By Tauseef Parkar After a 146-day standoff, the writers' strike finally came to an end. On September 24, the Writers Guild of America (WGA), the body representing Hollywood's writers, and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), the association of the industry's leading studios and producers, announced their agreement. The strike officially concluded when the WGA ratified its contract with the AMPTP. The Writers Guild of America reported that 99% of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) members voted in favour of the contract, with 8,435 members saying "yes" and only 90 voting "no", according to the union's announcement on 9TH October 2023. This new contract will be effective from Sept. 25, 2023, to May 1, 2026. Art finds itself in uncharted waters in an era punctuated by technological innovations and shifting socio-economic terrains. The recent strikes by writers and actors unearth more profound questions about the space of art in this digital age. One pressing concern is the role of AI in the arts. As screenwriters grapple with the prospect of AI scripts and actors facing potential replacement by 3D mapping and CGI, it is clear that technology is not merely complementing art but is shaping its very nature. With platforms now showcasing AI-generated podcasts and eerily accurate imitations of public figures, the conundrum stands: Can AI truly replace human creativity? Erosion of Earnings in the Streaming Age On March 14, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) published a report titled "Writers Are Not Keeping Up." The central focus was on how the emergence and dominance of streaming platforms have adversely affected writers' earnings. The report highlights a concerning trend in writers' compensation. Despite a marked increase in series budgets in the past decade, the average pay of writers and producers has declined. Disturbingly, a vast majority of staff writers (98%) are now earning just the Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA) rate. The report also emphasised other disparities. For instance, comedy-variety writers on streaming platforms were not given the basic MBA protections like their episodic series counterparts despite working for the same streaming companies. On the film front, there has been a concerning 14% reduction in screenwriters' pay over the past five years when adjusted for inflation. A Triumph for the Writers In response to these glaring issues, The WGA effectively secured several of its stipulated goals, such as stricter rules on AI use, mandated minimum staffing, bonuses tied to streaming viewership, data transparency, increased contributions to health and pension plans, and a rise in streaming residuals, among other benefits. Additionally, they negotiated a 5% pay raise for this year, with subsequent increases of 4% in 2024 and 3.5% in 2025. The WGA's provisions on artificial intelligence (AI) are particularly noteworthy. The guidelines permit the application of generative AI tools by writers or producers but underscore that such AI must not compromise writers' roles or remuneration. According to the tentative agreement, a writer has the discretion to employ AI in their work, given they have the company's approval and adherence to relevant company policies. However, the company cannot force writers to use specific AI tools like ChatGPT in their writing process. The agreement also addresses concerns about using writers' works to train AI, especially after reports that companies like Meta were doing so. The WGA believes such practices might violate existing agreements or intellectual property laws. SAG-AFTRA's Struggle: An Ongoing Battle On the evening of October 11, the AMPTP announced a suspension in their ongoing negotiations with SAG-AFTRA, citing a considerable difference in their stands. In their statement, they commented, “It is clear that the gap between the AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA is too great, and conversations are no longer moving us in a productive direction.” A significant contention was SAG-AFTRA's proposal of a "viewership bonus." While rewarding performers of hit projects, this bonus would force studios to reveal streaming numbers - a disclosure they have consistently resisted. According to the studios, adopting this would mean an unsustainable additional expenditure of $800 million each year. But compensation is not the only bone of contention. SAG-AFTRA countered in the early hours of October 12, expressing dismay that AMPTP's offer was even less favourable than their pre-strike proposal. They also claimed that AMPTP had inflated the costs of their proposal to the media by a staggering 60%. Further intensifying matters, SAG-AFTRA underscored that while AMPTP's offer seemingly respects performers' consent, it mandates performers to grant permission to use their digital likeness across entire film projects from day one of their employment. This issue has been particularly contentious since the strike's inception in July. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, the union's key executive, highlighted an alarming proposal from the AMPTP: to scan and perpetually own the likeness of background actors without any further consent or compensation. Considering many of SAG-AFTRA's members depend on earnings from background roles or minor parts, such a proposal would severely impact their livelihoods. Moreover, the lingering disagreement has broader economic implications. Hollywood strikes have already dealt a crippling $5 billion blow to California's economy, as reported by the Financial Times. If both parties don't hasten a mutually beneficial agreement, individual livelihoods will suffer, and the entertainment industry will continue haemorrhaging money, with the aftershocks felt across the state's economy. This dire situation underscores the urgency for reconciliation, with higher stakes than ever. Treading the Uncertain Path of Technological Progress As we delve deeper into the rapidly changing world of technology, the unpredictable intersection of AI and the arts becomes increasingly apparent. While tech advancements offer promises of innovation and streamlined processes, they cast doubts on the value of human creativity. Streaming platforms currently dominating the entertainment arena operate on a business model prioritising the continuous influx of new subscribers. Yet, as they grapple with fluctuating viewership, the long-term viability of such a model remains uncertain. A residual system based on viewership might seem like a progressive step, but in a digital ecosystem where viewer loyalty is fickle, its sustainability is questionable. Recent shifts in Hollywood underscore not just present-day pay parity problems but hint at a potentially turbulent future for the entertainment sector. In a landscape constantly reshaped by technology, the balance between artistry and algorithms will be a focal point of contention.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has become a new socially-constructed monstrosity for Republican lawmakers and people unwilling to recognise America’s racist history, and how this impacts present-day politics. In recent years, individual U.S. states have gone to lengths to legislate bans on the teaching of CRT, restricting the discussion of racism, white privilege, oppression and unconscious bias. These constraints also extend to discussions on gender identity and sexual orientation. This article aims to explore the challenges of formally integrating CRT in American schools, and will argue that racism alongside xenophobia and homophobia will continue to be embedded in the American political landscape the longer CRT is not a part of the American school curriculum. To understand why CRT has become a news flash in American politics and brought culture wars into American classrooms, it is important to understand what the theory constitutes, and what it doesn’t. Those opposed to CRT as a concept are wary that the framework rebukes all white individuals to be conceptualised as oppressive, whilst categorising all people of colour to be oppressed. Such anxieties have been incited across school boards and state legislatures, from Florida to Tennessee to prohibit the teaching on racism in the classroom. However, the fundamental issues with these narratives display how CRT’s importance is hideously dismissed as a theoretical framework. CRT does not affix racism to white people as individuals or groupings of people. In short, CRT asserts that American social institutions (examples being the healthcare system, education system and criminal justice system) are embedded with racism , present in regulations and legislation that results in a disparity in outcomes by race. Although, many Americans are unable to divorce their individual character as an American from the system of governance structures, with people embodying themselves in the system. As a result, they perceive the labelling of social institutions being racist as targeted at them . There are two key challenges of integrating Critical Race Theory in American schools: the approach of Republican-controlled state legislatures and parental concerns on the teaching of CRT. Classroom discussions on race hasn’t been debated as extensively in the US 2022 midterm campaigns, given conservatives have achieved their goal of eliminating conversations on racism from the classroom. CRT has become a disputed and misconstrued issue in education following a campaign of deliberate misinformation by conservatives. Strategists belonging to this ideology have persuaded millions of Americans, together with parents of school-aged kids, that CRT was widely taught around the US. However, no evidence stands to confirm these convictions. As of October 2022, Education Week data shows elected officials in forty-two states have proposed legislation that widely aims to prohibit the teaching of topics on racial and social justice in public school curriculums. Bills likewise have passed in seventeen of those states . In addition, many school boards have implemented local bans, with books on race banned in multiple districts. The approach of the Republican-led state legislature entails implementing legislation that forbids school-level teachers from teaching lessons that mention race/racism or gender and sexism. This has had a jarring impact on what educators are able to and willing to discuss across American classrooms, casting a veil for those uncomfortable about the true history of the state of race relations in the US. Ironically, the implication of creating laws that outlaw CRT speaks to validating the point that racism is embedded in the fabric of American governance. Furthermore, the scale of efforts to ban CRT in the United States are widespread. Several states have achieved this through passing legislation, including Texas, South Carolina, Arizona, North Dakota and Idaho. In addition, state actors in Montana and South Dakota have condemned teaching concepts linked with CRT. In the last year, state school boards in Florida, Georgia, Utah and Alabama established new guidelines prohibiting discussions associated with CRT. Until these restrictions on teaching the truth are removed, American democracy will be increasingly prone to the intensification of racial tensions, inequalities and acts of violence. Consequently, at present in some states, educators possess unchecked power in teaching children about race and sexuality. Parental concerns on the teaching of CRT in American schools have arisen from parents worrying about their children learning ideas in school that they are unable to help address themselves. The campaign to eradicate CRT has succeeded predominantly because white parents and state-level lawmakers were convinced of the notion that white school-aged children were being manipulated into feeling guilty about being white. There is no credible proof or evidence to back up this belief. The key consequence derived from the challenge of integrating CRT in US schools is blatantly racist, sexist and homophobic books are clogging the abyss left by bans on CRT . Those on the right advocating for these bans are really pressing an argument against reckoning with the ills of racism in American history. Black, Brown, Indigenous and LGBT+ students constitute the majority of students in the American public school system, and face erasure and suffering at the hands of cruel politicians that preach practising and encouraging extreme masculinity and whiteness. The challenge of successfully implementing CRT in schools due to these bans undermines confidence in the public school system as a public good provision, whilst upholding support for privatisation and choice in schooling. The US Supreme Court’s Espinoza v. Montana ruling in 2020 has only problematised things further. School tax dollars are able to provide funding to religious private and charter schools, and their viewpoints on racism and queer rights. This has come to show that everyday racism and xenophobia has returned to American schools. If America really cares about the advancement of its democracy, the full truth must be taught, and public schools shouldn’t be utilised as a battleground for the Republican party’s culture wars.

