he still been alive, the senior Forsey's "denunciations would have been ringing from the rooftops". Margaret Wente at The Globe and Mail opined that the Governor General was the only person who emerged from the situation with any gained respect.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament
In his book Harperland, published in late 2010, columnist Lawrence Martin quoted Kory Teneycke, former director of communication for the Office of the Prime Minister, as saying that, in the days preceding Harper's meeting with the Governor General, the option of appealing to the Queen was considered, should Jean decline prorogation. Such a series of events would have been a first in Canadian history. Constitutional scholar Ned Franks said to The Globe and Mail in September 2010 that the Queen would likely have refused to intervene in such circumstances.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament, Aftermath and resolution
On December 4, 2008, after the prorogation, Dion hinted that the Liberals could support the Conservative budget, but only if it represented a "monumental change". Layton and Duceppe remained committed to their proposed coalition and toppling the Harper government, with Layton demanding that the Conservatives provide affordable housing and childcare programs alongside subsidies for struggling industries. Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis said that the coalition would not survive when parliament resumed, while others in his party suggested working with the Conservatives on the economy.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament, Aftermath and resolution
After the Governor General prorogued parliament, there were questions within the Liberal Party regarding the future of Dion's leadership and the coalition. In a caucus meeting held the same day of the prorogation, Dion faced criticism for the amateur, out-of-focus video of his address to the nation and for disallowing dissent once the coalition accord was presented to caucus. Former deputy prime minister John Manley, in an op-ed in The Globe and Mail, demanded that Dion resign immediately as Liberal leader. Leadership contenders Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae both agreed that Dion had to quit immediately. Dion announced on December 8, 2008, that he would step down upon the selection of an interim leader.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament, Aftermath and resolution
Bob Rae, who helped to persuade the Liberal caucus of the power-sharing deal, took over as the coalition's main Liberal advocate and planned to travel throughout the country to promote the coalition. Michael Ignatieff, the frontrunner to succeed Dion, stated that he believed the proposal had kept the Conservatives in check, and described his position as a "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition" after viewing the Conservative budget. After the withdrawal of his two rivals, Ignatieff was left as the sole declared leadership candidate, so he was appointed interim leader, and was chosen as leader at the May 2009 convention.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament, Aftermath and resolution
On December 12, Ignatieff met with Harper to discuss the budget, with their spokesmen describing the meeting as a "cordial". Layton and Duceppe remained committed to ousting the Harper government, pledging that the NDP would vote against the Conservative budget regardless of what it contained. Layton urged Ignatieff's Liberals to topple the Conservatives before the shelf life of the coalition expired; constitutional experts said that four months after the last election, if the government fell, the Governor General would likely grant the Prime Minister's request to dissolve parliament instead of inviting the coalition to form the government.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Governor General prorogues parliament, Aftermath and resolution
On January 28, 2009, the Liberals agreed to support the budget as long as it included regular accountability reports, and the Conservatives accepted this amendment. This ended the possibility of the coalition, with Layton publicly denouncing Ignatieff's decision.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
An Angus Reid Strategies poll on this subject conducted on December 1 and 2, 2008, consisting of online interviews with 1,012 Canadian adults, and with a reported margin of error of 3.1%, showed that 40% of respondents agreed with the statement "The Conservative party does not deserve to continue in government", while 35% agreed with "The Conservative party deserves to continue in government", and 25% were "not sure". On the question "Should the opposition parties get together and topple the Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper? ", 41% responded No, 36% Yes, and 23% not sure. If the government was defeated in a no-confidence vote, 37% of respondents would support a coalition of opposition parties taking power, 32% favoured holding a new election, 7% favoured an accord rather than a coalition among opposition parties, and 24% were not sure.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
A Léger Marketing poll of 2,226 people, conducted on behalf of Sun Media and released on December 4, showed a regional split on what should happen if the Harper government fell. Nationally, 43% of respondents preferred a new election be held, compared to 40% who favoured allowing the coalition to govern. In Western Canada, however, respondents were sharply opposed to the coalition, led by Albertans, who responded 71% in favour of new elections. Quebec showed the highest level of support for the coalition, with 58% preferring it to a new election.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
Ontario was split, with 43% preferring an election compared to 39% supporting the coalition. This poll also showed that 60% of Canadians were concerned that the Bloc Québécois would hold the balance of power in a coalition, compared to 35% that were not concerned, with the majority of respondents in every region, excluding Quebec, expressing concern. 34% of those polled argued that the Conservatives were best able to handle the economic crisis, compared to 18% for the coalition. 14% felt the Liberals individually were best prepared, 7% felt the NDP individually were the best choice, and 2% felt the Bloc Québécois were best.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would have received 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party 8%, up from 4.5%.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
37% of respondents (including the majority of Conservative voters) expressed support in proroguing parliament, while 28% (including a majority of Liberal and Bloc voters, and a near majority of NDP voters) supported the proposed coalition taking power within the next few weeks, with 19% supporting an election. Additionally, 47% of respondents thought that Harper's Conservative government would better manage the financial crunch, versus 34% in support of the Dion-led coalition. Furthermore, 48% of respondents (including the majority of Liberal, NDP, and Green voters, but only 41% of Conservative voters) expressed confidence in the Governor General's ability to make decisions regarding the impasse.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
An Ipsos-Reid poll suggested that if an election had been held on December 5, the Conservatives would have received 46% of the vote, enough to have easily formed a majority government. The poll also showed Liberal support had dropped to 23% from the 26.2% they received in the election, and New Democrat support fell to 13% from 18.2%. Also telling was that 56% of those polled said they would rather go to another election, rather than let the coalition govern.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
But opposition to the coalition waned after Christmas, 2008. In a poll taken from January 3 to 7 Nanos Research found 33% would vote Conservative, 34% Liberal, 19% NDP.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
By January 12 to 14, 2009, The Strategic Counsel found the parties were back to more or less 2006 levels: CPC 36%, Liberals 29%, NDP 18% and it also shows the public now almost evenly split in terms of their attitude towards the coalition. It appeared that the short term bump the Tories got after they prorogued had vanished. The coalition had 44% support, another election 49%, yet only 36% would vote Conservative.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Polling
On January 15–17 EKOS Research Associates found 50% support for the Coalition, while 43% would prefer the Conservative government to the Coalition, and 6% were undecided, although only 36% would vote Conservative. Yet 49% wanted a new election, showing some confusion remained.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Rallies
Public rallies, both in favour of and against the coalition, continued to be held a number of days after the prorogation, particularly on the afternoon of December 6. Besides the aforementioned that was attended by both Dion and Layton, other gatherings included one in Halifax, with Conservative MP Gerald Keddy attending; one in Calgary, at which Conservative MP Jason Kenney addressed the crowd; and at Queen's Park in Toronto, where Conservative MP Peter Kent spoke alongside John Tory, leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. The rallies, all together, attracted over ten thousand, with the largest assembly being in Ottawa, with an estimated attendance of 4,000. Calgary had an estimated 2,500 and Toronto an estimated 1,500.


