Search the archive.

Most disease in lower-income countries is caused by poverty A large proportion of illnesses in low-income countries are entirely avoidable or treatable with existing medicines or interventions. Most of the disease burden in low-income countries finds its roots in the consequences of poverty, such as poor nutrition, indoor air pollution and lack of access to proper sanitation and health education. The WHO estimates that diseases associated with poverty account for 45 per cent of the disease burden in the poorest countries. 10 However, nearly all of these deaths are either treatable with existing medicines or preventable in the first place. Continues… Wealth creation as a means to improve health Medicines also fail to reach the poor because of weak healthcare infrastructures, which are inherently the result of financial and human resource constraints. Malawi, for example, has the fewest doctors per capita in the world, with only one doctor for every 49,118 people. 39 Poverty often goes hand-in-hand with malnutrition, which again results in a host of debilitating but easily preventable diseases. Poor populations are often compelled to use animal dung, crop residues or wood to cook their food and heat their homes, which again results in a significant but ultimately avoidable disease burden. Poor sanitation, a by- product of poverty, results in a large number of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases. Poverty prevents those affected from purchasing the cheap oral rehydration therapy sachets that could easily save lives. When poverty is reduced and eliminated, health outcomes improve. People in rich countries can expect to live longer and have better access to medical care. With greater wealth, scientists and innovators, both private and public, have better opportunities to conduct research into health and disease. With increased financial resources, more can be spent on education and to improve literacy, which in turn can promote the adoption of new technologies and ensure that these technologies are more widely diffused. Improvements in agricultural technology, for example, have led to increased food production per capita and lower food prices, even at a time when the global population has risen dramatically. When combined with more open markets and trade, these productivity increases have ensured that food has become more available to the poor. As new technologies are adopted more widely, economic growth accelerates. This in turn provides individuals and the state with the means to improve basic infrastructure, such as the provision of clean water, which in turn improves health. Health and wealth can also be mutually reinforcing: a healthier population is better able to engage in economic activities and thereby generate increased income, some of which can be spent on health. In Mymensingh (Bangladesh), for example, agricultural yields increased by 15 per cent after malaria was controlled, because farmers had more time and energy for cultivation. 40 However, it is unlikely that good health will ever be sustained without long-term wealth creation that can pay for the ongoing improvements in water, sanitation, hospitals and medical research. Those who genuinely hope to improve the health of the world’s poorest people should therefore look to wealth creation as the fundamental solution to global health problems.

The novel coronavirus pandemic has already begun to take its toll on the U.S. economy as businesses have shuttered, millions of Americans have been laid off and large swaths of the country have been told to shelter in place. The financial implications are clear, though their full extent won’t be known until the economy begins the task of getting back on its feet. But less clear are the public health consequences of the downturn. While past recessions provide some insights, health economists emphasize that how the U.S. responds to this crisis will affect the number of people who die not only from the virus itself, but from the side effects of an economic downturn. President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that if constraints put into place to contain the novel coronavirus spark an economic depression, there will be a different human toll. “It’s common sense. You are going to have a massive depression, meaning mental depression but a massive depression in the economy also,” Trump said during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden, in response to a question from PBS NewsHour White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor. Data from previous recessions indicates economic downturns can cause a spike in mental health issues. But researchers caution that the number of deaths from the novel coronavirus, if left to spread unchecked by the sort of mitigation measures that are now currently impacting the economy, will most likely surpass those that would result from an economic recession. They also say that government aid for workers and businesses could reduce the economic hardships that often lead to negative health outcomes. Overall mortality rates actually decrease in times of recession, but not for everyone Overall, mortality rates actually tend to decline during a recession but appear to increase for certain workers who are most impacted by the downturn, as well as for a wider swath of people decades after the fact, due to the lingering effects of job loss and lost earnings. A 2017 study that looked at mortality rates during the Great Recession found that increased unemployment correlated with a drop in deaths in the U.S — in particular, a decline in deaths from cardiovascular disease and motor vehicle accidents. The findings were consistent with other studies. That correlation isn’t evidence of causation, but the study’s primary author Erin Strumpf said researchers have a few hypotheses. People tend to drive less during an economic downturn because they have less money to spend, which could lead to fewer car crashes, she posited. During recessions, people tend not to dine out as much because they are trying to save money, and that may be better for their cardiovascular health. Stress could also play a role. “People living during a recession might be stressed because of economic uncertainty. On the other hand, we aren’t experiencing the stress of being at work all the time,” said Strumpf, a professor of health economics at McGill University in Montreal. There isn’t enough data to analyze from the current economic shutdown, but Strumpf said the coronavirus measures could lead to some of the same drops in mortality, particularly from vehicle accidents. Mortality rates increase among those groups most impacted by economic downturns Even if mortality rates tend to decline overall, researchers note that groups hit particularly hard by job loss or a decline in earnings are likely to experience an increase in deaths during a recession. “One of the things that does happen during recessions generally is you get a bifurcation,” said Aaron Reeves, a sociologist at Oxford University. For example, “lots of people drink less because they are going out less, but there is a small group