ReportWire

Tag: Opinion

  • OPINION: Our college students are struggling emotionally. We need to understand how to help them – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Our college students are struggling emotionally. We need to understand how to help them – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Our students are struggling. As a college president and a clinical psychologist, I know this well.

    Recent headlines tell a distressing story about the mental health of college students. While the news articles are alarming, it is worth noting that much of the data they cite comes from self-reporting by students.

    This self-reporting gives us important insights into how our students are feeling, but it is not equivalent to clinical diagnoses. By equating self-reporting with diagnoses, we risk applying the wrong interventions.

    I’ve spent much of my career overseeing clinical services and other student supports, and I know the importance of clinical interventions. They are intended to be matched to specific diagnoses and can involve a variety of treatments, including individual or group and outpatient or inpatient, by licensed mental health professionals.

    But I believe we must shift how we support students’ emotional needs. Clinical interventions are not the only way — and often not the most appropriate or effective way — to support young people who may be temporarily struggling with feelings that do not meet the full psychological definition of mental illness.

    Rather than needing a clinical intervention, many students may benefit most from support that builds their resilience if they are feeling sad, worried, overwhelmed or anxious. Resilient students are better positioned to cope with temporary periods of heightened emotional stress.

    In the past, teaching these skills was usually not seen as central to the mission of a college or university, yet learning how to cope emotionally may be among our students’ most vital and integral lessons.

    It is something that will serve them throughout — and well beyond — their time on our campuses.

    Related: Congress is starting to tackle student mental health

    Data drawn from student self-reporting provides important insights into their needs. Some 44 percent of students reported that they experienced symptoms of depression during the 2021-22 academic year, a Healthy Minds survey of 96,000 U.S. college students shows; 37 percent said they experienced anxiety.

    In addition, two out of five undergraduates said that they “frequently” experience emotional stress, results from a Gallup-Lumina Foundation report found, while 36 percent of students pursuing bachelor’s degrees reported that they had considered “stopping out” in the last six months. The most commonly cited reasons were “emotional stress” (69 percent) and “personal mental health reasons” (59 percent).

    Researchers have hypothesized that at least some of these self-reported crises may be due to an increased awareness and normalization of mental health conditions.

    This awareness is something we should regard as positive and beneficial because it reduces the stigma and isolation that have long impeded students from getting support. But we also must recognize an unintentional, negative impact of this increased awareness: overinterpretation.

    Young people experiencing negative emotions and facing normal developmental challenges may be particularly vulnerable to misidentifying those experiences as actual illnesses.

    This is not to suggest that the mental health crisis is not real, or that we should not support our students or validate their experiences. Students are struggling every day on my campus and on campuses across the country. Mental illness often first appears or worsens in young adulthood, and for these students, accessing appropriate clinical intervention is critical.

    But for many students, what will be most appropriate and effective are supports to develop their resilience and coping strategies and the confidence to rebound from setbacks.

    Being a young adult today is not easy. In addition to facing typical challenges, such as forming an identity and developing life skills, they have grown up with pressures from social media, isolation brought on by the global pandemic and the economic and political uncertainties of the twenty-first century.

    Rising college costs have also raised the stakes for many students. College is a huge commitment both monetarily and emotionally, and our students know it.

    They inevitably face obstacles when they move into the college environment, such as not knowing where they fit in and encountering more challenging coursework than they had previously. Believing they are an outlier, rather than the norm, may undermine their resilience.

    That’s why at Lewis & Clark we incorporate resilience-building practices, using research-based belonging exercises as well as intentional peer-to-peer support.

    Two of our psychology professors, Jerusha Detweiler-Bedell and Brian Detweiler-Bedell, spearheaded our participation in a multiyear Stanford-led study that aimed to foster a deeper sense of belonging among our incoming first-year students, with the goal of helping them understand that their struggles are normal — and that things will get better over time.

    The exercises in the study incorporated stories of obstacles faced by other students and how they overcame them. While the original study’s sample size was small, we saw an increase in retention rates and GPAs, especially among students from underrepresented groups. The results were so compelling that all incoming Lewis & Clark undergraduates now participate in the social belonging intervention.

    Related: OPINION: One college president uses board games, bedtime stories, horses and ice-cream sundaes to help students cope

    We also initiated a peer mentoring program specifically serving first-year students. The mentors reach out to incoming first-year students and introduce them to campus life with information about academic advising, navigating health and wellness services and various campus clubs and social options. The mentoring relationship begins during orientation and continues throughout the semester. Just as important as what the peer mentors do is how they model resilience.

    Of course, approaches like these should be offered with an understanding of what other interventions some students may need. Clinical depression and anxiety disorders do require clinical support. Higher education institutions must continue to expand our capacity to provide such support for those students who need it.

    But we must also prioritize programs that bolster resilience. These efforts can reassure and help students (and their families) who may be misidentifying their feelings based on popular rather than clinical understandings of depression and anxiety.

    When it comes to setting students up for success in their professional and personal lives, resilience may be the most important skill we can encourage them to develop.

    Robin H. Holmes-Sullivan is president of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. She has maintained a private clinical psychology and consulting practice for more than three decades.

    This story about college students and resilience was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Robin H. Holmes-Sullivan

    Source link

  • Guatemala’s Chance for a New Beginning

    Guatemala’s Chance for a New Beginning

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Emmanuel Andres/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Ines M Pousadela (montevideo, uruguay)
    • Inter Press Service

    One year earlier, Arévalo – co-founder of the progressive Movimiento Semilla (Seed Movement), a political party born out of widespread 2015 anti-corruption protests – was largely unknown, freshly selected as his party’s presidential candidate. He wasn’t on the radar of opinion polls. A long chain of unlikely events later, he’s become the first Guatemalan president in living memory who doesn’t belong to the self-serving elites who Guatemalans call ‘the corrupt pact’, which he has credibly promised to dismantle.

    The fear this caused among corrupt elite that has long ruled Guatemala was reflected in a series of attempts to try to stop Arévalo’s inauguration. The huge and sustained citizen mobilisation that came in response can largely be credited with keeping alive the spark of democracy in Guatemala.

    Last-minute delays

    All the Guatemalan Congress needed to do on the morning of 14 February was certify its newly elected members so the body could swear in the new president. But this routine administrative procedure was dragged on for many hours. The Indigenous movement, at the forefront of the months-long protests that had successfully kept at bay successive attempts to reverse the election results, called on Indigenous communities throughout Guatemala to remain on the alert.

    In the late afternoon the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, surrounded by members of numerous foreign delegations, read a declaration calling on Congress to hand over power, ‘as required by the Constitution’, to the president-elect. This signalled that the world was watching.

    As tensions mounted, Semilla reached an agreement for one of its representatives to be elected as president of Congress. This allowed the certification process to resume, and Arévalo was finally sworn in shortly after midnight. Night-long celebrations followed.

    A coup attempt in stages

    Arévalo’s election was unexpected. He only made it into the 20 August runoff because several other contenders not to the elite’s liking had been disqualified ahead of the first round. His candidacy wasn’t blocked because he scored so poorly in the polls. People’s expectations were extremely low, and first place went to invalid votes.

    But once Arévalo entered the runoff, his rise was unstoppable. Death threats soon poured in, and an assassination plot involving state and non-state forces came to light days before the runoff.

    As soon as the first-round results were announced, nine parties submitted complaints about supposed ‘irregularities’ that had gone undetected by all international observers. Their supporters converged outside the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) calling for a rerun.

    The Constitutional Court instead ordered a recount and instructed the TSE to suspend official certification until complaints were resolved. Following the recount, the TSE eventually endorsed the results two weeks later.

    But meanwhile, Attorney General Consuelo Porras Argueta, an official under US sanctions for corruption, launched an investigation into Semilla for alleged irregularities in its registration process and had its offices raided. She also ordered two raids on TSE offices, and when the TSE officially announced Arévalo as one of the runoff contenders, she ordered Semilla’s suspension. The Constitutional Court however blocked this order and the runoff ran its course. Arévalo took 58 per cent of the vote, compared to 37.2 per cent for the pro-establishment candidate.

    Efforts to stop Arévalo’s inauguration began immediately, with yet another attempt by the Public Prosecutor to have Semilla suspended. The Constitutional Court continued to receive and reject legal challenges until the day of the inauguration.

    For 100 days, two different visions of Guatemala wrestled with each other: people eager for change protested nonstop while corrupt forces linked to organised crime strove to preserve their privileges at any cost.

    Democracy on life support

    Guatemala has long been classified as a ‘hybrid regime‘ with a mix of democratic and authoritarian traits. Under outgoing president Alejandro Giammattei, civic freedoms steadily deteriorated. State institutions grew even weaker, ransacked by predatory elites and coopted by organised crime.

    One of the last acts of Giammattei’s predecessor and ally, Jimmy Morales, was to end the work of the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). Charged with supporting and strengthening state institutions to investigate and prosecute serious crimes, CICIG helped file over 120 cases in the Guatemalan justice system and its joint investigations with the Attorney General’s Office led to over 400 convictions.

    Under Giammattei, the Attorney General’s Office dismantled all anti-corruption efforts and criminalised those in the legal profession who’d worked alongside CICIG. Impunity flourished. Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index found evidence of strong influence by organised crime over politics and politicians, with some crime bosses seeking and securing office.

    It’s no wonder that Guatemalans’ trust in state institutions hit rock bottom. According to the latest Latinobarómetro report, in 2021 satisfaction with the performance of democracy stood at a meagre 25 per cent.

    Challenges ahead

    Arévalo came to the presidency on a credible anti-corruption platform. But dismantling dense webs of complicity, rooting out entrenched corruption and rebuilding state institutions are no easy tasks.

    Among the many challenges is a highly fragmented Congress in which 16 parties are represented, with Semilla on only 23 out of 160 seats. A large majority of Congress remains on the payroll of the interests Arévalo has promised to take on, along with most of the justice system. The 14 January events made clear that the ‘corrupt pact’ will do anything it can to stop Arévalo.

    Arévalo’s to-do list is long, ranging from reducing political spending and improving social services to reversing laws that criminalise protest and establishing an effective protection mechanism for human rights defenders. At the top is forcing the resignation of Attorney General Consuelo Porras, the highest official presiding over a judicial network set up to ensure the impunity of the ‘corrupt pact’.

    Arévalo can’t remove the Attorney General unilaterally, and so will have to negotiate her departure. This will be a key early test of the hope invested in him to keep democracy alive. Many more are sure to come.

    Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • The Impact of Climate Migration on Developing Nations

    The Impact of Climate Migration on Developing Nations

    [ad_1]

    A family displaced by prolonged drought in Ethiopia now live in a makeshift tent in Mogadishu, Somalia. June 2023. Credit: IOM/Muse Mohammed
    • Opinion by Sudip Ranjan Basu – Chen Wang – Monica Das (bangkok, thailand)
    • Inter Press Service

    Deepening global inequalities are having enormous socio-economic implications across countries. Increasing income and social disparities are spreading around regions. Growing intensities of climate induced natural disasters, the uneven speed of post-pandemic recoveries, and cost-of-living crises from conflicts and geopolitical tensions are exacerbating inequalities and poverty traps globally.

    The changing distribution of economic benefits vis-à-vis the rising prices of food and fuel are causing social unrest and protests. Citizens are voicing their frustration not only in the streets of capitals but through exponential engagement on social media platforms.

    With the intensification of various external shocks, and the lack of economic opportunities for accelerating growth and productivity surges, multidimensional poverty indices are on rise. The inequality-poverty nexus is contributing to a new form of uncertainty for disadvantaged households.

    Intensifying course of climate change

    Intensifying hazards caused by climate change, such as floods, tropical cyclones, heatwaves, droughts and earthquakes, have impacted agricultural outputs and industrial sectors, especially through decreasing productivity growth and falling real wages. The widening gap between rich and poor in rural and urban areas has also been linked to extreme weather events due to the increasing frequency of natural disasters.

    These inequalities are further aggravating extreme poverty, creating the vicious nexus of climate-disaster-inequalities among vulnerable groups.

    Evidence from around the world indicates that climate change is likely to impact more severely on vulnerable groups and coastal communities, because they are more exposed to the uncertainties of weather patterns. Lack of adaptive capacity are often constraining the ability of these communities to build resilience and cope with the severity of these environmental shocks.

    Widespread incidence of climate migration from low- to high-latitude areas and social mobility are increasingly impacting the social fabric of small island developing States and other developing economies.