2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute, Public response, Online activity
Web users across the political spectrum came out in force, leaving thousands of posts on news websites, blogs, and news articles; on December 1, The Globe and Mail website had over 4,500 comments posted on its articles related to the political dispute. This motion was in addition to the multiple specialized websites that were launched during the upset, and using the Internet to promote rallies and protests in the hopes of voicing their opinion.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike
The 2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike was a withdrawal of playing services by the 2008 Cork senior hurling team over the issue of team management. The strike marked the third such strike in five years with the 2007–2008 Cork players' strike being the most recent. Reports of unrest within Cork began at least as early as 4 November 2008 when the manager Gerald McCarthy played down talk of unrest in the panel.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike, January
In January the 2008 panel issued a statement outlining their reasons for striking, primarily claiming the Cork County Board was not following the processed agreed in the aftermath of the 2007–2008 strike.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike, February
With the strike ongoing the Cork county board fielding a team made up of players who were not involved in the 2008 panel. While an estimated 10,000 marched in support of the striking hurlers. The Cork footballers have said they will join the Hurlers on strike if the matter is not settled by the end of the National Football League. While the Hurlers asked the clubs of Cork too put a motion of no confidence in Gerald McCarthy before the county board.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike, March
On 1 March 2009, Cork management were forced to field an understrength side that was defeated by Galway by 14 points in front of crowd of only 600 their third defeat in a row.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike, March
On 5 March 2009, Na Piarsaigh became one of many clubs to support the hurlers.


2008–2009 Cork senior hurling team strike, March
On 10 March 2009, Gerald McCarthy confirmed that he would be stepping down as Cork hurling manager with immediate effect after reported death threats.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive
The 2008–2009 Garamba offensive (codenamed Operation Lightning Thunder) started on 14 December 2008, when joint Ugandan, DR Congolese and Southern Sudanese forces launched a botched military attack against the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in the Garamba region of DR Congo.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, Background
In June 2008, after the LRA had attacked and killed 23 people in Southern Sudan, including 14 soldiers, a Ugandan military spokesman said Uganda, DR Congo and Sudan would launch a joint offensive against the LRA if its leader, Joseph Kony, failed to commit to the Juba peace talks. Concurrently, the Southern Sudanese Information Minister, Gabriel Changson, declared that "The LRA have started war", and that "Southern Sudan will not be the place where they can wage this war". The same month, diplomats reported that the LRA had acquired new weapons and was forcibly recruiting new soldiers, adding 1,000 recruits to the 600 soldiers it already had.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, Background
An onslaught against the LRA by Ugandan forces in northern Uganda and across the border in Southern Sudan, led the rebels to relocate to the densely forested Garamba National Park in DR Congo – and when they attacked and killed civilians there, the Congolese government vowed to destroy the LRA.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, The operation
In November 2008, the US President George W. Bush personally signed the directive to the United States Africa Command to provide assistance financially and logistically to the Ugandan government during the offensive. The United States military helped in the planning stages of the operation, and also provided financial and technical support in the form of satellite phones and fuel.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, The operation
On 14 December 2008, a statement announcing the operation was released in the Ugandan capital Kampala by the intelligence chiefs of the armed forces of the three countries: the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Uganda People's Defence Force (UPDF) and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA). "The three armed forces successfully attacked the main body and destroyed the main camp of Joseph Kony, code-named Camp Swahili, setting it on fire," the statement said. The Ugandan government stated on 21 December 2008, that 70% of the LRA's camps had been destroyed so far.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, The operation
However it was also reported that these camps were already empty when they were attacked. On 24 December 2008 Uganda said one of its MiG-21 fighter aircraft crashed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. "The pilot, Bosco Opiyo, failed to recover the plane from diving and plunged into the ground, dying instantly, and the craft also caught fire. The accident is purely a technical accident", said Ugandan Army spokesman Paddy Ankunda.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, The operation
By early January 2009, according to a Congolese official, the LRA was routed, had lost most of its food supply, and was on the run and very close to the border of the Central African Republic, which had reinforced troops at the border. However, other reports indicated that the LRA had split up into smaller units and, in reprisals against the offensive, the LRA attacked civilians they suspected of supporting the operation, raping, mutilating and killing villagers.


2008–2009 Garamba offensive, Ugandan withdrawal
On 15 March 2009, Uganda abruptly ended its participation in the offensive and began withdrawing its troops from Garamba. The withdrawal, according to Lt. Gen. Ivan Koreta, the Deputy Chief of Defence Forces, was due to an agreement signed with DR Congo. During a handover ceremony in Garamba, the DR Congo Chief of General Staff, Gen. Didier Etumba Longila, said Congo would continue hunting the LRA until they were neutralised although one source described the Congolese army units allocated to the task as poorly trained and underpaid soldiers who often preyed on the villagers they were meant to be protecting. The LRA continued to terrorise areas in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Southern Sudan.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid
Following the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, an international conference took place on 2 March 2009 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, where donor countries and international bodies pledged almost US$4.5 billion for humanitarian and reconstruction aid for the Gaza Strip. These funds bypassed Hamas, with the PA in collaboration with the donor community taking the lead in delivering and distributing the funds. Damage from the Israeli offensive was estimated to be almost $2 billion. However, actual transfers of aid had been beset by difficulties.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Pledges
Donors pledged US$4.481 billion at the Sharm el-Sheikh conference to help the Palestinian economy and rebuild the Gaza Strip. The biggest donor was Saudi Arabia with $1 billion, followed by the United States with $900 million, a third for humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and the rest to assist the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas. The conference was criticized by Iran.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Hamas confiscation and obstruction of aid
On 12 January, Hamas raided some 100 aid trucks entering Gaza, stole their contents and sold them to the highest bidders. On 20 January, gunmen from Hamas' armed wing seized 12 trucks loaded with humanitarian aid that had been donated by the Jordanian government to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, according to Jordanian and Palestinian Authority officials.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Hamas confiscation and obstruction of aid
On 3 February, 3,500 blankets and over 400 food parcels were confiscated by Hamas police personnel from an UNRWA distribution center. On the following day, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator demanded that the aid be returned immediately. In a separate incident on 5 February, Hamas seized 200 tons of food from UNRWA aid supplies. The following day, UNRWA suspended its activities in Gaza. Hamas issued a statement stating that the incident was a misunderstanding between the drivers of the trucks and had been resolved through direct contact with the UNRWA. On 9 February, UNRWA lifted the suspension on the movement of its humanitarian supplies into Gaza, after the Hamas authorities returned all of the aid supplies confiscated.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Hamas confiscation and obstruction of aid
Some local Gaza NGOs providing emergency aid stated that Hamas had ordered them to stop operating because it suspected they were affiliated with rival group Fatah.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Concerns of strengthening Hamas
Militant Islamist organization Hamas, which is the de facto governing body of the Gaza Strip, is boycotted by western countries as a terrorist organization. In an international conference on reconstructing Gaza, donors insisted that the aid money for the Gaza Strip must bypass Hamas. An administration official from the United States, which pledged $900 million in aid, said that none of the country's aid would go to Hamas, being funneled instead through United Nations groups and non-governmental organizations. However, congresspersons expressed concern that some money would fall into the hands of Hamas.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Concerns of strengthening Hamas
"To route $900 million to this area, and let's say Hamas was only able to steal 10 percent of that, we would still become Hamas' second-largest funder after Iran," said Representative Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller stressed that aid from Denmark would not end up in the hands of Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that "Israel supports foreign aid to the Strip, but it is important to build mechanisms and oversight methods to ensure that the aid reaches Gazan civilians and will not be used to strengthen Hamas." Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, of the rival Fatah party, advised international donors to send Gaza reconstruction money directly to property owners, offering a plan that would effectively bypass the territory's Hamas rulers.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Israel and Egypt barring aid transfers
The Gaza Strip is bordered by Israel and Egypt, and much of the humanitarian aid reaches the strip through Israel. According to the Associated Press, "Israel allows in several dozen truckloads of aid every day, but bars the entry of concrete, pipes and other materials that it fears Hamas could seize." Israel says that cement and steel could be used by militants to build rockets and attack tunnels. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that opening border crossings was an "indispensable goal," adding that it was "essential to ensure that illegal weapons do not enter Gaza." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed anger at Israeli delays in relaying Gaza aid.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Israel and Egypt barring aid transfers
On several occasions during the conflict, Egypt prevented the Muslim Brotherhood from delivering aid to Gaza. On 12 February, Egyptian police seized 2,200 tons of food and medical aid destined for the Gaza Strip and being stored by the group, arresting two of its members. A security official said that the two were accused of illegally storing goods. The Muslim Brotherhood is banned in Egypt.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Obstruction of aid
In June 2009 hundreds of Israeli protestors temporarily blocked goods and humanitarian aid from reaching the Gaza Strip. The protesters, waving signs and carrying posters of 22-year-old kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, cut off the approach to three major crossings into the Gaza Strip while dozens of trucks, loaded with aid, waited outside.