of people who drink a lot more.” That increase in alcohol consumption is not only harmful to a person’s immediate physical health, it’s likely a sign of serious mental health issues. Trump said Sunday if there is an economic depression, “you are going to have tremendous suicide.” Reeves said Trump’s assumption that suicides will increase if there is a prolonged economic downturn “is probably correct.” “There is a real risk of suicide, but I don’t think it’s inevitable,” Reeves said, Reeves and his colleagues published a 2014 study in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found that there were at least 10,000 more suicides than the average in the U.S. and Europe between 2008 and 2010, during the Great Recession. Job losses during a recession lead some people to become socially isolated and fall into depression, which can be one cause of suicide. Because the U.S. has privatized health insurance that for many is tied to employment, job loss can mean people who need mental health care the most are not able to access it. The U.S. could also be particularly vulnerable to the threat of suicide because of access to firearms. Data shows access to a means of suicide — including guns — tends to increase suicide rates. And in recent weeks, stores have reported an increase in gun sales as Americans prepared to shutter themselves in their homes. Reees noted that an increased focus on mental health and government efforts to help people retain their jobs during the lockdown could go a long way to reducing occurrences or effects of depression. NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION LIFELINE: 1-800-273-8255 Short-term economic hardship can take long-term toll on health Financial strain and the mental and physical health issues it causes can last decades after a recession has ended. In the short term, mortality may decline because people are driving less or eating healthier, but “those factors are gone once the recession is gone because they are specific to the moment,” UCLA economist Till von Wachter said. “Then, long-term factors take over.” Data shows that people who are negatively affected by a recession, including people who graduate into an economic downturn or lose their job as a result, tend to die earlier than they would have otherwise. A job loss, a demotion or graduating into a recession tend to result in lower lifetime earnings and years of increased financial stress. A job loss, a demotion or graduating into a recession tend to result in lower lifetime earnings and years of increased financial stress. In addition to suicide, these factors could lead to people drinking more or using drugs, both of which correlate with higher mortality rates — especially in middle-aged men — from heart attacks, liver failure and overdose. Based on historical data, including from the early 1980s recession, von Wachter estimates that if the unemployment rate rises to 6 percent, up from the recent 3.5 percent, because of the coronavirus containment measures, about 5.4 million total years will be lost from Americans’ lives. Some economists have predicted the unemployment rate will rise much higher, which would lead to even more lost years. Still, the long-term losses have to be weighed against the likelihood that hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could die if the novel coronavirus is not contained. Without strict social distancing the virus is likely to spread so rapidly that hospitals will become overwhelmed with patients and more people who contract the virus will die from lack of adequate care. “These are very tricky comparisons to make,” von Wachter said. “You face a very likely number of deaths in the short run with uncertain death in the long run.” A new report from researchers at the Federal Reserve and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that after the 1918 flu pandemic, cities that implemented strong intervention measures, like closing businesses and schools, early on in the outbreak were more successful at reducing mortality and also saw stronger economic growth after the pandemic ended. The report’s authors said the findings indicate pandemics themselves are more disruptive than the measures put in place to mitigate the spread of the disease, but they also note that today’s economy — with global supply chains, a greater reliance on service industries and improved remote technology — is very different from the economy 100 years ago. Finding the balance between protecting short- and long-term public health Right now, Americans appear to be coming together, encouraging people to stay home and ride out the storm. But that could change in the coming weeks as the financial reality _ and the stress that causes — sets in. “Soon, the bills will start coming due. They might give you a break, but at the end of the day you still have to pay the rent,” said Kasisomayajula Viswanath, a professor of health communication at Harvard University. Researchers note that social safety net programs and better access to both physical and mental health care could keep economic-related problems at bay, even if businesses in the U.S. were to remain closed for several more weeks or even months. If workers can keep their jobs through the shutdown, businesses could get back up and running quickly once social distancing measures are relaxed. “If you imagine a world where we hold everyone in place and three months later, we switch the economy back on, there is no reason to expect widespread earnings losses,” von Wachter said. “And I wouldn’t expect these dramatic scenarios [of higher mortality rates] to come to pass.” Several European countries are offering to pay portions of salaries so companies are less likely to lay off their employees during shutdowns. The U.S. has not gone so far, but it is subsidizing paid sick leave in hopes that workers can stay home from work if they contract COVID-19 without fear of losing their jobs. The U.S. has also expanded unemployment benefit eligibility to freelance and gig economy workers. The $2 trillion bill Congress passed and Trump signed late last week could stave off a lot of economic pain for now, but economists warn if businesses remain closed for months instead of weeks more, much more government assistance is going to be required. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is already discussing the need for another economic stimulus bill. “For the foreseeable future, the government is able to support workers,” von Wachter said. “All bets are off if this lasts a year.” For now, the president has backed off his earlier push to reopen shuttered businesses by Easter. On Sunday, he extended social distancing recommendations through April 30 and said he expects the nation to be on the road to recovery by June. “Hopefully by what we are doing we are going to get the best of both worlds. We won’t have 2.2. million deaths,” Trump said during his news conference Sunday, referring to a model showing the number of people who could die in the U.S. if no actions were taken to stop coronavirus. “We are going to have much less, much much less and at the same time we get our country running again.”