By Evie Taylor The start of the 2020s provided an opportunity for newly invigorated efforts to combat the climate crisis. The 2015 Paris Agreement, borne out of COP21, highlighted the years preceding 2030 as a vital period for environmental protection, signalling this time as the last opportunity to prevent the planet from reaching a number of tipping points that would cause irreparable environmental damage. The annual COP meetings have facilitated the platform for a united global response to climate change, giving political leaders no excuse to avoid collaborative action. Yet the political response to this global emergency to date has been characterised by greenwashing, empty promises and insufficient targets. The first three years of this decade have starkly exposed that those figureheads around the world who possess the greatest power to influence climate policy are determined to avoid accountability: either denying the gravity of the crisis as explained by scientists, or concerning themselves only with performative action, to give the public impression that they care, without actually having to make the sacrifices necessary to protect the planet. The greenwashing at COP27 proved that the greatest shared concern amongst those with the most power to introduce change (specifically political leaders of Global North countries and the bosses of companies emitting the highest levels of pollution) is avoiding accountability, rather than actually working towards constructive change. If we look at those people in positions with the most power to incite environmental policy changes, there is little hope for 2023 to be the year in which the world rallies together to take urgent action. But, fortunately, beyond the people in power who are burying their heads in the sand as we rocket towards climate disaster, there is a rapidly growing movement of people turning their climate anxiety into climate action. When we look outside of the sphere of political inaction, we find real evidence of community networks being forged around the world, rallying together to combat the climate crisis. Whilst these communities are composed of people from all generations, they are overwhelmingly being led by young activists, who are recognising and exposing the insufficient action that is being taken on a governmental level. Gen-Z are taking on the responsibility of spearheading campaigns for change and their efforts are quickly gaining momentum. Based on the environmental track record of this generation to date, we can anticipate that 2023 will see an inspiring surge in youth-led climate activism. It should come as no great surprise that many Gen-Z youth are feeling overwhelming anxiety about the environment, as the climate crisis has rapidly accelerated during their lifetimes. They have not grown up with the privilege that older generations have had of being able to exploit the planet, burning through fossil fuels, and accumulating masses of non-recyclable waste, without worrying about how this will impact their futures. People born in the late 1990s and 2000s are becoming acutely aware that global leaders are underdelivering on already lacklustre climate goals, knowing that it is not our current political leaders and big-business CEOs who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis. Younger generations are already experiencing the worst effects of the climate crisis because of the uncertainty it casts over their futures. There is little to no support for young people, to help them manage this anxiety, with school curriculums still tending to only offer a brief address of the topic in geography or science class. According to a 2021 investigation into climate anxiety, published in The Lancet Planetary Health journal, 75% of young people in the US identify their worry about climate change as between moderate to extreme. Meanwhile a 2019 poll by the Washington Post found that just 14% of teenagers reported being given the chance to learn about climate solutions in school. Similarly, in the UK, Save the Children reported that 70% of children feel anxiety about environmental damage. The rise of social media in the 2010s, combined with the lack of education in schools, gave way to what has become commonly known as ‘climate doomism’, as the sharing of an overwhelming amount of information on what is a pretty bleak reality gave young people little reason for hope for the future. However, recent years have seen an increasing level of self-awareness amongst young people that this doomism is not constructive, and thus a shift towards taking to social media to self-educate and empower themselves by sharing information that can help to inspire action. University of Bath environmental psychologist, Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh has identified a link between climate concerns and taking effective action, highlighting that angst and uncertainty is being channelled into an innovative force for good. Californian Gen-Z climate activist, Zahra Biabani, who uses her online platform to spread climate optimist content that bridges the doomist “gap between education and action” explains that “climate education can be debilitating without a form of encouragement to act, especially when we see what’s going on in the world, and how it’s going to get worse”. Zahra claims that many young people are motivated to work to save the planet, not accept its demise. Young environmental leaders like Zahra are forging a new and empowering path for Gen-Z to follow, recognising the reality of the crisis but also looking for hope, to inspire change. Aside from using their voices to protest against government inaction and expose the political and business leaders who are fueling greenwashing, reports show that Gen-Z are also making lifestyle changes more rapidly than other age demographics, like turning plant-based at a rate that is faster than any other generation. Whilst change could be actioned much more easily by those in positions of economic and political power, positions which are overwhelmingly made up of a much older demographic, the reality is clear that this simply is not happening. Gen-Z are learning that festering in the anxiety caused by this inaction does not change anything. They are actioning a bottom-up response to a global issue, taking responsibility for an issue created by the generations that preceded them. Greta Thunberg arguably represents the figurehead for Gen-Z climate action, after her ‘School Strikes for Climate’, which she began undertaking in 2018, aged just 15, gained global traction. Thunberg founded Fridays for Future , moving her individual school strike into a worldwide endeavour. By November of 2019, over 17,000 students from 24 different countries had participated in school strikes for climate. She famously addressed world leaders at the United Nations, giving a damning speech about their present inaction, really highlighting that today’s youth are shouldering the burden of the climate crisis. Thunberg has made no secret of her fear and anxiety surrounding the climate crisis. But rather than let herself become paralysed by that fear, she has drawn global attention to the realities that politicians around the world have consistently tried to underplay. This global attention has both held leaders to account and inspired other young people to make their own environmental initiatives. 12 year old Lilly, who spoke to BBC Newsround, described being inspired to start Lilly’s Plastic Pickup after watching a video of one of Greta Thunberg’s speeches. Lilly said: “I realised we can’t just keep on naming dates when we can stop it. No, we have to stop it now”. The ripple effect of Greta Thunberg’s activism is being felt among young people like Lilly, who are not just taking onboard her speeches but actually using this information to enact changes in their own circles. Gen-Z activism has also emphasised the reality that current leaders in the Global North do not want to confront: the climate crisis is not just a future issue, it is causing devastation right now, which is overwhelmingly impacting people who have been historically exploited by groups who hold more power than them. This is due to an array of different identity factors, but primarily race, nationality and socio-economic status. The term ‘intersectionality’ is becoming a buzz-word for younger generations, used to understand and explain how the interaction of different identity factors culminates to dictate a person’s privilege. Gen-Z climate activism has not just focused on the concerns of those in privileged positions, whose voices are typically the most likely to be heard. As we move into a new year, we confront the reality that the time left to change the course of the climate crisis is rapidly dwindling away. But where there is fear, there is also hope. Younger generations are stepping up to the plate and undertaking the work that politicians are refusing to do. Knowing that their future depends on climate action, Gen-Z are not going down without a fight.