    With the exodus of young and skilled labour force, transfers of income and the wealth gap will further worsen inequalities in communities, raising concerns of greater socio-economic uncertainties.

    From Fiji to Ethiopia, Bangladesh to Brazil, the exacerbation of inequalities due to climate change has been impacting socio-economic prosperity. Growth uncertainties are causing extreme poverty to increase, while causing hardship and hunger for households in rural areas.

    Varying scales of COVID-19 pandemic

    Socio-economic polarization has been on the rise since the global outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to differentiated impacts of national lockdowns, pandemic restrictions and vaccination measures have had adverse impacts on the existing inequalities and multidimensional poverty indices.

    As economic development stagnation persists, rural areas have seen rising impacts of extreme poverty and income divergence across households, leading to new episodes of income divergence within countries.

    The post-COVID 19 recoveries are uneven. Rising levels of unemployment and stagnating real wages remain major indicators of corresponding economic growth deceleration. The differentiated policy measures to stabilize labour market distortions, social protection systems and sectoral productivity surges have not always achieved the desired outcomes in developing countries.

    According to the labour force surveys in various countries, the majority of workers have been engaged in less paid work due to lack of dynamism in the labour market. Evidence suggests that the changes in work style and availability of types of jobs as well as their skills and profiles aggravate the income disparity within urban centres.

    From several Latin American to African countries, the pandemic-induced policy measures have differently elevated the risk of vulnerability for the manual labor force. Similarly, the studies have shown that young, low-income and self-employed workers including women with limited education, have suffered greater job losses and earnings reductions than other groups in the workforce in the UK, USA, China and India, among others.

    Changing forms of conflicts

    Conflicts also go beyond borders, causing immeasurable human suffering on the global scale. With the volatility and uncertainties around supply chains, food and fuel prices spiral. Cost-of-living crisis spreads around countries as governments lose fiscal space for developmental expenditure, while debt burden mounts.

    Conflicts cause people to lose hope and opportunities from East to West, North to Southern countries. With the lack of rule of law and property rights, households and communities fall into poverty traps, changing the face of socio-economic disparity.

    As these conflicts are prolonged, countries often fail to overcome the existing structural constraints, maintain production streams, and improve lackluster infrastructure. A higher risk of falling into poverty traps and increasing scale of disparities is then the inevitable outcome. The polarization fears and lack of trust are now a reality.

    Looking ahead

    Today, as we look back at 2023, there is no doubt that in the end, common aspirations and outlooks remain our best hope to chart a new course to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Evidence of successful policy coherence will provide valuable opportunities for policymakers to unite their priorities and lay the foundations for breakthroughs.

    Sudip Ranjan Basu is Deputy Head and Senior Economic Affairs Officer; Chen Wang is Professor, Institute of Finance and Economics, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, China; Monica Das is Associate Professor, Economics Department, Skidmore College, New York

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • STUDENT VOICE: The end of affirmative action is slamming doors for students like me – The Hechinger Report

    STUDENT VOICE: The end of affirmative action is slamming doors for students like me – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    I cried the day I gained acceptance to Wesleyan University in 2018. My tears signified relief, joy and excitement. I viewed my acceptance into this elite private institution as a dooropening, a new opportunity for young Black students like me.

    As a Sierra Leonean American, I had felt constrained by my public education in the United States. I had to fight against low expectations and conditions that devalued my potential, including “accidentally” being placed into English as a Second Language in elementary school, even though English is my first language. I then had to fight for a spot in upper-level classes when I got into high school.

    I was fortunate to become a part of TeenSHARP, a college access program for marginalized students that exposed me to schools like Wesleyan and taught me how to advocate for myself while paving the way for others.

    Little did I know that my acceptance to Wesleyan was opening a portal to an academic and corporate world in which I would see even fewer people who looked like me. While many college students experience their first semester as an exhilarating time filled with joining student groups, I spent a lot of my time grappling with what it meant to be the only Black woman in predominantly white classes. With the end of affirmative action, more students will experience what I felt: being the only or one of a few Black students.

    I remember exploring Wesleyan for the first time. The halls were filled with pictures of alumni, mostly white men, that sent me on a trip down the institution’s memory lane where, as a Black woman, I didn’t exist.

    No matter how much I told myself that I belonged, the insidious history of Wesleyan, from its pictures to its architecture to its racial makeup, was a haunting reminder that while I may have gained entry into this world, Black people generally do not.

    I would have loved to go to a historically Black college or university, but the lack of funding for HBCUs means they can’t be as generous with financial aid,leaving me, and many other Black students, with the options of taking on unsustainable debt or trying to get in somewhere else.

    My acceptance to Wesleyan came at a time when race could still be considered in college admissions, before the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action, effectively ending an avenue of hope for Black and Latino groups.

    Related: Will the Rodriguez family’s college dreams survive the end of affirmative action?

    However, the gap between the numbers of Black and white college graduates was growing even before the court ruled on affirmative action.

    Affirmative action was a meager attempt at leveling the playing field. The Supreme Court’s decision to get rid of it will only continue the caste system in which people with marginalized identities are barred from reaching self-determination because we simply can’t get into spaces that will allow us to thrive.

    Ending affirmative action is not only an attack on the benefits of diversity in education, but a direct way to end the mobility of students like me by closing the door to opportunities that were already hard to access.

    Historically, race has been a social determinant. Race determined which jobs you could get and which schools you could attend. To ignore race in college admissions will not erase the race problem that plagues our nation. It will only exasperate it.

    As long as America refuses to look in the mirror and face the social barriers that necessitated the creation of affirmative action in the first place, brilliant students of color will be overlooked in the admissions process.

    Related: OPINION: Legacy admissions are unnecessary, raise moral concerns and exclude deserving students

    As I build my career, I often find myself in situations similar to those I experienced as an undergraduate: One of just a handful ofBlack people, or even the only one, in professional settings.

    The Supreme Court’s decision has now set a precedent such that initiatives like the Fearless Fund, a nonprofit that provides funding for Black women entrepreneurs, are under attack. And many companies have halted diversity, equity and inclusion programs due to fear of being sued.

    Now is the time not to be complacent but to educate ourselves, stay informed and mobilize. The court’s decision is a reminder that the rights and opportunities we have fought for are not a given, and only stay firm when we are.

    Alphina Kamara is a development associate at The World Justice Project and a previous Fulbright fellow.

    This story about the end of affirmative action was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Alphina Kamara

    Source link

  • The Mia Goth assault accusations have unearthed the true horrors of 'stan culture'

    The Mia Goth assault accusations have unearthed the true horrors of 'stan culture'

    [ad_1]

    As an actor, Mia Goth is synonymous with horror. She’s widely celebrated for her memorable – not to mention meme-able – performances in provocative projects such as Pearl, X, and Suspiria, while her eccentric off-screen persona has won her fans from all corners of the internet. However, there are serious cracks showing in this once-unified fanbase.

    Last week, reports emerged that background actor James Hunter is suing Goth for allegedly kicking him in the head while filming a scene together in April 2023 (per Variety). Hunter claims that he suffered a concussion after Goth kicked him while filming the A24 sequel MaXXXine. In the lawsuit, Hunter reportedly alleges that Goth “taunted, mocked and belittled” him after he complained about her behaviour. Goth has yet to publicly respond to these allegations.

    A sub-section of Goth’s fanbase responded to the allegations with one word: “Mother”. Unless you’ve been enjoying a digital detox, you’ve probably noticed that this word – along with variations of “serving”, “slay”, and “cunt” – is enjoying a rebirth across social media. Over on X (formerly Twitter), “Mother” is one of the greatest honours that can be bestowed on famous women. Just ask Ayo Edebiri, Quinta Brunson, and Gillian Anderson.

    All in all, it’s a bit of harmless fun. But what happens when – as is the case for Mia Goth – “Mother” is accused of assault?

    As the allegations against Goth made the rounds on X, the divisions within her fanbase became stark. One X user wrote, “I don’t care if Mia Goth kicked that person on set… that’s mother,” while another said, “How you let Mia Goth bully you LMAOO that’s mother idc”, and one added, “Boo hoo Mia Goth will always be mother.”

    Meanwhile, others expressed their disgust at the way this language was being used to trivialise allegations of assault. One X user wrote, “Mia Goth allegedly assaulted a worker and you see people making jokes and calling her mother… stan culture and parasocial relationships have your brains cooked,” another added, “I’m such a Mia Goth fan but saying she’s mother for [allegedly] kicking someone in the head is chronically online behaviour” while one wrote, “The way some people immediately are calling Mia Goth “mother” and dismissing his battery assault case is not cute or funny btw.”

    We all know that fandom – or ‘stan-dom’ – can easily veer from the realm of reality. Remember all the abuse levelled at Olivia Wilde after she dared to date Harry Styles? Or when ‘fans’ tried to hold Jenna Ortega responsible for her co-star’s alleged behaviour? And don’t get us started on the needless speculation about Taylor Swift’s sexuality.

    Things tend to get iffy when fans view parasocial relationships with celebrities as actual relationships. As Dr Louie D. Valencia, Associate Professor of Digital History at Texas State University, told GLAMOUR: “We weren’t really created to be thinking about strangers on the other end of the planet – who we’ve never met and who we see as somehow connected to our lives.”

    [ad_2]

    Lucy Morgan

    Source link

  • Netanyahu trapped by clashing demands from war cabinet and hawks

    Netanyahu trapped by clashing demands from war cabinet and hawks

    [ad_1]

    TEL AVIV — As he tries to cling to power, Benjamin Netanyahu is being buffeted by contradictory demands over the direction of the war in Gaza. His war cabinet is increasingly urging a cease-fire deal to be struck with Hamas — to secure the return of Israeli hostages — while lawmakers in his own Likud party are pushing in the opposite direction and pressing for military operations to remain unrelenting.

    Unable to square the circle, the Israeli leader appears to have chosen to postpone decisions about the direction of the war, but it is doubtful they can be delayed for much longer. A public groundswell is starting to build for military operations to be put on hold and for a cease-fire to be reached with Hamas for the release of more than a hundred Israelis still being held in Gaza.

    There’s rising alarm about the captives’ treatment and the conditions they are enduring. Thousands of Israelis took to the streets over the weekend calling for the hostages to be prioritized over the military campaign. And in a television interview Thursday, a war cabinet minister, Gadi Eisenkot, a former and highly popular chief of staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), warned the only way to save hostages in the near term is through a deal even if that comes at a high price.

    Eisenkot, whose 25-year-old son and 19-year-old nephew died fighting in Gaza in December, also appeared to criticize Netanyahu’s management of the war with Hamas, suggesting the Israeli leadership is not telling the Israeli public the truth about the conflict and that talk of destroying Hamas is over-blown. A complete victory over the militant group is unrealistic, he said.

    “Whoever speaks of the absolute defeat [of Hamas in Gaza] and of it no longer having the will or the capability [to harm Israel], is not speaking the truth. That is why we should not tell tall tales,” Eisenkot said.

    Eisenkot also said elections should be held soon to restore public trust in the Israeli government following the devastating October 7 attack on southern Israel by Hamas. Eisenkot is seen by some as a future prime minister candidate, favored by some even over Benny Gantz, a former defense minister. The two are leaders of the centrist National Unity Party and agreed to join Netanyahu’s war cabinet after October 7 as a demonstration of national solidarity.

    The Eisenkot interview, broadcast by Israel’s Channel 12 News, was especially damaging as it was broadcast hours after Netanyahu rejected in a press conference the idea of holding elections in the middle of a war. Netanyahu said he could continue in power well into 2025. He vowed to “bring about a complete victory” over Hamas.

    Netanyahu’s indecision is also infuriating his own lawmakers — they worry there is a lack of defined goals beyond the slogan of “destroying Hamas,” and fear the prime minister will cave to pressure for a cease-fire. And they complain about a throttling back of military operations, which has seen the IDF move away from large-scale ground operations and air strikes to conduct more targeted missions.

    Tactical transition

    Senior Israeli military officials first confirmed on January 8 the tactical transition, with military spokesman Daniel Hagari saying the IDF would reduce troop numbers in the Palestinian enclave and conduct “one-off raids there instead of maintaining wide-scale maneuvers.”

    Described as Phase 3 in the military campaign, officials in briefings cast the transition as necessary to give reservists some rest for the long haul in a war they say will take months, and to return others to their jobs to help the country’s ailing economy. The officials also said some troops needed to be redeployed to Israel’s tense northern border, where Hezbollah attacks have prompted Israel to threaten a ground campaign in Lebanon.   