2008–2009 Gaza Strip aid, Difficulties, Obstruction of aid
Israel tightened its blockade of the Gaza Strip stating that it will not remove the blockade until Shalit is freed.


2008–2009 Israel Football League season
The 2008–2009 Israel Football League season was the second season of the Israel Football League (IFL). This was the first season under the IFL's new sponsorship agreement with the Kraft Family, which re-branded itself as the Kraft Family Israel Football League. This was also the inaugural season for both the Jerusalem Kings expansion team and the Pioneers' in their new home of Modi'in after relocating from HaSharon in the off-season. The season concluded with the Modi'in Pioneers defeating the Jerusalem Lions, 32-26 in double overtime, in Israel Bowl II.


2008–2009 Israel Football League season, Regular season
The regular season began in November 2008 and consisted of an eight game schedule, with each team playing the others twice during the season. The top four teams at the end of the regular season (Pioneers, Underdogs, Lions and Kings) qualified for the playoffs, with the Kings edging out the Sabres through the IFL points tie-breaker system.


2008–2009 Israel Football League season, Playoffs
The semifinals saw the Pioneers defeat the Kings and the Lions upset the Underdogs to set up a match-up between the Pioneers and Lions in Israel Bowl II, which took place on April 3, 2009, at Kraft Family Stadium. Asaf Katz earned Israel Bowl MVP honors for the champion Modi'in Pioneers, who won in double overtime 32-26.


2008–2009 Israeli Final Four
The 2008–2009 Israeli Final Four , the fourth Israeli Final Four was held at Yad Eliyahu Arena, Tel Aviv, Israel on 19 and 21 May 2009 to determine the winner of the 2008–2009 Israeli League. The contestants were Maccabi Tel Aviv, the 2007–08 Israeli League runner-up, Hapoel Jerusalem, Maccabi Haifa, the 2008–09 Israeli State Cup runner-up and Gilboa/Galil. Maccabi Tel Aviv won their 48th Israeli League crown, beating Maccabi Haifa 85-72 in the final.


2008–2009 Israeli Final Four, Venue
The Yad Eliyahu Arena is an indoor sports arena in Tel Aviv, Israel. Opened in 1963 with its seating capacity varying from 5,000 to 11,700, it had hosted the 1971–1972 FIBA European Champions Cup final, the 1993–1994 FIBA European Championship Final Four, the 2003–2004 Euroleague Final Four, the 2005-2006 Israeli Final Four, the 2006-2007 Israeli Final Four and the 2007-2008 Israeli Final Four.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought
Between 2008 and early 2010, Kenya, one of the countries of Eastern Africa, was affected by a severe drought, which put ten million people at risk of hunger and caused a large number of deaths to livestock in Kenyan Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs), constituting around 88% of the country.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought
The areas which experienced the worst effects were Northern Kenya, Somalia and Southern Ethiopia, most severely in Kajiado and Laikipia. These predominantly pastoral regions reported deaths of up to half of the livestock. Droughts in Kenya have become more frequent causing crop failures and devastation as three-quarters of the population are sustained by agriculture.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Background
Owing to the lack of annual rainfall, the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya (ASALs) are very susceptible to drought and flooding. These lands are impacted by the increasing effects of climate change and the risk of desertification. Water scarcity leaves unimproved water supplies for the majority of the population, so these places tend to be marginalized, and have high rates of poverty.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Background
Kenya experienced limited rainfall in 2008 from October to December, followed by a similar situation in 2009. The Kenyan Red Cross conducted assessment reports indicating the risk of starvation for millions of Kenyans, resulting in an appeal to the international donor community for food aid.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Background
Kenya has been supported by a drought management system since 1980. The system includes policies and strategies, an early warning system, a funded contingency plan, and overall drought coordination and response structure. Despite that, at the end of the 2008–2009 drought, the European Union delegation considered that a review of the responses to this drought would have been appropriate, in order to strengthen the efficiency of the drought management and alleviate its consequences. The system became the responsibility of the National Drought Management Authority, established in 2011.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Food security
Agriculture supports around 75% of the Kenyan population and accounts for 25.9% of the GDP, making it one of the leading means of sustenance of the country and a significant contributor to employment and food security; on the other hand, droughts caused by climate change have put a strain on agriculture and the country itself to the extent that in January 2009 the Government declared a state of emergency, because ten million Kenyans needed food aid after a poor harvest.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Food security
In the North of the country, by April, 30% of the population was suffering from acute malnutrition because the “long rains” of 2009 failed, and some areas of the country were already worn out by five years of consecutive droughts.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Food security
The shortage of food was also worsened by a political crisis caused by a disputed election in early 2008. This provoked a climate of violence in the East of the country which drove away farmers who were unable to return in time to plant maize in the planting season. This led to food, water, and power shortages throughout the country.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Food security
In 2011 the USAID youth program, which works closely with Feed the Future, brought groups of young mothers together to improve food security, working on nutrition. Cultivating vegetables and legumes they have been improving their health and that of their infants, in a shared urban farm in Mombasa. Making sure that children are well-fed is eminent as malnutrition in childhood and pregnancy has many adverse consequences for child survival and long-term well-being. Food-borne illnesses are often caused by bacteria, viruses, and other pathogens that affect human health. Food security issues were also created by violations in trade standards, resulting in the exclusion of food from international, regional, and local markets.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Effects on the Maasai pastoralists
In Kenya, pastoralism represents a mainstay source of sustenance, providing livelihood, security, and employment opportunities (around 90% of the population). It It is impacted by droughts, that directly impact livestock assets of pastoral households.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Effects on the Maasai pastoralists
Maasai pastoralists are traditionally semi-nomad and practice seasonal transhumance from dry to wet season pastures. The severe drought of 2009 has prompted pastoralists in Northern Kenya to abandon their traditional lifestyles (like in the 2005 drought) due to the harsh living conditions and the destruction of their pastures by drought, overgrazing, and soil erosion. In conditions of extreme drought, some pastoralists tried to dig down into dry riverbeds and water pans looking for water and others moved onto highland pastures in Mt.Kenya.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Effects on the Maasai pastoralists
These responses were eventually unsuccessful due to the increasing number of livestock deaths (it is estimated that over 38.000 cattle died). The high number of losses also constituted a social implication for the Maasai, who as a tradition measure their wealth on the dimension of their herds. Due to the high mortality rate at the time, there was a major decline in livestock. This raised the prices of milk and other livestock items, which adversely affected hunger levels and lowered income levels. Land degradation also increased due to livestock competition from pastures and water.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Effects on the Maasai pastoralists
To cope with the drought in the short term the Maasai developed four strategies. The first was to take their animals to graze very early in the morning when the grass is covered with dew. The second was to guard reserve pastures on their higher lands while the grass regenerated so that it can be used during drought. The third strategy was to increase the length of their migrations as the gravity of the drought worsened. The last method was to dig shallow wells in dry riverbeds during migrations to acquire water.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Effects on the Maasai pastoralists
Two long-term solutions were developed. The first was to keep livestock of mixed-species; in addition to the traditional herd composed by grazers (cattle and sheep) and browsers (goats), pastoralists added donkeys and camels. Different animal species adapt differently to drought and this method ensured that at least part of the herd survived in a specific climatic event. The second method was to increase the size of their herds during wetter periods, so they have some animals left at the end of a drought period.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
Climate change has been playing an important role in Kenya's droughts, reducing the drought cycle from every ten years to annual events. When the cycle of droughts in Kenya occurred every ten years, farmers had recovery time to rebuild their livestock and crops before the next drought. When the recovery time dropped to two years, this recovery was no longer possible.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
Dryness is not the only outcome of climate change: rains have decreased during the long rainy season (from March to May), but have registered an increase from September to February causing an extension of the normal rainfall period (October to December), which, together with growing intensity and strength, has created vulnerability to floods.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
The table below displays data of the average monthly rainfall of Kenya from 1901 to 2016, compared with the predicted changes for 2080–2099.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
It is expected that the annual average temperature of the territory of Kenya will increase by 1.0°С to 2.8°С by 2060, with greater effects in the tea production, but a negative impact on crop and maize revenues.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
Data showing the actual and predicted mean annual temperature increase is shown for the period 1901 to 2099:


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, Micro-climate
The Rift Valley Province is particularly sensitive to climate change. It is predicted that coastal areas will suffer from rising sea levels from which floods and saltwater intrusions will result, due to the melting of glaciers which will further reduce the availability of water.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on wildlife
Due to the drought animals were dying, some from starvation, others of thirst and many because their weak immune systems could not fight disease or infection.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on wildlife
By September 2009, at least 60 elephants and hundreds of animals had died in the country.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on wildlife
There was a conflict between locals and wildlife due to the absence of land. Consequently, the pastoralists took their herds illegally into the national parks and wildlife reserves, in a search for grazing land and water. The pastoralists felt betrayed by their government because they thought that the interests of the tourists who come to see the wildlife had been put before their own. They questioned why they had to allow wildlife on to their land but could not legally use the parks and reserves for grazing at such difficult times.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on the GDP
Before the 2008 drought, the Kenyan economy had been growing at relatively high annual rates ranging from 6 to 7 percent, and it was expected to continue on the same path during the following years. The annual growth rate fell to 1.5 percent because of the drought. Despite the growth they worked for in the construction sector, tourism and agriculture faced very high declines (-36 and -5 percent, respectively), and inflation rose to an unprecedented annual rate of 26.2 percent.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on the GDP
In 2009, the government designed certain steps to promote growth in order to increase the GDP. These initiatives included restoration of investor confidence, an expansionary fiscal policy through a stimulus package, and monetary policy focus to preserve price stability at a single-digit rate. They were able to make the GDP rise by 2.6% with this method. The agriculture sector contracted by 2.7% due to the drought, high costs of inputs, and depressed demand for some of the country's exports due to the global financial crisis.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Effects, The effects on the GDP
In 2011, the GDP reached 10.06% due to the strong performance of the financial sector, construction and tourism. The population was also facing a high annual rate of inflation caused by rising food and fuel prices, which appeared to affect the poor disproportionately. The combination of four factors was also threatening the Kenyan economy: high fuel prices, high food prices, the drought in the Horn of Africa, and the Euro crisis.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses
The main financial contributors in efforts were ALRMP (Arid Lands Resource Management Project) and the government; these organizations are designated a significant role under the country's drought management system.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses
ALRMP funded 83% of interventions and provided for 46% of total expenditure on drought response; 62% of the total transactions audited during 2007–2008 were suspected to be fraudulent or questionable. Among the funds, foreign donors accounted for 8%. This is likely to be an underestimation because cost information for two-thirds of the projects funded by these donors were not available. Government accounted for 29% of spending, but just 6% of programs, reflecting the high cost of the commercial interventions for de-stocking.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Water related responses
Most water tankering interventions were not providing adequate supplementary water to justify the cost involved. The amount of that water in the communities was relatively limited, not even coming close to the MoWI’s suggested standard of 10 liters per person per day.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Water related responses
In Dol Dol, the people were able to remain in the villages even though starvation had not been completely eradicated. Clean water tanks were distributed to the communities, who used it to cook their food, removing the need to walk 20 km to fetch water (6:00 to 15:00 every day). The farm animals had access to water, but the impact was minimal as most died anyway.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Water related responses
There were two limits of the intervention. Firstly, the water supplied was not enough for all the inhabitants. Only those who lived near the roads could be helped, because the arid terrain made moving to the inner villages too risky. Secondly, whoever managed to acquire the water could only use it for cooking and drinking, because there was not enough to be used for chores such as washing clothes or bathing. They mostly targeted women and schools for water support, rather than the adult male population, therefore the community estimated only about 10 percent of the population benefited. In Merti, Isiolo, the community also felt that the use of a Bowser (tanker) helped the people that were left in the villages, whilst the animal breeders were forced to migrate with their animals, looking for other natural sources.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Commercial destocking responses
By the height of the drought in mid-2008, few measures had been implemented. Most of the effective measures occurred in 2009. Compared to other measures, de-stocking, restocking and animal health interventions began relatively late. All de-stocking options were carried out after June 2009, when the drought had reached its worst stage. After June, 63% of all measures were introduced, 77% related to animal feeding, 70% to borehole development/maintenance, and 54% for peace-building.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Commercial destocking responses
The Kenyan government began carry out de-stocking operations in May 2009. Effective contributions made from NGO's started later in the year, from July 2009. ALRMP, which began to contribute to interventions by the Kenyan government, was the only exception to this latency of action by the key members. 49% of the total expenditure on livestock-related drought intervention between 2008 and 2009 was accounted for by conventional livestock interventions, which mainly included feed, health, and de-stocking. The Kenyan government and ALRMP were the biggest investors, highlighting the contributions made by organizations in the Kenyan drought management system.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Livestock responses
In Kenya, recurrent droughts can contribute to livestock disease. Consequently, more animal breeders chose to train in the field of livestock health. The increase in the number of trained and community-based health workers operating in the Turkana areas has enabled livestock keepers to acquire relevant skills through training and knowledge.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Livestock responses
A tradition of the Kenyan rural culture is that local herbs and techniques are used in the treatment of livestock diseases. In recent years, with the emergence of trained community-based animal health workers, a safer and more advanced control is being opted for.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Responses Assessment
The effectiveness of the drought intervention measures have been assessed in a range of studies. The main determinants which established the level of effectiveness of an intervention  were whether the intervention was completed as planned and if they were able to deliver the intended benefits to the targeted beneficiaries.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Responses Assessment
Contributions from NGO’s were generally considered more effective than those completed by the Kenyan government. Specifically, the contributions that made most of the difference and therefore top-ranked in the highest average effectiveness ratings, were funded by international donors. It was not possible to determine a relationship between the effectiveness of an intervention and the time at which it started.