As of 2022, over 70% of the world’s countries have now abolished the death penalty, with Malaysia announcing plans to abolish it in June this year. Where does the rest of the world stand? What are the reasons why it still exists? Should it continue to do so? This article aims to provide an answer to these questions. Origins of Capital Punishment The origins of capital punishment can be traced back to almost every society across the world—dating beyond the beginning of recorded history. From being an integral part of tribal justice, to the codification and definition of capital punishment, it has been a hallmark of justice systems for many years now. That being said, even though the current widespread abolitionist movement is not that old, there have been brief periods in history that have involved abolitionist regimes. Current Situation As mentioned above, over 70% of the world’s countries have now abolished the death penalty. The image below succinctly describes and classifies countries based on their views surrounding capital punishment. Most parts of Europe have abolished the death penalty in all cases, while retentionist countries seem concentrated in Asia and North Africa. Why is the death penalty still prevalent? People that argue for the death penalty are collectively terms as retentionists. They believe that the death penalty helps in preventing future crimes and is an important aspect in upholding the state of law and order within a sovereign. Furthermore, people believe that it is the foremost way of ensuring the victim and their family receive justice and honor. Reasons for abolitioning capital punishment There are various reasons why the world is edging toward the abolishment of capital punishment. The strongest argument, and also the most objective, refers to research around capital punishment and crime deterrance. There is no conclusive or credible research that claims that there exists a relationship between crime deterrence and the institution of capital punishment. Furthermore, according to Amnesty International, the murder rate in Canada in 2003, 27 years after the death penalty was abolished, was 44% lower than in 1975, when it was still legal. Another objection lies in the argument against public support. Proponents of the death penalty claim that since publics support the institution of capital punishment, and since governments are agents for public opinion, capital punishment should remain institutionalised. According to the Pew Research Center, about 60% of the American public is in favour of the death penalty, ranging from being somewhat in favour, to strongly in favour. But public opinion is often morally wrong or ill-representative of marginalized and oppressed opinions. There existed a time where a majority of individuals were against universal adult suffrage, on grounds of race or sex, for example. Such a proposition now seems immoral and reprehensible—could the same be said for the death penalty? The research from the Pew Research Center also mentions that 78% of people believe there exists risk that an innocent person will be put to death, which is linked to another point against capital punishment: racial and other inequalities in capital punishment. In the United States for example, where white victims account for 50% of all murder victims, nearly 80% of all cases involving the death penalty are where the victim is white. There have also been reports of racial discrimination with respect to jury selection. In addition to representing aspects of systemic racism that are widely existent in society, they represent inequalities within the use of capital punishment—it is used more often to punish crimes against a certain race compared to a different one. These are all arguments based on objective, practical uses of the death penalty. While they should be enough to argue against the institution of capital punishment, I venture to argue against it on ideological grounds as well. What gives the state the authority and power to execute someone? The power of a sovereign stems from the people that are part of that society. In democratic societies, this idea exists in the form of free and fair elections—people that are part of society vote for their chosen candidate. Therefore, it is straightforward to assume the authority that the state has over the land it governs, as it is the elected (in democratic societies) or “chosen” (through negotiation or force, in non-democratic societies), representative of the people. This power extends into the power of incarceration. When individuals negatively affect societies, they can be punished for their actions using a fair and equal judicial process. The state would therefore have the power to “exclude” these individuals from society—they can be held in detention facilities/prison, have certain rights taken away (right to free movement, right to vote, etc.) and have limitations on their interactions with society. The state has authority to keep the individual from having a continued negative effect on society. In this situation, the individual is no longer a part of the society. While the state can use its power to keep the individual secluded from society, it is important to remember where the state’s power comes from—society, and where its power extends to—society. The state can keep an individual secluded from society but once secluded, does the state still have authority or power over the individual? Society does not need protection from someone incarcerated since they are already detained and restricted, and therefore not subject to the state’s power. Therefore the state has no jurisdiction over whether an incarcerated individual can be affected in any way. The state therefore does not have the jurisdiction or authority to use the death penalty. This article has analysed various research-based arguments against the death penalty, as well as demonstrated an ideological argument against the use of the death penalty, and the state’s authority for the same. It is important to note that even though the death penalty is in use in several places around the world, its use is dwindling and seems on track to be universally absent.