    But the reasons given for the adjustment are disputed by some Likud lawmakers, including by Danny Danon, a former U.S. envoy to the U.N. He and others view the shift more than anything as an effort to placate the Biden administration and European governments anxious about the civilian death toll in Gaza. And there’s mounting talk of a possible future party leadership challenge to Netanyahu.

    “We hear a lot of declarations both from the prime minister and [Defense Minister] Yoav Gallant almost every day about how we’re going to eradicate and destroy Hamas. But when you look at what’s happening now, I’m not sure it’s going in that direction,” Danon told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. “If he will not win the war, then I’m sure there will be another leader from the right that will step in because that will be the time,” he added.

    Danon has twice challenged Netanyahu for the party leadership, in 2007 and 2014, but waves off a question about whether he will again seek the party’s leadership, saying merely that Likud is growing uneasy. “I speak with a lot of people and I hear them. They demand victory,” he said. “He’s being tested. Netanyahu has done a lot for Israel over the years, but he will be remembered by the way he finishes the war.”

    Danon said the only acceptable conclusion to the war is “either Hamas surrenders or it is destroyed.” Military pressure is what led to the release of some hostages in December, he said. “What has happened now is that we have changed the way we are conducting the operation because of the pressure coming from the U.S.,” he added.

    With opinion polls suggesting Likud has lost a third of its electoral support since October 7, Danon suggested victory could restore the party’s fortunes as well as being necessary for the security of Israel. “We need to hit Hamas so hard they will not be able to come against us anymore,” he said, adding that prime ministers, including Netanyahu have too often pulled up short before and announced Israel has been made safe and its enemies have now been deterred only for attacks to resume. “You cannot play that game anymore,” he said.

    Party unease

    With Likud members becoming increasingly restless, Netanyahu is more and more focusing on trying to tamp down internal party dissent. “It is all about Likud at the moment,” said a senior Israeli official, who was granted anonymity to talk about a sensitive issue. The official acknowledged that talk of a party rebellion might be premature and that Likud critics would have to calculate that an attempt to oust Netanyahu could ultimately trigger early elections that would see Likud lose badly. Nonetheless, the Israeli leader is agitated about the unease within the ranks of a party that he molded over the years in his own image, stacking it with loyalists and promoting those who share his views. 

    Likud disapproval partly explains Netanyahu’s strong push back last week on Washington’s readout of a phone conversation between the Israeli leader and U.S. President Joe Biden — their first since December. Israeli officials on Saturday took issue with Biden’s remarks after the call in which he said a two-state solution may still be possible even while Netanyahu is in power. Biden told reporters some “types” of two-state solution may be acceptable to the Israeli premier, even though Netanyahu has frequently ruled out the notion of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

    Netanyahu’s office reiterated his rigid opposition in a statement sent to POLITICO following Biden’s take. “In his conversation with President Biden, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated his policy that after Hamas is destroyed Israel must retain security control over Gaza to ensure that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel, a requirement that contradicts the demand for Palestinian sovereignty,” his office said.

    A two-state solution is anathema for the right-wing of the Likud party. 

    [ad_2]

    Jamie Dettmer

    Source link

  • Here’s How We Can Improve Women’s Participation in International Trade For Economic Prosperity

    Here’s How We Can Improve Women’s Participation in International Trade For Economic Prosperity

    [ad_1]

    Gender inclusion remains an important non-technological innovative measure enhancing export performance. Women in developing countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have long been involved in the agriculture and textile sector. Credit: Obaidul Arif/IPS
    • Opinion by Quratulain Fatima (islamabad)
    • Inter Press Service

    The World Economic Forum states that “The potential gains from closing economic gender gaps could unlock a “gender dividend” of $172 trillion for the global economy while closing the gender investment gap could add $3 trillion to assets under management in the US alone.”  World Trade Organization (WTO) estimates that eliminating gender discrimination would lead to a 40% increase in productivity.

    Trade has remained a significant contributor towards increasing the economic stature of countries. Historically the trade has been observed through the gender neutral lens by practitioners and researchers.

    However, in recent times, trade and gender links have been explored and efforts have been made to strengthen by international organizations including the World Economic Forum, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,  International Labor Organization (ILO),International Finance Corporation, and World Bank among others.

    Trade openness has been shown to have a positive impact on employment, wages, and very importantly the overall export performance of the country. Several studies have shown that both technological and non-technological innovations improve a country’s export performance. Gender inclusion remains an important non-technological innovative measure enhancing export performance.

    Women in developing countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have long been involved in the agriculture and textile sector.

    Recently women’s participation in the ICT and service industry has also gained momentum in developing countries. It is, however, important to note that South Asia remains second lowest at 63.4% out of eight regions at the gender parity index 2023. Although its position improved by 1.1 percent from the year 2022 attributed to rising scores in countries like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; there is much to be done.

    Women entrepreneurs are a very small portion of the export profile for developing countries. In a country like the United States that remains Pakistan’s biggest trade partner in textiles and related goods share of women exporters from Pakistan is minimal.

    Trade development authority in Pakistan and Trade promotion bodies in developing countries have focused on improving women entrepreneurs’ participation in international trade through training and resources.

    However, women’s participation in the trade shows even in the traditionally established Textile and Apparel sector that provide major access to industry buyers in the USA remains negligible for countries like Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh; all of which are very well established and reputed in the USA market hence lowered entry barriers for women.

    Less visibility of women entrepreneurs in the export sectors especially for developing countries tied to the fact that women and men have unequal access to education, productive resources, transport, networks, and other resources that impact economic activity.

    This in turn affects women’s ability to capture trade-related opportunities. General trade barriers such as deficient infrastructure and tiresome regulatory and documentation requirements also impact women more than men.

    Evidence also suggests that women entrepreneurs are concentrated in relatively less profitable sectors and even in profitable sectors they lag behind men-owned businesses.

    Women-led businesses also lack resources to expand into international markets and when they do they have relatively smaller trade volumes and higher trade costs making businesses less able to sustain losses in the short term. This chain translates into limited mobility to trade and has been one of the reasons that woman-led businesses got impacted worse during post COVID-19 crisis.

    Several steps can be taken at the domestic and international markets to help women entrepreneurs reach their maximum potential in exportable sectors in trade.

    Gender provisions in the trade policy and trade agreements are one of the most important steps. The WTO Declaration on Trade and Women’s Economic 2017 endorsed by 127 countries is seen as important towards women’s economic participation in the economies and international trade.

    Some regional and bilateral trade agreements like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), and USMCA (United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement) are now actively adding gender language and provisions. Canada has been a pioneer in including gender chapters in its trade agreements, such as the one with the European Union (CETA) and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

    These chapters typically address topics like equal access to economic opportunities, fair treatment in the workplace, and support for women entrepreneurs. These examples can be emulated widely in bilateral and multilateral trade agreements further translating into gender provisions in the trade policy at the local level.

    Enhancing the role of women in export sectors where women’s presence is already established can be very helpful. In the case of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, women are involved in farming and livestock management.

    Facilitations for easy access to training, credit, and improved participation opportunities in agricultural extension services can encourage women’s participation in international trade. Both financial institutions and the private sector should be engaged in this agenda. Private –Public partnerships to ensure investment in export-oriented sectors to strengthen women-led small and medium-sized businesses need prioritization.

    Women who have access to technology are more likely to participate in international trade. Access to technology gives women the opportunity to sidestep issues of restriction of mobility and overcome cultural barriers while providing equal opportunities to connect with consumers and buyers of their businesses. Studies have shown that access to phones and the Internet has improved incomes and economic opportunities for women in Pakistan, India, Bolivia, Egypt, and Kenya among others.

    Country trade missions at embassies and consulates abroad must ensure that women are included in awareness webinars/ seminars conducted by trade offices of their countries abroad. These trade offices are also central facilitation centers for connecting exporters with buyers and managing Trade show participation. Increasing participation in trade shows, trade delegations and awareness of the importing country regulations/requirements will enhance women exporters’ opportunities to find business abroad.

    The world needs to pay more attention to women’s inclusion in trade. Trade has been shown not only to reduce the economy but also the gender gap. The world needs equitable and inclusive prosperity through gender-inclusive steps on the economic and social front alike.

    Flight Lieutenant Quratulain Fatima is a policy practitioner currently working as a Trade Diplomat for Pakistan on the West Coast USA. She has extensively worked in rural and conflict-ridden areas of Pakistan with a focus on gender-inclusive development and conflict prevention. She is a 2018 Aspen New Voices Fellow. Follow her on Twitter, @moodee_q.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Why Donald Trump is unlikely to get his wish for a 2024 U.S. stock-market crash

    Why Donald Trump is unlikely to get his wish for a 2024 U.S. stock-market crash

    [ad_1]

    Donald Trump is unlikely to get his wish that a U.S. stock-market crash occurs this year.

    I’m referring to the former U.S. president’s comments last week that he hopes the market crashes in 2024, since if he is elected in November and takes office a year from now, he doesn’t want to be another Herbert Hoover. Hoover was President when the stock market crashed in 1929.

    The stock market did plunge in two of the last four presidential-election years, so it’s understandable why one would worry that 2024 could see a repeat. In 2008, in the middle of the Global Financial Crisis, the S&P 500
    SPX
    lost 38.5% for the year. In 2020, as the economy ground to a halt because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the S&P 500 lost 34% in little more than a month’s time.

    It’s possible that a crash could occur at any time, of course, so a crash this year can’t be ruled out. Nevertheless, the odds of one occurring this year are significantly below average. That’s according to the latest “State Street US Froth Forecasts,” which are derived from research on crashes conducted by Robin Greenwood, Professor of Banking and Finance at Harvard Business School.

    In that research, Greenwood and his co-authors found that it’s possible to identify when there is an elevated probability of a crash. In an interview, Greenwood said that “crash probabilities are low” right now, not only for the market as a whole but “across the board” for individual market sectors as well.

    Greenwood’s model is based on a number of factors, such as performance over the trailing two-year period, volatility, share turnover, IPO activity and the price path of the trailing two-year runup. For example, he and his fellow researchers found that when an industry beats the market by 150 or more percentage points over a two-year period, there’s an 80% probability that it will crash — which they define as a drop of at least 40% over the subsequent two years. As you can see from the accompanying chart, State Street is reporting low crash probabilities for all sectors — in each case well below the average forecasted crash probabilities of the past five years.

    These probabilities don’t mean that stocks will have a great year in 2024. A new bear market could begin this year without the decline satisfying the researchers’ definition of a crash.

    Nevertheless, the takeaway from the State Street US Froth Forecasts is that there are bigger things to worry about this year than the possibility of a crash.

    Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com

    More: Trump says he hopes market crashes in 2024 under Biden: ‘I don’t want to be Herbert Hoover

    Also read: Iowa caucuses are make-or-break for Donald Trump

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • With Attack on Yemen, the U.S. Is Shameless: We Make the Rules, We Break the Rules

    With Attack on Yemen, the U.S. Is Shameless: We Make the Rules, We Break the Rules

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Norman Solomon (san francisco, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    The framing was typical when the New York Times just printed this sentence at the top of the front page: “The United States and a handful of its allies on Thursday carried out military strikes against more than a dozen targets in Yemen controlled by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia, U.S. officials said, in an expansion of the war in the Middle East that the Biden administration had sought to avoid for three months.”

    So, from the outset, the coverage portrayed the U.S.-led attack as a reluctant action — taken after exploring all peaceful options had failed — rather than an aggressive act in violation of international law.

    On Thursday, President Biden issued a statement that sounded righteous enough, saying “these strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea.”

    He did not mention that the Houthi attacks have been in response to Israel’s murderous siege of Gaza. In the words of CNN, they “could be intended to inflict economic pain on Israel’s allies in the hope they will pressure it to cease its bombardment of the enclave.”

    In fact, as Common Dreams reported, Houthi forces “began launching missiles and drones toward Israel and attacking shipping traffic in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s Gaza onslaught.” And as Trita Parsi at the Quincy Institute pointed out, “the Houthis have declared that they will stop” attacking ships in the Red Sea “if Israel stops” its mass killing in Gaza.