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Responses Assessment
On average, an intervention reached 3,227 individuals, increasing from 55 for peace-building to 22,370 for water trucking. The cost per individual reached was 3,362 Kenyan Shilling (approximately 30.6 US Dollars in 2021). This ranged from 163Ksh for water trucking to 8,652Ksh for emergency replenishment. This indicates that a total of more than 1.5 million people benefited, based on the presumption of no duplication (if the same person is benefiting from multiple interventions).


2008–2009 Kenya Drought, Responses, Responses Assessment
The real relative impact that each intervention has had on the population is difficult to assess even though there is evidence to determine a better efficacy of one intervention. The reason is that there is inadequate information on the scale of the benefits given to individuals and households. In general, there was no relationship between an intervention's efficacy and the capital invested in its success.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence
Following the global financial crisis of 2007–2008, there was a worldwide resurgence of interest in Keynesian economics among prominent economists and policy makers. This included discussions and implementation of economic policies in accordance with the recommendations made by John Maynard Keynes in response to the Great Depression of the 1930s, most especially fiscal stimulus and expansionary monetary policy.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence
From the end of the Great Depression until the early 1970s, Keynesian economics provided the main inspiration for economic policy makers in Western industrialized countries. The influence of Keynes's theories waned in the 1970s due to stagflation and critiques from Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas Jr., and other economists, who were less optimistic about the ability of interventionist government policy to positively regulate the economy, or otherwise opposed to Keynesian policies. From the early 1980s to 2008, the normative consensus among economists was that attempts at fiscal stimulus would be ineffective even in a recession, and such policies were only occasionally employed by the governments of developed countries.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence
In 2008, prominent economic journalists and economists began arguing in favour of Keynesian stimulus. From October onward, policy makers began announcing major stimulus packages, in hopes of heading off the possibility of a global depression. By early 2009, there was widespread acceptance among the world's economic policy makers about the need for fiscal stimulus. Yet by late 2009, the consensus among economists began to break down. In 2010, with a depression averted but unemployment in many countries still high, policy makers generally decided against further fiscal stimulus, with several citing concerns over public debt as a justification. Unconventional monetary policy continued to be used in attempts to raise economic activity. By 2016, increasing concerns had arisen that monetary policy was reaching the limit of its effectiveness, and several countries began to return to fiscal stimulus.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Competing views on macroeconomic policy
Macroeconomic policy focuses on high level government decisions which affect overall national economies rather than lower level decisions concerning markets for particular goods and services. Keynes was the first economist to popularize macroeconomics and also the notion that governments can and should intervene in the economy to alleviate the suffering caused by unemployment. Before the Keynesian Revolution that followed Keynes's 1936 publication of his General Theory, the prevailing orthodoxy was that the economy would naturally establish full employment.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Competing views on macroeconomic policy
So successful was the revolution that the period spanning the aftermath of World War II to about 1973 has been referred to as the Age of Keynes. Stagnating economic performance in the early 1970s successfully shattered the previous consensus for Keynesian economics and provided support for a counter revolution. Milton Friedman's monetarism school was prominent in displacing Keynes' ideas both in academia and from the practical world of economic policy making. A key common feature of the anti-Keynesian schools of thought is that they argued for policy ineffectiveness or policy irrelevance. Although the theoretical justifications vary, the various schools all hold that government intervention will be much less effective than Keynes had believed, with some advocates even claiming that in the long run interventionist policy will always be counterproductive.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Competing views on macroeconomic policy
Keynesian economics followed on from the Keynesian Revolution. In contrast to the recent resurgence of Keynesian policy making, the revolution initially comprised a shift change in theory. There had been several experiments in policy making that can be seen as precursors for Keynes' ideas, most notably President Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous "New Deal" in the United States. These experiments had been influenced more by morals, geopolitics and political ideology than by new developments in economics, even though Keynes had found some support in the Uniuted States for his ideas about counter-cyclical public works policy as early as 1931.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Competing views on macroeconomic policy
According to Gordon Fletcher, Keynes' General Theory provided a conceptual justification for New Deal-type policies which was lacking in the established economics of the day. This was immensely significant, as in the absence of a proper theoretical underpinning there was a danger that ad hoc policies of moderate intervention would be overtaken by extremist solutions, as had already happened in much of Europe. However, Keynes did not agree with all aspects of the New Deal; he considered that the almost immediate revival of business activity after the program's launch could only be accounted for by dangerous-to-rely-on psychological factors, such as the boost to confidence effected by Roosevelt's inspiring oratory.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian ascendancy 1941–1979
While working on his General Theory, Keynes wrote to George Bernard Shaw, "I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory which will largely revolutionize, not I suppose at once but in the course of the next ten years – the way the world thinks about economic problems. ... I don't merely hope what I say, in my own mind I'm quite sure."