Once thought to be the next superpower economy, Japan is an extremely interesting case of a country that utilised its war economy to its advantage and is a textbook example of a successful export-led economy. Through the many phases the economy has been through, the central bank has been instrumental in dictating major aspects of the country’s profile and the lived experiences of ordinary people. A significant amount of information in the article has been taken from Werner’s ‘The Princes of the Yen’ a book I would highly recommend due to its questioning of the unaccountable nature of central banks around the world and the manufacturing of the bubble and the resulting crisis. Nevertheless, examining the Japanese Miracle and the following 3 Lost Decades provides us with timely insights, especially regarding the role of central banks and monetary institutions. Starting off by providing historical context for the post-war economy and the peak during the 1980s, I will examine the influence of institutions in shaping the nature of the country. Further, I shall examine the extent to which Japan and the UK are comparable and possible lessons to be had. Post-War Japan After the end of WW2, the Japanese government and the BoJ (Bank of Japan) effectively used State-Assisted Capitalism to achieve growth rates averaging 10% year-on-year . This was mainly through a policy called Window Guidance which essentially allowed the BoJ to control credit allocation to commercial banks and meant that they - on a quarterly basis - chose how much and to which industries loans were given to. This was particularly effective in terms of the egalitarian distribution of wealth increases and most regular Japanese people experienced raised living standards and high income growth . Calls for reform were relatively slow to actualise as can be seen by the 1986 10 Year Reform Plan proposed by Maekawa (the former central bank chief) which called for a shift from export-led growth to a deregulated and open market. Plans to deregulate the economy have been varied in success with there usually being the intention for reform but questionable consequences, especially with Hosokawa and Koizumi . More controversially, the Ministry of Finance had a lot of unofficial control over the BoJ and their priorities began to diverge. The reluctance of the Ministry of Finance to accept and push through reforms led to the creation of a bubble by the BoJ. Increasing the window guidance loan quotas led to a 240% increase in stock prices and 245% increase in land prices between 1985-89 . More problematically, however, was the expansion of non-productive lending which, essentially, increased lending to certain industries where there was not an increasing demand. Further, since currency dealers mainly looked at measures involving trade surpluses, Japan’s currency did not devalue, allowing it to buy 75% of all US Treasury bonds issued in 1986 . In terms of risk indicators, it is useful to look at the ratio of non-GDP based loans as a percentage of all loans. Non-GDP based loans are ones which are not used in the production of goods and services, and the ratio of this increased in the late 1980s. Following the crash, window guidance was abolished leading to investors and regular people not being lent money. Furthermore, the social impact is not to be understated as approximately 5 million people lost their job, in a culture where people are most likely to work with the same company for the majority of their working life. Suicides also became the leading cause of death in men aged 25-44 , an indicator of the breakdown of the social fabric. What makes this ordeal even worse, is the fact that the crisis was not a result of mismanagement. Deliberate actions from a group of few executives in institutions manufactured the bubble and the crisis to ensure long-term structural changes. Facing a situation of low inflation and low growth rates, the BoJ chose to bail out the banking sector instead of increasing the money supply, much to the anger of politicians and the Ministry of Finance. Bailing banks out was similar to the post-war situation where assets plunged due to it being held in war bonds and destroyed industries, and eventually led to the BoJ creating new reserves. However, this created a moral hazard as banks who benefitted from unsustainable investments faced no consequence. The other option would have been to increase the money supply by printing more money to then buy certain goods which would help regular people. A widely suggested option was to buy parks to help with worker satisfaction and alleviate health issues, for example. By choosing to bail out the banks, the BoJ increased tensions with the Ministry of Finance and politicians. More recently, Shinzo Abe - who was elected in 2012 - and his new brand of ‘ Abenomics ’ were relatively popular through a three pronged approach: solving the problem of low inflation, decreased worker productivity and demographic issues caused by an ageing population. For years, Japan struggled to reinflate its economy, something Werner did not predict. Instead, he suggested that the BoJ would have easily been able to increase inflation levels through its control of credit allowances. Instead, target inflation was only met due to supply side issues and still remains lower than most developed economies. Nevertheless, the next few months might be crucial in predicting the future of the Japanese economy due to opportunities for wage growth. Inflation Along with fears concerning an ageing and declining population, a key measure is wage growth, which might also be the key to maintaining the level of inflation and to kickstart demand-led inflation. This might be likely as the Japanese Trade Union Confederation is asking for a 5% increase in wages for the spring negotiations, their highest demand since 1995. The BoJ is unlikely to reign in monetary policy measures until they have a better indication of what inflation levels will look like next year, which is significantly dependent on the spring negotiations. Kuroda (Current Governor of the BoJ), whose term also ends in April, has argued against hastily suspending the QQE narrative (Qualitative and Quantitative Easing) as Japan’s core inflation is expected to drop below its target of 2% by next year. The precedent for wage growth can possibly break the cycle of disinflation that has plagued Japan for the past decade. International scale A lot of the evidence in this article has been from Richard Werner’s ‘The Princes of the Yen’ where he postulates that the central banks in Japan and other countries have manufactured crises to change the economic structure of the country. This view has some credence, especially when considering the lack of accountability faced by those in charge of the bubble. Toshihiko Fukui was the Head of the Banking Departments at the Bank of Japan (1986-89) which was responsible for the window allocations and he later became the governor. Similarly to Mieno and Maekawa, all three have stated that they saw monetary policy as a way to change the economic structure of Japan through crises that they manufactured or exacerbated. These 3 individuals are some of the ‘Princes’ who have succeeded in their goals for the Ministry of Finance to be dissolved, the formation of an independent central bank and the desire for structural changes. The extent to which this level of top-down paradigm shifts can occur in different countries is questionable, however. It was only in 1997 when all economic policy initiatives came from politicians instead of Japanese bureaucrats lending itself to a very different political culture than in the UK or USA. Evidence of the obscurity of central banks all over the world should also be questioned. For example, even the evidence for an independent central bank (the primary evidence behind Maastricht) was based on a single study commissioned by the European Commission in 1992. This study has since been proven to have been manipulated to get the desired result that ‘proved’ that independent central banks lead to lower interest rates. Werner perhaps overestimated the power of these ‘Princes’, however, as can be seen by Japanese institutions struggling to cause inflation increases and the relative failure of economic policy in causing demand-side changes. However, he is extremely successful in demonstrating the influence of the BoJ and other institutions in shaping the economy and culture of Japan, especially when considering the manufacturing crises and institutional practices. In conclusion, this analysis goes to show the instrumental nature of central banks and the power and influence they hold. However, and more worryingly, their practices and decisions are shrouded in unaccountability and secrecy. Whilst it's convenient - and perhaps a bit histrionic - to paint a picture of a few people at the top controlling whole countries, it is undeniable that a lack of public knowledge and scrutiny allows for whole structures to change without our consent, or even awareness.

By Ananya Sreekumar On 7th December 2022, German Special Forces, in tandem with regional Police forces, conducted raids across the country and arrested twenty-five people for plotting a coup against the state. They were primarily members of the Reichsburger movement, while some were members of fringe neo-nazi groups. The plot involved executing or exiling current leaders , deliberately damaging an electricity grid, and using military-grade weapons to overthrow the German government. This group of far-right ex-military figures was led by "Prince Heinrich XIII", a 71-year-old Austrian disgraced aristocrat of the former German royal house of Reuss. They aimed to re-establish a German Empire in the tradition of the German Reich by instigating a civil war so that they could take power. This is just the beginning of one of the most outlandish coup plot(s) in recent history. So what is the Reichsburger movement? Reichburger, translated to “citizens of the Reich , “ consists of far-right extremists who cannot swallow the tough pill that the German Reich ended in 1945. They are anticonstitutionalists and revisionists who reject the modern German state and constitution. Naturally, they’re staunch conspiracy theorists and believe in QAnon. This American political conspiracy theory revolves around manufactured claims made by ‘Q’, who generally villainises anyone that challenges Donald Trump and heroises his power. Most members of the Rechsburger did not pay taxes in revolt against the government. While others printed their own counterfeit currency and attempted to issue driving licenses like a band of delinquent high schoolers. The group rejects Germany’s current government as puppets of the “deep state”. Interior Minister Nancy Fraeser said the culprits embraced a fallacy based on conspiracy, were connected by a disdain for democracy and were convinced that Germany’s current constitution is invalid. They cannot fathom that Germany is a legitimate Federal Republic and that democracy is the reigning ideology, not monarchy— unsurprising when their leader is a bumbling old aristocrat. Funnily enough, the group had already begun formulating a leadership cabinet, and members had been selected to operate as the new health minister, justice minister and other such roles, with Heinrich slated to play the leader. However, it is to be noted that most of the Reichsburgers do not want to reinstate the Third Reich. Much like dear old Kanye West and other ultra-right German groups, they are staunchly antisemitic and share the belief that the Nazis received too much heat in general public opinion. Still, they worship the Kaisers, not Hitler. They wish for Germany prior to 1918— the heyday of authoritarian leader Otto Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire. It sounds ridiculous that a bevvy of conspiracy theorists yearning for the days of Bismarckian Germany could threaten the current administration so much that the German Special Forces felt the need to intervene. However, audacious their plot may seem, they are not to be trifled with. Reichsburger’s followers are heavily armed with ties to the military and law enforcement. They also have connections to members of the far-right Alternative fur Deutschland party— a party with seats in almost all state parliaments and the federal parliament. Hence, the idea of them taking hold of the Bundestag is not that far-fetched. Although their plotting was all for nought, this episode exposes the menace of far-right extremists in Germany today. How much of a threat is far-right extremism to Germany? Germany is ahead of the United States (the bar is that low) in tackling right-wing extremists from within by funding research, sophisticated intelligence operations, and civic agencies. The coalition government under Olaf Scholz has upped the ante compared to Angela Merkel’s conservative administration. However, critics say this is too little too late. In 2019, Germany recorded over fifteen times as many far-right attacks as it had in 1990, which only increased. Germany did miss the mark as it has historically been fixated on left-wing extremism despite right-wing-extremist crimes being exceedingly worse and more extensive. Research conducted by The Washington Post shows that most political parties, especially the centre-right, minimise threats from far-right organisations. While centre-left parties fare better, it’s not a significant difference, and they do discount left-wing extremism. This shows that political parties are influenced by ideology and are partisan in circumstances where they ideally should not be– public safety and safeguarding the democratic process. Similarly, government institutions that are meant to be politically neutral think of intelligence agencies and civil services and downplay far-right extremism when they operate under centre-right interior ministers. Their reports do not invoke as much alarm as they should regarding far-right organisations’ nefarious and dubious behaviours. This behaviour allows extremism to run amock and pervade the nation like toxic gas. Where do we go from here? While Scholz has highlighted right-wing extremism as a primary concern, it seems as if the problem has already reached the point where it is getting out of hand. Earlier this month, a 75-year-old woman, dubbed ‘Terror Granny’ by German media, was arrested along with her co-conspirators to overthrow the government. This time the plot involved hiring an actor to impersonate the Chancellor and address the public through a TV speech claiming he has been deposed. You truly cannot make this up. The Grandpa’s and Granny’s of Germany are taking their nostalgia and xenophobia a bit too seriously. In all seriousness, such attempts to depose the government, while unbelievable, are grave threats when the perpetrators have access to military-grade weapons. How has it gotten to this point? How did Merkel’s administration ignore such a pervasive national security issue? Many questions remain.