    But that would require genuine diplomacy — not the kind of solution that appeals to President Biden or Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The duo has been enmeshed for decades, with lofty rhetoric masking the tacit precept that might makes right. (The approach was implicit midway through 2002, when then-Senator Biden chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings that promoted support for the U.S. to invade Iraq; at the time, Blinken was the committee’s chief of staff.)

    Now, in charge of the State Department, Blinken is fond of touting the need for a “rules-based international order.” During a 2022 speech in Washington, he proclaimed the necessity “to manage relations between states, to prevent conflict, to uphold the rights of all people.” Two months ago, he declared that G7 nations were united for “a rules-based international order.”

    But for more than three months, Blinken has provided a continuous stream of facile rhetoric to support the ongoing methodical killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. Days ago, behind a podium at the U.S. Embassy in Israel, he defended that country despite abundant evidence of genocidal warfare, claiming that “the charge of genocide is meritless.”

    The Houthis are avowedly in solidarity with Palestinian people, while the U.S. government continues to massively arm the Israeli military that is massacring civilians and systematically destroying Gaza.

    Blinken is so immersed in Orwellian messaging that — several weeks into the slaughter — he tweeted that the United States and its G7 partners “stand united in our condemnation of Russia’s war in Ukraine, in support of Israel’s right to defend itself in accordance with international law, and in maintaining a rules-based international order.”

    There’s nothing unusual about extreme doublethink being foisted on the public by the people running U.S. foreign policy. What they perpetrate is a good fit for the description of doublethink in George Orwell’s novel 1984: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it . . .”

    After news broke about the attack on Yemen, a number of Democrats and Republicans in the House quickly spoke up against Biden’s end-run around Congress, flagrantly violating the Constitution by going to war on his own say-so.

    Some of the comments were laudably clear, but perhaps none more so than a statement by candidate Joe Biden on Jan. 6, 2020: “A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people.”

    Like that disposable platitude, all the Orwellian nonsense coming from the top of the U.S. government about seeking a “rules-based international order” is nothing more than a brazen PR scam.

    The vast quantity of official smoke-blowing now underway cannot hide the reality that the United States government is the most powerful and dangerous outlaw nation in the world.

    Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of many books including War Made Easy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in 2023 by The New Press.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • OPINION: A hopeful note for early childhood education in 2024 — Some states are stepping up investment – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: A hopeful note for early childhood education in 2024 — Some states are stepping up investment – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Millions of families may now face a lack of child care following the recent expiration of pandemic-era federal funding.

    The child care “stabilization” funds included in the American Rescue Plan Act were just that — emergency funding to stabilize the sector amid a pandemic.

    As vital as that funding was, it was insufficient to address the many systemic problems impacting early childhood education and its workforce, including inequitable wages.

    Wages for early childhood workers already lag far behind those of their K-8 colleagues who have similar credentials. These workers, disproportionately Black, Latina and indigenous, face poverty rates an average of 7.7 times higher than other teachers.

    This financial condition perpetuates economic inequality and reflects systemic racism, with early childhood education programs continuing to be subsidized through the long hours that Black, Latina and indigenous women work for unjust wages and limited benefits.

    Related: Early education coalition searches for answers to raise teacher pay, even as budgets are cratering

    This inequity and the end of the crucial pandemic-era federal lifeline for early childhood educators will negatively impact families and workers, The Century Foundation estimates. Some 70,000 child care programs are likely to close; millions of families will struggle to get access to child care; 232,000 jobs could soon be lost; and states will lose $10.6 billion in tax and business revenue every year.

    There is one bright note: State and local governments are offering models of innovation and glimmers of hope in the face of such a dire challenge.

    In late 2022, New Mexico became the first state in the nation to create a permanent child care fund, making child care free or affordable for many families and increasing early educator wages.

    State and local governments are offering models of innovation and glimmers of hope.

    Washington, D.C., recently established the Early Childhood Educator Pay Equity Fund, which aims to achieve pay parity between early childhood educators and their K-12 counterparts. Since 2022, almost $70 million has been distributed to nearly 3,000 early childhood educators. The district is also expanding health insurance for early childhood educators.

    In Louisiana, a coalition of state and local government partners is working with a nonprofit to test the impact of projects that increase child care workers’ wages in key communities; if positive, they intend to scale the programs across the state.

    Minnesota last year signed into law the Great Start Compensation Support Payment Program to fill the gap following the ending of the federal child care stabilization grants. The program will provide $316 million this fiscal year, and $260 million every two years ongoing, to directly increase child care workers’ pay.

    These solutions are critical, because it is our nation’s youngest students who will ultimately suffer the consequences of high teacher turnover and an unstable learning environment at a key time in their development.

    Early childhood education directly impacts their future learning outcomes and lifelong success; it deserves our attention and investment.

    Building on these efforts, the Early Educator Investment Collaborative — a group of funders that has come together to accelerate progress in the early childhood education profession — recently announced grants for state and local partnerships in Colorado, Louisiana and Washington, D.C.

    These grants will bolster innovative approaches to increasing early childhood education workforce pay, including the creation of dedicated revenue streams and pilot demonstration projects to evaluate the impacts of salary increases.

    They will also promote greater collaboration between agencies to improve workforce compensation — aimed at increasing the capacity of financial and data systems to support long-term wage and benefits increases.

    Related: OPINION: School district leaders must make early education a priority, so children enter school prepared

    I’m excited for the solutions these grants will amplify and hope they can provide useful models and encouragement for other states to explore ways to better compensate early childhood educators.

    But we also need state and federal legislators to step up for their constituents on this issue. It’s critical for legislators to reflect the majority of voters’ interest in early childhood education reform by increasing investment, enacting legislation to boost compensation and advocating for broader support of early childhood educators.

    Philanthropy also has a big role to play. By supporting governments with the funding needed to explore unique solutions, philanthropic organizations can help find what works, scale successful models and support sustainable change.

    Along with boosting the rallying cry for increased federal investment in early childhood education and its workers, this moment is an opportunity for states, communities and philanthropists to find truly long-term solutions to fully support early childhood education workers and the families they serve.

    Ola J. Friday is the director of the Early Educator Investment Collaborative.

    This story about early childhood educator pay was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Ola J. Friday

    Source link

  • Bangladesh: Election with a Foregone Conclusion

    Bangladesh: Election with a Foregone Conclusion

    [ad_1]

    Credit: Munir Uz Zaman/AFP via Getty Images
    • Opinion by Andrew Firmin (london)
    • Inter Press Service

    The BNP’s boycott was far from the only issue. A blatant campaign of pre-election intimidation saw government critics, activists and protesters subjected to threats, violence and arrests.

    At the government’s urging, court cases against opposition members were accelerated so they’d be locked away before the election, resulting in a reported 800-plus convictions between September and December 2023. It’s alleged that torture and ill-treatment were used against opposition activists to force confessions. There have been reports of deaths in police custody.

    Police banned protests, and when a rare mass opposition protest went ahead on 28 October police used rubber bullets, teargas and stun grenades. Following the protest, thousands more opposition supporters were detained on fabricated charges. As well as violence from the notorious Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) – an elite unit notorious for excessive and lethal force – and other elements of the police force, opposition supporters faced attacks by Awami League supporters. Journalists have also been smeared, attacked and harassed, including when covering protests.

    As a direct result of the ruling party’s pre-election crackdown, in December 2023 Bangladesh’s civic space rating was downgraded to closed by the CIVICUS Monitor, the collaborative research project that tracks the health of civic space in every country. This places Bangladesh among the world’s worst human rights offenders, including China, Iran and Russia.

    Civil society’s concerns were echoed in November 2023 by UN human rights experts who expressed alarm at political violence, arrests, mass detention, judicial harassment, excessive force and internet restrictions.

    All-out assault

    Such is the severity of the closure of Bangladesh’s civic space that many of the strongest dissenting voices now come from those in exile. But even speaking out from outside Bangladesh doesn’t ensure safety. As a way of putting pressure on exiled activists, the authorities are harassing their families.

    Activists aren’t safe even at the UN. A civil society discussion in the wings of the UN Human Rights Council in November was disrupted by government supporters, with Adilur Rahman Khan, a leader of the Bangladeshi human rights organisation Odhikar, subjected to verbal attacks.

    Khan is currently on bail while appealing against a two-year jail sentence imposed on him and another Odhikar leader in retaliation for their work to document extrajudicial killings. Following the session in Geneva, Khan was further vilified in online news sites and accused of presenting false information.

    Others are coming under attack. Hasina and her government have made much of their economic record, with Bangladesh now one of the world’s biggest garment producers. But that success is largely based on low wages. Like many countries, Bangladesh is currently experiencing high inflation, and garment workers’ recent efforts to improve their situation have been met with repression.

    Workers protested in October and November 2023 after a government-appointed panel raised the minimum wage for garment sector workers to a far lower level than they’d demanded. Up to 25,000 people took part in protests, forcing at least 100 factories to close. They were met with police violence. At least two people were killed and many more were injured.

    Seemingly no one is safe. Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus, who founded the Grameen Bank that has enabled millions to access small loans, was recently convicted of labour law offences in a trial his supporters denounced as politically motivated. Yunus has long been a target for criticism and threats from the ruling party.

    Democracy in name only

    The quality of Bangladesh’s elections has dramatically declined since the Awami League returned to power in the last reasonably free and fair election in 2008. Each election since has been characterised by serious irregularities and pre-voting crackdowns as the incumbents have done everything they could to hold onto power.

    But this time, while the Awami League victory was as huge as ever, turnout was down. It was almost half its 2018 level, at only 41.8 per cent, and even that figure may be inflated. The lack of participation reflected a widespread understanding that the Awami League’s victory was a foregone conclusion: many Awami League supporters didn’t feel they needed to vote, and many opposition backers had no one to vote for.

    People knew that many supposedly independent candidates were in reality Awami League supporters running as a pseudo-opposition to offer some appearance of electoral competition. The party that came second is also allied with the ruling party. All electoral credibility and legitimacy are now strained past breaking point.

    The government has faced predictably no pressure to abide by democratic rules from key allies such as China and India, although the once-supportive US government has shifted its position in recent years, imposing sanctions on some RAB leaders and threatening to withhold visas for Bangladeshis deemed to have undermined the electoral process.

    If the economic situation deteriorates further, discontent is sure to grow, and with other spaces blocked, protests and their violent repression will surely follow. International partners must urge the Bangladeshi government to find a way to avoid this. More violence and intensifying authoritarianism can’t be the way forward. Instead Bangladesh should be urged to start the journey back towards democracy.

    Andrew Firmin CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Advanced Economies Must Let the IMF Play a Productive Role on Climate

    Advanced Economies Must Let the IMF Play a Productive Role on Climate

    [ad_1]

    Surviving the flood at Ahoada in Rivers state Nigeria. Credit: Wikicommons
    • Opinion by Omer Javed, Dan Beeton (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    Even calls to “phase-out” fossil fuels were met with foot-dragging from the COP28 president and Saudi Arabian delegates. Meanwhile, highlighting the gravity of the challenge at hand, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) pointed out that the last decade (2011–2020) was the warmest on record. Along with the COVID pandemic, this likely contributed to an increase in absolute poverty over the same period.

    A key question that COP28 was supposed to tackle is how low- and middle-income countries will be able to pay for climate crisis response and adaptation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been thrust into a key role in this regard, but it should not escape criticism for its own climate hypocrisy.

    For the Fund to truly begin to join the fight against the climate crisis, it must first end its pointless, unfair, and damaging surcharge policy. The Biden administration could ensure that the Fund instead plays a crucial role in responding to climate challenges by supporting a major new issuance of IMF reserve assets.

    Currently, the IMF’s solution is to offer more debt to already severely debt-burdened countries. An October paper from the United Nations Development Programme Global Policy Network noted: “At least 54 developing economies are suffering from severe debt problems,” of which 28 are among “the world’s top-50 most climate vulnerable countries.”

    And more than 70 percent of climate finance for these countries has been in the form of loans, as a recent letter from 141 civil society groups points out.

    Moreover, a Development Finance International-led report notes the lopsided spending priorities being forced on developing countries, many of which are highly vulnerable to climate change. Among these, “debt service is 12.5 times higher than the amount spent on climate adaptation,” a number projected to “rise to 13.2 times” in the next year.

    Contributions to the “loss and damage” climate fund have also been far from satisfactory. Reports note that the US, the EU, and other rich countries have failed to meet their pledges to provide $100 billion per year.

    Meanwhile, high-level UN officials estimate that these countries will actually need to spend about $1 trillion per year on climate response by 2025, and about $2.4 trillion per year by 2030.