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian ascendancy 1941–1979
Keynes's ideas quickly became established as the new foundations for mainstream economics, and also as a leading inspiration for industrial nations economic policy makers from about 1941 to the midseventies, especially in the English speaking countries. The 1950s and 1960s period, when Keynes's influence was at its peak, to many appeared in retrospect to have been a golden age.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian ascendancy 1941–1979
At that time, in contrast to the decades before WWII, the industrialized world and much of the developing world enjoyed high growth, low unemployment and an exceptionally low frequency of economic crises.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian ascendancy 1941–1979
In late 1965 Time magazine ran a cover article with the title inspired by Milton Friedman's statement, later associated with Richard Nixon, "We are all Keynesians now"; the article described the exceptionally favourable economic conditions then prevailing, and reported that "Washington's economic managers scaled these heights by their adherence to Keynes's central theme: the modern capitalist economy does not automatically work at top efficiency but can be raised to that level by the intervention and influence of the government." The article also states that Keynes was one of the three most important economists ever, and that his General Theory was more influential than the magna opera of his rivals, namely Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Karl Marx's Das Kapital.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Displacement by monetarism and new classical economics 1979–1999
A swelling tide of criticism of Keynesian economics, most notably from Milton Friedman, a leading figure of monetarism, and the Austrian School's Friedrich Hayek, was unleashed by the stagflation of the 1970s. A series of events that contributed to this economic situation included Richard Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls on 15 August 1971 and unilateral cancellation of the Bretton Woods system in 1972, his ceasing the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, as well as the 1973 oil crisis and the recession that followed.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Displacement by monetarism and new classical economics 1979–1999
In 1976, Robert Lucas of the Chicago school of economics introduced the Lucas critique, which called into question the logic behind Keynesian macroeconomic policy making. The new classical economics became the dominant school in macroeconomics. By the mid-1970s, policy makers were beginning to lose their confidence in the effectiveness of government intervention in the economy. In 1976 British Prime Minister James Callaghan said that the option of "spending our way out of recession" no longer exists. In 1979, the election of Margaret Thatcher as prime minister brought monetarism to British economic policy. In the United States, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker adopted similar policies of monetary tightening in order to control inflation.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Displacement by monetarism and new classical economics 1979–1999
In the world of practical policy-making as opposed to economics as an academic discipline, the monetarist experiments in both the United States and Britain in the early 1980s were the pinnacle of anti-Keynesian and the rise of perfect competition influence. The strong form of monetarism being tested at this time asserted that fiscal policy is of no effect, and that monetary policy should only try to target the money supply to control inflation, without attempting to target real interest rates.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Displacement by monetarism and new classical economics 1979–1999
This was in contrast to the Keynesian view that monetary policy should target interest rates, which it held could influence unemployment. Monetarism succeeded in bringing down inflation but at the cost of unemployment rates in excess of 10%, causing the deepest recession seen in the developed countries since the end of the Great Depression and severe debt crises in the developing world. Contrary to monetarist predictions, the relationship between the money supply and the price level proved unreliable in the short- to medium-term.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Displacement by monetarism and new classical economics 1979–1999
Another monetarist prediction not borne out in practice was that the velocity of money did not remain constant, and in fact dropped sharply. The Bank of England abandoned its sterling M3 money targeting in October 1985; the United States Federal Reserve began increasing the money supply above monetarist-advised thresholds with no effect on inflation, and discarded monetarism by 1984.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
By 1999, the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the harsh response by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had already caused free market policies to be at least partially discredited in the eyes of developing world policy makers. The developing world as a whole stopped running current account deficits in 1999, largely as a result of government interventions to devalue the countries' currencies, which would help build foreign reserves to protect against future crises and help them enjoy export led growth rather than just rely on market forces.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
For the advanced economies, while there was much talk of reforming the international financial system after the Asian crises, it was not until the market failure of the late 1990s and early 2000s dot-com bubble that there was a significant shift away from free market policies. In the United States, there was a return by the government of George W. Bush to a moderate form of Keynesian policy, with interest rates lowered to ease unemployment and head off recession, along with a form of fiscal intervention with emergency tax cuts to boost spending. In Britain, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown had gone on record, saying "the real challenge was to interpret Keynes's insights for the modern world."


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
Yet American and British policy makers continued to ignore many elements of Keynesian thinking such as the recommendation to avoid large trade imbalances and to reduce government deficits in boom years. There was no general global return to Keynesian economics in the first 8 years of the 2000s.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
European policy became slightly more interventionist after the start of the 21st century, but the shift in a Keynesian direction was smaller than was the case for the United States and Britain; however, continental Europeans had not generally embraced free market thinking as wholeheartedly as had the English-speaking world in the 1980s and 1990s. Japan had been using moderate Keynesian policies in the nineties, and switched to neoliberalism with the government of Junichirō Koizumi in 2001–2006.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
For the first half of the 2000s, free-market influences remained strong in powerful normative institutions like the World Bank, the IMF, and in prominent opinion-forming media, such as the Financial Times and The Economist. The Washington Consensus view that current account imbalances do not matter continued even in the face of a ballooning United States deficit, with mainstream academic opinion only turning to the view that the imbalances are unsustainable by 2007. Another notable anti-Keynesian view that remained dominant in United States and Britain policy making circles was the idea that markets work best if they are unregulated.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Background, Keynesian counter currents 1999–2007
In the world of popular opinion, there had been an upsurge in vocal but minority opposition to the raw free market, with anti-globalization protests becoming increasingly notable after 1998. By 2007, there had been bestsellers promoting Keynesian or at least pro-mixed economy policies; among them were Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and Song Hongbing's Currency Wars. In the academic world, the partial shift towards Keynesian policy had gone largely unnoticed.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence
In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the search for a way out of the crisis, a worldwide move toward Keynesian deficit financing and general resurgence of Keynesian policies resulted in a new economic consensus, which involved reassessment or even reversal of normative judgments on a number of topics. The Keynesian view receiving most attention has been fiscal stimulus, applied by numerous states as a response to the Great Recession. The IMF managing director Dominique Strauss-Kahn advocated for global fiscal stimulus already in January 2008.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence
Gordon Brown built support for fiscal stimulus among global leaders at September's UN General Assembly, after which he secured George Bush's agreement for the first G20 leaders summit. In late 2008 and 2009 fiscal stimulus packages were widely launched across the world, with packages in G20 countries averaging at about 2% of GDP, with a ratio of public spending to tax cuts of about  2:1. The stimulus in Europe was notably smaller than in large G20 countries elsewhere. Other areas where opinion has shifted back towards a Keynesian perspective include:


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
In March 2008, leading free-market journalist Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, announced the death of the dream of global free-market capitalism, and quoted Josef Ackermann, chief executive of Deutsche Bank, as saying "I no longer believe in the market's self-healing power." Shortly afterward, economist Robert J. Shiller began advocating robust government intervention to tackle the financial crisis, citing Keynes. Macro economist James K. Galbraith used the 25th Annual Milton Friedman Distinguished Lecture to launch a sweeping attack against the consensus for monetarist economics and argued that Keynesian economics were far more relevant for tackling the emerging crises.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
Much discussion among policy makers reflected Keynes's advocacy of international coordination of fiscal or monetary stimulus, and of international economic institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, which he had helped to create at Bretton Woods in 1944, and which many argued should be reformed at a "new Bretton Woods"; this was evident at the G20 and APEC meetings in Washington, D.C., and Lima, Peru in November 2008, and in coordinated reductions of interest rates by many countries in November and December 2008. IMF and United Nations economists and political leaders such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown advocated a coordinated international approach to fiscal stimulus.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
World Bank's President Robert Zoellick advocated that all developed countries pledge 0.7 percent of their stimulus package to a vulnerability fund for assisting developing countries. Donald Markwell and others argued that the absence of an effective international approach in the spirit of Keynes would risk a return of economic causes of international conflict, which Keynes had identified back in the 1930s.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
The first nation to  announce a substantial fiscal stimulus was Great Britain, with  Chancellor Alistair Darling referring to Keynes as he unveiled plans for fiscal stimuli to head off the worst effects of recession. These measures were later described by Ed Balls as the first time a postwar British government had been able to meet a recession with a "classic Keynesian response". In his autobiography published in 2011, Darling recounts how his response to the crisis was "influenced hugely by Keynes's thinking, indeed, as were most other governments".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
Darling's stimulus announcement was swiftly followed by a similar declaration from China,  and over the next few weeks and months from European countries, the U.S. and other countries across the world. In a speech on 8 January 2009, President-elect Barack Obama unveiled a plan for extensive domestic spending to combat recession, further reflecting Keynesian thinking. The plan was signed by him on 17 February 2009. There had been extensive debate in United States Congress concerning the necessity, adequacy, and likely effects of the package, which was cut from $819 to $787 billion during its passage through the Senate.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
On 21 January 21, 2010, the Volcker Rule was endorsed by President Obama. It was a proposal by United States economist Paul Volcker to restrict banks from making speculative investments that do not benefit their customers. Volcker had argued that such speculative activity played a key role in the recent worldwide financial crisis. Plans for a new $180 billion stimulus plan were announced by Obama in September 2010.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
A renewed interest in Keynesian ideas was not limited to Western countries and stimulus plans were a common response to the crisis from nations across the globe. Stimulus packages in Asia were on a par with those in Europe and America. In a speech delivered in March 2009 entitled Reform the International Monetary System, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the People's Bank of China, revived Keynes's idea of a centrally managed global reserve currency. Dr Zhou argued that it was unfortunate that Keynes's bancor proposal was not accepted at Bretton Woods in the 1940s.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
He argued that national currencies were unsuitable for use as global reserve currencies as a result of the Triffin dilemma and the difficulty faced by reserve currency issuers in trying to simultaneously achieve their domestic monetary policy goals and meet other countries' demand for reserve currency. Zhou proposed a gradual move towards adopting IMF special drawing rights (SDRs) as a centrally managed global reserve currency. Zhou's view was echoed in June 2009 by the IMF, and in September was described by the Financial Times as the boldest statement of the year to come from China.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Among policy makers
In a widely read article on dollar hegemony published in Asia Times Online on 11 April 2002, Henry C.K. Liu asserted that "The Keynesian starting point is that full employment is the basis of good economics. It is through full employment at fair wages that all other economic inefficiencies can best be handled, through an accommodating monetary policy." Liu also advocated denominating Chinese exports in Chinese currency (RMB), as a step to free China from the constraints of excessive reliance on the dollar.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
According to Anatole Kaletsky, Keynesian stimuli were rapidly followed by "revivals of growth in one country after another, roughly in proportion to the size of the various stimulus plans".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
China was one of the first nations to launch a substantial fiscal stimulus package, estimated at $586 billion spread over two years, and in February 2009 the Financial Times reported that both government officials and private investors were seeing signs of recovery, such as rises in commodity prices, a 13% rise in the Chinese stock market over a period of 10 days, and a big increase in lending, reflecting the government's success in using state-owned banks to inject liquidity into the real economy.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
Reviewing events from 2010, economics commentator John Authers found that the stimulus and associated expansionary monetary policy had a dramatic effect in reviving the Chinese economy. The Shanghai index had been falling sharply since the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, but the decline was halted when news of the planned stimulus leaked in late October. The day after the stimulus was officially announced, the Shanghai index immediately rose by 7.3%, followed by sustained growth. Speaking at the 2010 Summer Davos, Premier Wen Jiabao also credited the stimulus for good performance of the Chinese economy over the past two years.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
As late as April 2009, central bankers and finance ministers remained cautious about the overall global economy; by May, the Financial Times was reporting that according to a package of leading indicators there were signs that recovery was imminent in Europe too, after a trough in March. The United States was one of the last major economies to implement a major stimulus plan, and the slowdown there looked set to continue for at least a few more months. There was also a rise in business and consumer confidence across most of Europe, and especially in the emerging economies such as Brazil, Russia and India.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
In June, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported improvements in global economic outlook, with an overall growth forecast for 2010. The OECD gave the credit to stimulus plans, which they warned should not be rolled back too swiftly. The IMF also reported a better than expected global economic outlook in July, though warning that the recovery is likely to be slow. They credited the "unprecedented" global policy response and echoed the OECD in urging leaders to avoid complacency and not to unwind recession fighting fiscal and monetary policies too soon.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
In a widely syndicated article published in August 2009, Paul Krugman announced that the world had been saved from the threat of a second great depression, thanks to "Big Government". The United States economy emerged from recession in the third quarter of 2009, which the Financial Times credited to the stimulus measures. In November, the managing director of the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn repeated the warning against terminating the stimulus measures too soon. The Financial Times reported that significant differences had emerged even within Europe, with senior members of the European Central Bank expressing concern about the risk of delaying the exit for too long.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
On 8 December 2009, President Obama unveiled what the Financial Times described as a "second stimulus plan" for additional job creationusing approximately $200 billion of unused funds that had been pre-approved for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. In the same speech he expressed the view that the initial stimulus had already saved or created 1.6 million jobs. In an article looking back at 2009, economist Arvind Subramanian wrote in the Financial Times that economics had helped to redeem itself by providing advice for the policy responses that successfully prevented a global slide into depression, with the fiscal policy stimulus measures taking their "cue from Keynes".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
In July 2010, economics journalist Robin Harding wrote for the Financial Times that most American economists are in agreement regarding the large influence of the United States stimulus on the economy, although he mentioned high-profile dissenters such as Robert Barro and John B. Taylor. Barro's arguments against the effectiveness of the stimulus have been addressed by Keynesian economics professor J. Bradford DeLong.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
A July 2010 paper by Moody's Investors Service's chief economist Mark Zandl and former Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Alan Blinder predicted that the United States recession would have been far worse without the government intervention. They calculate that in the absence of both a monetary and fiscal response, unemployment would have peaked at about 16.5% instead of about 10%, the peak to trough GDP decline would have been about 12% instead of 4%. Despite the lack of deficit spending, without the intervention the 2010 and 2011 United States federal budget deficit was forecast to be almost two times larger, due to the predicted collapse of tax receipts.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Efficacy
In August 2010, a report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found the United States stimulus to have boosted growth by as much as 4.5%. House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner expressed skepticism about the report's accuracy. In March 2011, citing studies on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus from several dozen economists and international bodies, David Romer told the IMF that "we should view the question of whether fiscal stimulus is effective as settled."