By Reuben Bye  2024 is the biggest year for voting, ever - and it will be a year of uncertainty. 76 countries with a combined population of 4.2 billion (that’s about half of all people on the planet) are holding elections. Of these, roughly 2 billion are adults eligible to vote. The vast array of elections is a diverse list, ranging from the USA to Mali to Indonesia to the European Parliament. With so many to watch, it’s worthwhile to note some key details and trends.    Just because a state holds elections does not make it a democracy. Democracy is a much higher bar that requires rights (such as the right to free speech, political participation, etc.) and protections, especially the guarantees that elections are free and fair. When classifying the democratic status of countries, three groups are usually drawn.     Voting in autocracies?   The first is the true autocracies, the dictatorships and one party states. In these, people have few - if any - political rights, but elections may still happen. This year Russia is holding a presidential election, but (since we know that there can only be one outcome) why bother? The process of elections is not always about choice and change, it can also be a tool wielded by autocrats to legitimise their rule (at home and abroad) and justify their decisions. For Putin, a fifth term would mean even greater control over the Russian state and could pave the way to further mobilisation after heavy casualties in Ukraine. Even more draconian, North Korea won’t be letting citizens choose who gets to rubber-stamp policy this year. Voting is mandatory, and there is one candidate. But for the Kim dynasty, making the people vote is worth it to build an illusion of a party state to have people to blame and to track the movements of the voters.    Second are the hybrid or transitional regimes which fuse democratic and autocratic systems. In these, citizens may even be allowed to participate but repression remains a fact of everyday life. Here, elections can affect policy and change governments, but the institutions to uphold results are flimsy at best. As weak or emerging democracies, they are vulnerable to coups and crackdowns, and opposition candidates face an uneven playing field. For countries like Tunisia, Georgia or Mauritania, elections have the power to nurture a truly democratic future and to enable a populist party or opportunistic president to degrade its institutions. The largest of these to go to the polls this year is Mexico which has witnessed a weakening of anti-corruption and judicial institutions under leftwing populist President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in pursuit of his progressive agenda. His party’s candidate, Claudia Sheinbaum, is widely believed to want to continue his changes to judicial appointments.     Voting in Democracies   The third and final category are the democracies where rights and protections are upheld. In these cases, elections regularly result in governments with a new set of policy priorities and perspectives on geopolitical issues. Elections across Europe are likely to expand the power of rightwing parties as the issue of immigration returns to the foreground of political discourse. Populism remains a threat to even the most entrenched democratic states as polarised public discourse and prioritising certain controversial policies over rule of law threaten to undermine institutions.    Of particular note are the ‘flawed democracies’ where elections can be genuinely free and fair, but where institutions and civil society have been strained by populist and illiberal governance and rhetoric. In 2024 these account for some of the largest states in the world such as Indonesia, India and the USA, and these results will certainly be felt globally.     Twenty five years after the overthrow of authoritarian President Sukarno, Indonesia now holds free elections. It has prospered under the steady governance of outgoing President Joko Widodo for the last ten years, even though he has been criticised for sidelining democracy in the pursuit of national development. Prabowo Subianto, the current frontrunner who is positioning himself as Widodo’s successor, has raised concerns from his links to the Sukarno junta, human rights violations in East Timor and his choice of Widodo’s eldest son as his vice-presidential running mate (raising fears about a political dynasty).    The world’s largest democracy, India, is expected to hold elections in late spring against the backdrop of growing concerns surrounding Prime Minister Modi and his Hindu-nationalist BJP party’s attitude towards human rights, rule of law and pluralist tolerance. India is an established electoral democracy but it has been increasingly described as an ‘illiberal democracy’ in recent years. Fragmented opposition parties have attempted to build a Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) coalition to oust the BJP, but Modi is predicted to win a third term against this diverse ideological jigsaw of a group.     As the foremost military, economic and diplomatic power, the US elections in November will be carefully watched by diplomats and policymakers around the world. American foreign policy is largely the responsibility of the president, so the winner’s administration will have powers over sanctions, aid, trade, military, involvement in international organisations and more. And this could all be subject to the will of Donald Trump, again. His last tenure saw him courted by autocrats and embrace more isolationist and transactional diplomacy. This could have profound consequences for Ukraine, NATO and Taiwan on which he has been sceptical and inconsistent in the past.     Thinking ahead   With so many elections coinciding this year, including in many major powers, 2024 will require policymakers to be flexible. In the more democratic states, free and fair elections that result in a new government can result in substantial changes to policy that will require others to adapt in response. In the states where elections are neither free nor fair, where they are no more than an attempt to legitimise an autocratic regime, they may be used to justify questionable actions. This will pose a challenge for diplomats who must navigate a year of changing dynamics and more turbulence will complicate an already tense world already struggling with war, inflation and climate pressures.