    These countries face debt distress partly because the IMF demands they follow overly broad austerity policies as conditions to receive the loans. This is an avoidable problem, considering that the IMF possesses a ready and appropriate alternative: Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), a reserve asset intended to be issued during times of crisis.

    The Fund last allocated $650 billion worth of SDRs in August 2021, in response to the COVID pandemic. But now even countries battered by the climate crisis, such as Pakistan, a third of which was flooded in 2022, are being pushed to take on more debt while the US Treasury Department refuses to green-light a new major SDRs issuance.

    This points to the root of the problem: the governance structures of the IMF and World Bank. The US by itself has a veto over decisions, and in practice can control most of what the IMF does, because other high-income countries — mostly in Europe — almost always line up with the United States, giving high-income countries 60 percent of voting power, thereby leaving most of the world without a voice at the IMF.

    Critics point out that most of the 2021 SDRs went to rich countries, since they provided the most to the IMF’s resources (their membership quotas); while efforts to rechannel those SDRs have also been wanting both in terms of speed and quantity.

    Worse, the IMF’s rechanneling mechanisms turn the SDRs — an international reserve asset that countries receive without any debt or conditions attached — into loans, with conditions attached.

    The IMF is contributing to the global debt crisis in other ways. It continues to levy surcharges, essentially, “junk fees” added onto its non-concessional lending. Writing for Eurodad, Daniel Munevar highlighted how climate crisis-ravaged Pakistan faced surcharges of $122 million in 2023, and another $69 million in 2024.

    A country that faced catastrophic flooding in 2022, that is one of the most vulnerable to climate change, and that was simultaneously facing possible default, should not be forced to pay surcharges. Moreover, many countries in similar circumstances, such as Armenia, Jordan, and even war-torn Ukraine, also face surcharges.

    A recent CEPR report noted, “The IMF will charge over $2 billion per year in surcharges through 2025,” which is unnecessary and counterproductive, given the already constrained fiscal space of developing countries.

    Time is quickly running out. The IMF must be brought into the twenty-first century if it is to play a constructive role in ending the climate crisis. The IMF should end its punitive, unnecessary, and counterproductive surcharge policy. And there must be a new major allocation of SDRs to enable developing countries to better deal with debt distress and meet their goals for climate-resilient spending.

    This will require leadership by President Biden, since the US is the largest contributor to IMF resources and has the greatest say in IMF decisions. The COP meetings could even be used for timing a yearly release of climate-related SDR allocations to highly climate-vulnerable countries, as suggested under Barbados’s “Bridgetown Initiative.”

    These steps would at least show that the Fund is addressing the climate crisis with the leadership and seriousness required.

    Omer Javed holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Barcelona, and previously worked at the International Monetary Fund. His contact on ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’) is @omerjaved7.

    Dan Beeton is the International Communications Director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research (cepr.net) in Washington, DC. He Tweets at @Dan_Beeton.

    IPS UN Bureau

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Ready or Not, America, Your Population Is Also Aging

    Ready or Not, America, Your Population Is Also Aging

    [ad_1]

    The aging of America’s population is expected to have mounting effects on government programs, businesses, healthcare institutions, communities, families and individuals. Credit: Maricel Sequeira/IPS
    • Opinion by Joseph Chamie (portland, usa)
    • Inter Press Service

    America’s government and its citizens appear ill-prepared to address the daunting consequences of population aging for the country’s economy, workforce and entitlement programs. Among those challenging consequences are the rising costs of programs for the elderly, the need for financial aid and long-term care for many older people and the dwindling financial resources of elderly households.

    Many countries, including the United States, are well along in the demographic aging of their populations. While some countries, such as France, Germany, Italy, Japan and South Korea, have median ages above 40 years, other countries, including China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, have median ages of nearly 40 years (Figure 1).

    America’s elected officials tend to avoid addressing population aging. It seems that by ignoring or paying little attention to population aging, its many weighty consequences will diminish or simply go away.

    However, the consequences of population aging for America’s federal budget, its economy, workforce and the overall well-being of its citizens are not imaginary and will not go away by simply ignoring them. On the contrary, the aging of America’s population is expected to have mounting effects on government programs, businesses, healthcare institutions, communities, families and individuals.

    In ten years, for example, the U.S. federal government is expected to be spending half its budget on those aged 65 years or older. That spending will be used to support elderly Americans largely for health care and retirement benefits. Without sufficient government assistance, many elderly Americans will have to forgo needed care or rely on the uncertain assistance and care from family and friends.

    While a secure retirement is a widespread desire across America, the financial resources of most Americans are not sufficient to cover their retirement expenses. Among households headed by someone 55 years and older, nearly half of them lack some form of retirement savings. Also, close to 30 percent of those who are retired or nearing retirement do not have retirement savings or a defined benefit plan.

    In addition, the health conditions of America’s elderly are both worrisome and costly. About 80 percent of Americans 65 or older have at least one chronic condition, with about 68 percent having two or more.

    It is estimated that nearly a half of elderly Americans are affected by arthritis, a quarter have some type of cancer and a fifth have diabetes. A third of the elderly have cognitive issues with approximately half of them having dementia.

    Millions of older Americans are struggling with health challenges and increasing numbers are in need of caregiving services. Many elderly Americans also find it challenging to obtain or pay for the additional services they need as they age.

    It is estimated that approximately 70 percent of U.S. adults aged 65 years and older will require long-care at some point, with the average length of stay in long-term care about three years. In 2021, the average annual costs of long-term care in America ranged between $35,000 and $108,000.

    The median age of the U.S. population, which was about 27 years in 1965, has reached a record high of nearly 40 years. The median age of America’s population is continuing to rise and is projected to be 43 years by mid-century.

    In addition, the proportion of America’s population age 65 years or older is also expected to continue rising. Whereas approximately 9 percent of the U.S. population was 65 years or older in 1965 when the Medicare program was established, by 2022 the proportion had almost doubled to 17 percent. That proportion is expected to nearly double again by the century’s close when approximately one in three Americans will be 65 years or older (Figure 2).

    Furthermore, the U.S. will face noteworthy demographic aging turning points in the near future. Beginning in 2030, for example, all of America’s baby boomers will be older than 65 years. Also, in 2034 the share of America’s population age 65 years or older is expected to surpass that of children under age 18 year for the first time in the country’s history.

    A major demographic force behind the aging of populations is low fertility. Whereas America’s fertility rate was nearly three births per woman in 1965, today it has declined to nearly a half child below the replacement level at 1.7 births per woman. Moreover, the country’s fertility levels are expected to remain well below the replacement level throughout the remainder of the century.

    Increasing longevity among the elderly is also contributing to the aging of America’s population. U.S. life expectancies for males and females at age 65 years have risen markedly over the past sixty years. From 13 and 16 years for males and females in 1965, life expectancies at age 65 rose to 16 and 19 years by 2000 and further increased by 2022 to approximately 18 and 21 years, respectively. By mid-century, U.S. life expectancies at age 65 for males and females are expected to reach 20 and 22 years, respectively (Figure 3).

    America’s major government programs for the elderly are being seriously affected by population aging. As a result of the increase in both the absolute and relative numbers of the elderly, the two largest programs, Medicare and Social Security, are rapidly approaching insolvency, which is expected in 6 and 13 years, respectively.

    The U.S. Congress needs to act responsibly to address the expected funding imbalances and the insolvencies in those two programs. Not doing so would lead to across-the-board benefit cuts or abrupt changes to benefits or tax levels.

    Democrats are by and large committed to maintaining funding for Social Security and Medicare, programs that were established by the democratic administrations of President Franklin Roosevelt and President Lyndon Johnson, respectively. The Democrats believe that all Americans have the right to a secure and healthy retirement and are committed to preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

    Over the years, public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated overwhelming support for those two programs. For example, approximately 80 percent of Americans support Social Security and oppose reducing benefits, and 70 percent are against increasing premiums for people enrolled in Medicare.

    Republicans, in contrast, are reluctant to raise taxes and have resisted increasing funding for the government’s major entitlement programs. They claim that with Social Security and Medicare facing insolvency if cuts to benefits and costs are not made, those two programs will not be available for future generations. Republicans in general prefer the private sector, freedom of choice and individual responsibility, such as private retirement investment accounts and a voucher system for private health insurance.

    Besides congressional actions, educational and community programs are needed to encourage responsible behaviors among Americans in preparing for and during old age. Men and women need to adopt behavior, take action and develop habits early on in their lives that promote their economic security, personal health and overall well-being in their retirement years.

    In sum, the United States seems neither ready nor willing to deal with the aging of its population. But demography doesn’t care. As the U.S. population continues to become older over the coming years, America’s elected officials, the private sector, social institutions, communities, families and individuals will be obliged to cope with the inevitable, momentous and far-reaching consequences of population aging.

    Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. He is the author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Population Levels, Trends, and Differentials”.

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • OPINION: Harvard President Claudine Gay’s resignation and the end of affirmative action signal to Black people that they will never belong – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Harvard President Claudine Gay’s resignation and the end of affirmative action signal to Black people that they will never belong – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Harvard University President Claudine Gay’s resignation ends the shortest tenure in the university’s history — six months. It’s not a coincidence that the record is set by the school’s first Black woman president. We were headed for this moment since she started in July.

    Some pundits are blaming antisemitism and plagiarism, ignoring the white supremacist politics at the center of her ouster: the same politics shaping higher education at schools like Harvard since the creation of higher education in the United States.

    Less than a month before Gay’s resignation, these politics were on display as Ivy League early admissions decisions sparked the annual accusations of reverse racism, with non-Black students and parents blaming Black students for stealing their spots in the class of 2028.

    Such accusations are perpetual fallacies in a long narrative about Black people that claims we undeservedly get jobs, opportunities and admittance to the country’s most selective colleges and universities that “should” go to white people.

    Gay’s appointment was both applauded as a sign of Harvard’s racial progress and derided as a “diversity hire.”

    However, in December, Gay’s controversial testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s hearing on antisemitism on college campuses and, in particular, her repeated defense of free speech on campus, opened the door to calls for her removal. Widely reported accusations of plagiarism against her led to additional scrutiny which facilitated her resignation. On closer inspection, that alleged plagiarism amounted to a relatively small number of “citation errors” in her 1997 dissertation and a few other academic papers. Similar comments on free speech also felled University of Pennsylvania President M. Elizabeth Magill, yet she managed to resign without the racialized questioning of her entire professional career that Gay has had to face.

    Related: Students have reacted strongly to university presidents’ Congressional testimony about antisemitism 

    After her resignation, Gay noted that she was a victim of a campaign against Black faculty, one that “recycled tired racial stereotypes about Black talent and temperament.”

    It is not a coincidence that Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT were targeted for those House Committee hearing. They are representative of the cultural zeitgeist at many prestigious institutions — and a political battleground for those seeking control over American ideology.

    Harvard, in particular, has been at the center of these battleground narratives — one about “unqualified” Black leadership and the other by students who believe below-average Blacks have taken their spots.

    Established in 1636, Harvard is an institution that prides itself on its lack of access. Initially, Harvard, and schools fashioned after it, were institutions for upper-class white men only; it has always existed at the nexus of white supremacy in the United States.

    The goalposts for Black people to display merit keep changing; seemingly no matter our credentials, we are perceived as gaming entrance where we don’t belong.

    Harvard’s mission has facilitated the creation of a constant supply of wealthy white politicians and businessmen from the so-called right families and with the “right” education to lead this country. It would be over 300 years until Black people were regularly admitted — and another 70 years before a Black woman would be appointed president of the university.

    This was by design. As discussed in my book, “Black Women, Ivory Tower,” Ivy League schools are meant to be exclusionary. Attending Harvard has always been a dream to strive for, a way to perpetuate race and class-based hierarchies — to effectively define who belongs at the “top” of society and who doesn’t.

     As a symbol of a well-working meritocracy, though, Harvard fails. Instead, the goalposts for Black people to display merit keep changing; seemingly, no matter our credentials, we are perceived as gaming entrance where we don’t belong.

    Gay’s resignation signals the embeddedness of racism at these prestigious schools. She had to go because she didn’t belong. And the political pressure that was used to get her to resign without just cause provides another opportunity to show Black people they don’t belong, regardless of their professional achievements, and to keep schools like Harvard white. The Supreme Court’s affirmative action ban effectively ensures that they will stay that way.