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
In 2009, there were several books published by economists advocating a further shift towards Keynesian thinking. The authors advocated further reform in academic economics, policy making, and even the public's general ethics. Theoretical arguments regarding the relative merits of free market versus mixed economy policies do not always yield a clear conclusion.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
In his 2009 book Keynes: The Return of the Master, economic historian Lord Skidelsky has a chapter comparing the performance of the world economy between the "golden age" period of 1951–1973, when Keynesian policies were dominant, with the Washington Consensus period of 1981–2008, when free market policies were adopted by leading governments. Samuel Brittan of the Financial Times called this part of the book the key chapter for the practically inclined reader. Using data from the IMF, Skidelsky finds superior economic performance on a whole range of metrics, except for inflation where he says there was no significant difference.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
Skidelsky suggests the high global growth during the golden age was especially impressive given that during that period Japan was the only major Asian economy enjoying high growth; the exceptional growth of China and other Asian emerging economies, raising the global average, happened later. He also comments that the golden age, compared with other periods, was substantially more stable. Martin Wolf found that in 1945–1971 (27 years) the world saw only 38 financial crises, whereas in 1973–1997 (24 years) there were 139.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
Skidelsky also reports that inequality was generally decreasing during the golden age, whereas since the Washington Consensus was formed it has been increasing. He notes that South America has been an exception to the general rise in inequality; since the late 1990s, inequality has been falling there, which James K. Galbraith explains as likely due to the region's early "retreat from neoliberal orthodoxy".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
In his 2009 book The Keynes Solution, post-Keynesian economist Paul Davidson makes another historical case for the effectiveness of Keynesian policy, referring to the experience of the United States during the Great Depression. He notes how economic growth and employment levels increased for four successive years as the New Deal policies were pursued by President Roosevelt.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
When government spending was cut back in 1937 due to concerns about the budget deficit, all the gains were lost in one year, and growth only resumed after spending increased again from 1938, as a response to growing acceptance of deficit spending in a recession and later due to World War II. For Davidson, this experience validates the view that Keynesian policy has the power to deliver full employment and prosperity for a government's entire labor force. Davidson also wrote that both price stability and employment in the Keynesian age were superior even to the classical gold standard era that was terminated by World War I.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
On 8 November 2008, Paul Davidson and Henry C.K. Liu co-authored an open letter to world leaders attending the November 15 White House summit on financial markets and world economy, urging reconsideration of Keynes' analytical system that contributed to the golden age of the first quarter century after World War II. The letter, signed by many supporting economists, advocates a new international financial architecture based on an updated 21st century version of the Keynes Plan originally proposed at Bretton Woods in 1944.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, On Keynesian resurgence, Calls for further extensions
The letter ends by describing this new international financial architecture as aiming to create (1) a new global monetary regime that operates without currency hegemony, (2) global trade relationships that support rather than retard domestic development and (3) a global economic environment that promotes incentives for each nation to promote full employment and raise wages for its labor force.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
A marked shift towards Keynesian thinking took place among prominent economists. Some, such as Paul Krugman, James Galbraith and Brad Delong, were already Keynesians but in 2008 began to get considerably more attention for their advocacy of Keynesian policy. Others, such as Richard Posner and Martin Feldstein, had previously been associated with anti-Keynesian thinking, yet by 2009 publicly converted to Keynesian economics, which made considerable impact on other economists. Posner's 2009 book, A Failure of Capitalism, was a critique of laissez-faire capitalism and its ideologues.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
This shift towards Keynesian thinking was widely shared by many politically active economists across the world. In the years leading up to the resurgence, Germany had been home to some of the most outspoken critics of Keynesianism, yet according to economist Sebastian Dullien writing in December 2008, "important voices in the German economic profession are now calling for a large stimulus package, passed as quickly as possible".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
The New York Times reported that in the March 2008 annual meeting of the American Economic Association, economists had remained hostile or at least sceptical about the government’s role in enhancing the market sector or mitigating recession with fiscal stimulus. But already during the January 2009 meeting virtually everyone voiced their support for such measures.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
There were a few high-profile known dissenter economists, such as Robert Barro and Eugene Fama,  but in 2008 and early 2009 their objections had little influence on the mainstream debate. A dissenter from Germany had been Stefan Homburg, who in January 2009 complained "I simply cannot understand how so many economics professors have done a complete U-turn. Have they all gone mad?" Among the less publicly prominent economists, who tend to debate only with their fellows and write mainly in technical journals,  a substantial shift in opinion was less obvious. Speaking in March 2009, Galbraith stated that he had not detected any changes among academic economists, nor a re-examination of orthodox opinion in the journals.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
Until 2008, the consensus among most mainstream economists was that fiscal stimulus did not work. New Keynesians and New Classical economists had previously agreed monetary policy was sufficient for most downturns and the two schools of thought debated only technicalities. The extent of the recession made the New Keynesians re-evaluate the potential of large stimulus, and their debates with New Classical economists, who often opposed stimulus entirely, became substantive. Some economists (primarily post-Keynesians) accused the New Keynesian system of being so integrated with pro-free market neo-classical influences that the label 'Keynesian' in this case could be considered a misnomer.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
The 2008 financial crisis has led  economists to pay greater attention to Keynes's original theories. In February 2009, Robert Shiller and George Akerlof argued in their book Animal Spirits that the current United States stimulus package was too small, because it did not take into account loss of confidence or do enough to restore the availability of credit. In a September 2009 article for The New York Times, on the lessons economists should learn from the crisis, Krugman urged economists to move away from neoclassical models and employ Keynesian analysis, writing:


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
So here's what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit ... that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they'll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
By mid-2010, interest in Keynes' ideas was still growing within academia, even though the apparent consensus among prominent economists had fractured and the revival in Keynesian policy making had to some degree stalled.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, In academia
In October 2011, journalist John Cassidy noted the large number of new books that had recently come out about Keynes, including from leading universities such as Cambridge and MIT, with more books due to come out towards the end of that year.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Criticism
Keynesian ideas also attracted considerable criticism in this time period. While from late 2008 to early 2010 there was broad consensus among international leaders concerning the need for coordinated stimulus, the German administration initially stood out in their reluctance to fully embrace Keynesian policy. In December 2008, Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück of Germany criticised Gordon Brown's advocacy of Keynesian stimulus, saying "The switch from decades of supply-side politics all the way to a crass Keynesianism is breathtaking." By the end of January 2009, Germany had announced a second stimulus plan which, relative to GDP, was larger than Britain's. George Osborne, at the time shadow British chancellor, opposed a return to Keynesian policy from as early as October 2008, saying "even a modest dose of Keynesian spending" could act as a "cruise missile aimed at the heart of recovery."


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Criticism
Critics argued that Keynesian policy would be counter-productive for the reasons of being inflationary, creating more income disparity, and causing consumers to rein in their spending even more as they anticipated future tax increases. In 2009, more than 300 professional economists, led by three Nobel laureates in economics, James M. Buchanan, Edward C. Prescott, and Vernon L. Smith, signed a statement against more government spending, arguing that "Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth."


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Criticism
Robert Barro, an economics professor at Harvard University (author of the 1974 Ricardian equivalence hypothesis postulating that government stimuli are inefficient in a perfect market), argued that the United States stimulus spending might be unwise because of one of the factors the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 depended on for its effectiveness, the "multiplier effect"; the fiscal multiplier, required to be over the value of one for the effect to take place, was in practice close to zero, not 1.5, as he said the Obama team were assuming, which means the extra employment generated by the stimulus would be cancelled out by less output and investment in the private sector. A group of German economists had also argued that the size of the multiplier effect was overestimated, while the Memorandum Group of German Economics Professors claimed the opposite and demanded a larger stimulus.


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Criticism
Economist Edward Prescott (author of the real business-cycle model that post-Keynesians hold failed to forecast the crisis) and economist Eugene Fama argued that stimulus plans are unlikely to have a net positive effect on employment, and may even harm it. Economist Jeffrey Sachs doubted a positive effect because the stimulus and associated policies "may work in the short term but they threaten to produce still greater crises within a few years". In a June 2010 article, referring to the cooling of enthusiasm for further stimulus found among policy makers at the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit, Sachs declared that Keynesian economics is facing its "last hurrah".


2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence, Criticism
There have also been arguments that the Great Recession of the early 21st century was caused not by excessively free markets but by the remnants of Keynesian policy. Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago argued that "Keynesianism is just a convenient ideology to hide corruption and political patronage". In February 2009, Alan Reynolds, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, acknowledged the Keynesian resurgence but stated that evidence from various studies suggest Keynesian remedies will be ineffective and Keynesian advocates appear to be driven by blind faith. In 2009, historian Thomas Woods, an adherent to the Austrian school of economics, published the book Meltdown, which places blame for the crisis on government intervention and points to the Federal Reserve as the primary culprit behind the financial calamity.