By Channon Heenan On 19th May 2023, President Xi Jinping held the first in-person China-Central Asia summit in Xi’an, China. The summit aimed to enhance regional and economic co-operation between the countries of central Asia and China and was widely seen as an opportunity to strengthen ties. Xi Jinping promised to renew infrastructure, deepen trade links and enhance security co-operation in a region that has long been seen as Russia’s backyard. The timing of the summit was intriguing, as it seemed to come at a time when Russia’s own power in the region is waning as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian war and central Asian nations are searching for new sources of investment. Russo-Kazakh Relations The most exemplar shift in policy in Central Asia from a Russian hegemony to a Chinese trajectory is that of Kazakhstan. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin has kept Kazakhstan well within its orbit as Kazakhstan plays a key part of all the regional organisations headed by Russia (such as the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.) Russia wields a significant amount of soft power in the country, and Russian culture permeates throughout. This central Asian nation is an important ally for Moscow, especially as relations with the West have plummeted and sanctions have threatened to put the Russian economy in dire straits. The Kremlin needs a friendly Kazakhstan— it cannot afford for its backyard to become too independent. Indeed, the call by Kazakh President Tokayev for assistance from the Russia-led CSTO in January 2022 to quell an eruption of nationwide unrest has been seen by many as the ultimate act of allegiance to Moscow, showing a submissive Kazakhstan dependent on its neighbour who is all too happy to dominate the relationship if it helps Moscow retain a key partner. The Russo-Kazakh Predicament However, in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Kazakh policy towards Russia has changed drastically. Rather than being dependent on Russia for security matters and allowing Russian domination, Astana has pursued a more independent, multi-vector foreign policy. Kazakhstan has adhered to Western sanctions, which, while not supporting the measures, has not provided Russia with the get-out-of-jail card it so desired by not facilitating a way to circumvent the sanctions. Astana has also refused to recognise the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, a move that sparked furore in Moscow. The reasoning behind this change in policy direction is two-fold. Firstly, Russia’s disastrous conduct of the war in Ukraine has starved it of much of its political and military clout in the former Soviet republic, and as such the Russian army is no longer as indomitable as it may once have been. Therefore, the threat of any militaristic counter-measures that could be taken by Russia to a change in Kazakh attitudes has reduced. Secondly, because of this weakening, Kazakhstan can direct more attention to China as a partner in trade and security to encourage more investment, but they have to tread lightly as far as moving away from Moscow is concerned, considering Russia’s willingness to take military action against post-Soviet states that strive too far from its orbit. A Blossoming Partnership Since the launch of the Belt and Road initiative in 2013, which aims to link Europe with China and everywhere in between in a new silk road to increase trade and transport links, a wave of Chinese investment has flooded into Kazakhstan, and in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine the current is stronger than ever, with China pouring billions into the central Asian country, and Xi Jinping first paying a visit in September 2022 then inviting Kazakhstan to the Central Asian Summit in Xi’an, China in May 2023. There exists a myriad of reasons why Xi Jinping wishes to entice Astana into the Chinese sphere of influence, the most important of these being an expansive Chinese economic policy. Due to rapidly expanding domestic energy needs, China has been investing largely in Kazakh energy resources, especially oil – as such China needs a stable Kazakhstan well within its own orbit to ensure it has a steady supply of energy. Kazakhstan, in pursuit of foreign investment following the implementation of its multi-vector foreign policy and a reduction in Russian investment, has bolstered this policy, evidenced by the $24 billion of trade between the two nations in 2022, only $2 billion behind trade between Kazakhstan and Russia. Further, the economic power of China can be seen in its lion’s share of Kazakh exports, claiming the title of Kazakhstan’s largest buyer of exports in 2021, and second only to Russia as a source of imports. Kazakhstan does not plan to stop its economic shift towards China there, with President Tokayev highlighting this renewed Chinese focus by making a promise to target $40 billion in annual two-way trade between the two nations, up from over $31 billion in 2022. In terms of oil, from January 2023, 1.5 million tonnes of oil will be shipped through the Middle Corridor transport route to China – and up to 6 million tonnes annually in the long run which will help to reduce Kazakh dependency on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium going through Russia, a pipeline the Russian side tends to stop when Astana steps out of line. China has signalled a shift in attitude towards Russia as far as Kazakhstan is concerned, with Xi Jinping remarking during the state visit to Astana in September 2022 that China would ‘oppose the interference of any forces’ in the internal affairs of Kazakhstan, a remark that sounds like a warning to Moscow to not destabilise a key energy and trade partner of Beijing, for a destabilised Kazakhstan would threaten both Chinese security and energy imports. While Russia has become less of a military player in the region as its interests are focussed elsewhere, it is worth noting that Xi Jinping pledged Chinese support to enhance the region’s law enforcement and defence capabilities at the China-Central Asia summit, to ‘prevent colour revolutions.’ This is a move that, combined with Chinese investment flooding into Kazakhstan and the predicted shift to the Middle Corridor, as well as the thinly veiled warning to Russia not to meddle in Kazakh internal affairs, appears to be quite the bid to become the new strongman in Russia’s backyard.

By Pawel Plonka The upcoming year, 2024, will see a number of important national elections worldwide, from the United States and the United Kingdom to India, Taiwan, and South Korea. In preparation for these contests, the new role of generative artificial intelligence emerges. This groundbreaking technology has the potential to transform the nature of political campaigns - from voters’ perception of actors and events to backroom financial management and politicians’ understanding of societal expectations. How can politicians leverage their odds with such an innovative apparatus? What threats does it pose for democracies across the world? To what extent can AI-generated content influence public opinion, and how does this affect democratic engagement in the digital age? PROLIFERATION OF DISINFORMATION & POLITICAL ADVERTISING Disinformation has been a part of electoral processes for years. Influence operations remain an effective means to cause confusion as well as panic and sway voters while doing everything from comfortable proximity. Increased accessibility to generative artificial intelligence enables all actors - unaffiliated individuals, vying campaign headquarters, and external powers - to generate fictitious news quickly. There are already many examples of disseminating disinformation in such a manner. In 2020, two political operatives in the ‘battleground states’ in the US leveraged robocalls to spread false claims that voting by email would result in collecting outstanding debt by credit card companies and being tracked by law enforcement. Ben Winters, a senior counsel at Electronic Privacy Information Center, in relation to these events pointed out that with generative AI, new groups can adopt similar strategies with a lower risk of detection. On a level of campaign offices, generative artificial intelligence thrives as well. Ron DeSantis, in order to slander his party rival, used AI-generated deepfakes of Donald Trump embracing a despised in right-wing circles former White House chief medical advisor, Anthony Fauci. However, this is not the sole instance of such an endeavour in American politics; over the past months, there has been a noticeable trend toward the normalization of using deepfakes for campaign purposes. In response to Biden’s announcement of a re-election bid, the Republican National Committee launched a video packed with generated content depicting, e.g. Chinese invasion of Taiwan and distress on the American streets. FINANCING CAMPAIGNS Generative artificial intelligence also may optimize campaigns’ costs simultaneously enhancing their efficiency. Creating human-like content by automated accounts before and during campaigns can be extremely valuable when conveying certain messages or manufacturing a mirage of wide social interest. Most importantly, even badly constructed machine-generated content which is still different every time is great for overcoming supervisory mechanisms. Targeting certain groups has already been accelerated by social media - now generative artificial intelligence can lead to ‘micro-micro targeting’. More advanced technology could enable campaign staff to create an affordable hyper-individualized communication customized to each voter as well as a donor - creating a personalized experience, especially concerning ‘calls to action’ and relevant opportunities, is excellent for improving engagement with supporters. The use of AI to empower electoral campaigns is on the rise. Although mainstream generative artificial intelligence is at its early stage of development, its smart implementation might bring tangible results. Quiller AI is one of the examples of companies that specialize in leveraging artificial intelligence for campaigning purposes on behalf of the US Democratic Party. Their services include creating draft emails and automation repetitive tasks regarding engagement with the donors. Mike Nellis, the founder of the company, describes its purpose: ‘Quiller will not only accelerate the writing and coding process, but also enhance creativity and efficiency, leading to higher open rates, fewer unsubscribes, and more campaign funds.’ PUBLIC OPINION Campaign staff and politicians often base their narratives upon the reactions and stances of their electorate. Public opinion is quintessential in the democratic process, especially in creating a candidate's program and giving them cues on how to approach certain social issues. However, recently there has occurred a phenomenon of ‘astroturfing’, which is an artificially manufactured political movement created to simulate the impression of genuine grassroots activism. Actors involved in such activities aim to form a perception of a broad social consensus on specific issues. The danger coming from astroturfing is big already, yet it is exacerbated by the potential of generative artificial intelligence. A great verification of these themes is an experiment conducted by Sarah Kreps and Douglas L. Kriner from Cornell University. They send more than 32,000 emails both human-made and generated by OpenAI’s GPT-3 to roughly 7,200 state legislators in 6 policy issue areas. Their analysis suggested that lawmakers perceived the AI-generated messages almost as credible as the ones constructed by humans. Although large language models oftentimes produce bland and even inaccurate content, it is important to acknowledge that they constantly improve, e.g. through reinforcement learning from human feedback. As feedback from the people remains a vital source of information for policymakers and politicians, AI-powered astroturfing might greatly influence their behaviour. A malicious design of bogus public opinion blends the frontier between what is real and what is not. CONCLUSION Generative AI presents both opportunities and significant challenges for the future of political campaigns. This new technology can highly empower campaign staff and optimize a lot of processes. However, it also has the potential to create a lot of chaos. Candidates can use it to distort reality and create a false representation of the truth. They had been doing it before as well, albeit now generative AI enables it to happen at a much larger scale and a much faster pace. 2024 is likely to bring more of the aforementioned strategies and operations to the spotlight in the campaign circles. We can expect more disinformation, more artificially generated content, and perhaps more engagement with the voters, without knowing if there is anyone on the candidate’s side. The implications of these innovations are profound and as they continue to advance, politicians and democracies worldwide must navigate its impact with vigilance.