    All of this tells us that the presence of any Black people in prestigious institutions is still a problem for many people. Even when affirmative action was in place, Black students made up less than 7 percent of Harvard’s overall campus population. Harvard accepts less than 4 percent of all applicants.

    With those numbers, it is empirically impossible to claim that Black people are inundating Harvard and schools like it; yet there’s still this clear illogic focused squarely on us to explain Harvard’s elusiveness to white people more broadly.

    Without Black people to blame, the more than 96 percent of applicants who are not admitted must face the reality of higher ed in America — that schools like Harvard were never likely to admit them, because these schools are meant to perpetuate not only whiteness but also wealth and power.

    Admissions offices at Harvard, Princeton and Yale were created in response to concerns about high percentages of Jewish students starting in the 1910s. New admissions policies set quotas on Jewish students in a given class and created checklists of desirable characteristics, including racial and ethnic identities, to more specifically shape the makeup of the student body.

    Admissions policies became even more important in the 1940s when the potential for Black student applicants returning from war to use the GI bill to cover tuition again threatened the white wealth culture these schools had established.

    Hierarchical ranking systems and the introduction of the “Ivy League” in 1954 further stratified schools by race and class.

    Affirmative action policies that came later only slightly increased the percentage of Black students at these schools in any given year.

    Related: COLUMN: Colleges decry Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, but most have terrible track records on diversity

    A similar fate to Gay’s will likely befall the next Black woman Harvard president, should it ever appoint another, just as every year, nameless, faceless Black students are erroneously accused of taking the spot of “more deserving” white students to assuage those white students’ feelings of failure.

    Ivy League schools, the most important gatekeepers of higher education, are institutionally racist. And Harvard is the blueprint.

    Black people will never belong there because we weren’t meant to — not then, not now, not ever.

    Jasmine Harris, is the author of “Black Women, Ivory Tower,” and an associate professor of African American Studies and coordinator of the African American Studies program at the Department of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

    This story about Harvard President Claudine Gay’s resignation was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jasmine Harris

    Source link

  • OPINION: Political gridlock is real. Bolstering education and the workforce can provide consensus – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Political gridlock is real. Bolstering education and the workforce can provide consensus – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Education and education access are directly connected to economic growth. Despite the dysfunction in Congress, especially over border issues and foreign aid, there are key education bills that can provide not only solutions for the issues they address but also models for getting things done across a range of other issues.

    Two pieces of legislation that could improve our economic future by advancing education and workforce development passed the Committee on Education and the Workforce a few weeks ago with broad and bipartisan support, demonstrating that consensus is not only possible and practical but achievable.

    The success of these bipartisan solutions could break down walls of division and better the lives of our nation’s students while bolstering our cities’ economies.

    In mid-December, the committee approved the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, with support from both Republican Chairwoman Virginia Foxx and ranking Democratic member Bobby Scott, who co-sponsored the legislation.

    The bill would expand Pell Grants to provide needed tuition assistance for short-term education and training directly linked to career opportunities, easing the costs of attaining the education and skills that all students, and especially low-income students, desperately need.

    The bill would also fund access to online learning, further cutting costs and making education more flexible and accessible.  A vast array of students across red and blue states would benefit from the bill’s commonsense approach, as would our community colleges, employers and, by extension, all Americans.

    Related: ‘August surprise’: That college scholarship you earned might not count

    That same House Committee voted, a bit earlier, also with bipartisan support, to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. This legislation includes federal funding to support education and skills-based training directly connected to career opportunities and economic success.

    This too will directly impact our nation’s community colleges, which are the key engines of economic mobility.

    Under the bill, existing Labor Department funding could be repurposed to provide eligible workers with individual, customized education and training accounts, leading to improved career opportunities.

    The bill would also specifically address the education and training needs of our incarcerated youth by providing them with the education and skills needed to ease their transition into a stable future. And it would add accountability provisions to ensure that spending for education will lead to concrete job growth. Like the Pell legislation, the bill has broad support among education and business leaders.

    Passing short-term Pell along with passing workforce and education legislation would provide a clear pathway from high schools to colleges and careers, ensuring a brighter future for millions of students across the nation.

    Both pieces of legislation could potentially pass the House and the Senate and be signed into law early in the New Year. 

    Smart investments in Education can be both the answer to governmental gridlock and spur economic progress.

    Of course, as is usually the case with legislation that clears committee hurdles, the bills contain small flaws that demand fixes. 

    For example, in the Pell bill, one item that could derail passage in the full House and Senate and set back the nation’s commitment to social mobility for students is a provision calling for a reduction in student loan eligibility for students at some of the most selective colleges. Another flaw is that the legislation could open the door to abuse by predatory for-profit colleges. These parts of the plan can easily be fixed to ensure passage.

    Passing short-term Pell and workforce and education legislation would provide a clear pathway from high schools to colleges and careers, ensuring a brighter future for millions of students across the nation. 

    Related: OPINION: It’s time to put the brakes on student debt and give more students a shot at higher education

    We’ve seen bipartisan support deliver dynamic education and economic growth before, most recently when Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate united behind Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer’s CHIPS and Science Act.

    That act mobilized efforts to restore American leadership in the semiconductor industry while creating good-paying jobs and reducing the cost of automobiles, refrigerators and computers.

    The CHIPS and Science Act, with bipartisan support, also included a huge investment in education research, and became a model for the progress that can be achieved when parties come together to better the lives of the people.   

    Now is the time for more bipartisan progress. Passage of these two critical education bills would be a fine start, fueling job creation and bettering the skills and future incomes of our nation’s students, who need our support now more than ever. And the bills’ passage would provide a model for how to eliminate gridlock and address our core economic challenges in a positive manner.

    Most polling suggests that the top-of-mind topics for most Americans are the proverbial “kitchen table issues,” led by the economy and its effect on working-class Americans.

    These bills address those issues. Americans with the education and skills to be employed in growing industries will earn higher wages, and the increased tax revenues from those wages will support our nation’s schools at all levels. And these bills’ prioritization of our community colleges will help them become an even stronger engine for jump-starting and sustaining America’s growth.

    In recent years, it’s begun to seem that dysfunction is the one thing that Washington can be reliably counted on to provide. But let’s not simply accept that Congress can no longer come together to support initiatives that meet our needs and provide enhanced opportunities.

    For many years, education issues have divided Americans; these core education bills can unite us. They deserve prompt action.

    Stanley Litow served as deputy chancellor of schools for New York City and as president of the IBM Foundation. He now serves as adjunct professor at Columbia University and as trustee of the State University of New York where he chairs the Academic Affairs Committee.

    This story about breaking political gridlock was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn't mean it's free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2] Stanley Litow
    Source link

  • There Is No Democracy Without Gender Equality

    There Is No Democracy Without Gender Equality

    [ad_1]

    Credit: UNDP El Salvador
    • Opinion by Maria Noel Vaeza, Michelle Muschett (panama city, panama)
    • Inter Press Service

    Faced with this question, the Gender Social Norms Index published by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reveals that 90% of the population has at least one fundamental prejudice against women, which ranges from believing that men are better business leaders and that they have more rights than women to take a job, to the conviction that it is okay for a man to be violent with his partner.
    Gender violence is not a phenomenon that arises out of nowhere and its prevention and eradication also require each of us to be aware of our own biases.

    At UN Women and UNDP, we work to reduce gender discrimination and transform sexist attitudes by promoting social norms and positive gender roles. This requires empowering girls and women and working with the entire society to remove stereotypes that promote violent masculinities.

    To achieve this, at UN Women we apply the behavioral sciences to involve men and commit them to the prevention of violence against women and girls with more effective awareness campaigns that adapt to the reality of each country in the region. Social norms that limit women’s rights also harm society, they hinder the expansion of human development and increase inequality gaps.

    It is no coincidence that the difficulty in achieving progress in social gender norms occurs during a human development crisis. The global Human Development Index (HDI) lost value in 2020 for the first time in history; the same thing happened the following year.

    In turn, for Latin America and the Caribbean, the UNDP estimated – based on its proposal for a Multidimensional Poverty Index with a focus on women, that 27.4% of women in 10 countries in the region live in conditions of multidimensional poverty.

    The impact of poverty on women varies depending on their location in the territory: in the 16 countries analyzed, 19% of those who live in urban areas are multidimensional poor, while 58% live in rural areas.

    The poorest women are those who face greater inequalities, participate less in the labor market, and experience greater time poverty caused by excessive unpaid care work.

    These inequality gaps, in addition to being a barrier to human development, are a threat to democracy. Latin America and the Caribbean, the third most democratic region in the world and the only emerging region that aspires to – and still has the possibility of – achieving development through democracy and respect for human rights, will not achieve it if it continues to be the most violent and dangerous region for women.

    The Latinobarometro 2023 report points out a clear democratic decline in Latin America: the percentage of its population that sees democracy as the preferred form of government fell from 60% in 2000 to 48% in 2023. Women remain underrepresented in decision-making decisions and are the most dissatisfied with democracy with 70%.

    At the same time, according to the latest data reported by official organizations to the Gender Equality Observatory of Latin America and the Caribbean, in 2022, at least 4,050 women saw their lives cut short. 4,004 from Latin America and 46 from the Caribbean, from 26 countries in the region, were victims of femicide or feminicide.

    This is a clear sign that despite the progress in several countries in the region with the approval of specific and comprehensive legal frameworks and the establishment of specialized prosecutors and protocols to respond to gender violence, the fundamental rights of women continue without translating into tangible achievements.

    Without effective governance and solid institutions that guarantee women and girls the full enjoyment of their rights, including the right to live a life free of violence and discrimination, it will be impossible to regain confidence in democracy in the region.

    In building more peaceful, just, and inclusive societies, universal access to justice is essential to eradicate gender violence and impunity. Girls, adolescents, and women who suffer violence do not find sufficient protection in the judicial system, and when they have the courage to report, they are often re-victimized until they give up their complaint and seek help and protection from the authorities. public institutions.

    At the same time, these women have a triple workload: they face caretaker tasks, domestic work and their paid jobs, which are usually precarious, informal and low-income.

    Furthermore, much of the impetus for the judicial process falls on the complainant, who must not only appear before the court on numerous occasions, but also bear the financial costs of transportation, the difficulties in organizing household responsibilities, and the fear of retaliation by the aggressor or members of their communities.

    To this must be added both the possible lack of knowledge that many women may have about judicial or extrajudicial procedures, as well as the difficulties in accessing free services and/or ignorance of their existence. There is also little or no public information about specialized services.

    For example, in the case of experiencing violence, there is usually distrust on the part of women regarding the speed and effectiveness of the judicial response to their situation and, they also often face practices of re-victimization such as being forced to tell the facts on several occasions. or have their testimony called into question.

    From UNDP and UN Women, we call to build more just societies for women. All people and societies can advance through education, social mobilization, adoption of legal and political measures, advocacy for greater budgets to prevent violence, promotion of dialogue, and search for consensus to break down biases and open passage to more peaceful, secure, fair, inclusive, and egalitarian societies as a requirement to leave no one behind on the path towards sustainable development.

    María Noel Vaeza is regional director of UN Women for the Americas and the Caribbean;
    Michelle Muschett is regional director of UNDP for Latin America and the Caribbean.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • OPINION: Why university leaders must resist dangerous calls to silence student speech – The Hechinger Report

    OPINION: Why university leaders must resist dangerous calls to silence student speech – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    Elected officials are pushing university presidents to categorically silence student speech on salient political issues. This runs afoul of the values of academic freedom and free speech.

    In the case of public institutions, giving in to such pressure is unconstitutional.

    Free speech is a vital liberty that the American Civil Liberties Union has fought to protect at all levels of government, on campuses and across society for over 100 years.

    With the rest of the world, we’ve been anxiously watching the catastrophe unfolding in Israel and Palestine. These events have caused inconceivable pain to many and will have untold effects on our collective future.

    It is precisely in moments of crisis and fear like this one that free speech is most important.

    While the ACLU does not take positions on international conflicts, we must take positions when the rights of Americans to speak out about these crises are endangered.

    Universities are supposed to be spaces where people develop, communicate and debate ideas, including the most topical, difficult and controversial ones.

    Students, professors and others on campus must have the freedom to publicly speak about and debate matters of public concern — regardless of how radical or offensive their views are.

    For that to work, school leaders must resist pressure to conflate protected political speech with prohibited harassment; making that mistake today will not only impact students now but for decades to come. Yet, troublingly, we’re seeing politicians and school administrators seeking to punish and censor students rather than ensure that all students are able to safely and freely speak their mind.

    Related: Students have reacted strongly to university presidents’ Congressional testimony about antisemitism 

    And the leaders aren’t just taking this problematic approach about speech pertaining to the conflict in the Middle East. For many years now, school administrators have sought to censor controversial speech, whether that’s canceling a book talk by right-wing Milo Yiannopoulos or removing artwork about reproductive health care from a campus exhibit.

    The consequences for students are not hypothetical. In late October, the State University System of Florida’s chancellor, Ray Rodrigues, in consultation with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered state universities to deactivate the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters, based on nothing more than the national SJP organization’s political advocacy — which is protected political speech. That is a clear violation of the student groups’ rights to free speech and association, which is why we, ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal are now representing the University of Florida chapter of SJP in its legal challenge against Florida officials.

    Today, some in Congress seem to think there is, or should be, a “controversial speech” exception to the First Amendment.

    Once it becomes acceptable to silence one form of political speech, the rights of everyone to speak and dissent are at risk.

    But, if we learned anything from the experiences of our country’s universities during the McCarthy era and more recently in the years since 9/11, it’s that viewpoint-based efforts to police speech on campuses destroy the foundations on which academic communities are built.

    Throughout U.S. history, people in power have attempted to silence students when they say things that the leaders find unpopular or offensive. During the Vietnam War, for example, universities tried to stop students on their campuses from creating chapters of the antiwar group Students for a Democratic Society by refusing to recognize them as a campus organization. This dispute went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which reaffirmed the group’s First Amendment rights.

    That case, Healy v. James, is not an outlier. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that students have a right to associate and speak out on matters of public concern, with Chief Justice Earl Warren famously stating 60 years ago that either “teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate” or “our civilization will stagnate and die.”

    Therefore, schools should not punish students, as some leaders have proposed, for chanting phrases like “From the River to the Sea,” “No Ceasefire,” “Make America Great Again” and “No Justice, No Peace,” regardless of how much they offend others.

    To be clear: Antisemitism, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab hate must be condemned and combatted. True threats and incitement are not protected speech. And colleges and universities have a moral and legal obligation to address harassment committed by, or directed at, members of their communities.

    Related: How teachers can talk about the Israel-Hamas conflict

    Nonetheless, students have a First Amendment right to use controversial slogans and to have differing opinions about what those slogans mean.

    Congress cannot expect university administrators to be in the business of deciding which ideas and beliefs are acceptable for students to express and which should be silenced.

    To do so would undermine the values of learning and expression on which all academic institutions are built. And while one group is at the center of such affronts today, other students, groups and speech could face similar attacks tomorrow.

    Universities must defend against bad actors who conflate suppression of speech with safety, because once it becomes acceptable to silence one form of political speech, the rights of everyone to speak and dissent are at risk.

    Drawing the line between protected political speech and targeted harassment isn’t always easy, but the lines our leaders draw today are the ones that will apply across issues, views and debates for years to come.

     Jenna Leventoff is senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

    This story about student free speech was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Jenna Leventoff

    Source link

  • Will the Human Rights Movement Survive the Gaza War?

    Will the Human Rights Movement Survive the Gaza War?

    [ad_1]

    Destruction in Gaza Strip. Credit: UNICEF/Hassan Islyeh
    • Opinion by Connor Echols (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    The U.S. — a passionate backer of civilian protections in Ukraine — has struggled to find the right way to address these claims while still standing by its long-time partner. The bombing has been “indiscriminate,” says President Joe Biden, but perhaps it will improve tomorrow. Killing more than 10,000 women and children in two months is not “genocide,” argues White House spokesperson John Kirby, but Hamas’ brutal Oct. 7 attacks were.

    If human rights are fundamentally a matter of world consensus, then what does it tell us that the United States threatens to cast a second veto against a United Nations Security Council resolution begging for a humanitarian suspension of fighting?

    What does it mean when a supposed champion of human rights seems to jettison them when it becomes inconvenient? For that matter, why should Israel care about human rights when it perceives its fight as existential?

    Kenneth Roth has a unique perspective on these questions. Roth, considered by many to be a dean of the human rights movement, spent nearly three decades as the executive director of Human Rights Watch before stepping down last year to become a visiting professor at Princeton University.

    Under his leadership, HRW drew flak for, among other things, declaring Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories to be apartheid, all while documenting in meticulous detail abuses committed by Palestinian groups, including Hamas.

    RS spoke with Roth to get his thoughts on human rights at a time of crisis. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Responsible Statecraft (RS): How would you rate the Biden administration’s handling of the Gaza crisis from a human rights perspective?

    Roth: The Biden administration has been far too deferential to the Israeli Government, despite the pretty clear commission of war crimes in Gaza. And while the administration has pushed to ameliorate some of those war crimes — by pressing for humanitarian access, by urging greater attention to avoiding civilian casualties — that rhetorical push has not been backed by the use of the leverage that the administration has that might have really put pressure on the Israeli government to stop, whether that would be withholding or conditioning ongoing arm sales or military assistance, or even allowing a Security Council resolution to go forward.

    RS: What would a better approach look like?

    Roth: The initial problem was that Biden pretty unconditionally wrapped himself in the Israeli government’s response to the horrible October 7 attacks by Hamas. If you look at his initial comments, while there were caveats written in about the need to respect humanitarian law, there was no emotional punch behind them.

    It was pretty clear that Biden simply stood with Israel and was giving it a green light to proceed with its military response to Hamas without much effort, at least during the first few weeks, to ensure that that response really did comply with humanitarian law. So, I think the Israeli government got the message that the references to humanitarian law were necessary for certain audiences, but that the administration’s heart was not in them.

    RS: Would a more forceful form of messaging at the start have led to different results?

    Roth: Obviously, it’s hard to know the counterfactual. But the U.S. government, which has the greatest leverage of any external actor, didn’t really use that leverage to ensure that its periodic rhetorical commitment to the need to respect humanitarian law was matched by its much more forceful embrace of the Israeli military response to Hamas.

    RS: I’ve seen some reporting that the State Department has done internal inquiries as to whether U.S. officials could be legally complicit if Israel is found to have committed war crimes in Gaza. Do you have any thoughts on that question?

    Roth: Well, they could be. Biden’s references to the Israeli military conducting indiscriminate bombing were clearly not just a verbal slip. It probably reflected the internal conversations that the administration has. The second one even seems to have been somewhat deliberate.

    And the significance of that is that indiscriminate bombardment is a war crime. As any administration lawyer would know, continuing to provide weapons to a force that is engaged in war crimes can make the sender guilty of aiding and abetting war crimes.

    That is not some crazy, wacko theory. That was the basis on which former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted by an internationally backed tribunal, the so-called Special Court for Sierra Leone, for providing weapons to the Sierra Leonean rebel group known as the Revolutionary United Front, a group that was notorious for chopping off the limbs of its victims.

    Because Taylor kept providing arms in return for the RUF’s diamonds while he knew the RUF was committing these war crimes, this internationally-backed tribunal found him guilty of aiding and abetting, convicted him, and sentenced him to 50 years in prison, which he is currently serving in a British prison.

    RS: My next question is a little tricky, but I’m curious how you approach it. Israel claims that this war is a fight for its very survival. Why should a country that views itself as being in that position care about respecting human rights?

    Roth: Well, I think the question is why should it care about adhering to international humanitarian law and protocols. It’s worth noting that humanitarian law was not drafted by a bunch of human rights activists and peaceniks. This was drafted by the world’s leading militaries. It was designed for war, for situations where governments often feel that they are existentially at risk, and these were the limits that the world’s leading militaries imposed on themselves. Israel has signed on to these standards, and it claims to abide by them. It has many capable lawyers who could be applying them. It just isn’t applying them.

    It probably requires a certain psychological analysis to figure out why, but some of the signals being sent from the top indicate a willingness to disregard the requirements of humanitarian law. When you have Defense Minister Galant referring to the residents of Gaza as “human animals,” when you have Netanyahu invoking the biblical story of Amalek in which there’s a divine injunction to not spare the men, women, children, or animals, these are not-so-subtle signals that the top political and military leadership in Israel doesn’t care that much about civilian casualties. This has seemed to have manifested itself in the indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks that the Israeli military has carried out in Gaza.

    RS: It seems to me that focusing on war crimes or potential war crimes can sometimes lead to really bad policy outcomes. In this case, Israel is really spotlighting Hamas’ alleged war crimes. You think back to the war in Iraq, where there was a lot of highlighting of Saddam’s alleged war crimes. How can advocacy for human rights avoid supporting unfettered militarism?

    Roth: First, I think it’s important to note that war crimes by one side do not justify war crimes by the other. If a warring party could cite the other side’s war crimes, you would quickly have no more Geneva Conventions because allegations of war crimes are often made in the passions of conflict. The fact that some people have committed war crimes — in this case, both sides — doesn’t justify that others resort to criminal conduct. Now, in terms of military action, few people contest that Israel had every right to respond to Hamas’ military attack. It was an extraordinarily lethal military attack. It was ruthless, with widespread murder, rape, abduction, and indiscriminate bombardment. So with an attack of that sort, no one should be surprised that the Israeli government responds. The only real question was, will it respond consistent with humanitarian law? Or would it flout that law?

    RS: What does all this mean — especially the fact of the U.S. seemingly taking a step back in advocacy for the protection of human rights — what does all this mean for the state of human rights today?

    Roth: It is harmful because the U.S. government is such a powerful voice, and when it does seem to make an exception in its human rights advocacy for a close ally like Israel, it discredits the U.S. as a voice for human rights around the world. Now, I should say this is not the only instance of inconsistency on the part of Washington. We’re seeing it as well as the Biden administration tries to build alliances to oppose Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or to contain China. So while the administration has spoken numerous times about its fundamental commitment to human rights, it’s been a very inconsistent commitment. And that inconsistency is probably most visible in the Middle East, which has been essentially a black hole in the administration’s human rights policy. It’s very difficult to be so permissive of human rights violations in one region of the world and have a whole lot of credibility on human rights in other parts of the world.

    This means that one of those powerful voices we have has weakened itself. It’s not the first time that has happened. Under Trump, the U.S. essentially abandoned any pretense of enforcing human rights. Prior administrations have had comparable inconsistencies. The U.S. still has been able to be a useful voice for human rights, despite these inconsistencies, in some cases, but it is a much weaker voice than if it had really been principled and consistent.

    RS: How do you see the future of the push to get states to protect human rights? Are we in a moment of crisis that galvanizes change?

    Roth: If you look at the various efforts to uphold human rights, they’ve been quite vigorous in certain cases. There has been a very strong response to Russian war crimes in Ukraine, complete with multiple General Assembly resolutions, the Human Rights Council standing up a commission of inquiry, the International Criminal Court launching an immediate investigation and actually charging Putin and one of his aides with war crimes.

    A place where it’s been weaker has been, say, China’s crimes against humanity against the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, where we came within two votes of putting on the agenda a discussion of then-UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet’s very strong report on what she called possible crimes against humanity. But we didn’t even get that agenda item, so that’s a place where the world has been much weaker.

    But there’s been greater mobilization, greater willingness to speak out on a range of other situations, whether that be Myanmar or Iran, Saudi abuses in Yemen for a time, Sudan, Ethiopia for a time, Venezuela, Nicaragua. So the idea that because there’s this black hole in U.S. human rights policy, therefore nothing can get done, that’s just not true. A lot gets done, but the defense of human rights is weaker because the U.S. has been an inconsistent supporter of the effort.

    Source: Responsible Statecraft (RS)

    Connor Echols is a reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He was previously an associate editor at the Nonzero Foundation, where he co-wrote a weekly foreign policy newsletter. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.

    The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.

    IPS UN Bureau

    © Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • STUDENT VOICE: Bill targeting DEI offices in public universities has a chilling impact on students – The Hechinger Report

    STUDENT VOICE: Bill targeting DEI offices in public universities has a chilling impact on students – The Hechinger Report

    [ad_1]

    When I made the challenging, life-altering decision in April 2023 of where to pursue my Ph.D., the University of Texas at Austin seemed like the best fit.

    As an underrepresented student, I felt assured by the school’s diverse faculty and student population, along with their embrace of a robust diversity, equity and inclusion mission, and looked forward to continuing my research on improving the quality of mental health care for all families.