By Nimrit Jodha Over the past decade, there has been an increased emphasis on healthcare becoming a profit-maximising industry. However, healthcare is based on a factual science where patients must trust diagnoses regardless of price. In theory, having a division between public and private is useless because consumer sovereignty does not apply in healthcare, as the patient is not the best judge of their welfare. This article evaluates a comparison of healthcare quality and whether there is a clear distinction between the two. Efficiency vs. Accountability The private sector receives significantly more funding than the public sector due to the patients paying for the faculties and infrastructure. In addition to direct payments, there is also funding from private insurance and employer-sponsored plans. Meanwhile, in comparison, there are continuous reductions in budgets and staff in the public sector, leading to apparent differences in available resources. Absorptive capacity occurs in the private sector, where it recognises new patients’ value due to their financial position, attracting more funding from the government, shifting budgets away from the public sector, where they already struggle to maintain a human and physical infrastructure. Many gravitate towards the private sector because it is ‘more efficient, accountable and medically effective’. However, it should be noted that studies have found the public sector to lack timeliness and hospitality towards patients. To make an informed judgement of the effectiveness and quality of both systems, a study was conducted on eight databases systematically on their performance. This was assessed against the World Health Organisation’s six essential themes of health- ‘accessibility and responsibility, quality, outcomes, accountability and transparency, regulation, efficiency, fairness and equity. A narrative review was conducted for each theme. The studies reinforced the idea that in the private sector, there is better hospitality but also found that the industry violates the accepted medical standards more frequently, where they have been reported to have lower efficiency. The systematic review also did not support the view that the private sector’s healthcare delivery is more accountable and effective. It showed that both sectors have strengths and weaknesses, but the main issues were the financial barriers to care, poor accountability and a lack of transparency. T he Advocates' Duel Advocates for the private sector have advocated that it is the ‘main provider’ as impoverished patients would prefer care at private clinics where there is the belief that they would be more responsive to patient’s needs due to the market competition, which should, in theory, overcome government corruption and inefficiency. In comparison, advocates for the public sector have highlighted inequalities in accessioning healthcare as low-income patients cannot pay for private services. However, the private sector has been criticised for failing to deliver public health goods and preventative services as it lacks communication and coordination with the public sector. It should be noted that there is also a bias when discussing the sectors as big private international contractors, insurance firms, and non-governmental organisations would benefit from expanding the private sector, whilst academics would be in favour of the public sector as they greatly rely on state-funded grants to gain more resources for their research. The Path to Unity The main issue is not the extent to which the sectors differ because they both have advantages and disadvantages. In theory, the public sector should be of higher quality. However, studies have shown that they lack accountability and are more likely to violate medical standards. Policies must reduce the divide between the two sectors to make a more integrated system. This could be done by creating one significant healthcare sector where all the funding and resources are pooled and contribute to one place rather than separating it into two separate distinctions. Patients who previously funded their private treatment should be encouraged and motivated by the fact that the services they will receive will also be improved from their current healthcare. There needs to be a greater emphasis on enhancing and integrating healthcare into one unitary service rather than the main focus being on the difference and quality of the two sectors. Integration could involve sharing resources so there is greater innovation of ideas and breakthroughs regarding medicine. This would also reduce the issues the public sector sees with staffing as they would have additional support from the private sector. The most impactful way to reduce the disparities and inequalities between the sectors is by having all doctors and nurses work together towards the same goal rather than splitting resources and funding.

By Ethan Wilson Villa Lithium is poised to be an essential component of the green transition. Often referred to as ‘white gold’, lithium plays a key role in technological development within the energy sector. Lithium is used   in the production of rechargeable batteries for electric vehicles (EVs), solar panels, and energy storage systems, as well as consumer electronics like phones and laptops. As governments and investors increasingly gravitate towards renewables, the availability, production, and refinement of lithium will condition the execution of many green energy projects down the line. In fact, global demand for lithium is estimated   to increase five-fold by 2030. Future demand projections underpin the tense geopolitical landscape facing lithium production and trade today.    The X-Factor: Africa’s Role in the Global Lithium Trade     More than 80%  of lithium mining occurs in Australia and Latin America. Although China is home to under 7%  of global lithium reserves, it has effectively monopolized the supply chain. China is the biggest force in the importation, refinement, and consumption of lithium – 70%  of global production is supplied by China through the Belt and Road Initiative and other commercial agreements. Why, then, is Africa so important? Currently, Africa has roughly 5% of the world’s natural lithium ore reserves . These are distributed among a small selection of countries. Nonetheless, African mines – stimulated by Chinese financing – are expected   to increase lithium production 30-fold from last year to 2027, when Africa will account for 12% of global supply versus its 1% share in 2022. Africa is also forecasted   to provide a fifth of global demand by 2030. ‘White gold’ is a hot commodity. Considering demand already caused prices to surge   last year, these projections illustrate how crucial the African continent will be in the development of the global lithium market. As stated earlier, China dominates the supply chain. The Chinese government prioritized owning the largest share of the critical minerals market in the 2000s and never looked back. In Africa, the strategy has been underpinned   by public diplomacy and infrastructure investment.     However, painting the picture of a full-fledged Chinese monopoly in Africa misses the mark on two dynamics. First, it overlooks the West’s efforts to challenge the status quo. Consensus rightly points to the West “waking up too late” to the Chinese strategy. Consequently, though, the U.S. is working towards reverting Chinese lithium hegemony. The leading initiative in this quest is the 2022 Minerals Security Partnership . Spearheaded by the Biden administration and composed essentially of the Global North, the agreement seeks to diversify supply chains. In Africa, the U.S. signed a memorandum of understanding  at the U.S.-Africa Summit late last year with Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo to develop an EV battery supply chain. The U.S. and E.U. have also committed to the development of the Lobito Corridor , a railway that connects key mineral reserves in Zambia and the DRC to the Angolan port of Lobito. American refineries are negotiating with African mines to fund their projects whilst acquiring equal – not controlling, as is the case   with China – shares.     Second, the theory strips lithium-rich African states of their agency. Notwithstanding the barriers to establishing refinement plants in Africa (the need for a regular power supply, inadequate transport infrastructure, and corruption), the possession of lithium reserves grants these African states a degree of bargaining power. To illustrate these dynamics, the case of Zimbabwe is briefly discussed. Zimbabwe has Africa’s largest lithium reserves. With lingering U.S. economic sanctions from the Mugabe era, Zimbabwe turned to the Chinese for investment. The majority of its mines are run by Chinese-owned businesses, which have spent upwards of $1  billion on lithium projects. Zimbabwean lithium is a vertical the Chinese will increasingly pursue, having pledged   an investment of $2.79 billion on mining operations in the country. The agency argument, for better or worse, comes into play as Zimbabwe imposed a ban on raw lithium exports in December of last year. As part of the prohibition , companies must set up refinement plants in Zimbabwe and process lithium ore before exporting it in order to create jobs and boost revenue nationally. This has prompted other mineral-rich African nations to follow suit.     