    Then came Texas Senate Bill 17, which became law on January 1, making it illegal to have DEI offices and programming in public universities. This bill also outlaws mandatory diversity training and does not allow departments to ask prospective faculty about their commitment to building diverse campuses.Texas is not the only state to pass such a bill.

    Legislation that bans many DEI initiatives in our universities is already having a significant chilling effect on students like me, creating concerns over the potential impact on the quality of our education and raising questions regarding whether Texas even wants us.

    Had the Texas bill passed before my decision to attend UT Austin, I would most likely not have chosen to come here. For me, as a new resident of Texas and a first-year Ph.D. student planning to learn, teach and research for the next four to five years, this bill, now law, creates a hostile environment.

    Given that top-ranked programs fight for the most qualified applicants, states that adopt these policies have to realize that they will discourage top diverse talent from attending their schools.

    Related: Beyond the Rankings: The College Welcome Guide

    Some educational leaders and policymakers argue that institutions will remain true to their values of welcoming diverse ideas and people — despite the bills and their policies.

    I disagree. As a first-generation Mexican immigrant in this country, I believe that establishing structural and transparent mechanisms that offer support and keep schools accountable are the keys to creating and preserving spaces of genuine belonging for students and faculty from diverse backgrounds.

    I align most with the view expressed in UT Austin’s Change Starts Here strategic plan: Tangible benefits for students and the greater community cannot be accomplished without “creating processes and policies that cultivate a diverse, equitable, and inclusive campus.”

    My abuelita taught me that “mas hace una hormiga andando que un buey echado” (“an ant on the move does more than a dozing ox”).

    During my post-master’s work at the Yale Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine, I vividly remember navigating a difficult situation with the support of the chief diversity officer.

    While no institution has it all figured out, that experience allowed me to appreciate the tangible benefits of having DEI structures in place.

    Lawmakers, university presidents, deans and all those who decide on and carry out educational policies should understand that students like me are no longer settling for simply being allowed into higher education institutions. We now demand what we all deserve: structures and mechanisms that support our educational growth.

    Related: STUDENT VOICE: Poor and first-generation transfer students often don’t feel welcome on college campuses

    While many academics may genuinely hold values that align with diversity, equity and inclusion, fear of the retaliation empowered by legislation like Senate Bill 17 (e.g., losing their campus positions, department appointments, etc.), and a sense of powerlessness, may override those values.

    But my Abuelita taught me that “mas hace una hormiga andando que un buey echado” (“an ant on the move does more than a dozing ox”).

    This expression, or “dicho,”reminds me that while I may be no more than a tiny ant compared to massive systems, I can still act. Additionally, coming from a multigenerational migrant farmworker family taught me the importance of planting seeds.

    That is why I am confident that if enough of us collectively call for additions to DEI efforts (e.g., expanding DEI offices and resources), we can help reverse the backlash against DEI.

    During this liminal period, as we decide if we will move forward or backward as it pertains to DEI, we must remember the new message introduced by the University of Texas at Austin: “What starts here changes the world.”

    We need decision-makers to plant seeds that bear fruit to nurture all community members and have roots strong enough to break the concrete foundations of inequitable systems.

    Hector Chaidez Ruacho is a doctoral student at The University of Texas at Austin Steve Hicks School of Social Work and a recipient of the Graduate School Recruitment Fellowship and Graduate School Mentoring Fellowship.

    This story about DEI and universities was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    [ad_2]

    Hector E. Chaidez Ruacho

    Source link

  • The Russell 2000 Index has soared, but you might be better off looking elsewhere for quality small-cap stocks

    The Russell 2000 Index has soared, but you might be better off looking elsewhere for quality small-cap stocks

    [ad_1]

    The Russell 2000 Index soared 12% in December, which might reflect investors’ exuberance about the state of the U.S. economy — it appears the Federal Reserve has won its battle against inflation.

    But if you are looking to broaden your exposure to the stock market beyond the large-cap S&P 500
    SPX,
    buying shares of a fund that tracks the Russell 2000 Index
    RUT
    might not be the best way to do it. This is because the Russell 2000 isn’t selective — it is made up of the smallest 2,000 companies by market capitalization in the Russell 3000 Index
    RUA,
    which itself is designed to capture about 98% of the U.S. public equity market.

    A better choice might be the S&P Small Cap 600 Index
    SML
    because S&P Global requires companies to show four consecutive quarters of profitability to be initially included in the index, among other criteria.

    Below is a screen of analysts’ favorite stocks among the S&P Small Cap 600, along with another for the Russell 2000.

    Watch for a “head fake”

    Much of the small-cap buying in December might have resulted from covering of short positions by hedge-fund managers. This idea is backed by the timing of trading activity immediately following the Federal Open Market Committee’s announcement on Dec. 13 that it wouldn’t change its interest-rate policy, according to MacroTourist blogger Kevin Muir. The Fed’s economic projections released the same day also indicate three cuts to the federal-funds rate in 2024.

    Heading into the end of the year, a fund manager who had shorted small-caps, and then was surprised by the Fed’s interest-rate projections, might have scrambled to buy stocks it had shorted to close-out the positions and hopefully lock in gains, or limit losses.

    That buying activity and resulting pop in small-cap prices could set up a typical “head fake” for investors as the new year begins, according to Muir.

    The long-term case for quality

    Looking at data for companies’ most recently reported fiscal quarters, 58% of the Russell 2000 reported positive earnings per share, according to data provided by FactSet. In other words, hundreds of these companies were losing money. These might include promising companies facing “binary events,” such as make-or-break drug trials in the biotechnology industry.

    In comparison, 78% of companies among the S&P Small Cap 600 were profitable, and 93% of the S&P 500 were in the black.

    Here are long-term performance figures for exchange-traded funds that track all three indexes:

    ETF

    Ticker

    2023

    3 years

    5 years

    10 years

    15 years

    20 years

    iShares Russell 2000 ETF

    IWM 17%

    7%

    61%

    99%

    428%

    365%

    iShares Core S&P Small Cap ETF

    IJR 16%

    25%

    69%

    129%

    540%

    515%

    SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust

    SPY 26%

    34%

    108%

    210%

    629%

    527%

    Source: FactSet

    An approach tracking the S&P Small Cap 600 has outperformed the Russell 2000 for all periods, with margins widening as you go further back.

    Brett Arends: You own the wrong small-cap fund. How to get into a better one.

    Looking ahead for quality… or not

    For the first screen, we began with the S&P Small Cap 600 and narrowed the list to 385 companies covered by at least five analysts polled by FactSet. Then we cut the list to 92 companies with “buy” or equivalent ratings among at least 75% of the covering analysts.

    Here are the 20 remaining stocks among the S&P Small Cap 600 with the highest 12-month upside potential indicated by analysts’ consensus price targets:

    Company

    Ticker

    Share “buy” ratings

    Dec. 29 price

    Consensus price target

    Implied 12-month upside potential

    Vir Biotechnology Inc.

    VIR,
    +4.47%
    88%

    $10.06

    $32.00

    218%

    Arcus Biosciences Inc.

    RCUS,
    +3.04%
    82%

    $19.10

    $41.00

    115%

    Xencor Inc.

    XNCR,
    +6.03%
    92%

    $21.23

    $39.83

    88%

    Dynavax Technologies Corp.

    DVAX,
    +2.86%
    100%

    $13.98

    $24.80

    77%

    ModivCare Inc.

    MODV,
    +0.95%
    100%

    $43.99

    $75.50

    72%

    Xperi Inc

    XPER,
    +1.81%
    80%

    $11.02

    $18.20

    65%

    Thryv Holdings Inc.

    THRY,
    100%

    $20.35

    $32.75

    61%

    Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    LGND,
    +1.25%
    100%

    $71.42

    $114.80

    61%

    Green Plains Inc.

    GPRE,
    -1.67%
    80%

    $25.22

    $40.30

    60%

    Patterson-UTI Energy Inc.

    PTEN,
    +0.28%
    75%

    $10.80

    $17.00

    57%

    Ironwood Pharmaceuticals Inc. Class A

    IRWD,
    +8.48%
    83%

    $11.44

    $17.83

    56%

    Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    CPRX,
    +1.78%
    100%

    $16.81

    $26.20

    56%

    Payoneer Global Inc.

    PAYO,
    -3.45%
    100%

    $5.21

    $8.00

    54%

    Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc.

    HLX,
    -2.63%
    83%

    $10.28

    $15.00

    46%

    Arlo Technologies Inc.

    ARLO,
    -3.05%
    100%

    $9.52

    $13.80

    45%

    Pacira Biosciences Inc.

    PCRX,
    -5.16%
    100%

    $33.74

    $48.40

    43%

    Privia Health Group Inc.

    PRVA,
    +2.95%
    100%

    $23.03

    $32.53

    41%

    Semtech Corp.

    SMTC,
    -1.23%
    92%

    $21.91

    $30.90

    41%

    Talos Energy Inc.

    TALO,
    +1.19%
    78%

    $14.23

    $20.00

    41%

    Digi International Inc.

    DGII,
    -1.21%
    100%

    $26.00

    $36.14

    39%

    Source: FactSet

    Any stock screen should only be considered a starting point. You should do your own research to form your own opinion before making any investment. one way to begin is by clicking on the tickers for more about each company.

    Click here for Tomi Kilgore’s detailed guide to the wealth of information available for free on the MarketWatch quote page.

    Moving on to the Russell 2000, when we narrowed this group to stocks covered by at least five analysts polled by FactSet, we were left with 936 companies. Among these, 355 have “buy” or equivalent ratings among at least 75% of the covering analysts.

    Among those 355 stocks in the Russell 2000, these 20 have the highest implied upside over the next year, based on consensus price targets:

    Company

    Ticker

    Share “buy” ratings

    Dec. 29 price

    Consensus price target

    Implied 12-month upside potential

    Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

    KPTI,
    +4.18%
    75%

    $0.87

    $6.00

    594%

    Rallybio Corp.

    RLYB,
    +0.42%
    100%

    $2.39

    $16.50

    590%

    Vor Biopharma Inc.

    VOR,
    -0.89%
    100%

    $2.25

    $15.44

    586%

    Tenaya Therapeutics Inc.

    TNYA,
    -0.62%
    100%

    $3.24

    $19.14

    491%

    Compass Therapeutics Inc.

    CMPX,
    -5.13%
    86%

    $1.56

    $9.17

    488%

    Vigil Neuroscience Inc.

    VIGL,
    +2.66%
    88%

    $3.38

    $18.75

    455%

    Trevi Therapeutics Inc.

    TRVI,
    -2.99%
    100%

    $1.34

    $7.33

    447%

    Inozyme Pharma Inc.

    INZY,
    +1.64%
    100%

    $4.26

    $21.00

    393%

    Gritstone bio Inc.

    GRTS,
    +6.86%
    100%

    $2.04

    $10.00

    390%

    Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    ATNM,
    +4.72%
    83%

    $5.08

    $23.36

    360%

    Lineage Cell Therapeutics Inc.

    LCTX,
    86%

    $1.09

    $4.83

    343%

    Century Therapeutics Inc.

    IPSC,
    +9.64%
    86%

    $3.32

    $14.67

    342%

    Acrivon Therapeutics Inc.

    ACRV,
    +1.83%
    100%

    $4.92

    $21.13

    329%

    Avidity Biosciences Inc.

    RNA,
    +1.22%
    100%

    $9.05

    $37.50

    314%

    Longboard Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    LBPH,
    +316.25%
    100%

    $6.03

    $24.17

    301%

    Omega Therapeutics Inc.

    OMGA,
    -1.33%
    100%

    $3.01

    $12.00

    299%

    Allogene Therapeutics Inc.

    ALLO,
    +12.77%
    82%

    $3.21

    $12.79

    298%

    X4 Pharmaceuticals Inc.

    XFOR,
    +5.21%
    86%

    $0.84

    $3.26

    289%

    Caribou Biosciences Inc.

    CRBU,
    -2.79%
    89%

    $5.73

    $22.25

    288%

    Stoke Therapeutics Inc.

    STOK,
    +11.41%
    78%

    $5.26

    $19.33

    268%

    Source: FactSet

    That’s right — this Russell 2000 list is all biotech. And in case you are wondering if any companies are on both lists, the answer is no.

    Don’t miss: 11 dividend stocks with high yields expected to be well supported in 2024 per strict criteria

    [ad_2]

    Source link