Political Debates on Lithium: Policy Going Forward   The Zimbabwean case encapsulates the realities of the lithium trade in Africa. American sanctions limited Zimbabwe’s potential trade partners. China’s opportunistic grand strategy capitalized, as it has done with other African nations. One must bear in mind the nature of these sanctions: Zimbabwe is under the repressive dictatorship of Emmerson Mnangagwa. The issue of agency is, therefore, a pertinent one to grapple with. The sovereignty of African states and the ability to freely conduct their economic affairs is imperative. However, one is forced to adapt these moral dictums to the realities of our current world. Resource nationalism and noxious protectionism in Africa will only prop up inefficient industries shielded from global competitive pressures and further centralize power, thus serving to benefit the political elites at the expense of ordinary individuals. The desire to maximize economic growth in African exporters is evident. These nations, however, lack the means (production capacity, transport infrastructure, and capital) to sustainably and independently profit from lithium exports as of today. African economic growth, thus, should not be based on coercion or barriers to trade. Rather, governments should foster a competitive landscape in the trade of lithium and incentivize investors to go beyond ‘white gold’ and allocate resources to human capital. Domestic processing and refinement is how   value is added and a means for investors to grow non-exploitative business partnerships with African governments. Other key areas of investment are international transportation logistics (e.g. the Lobito corridor) and joint research initiatives  to educate and innovate in the presence of green energy in Africa. Ultimately, the pursuit of these policies in the context of lithium should be the objective as a competitive business environment, joint research and human capital growth may be the best pathway to sustained and sustainable economic growth.

By Ethan Wilson The 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is an ambitious and divisive law conceived to push the USA towards its climate goals and bolster energy security , among other objectives. The choice of adjectives here is deliberate: the IRA constitutes the most significant investment into fighting climate change in the history of the USA, allocating an estimated $370 billion over ten years to energy and climate . In a textbook display of American political polarisation, the IRA was voted on along party lines – Democrats in support and Republicans in opposition. Let us break down the specifics of the law. Roughly two-thirds of the $370 billion consists of federal tax credits that incentivise clean electricity production and investment in renewable energy manufacturing, renewable fuel production, carbon sequestration, and other clean technologies like hydrogen or direct air capture. The remaining one-third comprises federal government appropriations (bills authorising government spending). These include grants to encourage energy efficiency in housing, funds to support conservation practices that limit forestry and agriculture emissions, and investment in reducing air pollution and supporting vulnerable communities. Predictions and Realities: The Reasoning behind the Inflation Reduction Act Climate resilience and innovation-driven energy security are two guiding principles behind the Inflation Reduction Act. A study by the Department of Energy published in August of 2023 – a year after the passing of the legislation – reports that, together with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act will reduce greenhouse emissions by 1 billion tons by 2030. The IRA is also estimated to have generated upwards of 170,000 jobs in renewable energy already, a figure that is predicted to increase to 912,000 average annual jobs through the next ten years. Third-party estimates report the IRA is set to reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next decade. The suddenly available pool of subsidies has also spurred productivity and private investment in green energy manufacturing. The data points towards the Biden administration’s intention to prioritise climate change. The IRA should be understood as an aggressive spending policy focused on the environment and a signal of American ambition to lead global climate and energy efforts. The Democrats have clearly demonstrated their will to disassociate from Trump’s policy and rhetoric on climate change by rejoining the Paris Agreement; the IRA is yet another step in the same direction. Criticisms of the Inflation Reduction Act Why, then, is there such staunch opposition to this law from Republicans? In some cases, it stems from denial of or disinterest in climate change. In others, it may be a result of party politics. These issues, however, should not constitute the bulk of the discussion. There are criticisms of the IRA that hold substantial weight and should be explored accordingly. The biggest is that the Inflation Reduction Act does not reduce inflation. Admittedly, this sounds counterintuitive, considering inflation (measured by CPI) dropped from 8.3% to 3.2% in the first full year of the IRA. Nevertheless, the Penn Wharton Budget Model concluded the IRA’s impact on inflation is statistically insignificant. Zero, in practical terms. The consensus among economists seems to be that post-pandemic supply chain improvements and Federal Reserve interest rate hikes were responsible for slowing inflation. President Biden regrets naming the bill the Inflation Reduction Act, stating : “I wish I hadn’t called it that because it has less to do with inflation than it does with providing alternatives that generate economic growth”. Despite some of the optimistic predictions outlined in the previous section, one must note that Democrats passed the IRA amidst a period of recession where inflation was destroying the purchasing power of American families, who were already suffering from extortionate food and gas prices, by an average of $6,800 per two-income household . This came after another massive spending bill the year before, the American Rescue Plan worth $1.9 trillion, significantly contributing to the inflationary environment. The Inflation Reduction Act will be primarily funded by an increase in US debt, already at 121.6% of its GDP. Further, the bill is estimated to increase taxes for the average household by $4,500 over the next decade, though real costs for the American taxpayer could far exceed expected values. Subsidies will only expire once emissions targets are met; failure to do so will simply extend how long these taxes are paid. Conversely, if they are met, studies show the USA could lose out on up to $7.7 trillion in economic growth and an annual average of 1.2 million jobs. Reflections on the Inflation Reduction Act Economic policy on the environment must be underpinned by a robust understanding of the economic context within which it will be executed. Reducing the deficit is necessary, though the IRA seems to do so misguidedly . The peak inflation last year was due to demand outpacing supply, yet the decrease in deficit within the IRA comes from raising taxes (reducing supply) instead of lowering expenditure (reducing demand). Also, the bulk of new corporate taxes will be paid by manufacturers, which is conducive to less production or higher costs. Altogether, the Inflation Reduction Act seemed more about betting on green subsidies than reducing inflation. In a broader context, the IRA reflects the environmental policy challenges of today: striking a balance between environment and economy. Incentivising the production of cheap and clean energy and fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should unequivocally be policy objectives. However, awareness of the economic landscape is imperative for the design of such policies. Perhaps the Biden administration could have slashed spending to lower the deficit while reducing red tape and other barriers to entry. A more gradual plan to prop up the competitiveness of renewables over time while decreasing dependency on fossil fuels could have been devised away from artificial price distortions. Once again, the point of equilibrium is nearly impossible to find. Policymakers find themselves between a rock and a hard place, challenged to account for the well-being of citizens today and that of the environment tomorrow – a truly strenuous balancing act.