Companies tend to introduce fewer new products during a recession, and for good reason. With people spending less money, it makes sense that companies might decide it’s not worth the investment to innovate. And if flagging sales have forced companies to lay off workers, they also may lack the staff to carry out such projects. But there is also the important issue of credit, which tends to tighten during a recession. Could a large portion of the drop in innovation come from this reduced access to credit? Understanding the effect of each possible factor is important, says Sara Moreira, an assistant professor of strategy at Kellogg, as it helps policymakers target their legislation. For example, if the credit crunch is a driving force, lawmakers could help vulnerable companies get loans. To investigate, Moreira and João Granja of the University of Chicago examined store transactions in the United States during the Great Recession of 2007–09. They found that the credit crunch didn’t have much of an effect on the release of new products that were only slightly different than the companies’ original goods. But tightened access to credit was linked to a substantial drop in the creation of more innovative products. And younger companies were particularly affected. Moreira expects to see innovation decline during the current recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as well. The U.S. government launched a massive program to help small businesses improve liquidity, which could partly counteract this trend. But she points out that, in this recession, companies are struggling just to meet basic financial obligations. Even if firms have access to credit, “investment in future product introduction may be the least of their concerns right now,” she says. “It’s still not on their priority list to inject that money into new projects.” Innovation and Economic Growth The researchers wanted to understand how firms decide to create new products because “innovation is so important for economic growth,” Moreira says. Product innovation has a couple of benefits. First, if a company thrives, so will its employees. Second, innovative new products can improve the lives of customers, too. For example, customers with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity have benefited from the recent proliferation of gluten-free foods. And new products introduce more competition, driving down overall prices in that product category. Disentangling the factors that influence innovation is tricky. When a recession hits, the shock to the economy clearly brings many product-development projects to a halt. But previous research has provided few insights into exactly why this happens. Incremental or Radical Change? To find out how much of the decline in innovation was due to lack of credit, Moreira and Granja analyzed more than 100 billion records of weekly sales of individual products at stores in the United States from 2006 to 2015. The data set included purchases at grocery stores, drugstores, and big-box general merchandise stores, covering goods such as food, drinks, cleaning products, small electronic appliances, and over-the-counter medications. Each item had a unique barcode, so the team could determine when companies released new products. If the product was in the same category as one of the firm’s previous products, the researchers categorized the innovation as “incremental” to the firm’s product line. For example, a company that sold pain medication might offer a fast-acting version of the same drug. Products that appeared in a new category were “radical”—for instance, if the pain-medication firm started selling medicine to aid digestion. The researchers wanted to understand how firms decide to create new products because “innovation is so important for economic growth.” — Sara Moreira Moreira and Granja also measured how much individual companies suffered from credit-market disruptions using two distinct approaches. First, they assessed how much credit had tightened in the county where the firm was located, knowing that small businesses tend to borrow from local lenders. In the second approach, they identified firms that had a large fraction of their debt due during the early stages of the recession. In normal times, the companies probably could have renegotiated that debt with favorable terms to postpone the payment deadline. But during the recession, such negotiations were likely to result in higher interest rates, putting firms in a tighter financial bind. Squeezed by the Credit Crunch As expected, product innovation dropped dramatically. From 2007 to 2010, the overall rate at which new items entered the market decreased by 28 percent. Firms with less access to credit fared worse. The researchers sorted companies into four groups based on the severity of the credit crunch in their county. In the most affected group, the rate of introducing new products dropped by 33 percent. When Moreira and Granja looked more carefully at incremental versus radical innovations across all firms, they found distinct trends. The credit crunch didn’t significantly affect the rate of introduction of new products in the existing product lines of firms. But firms’ decisions to expand the scope of their product portfolios to new product lines did appear to take a hit. A one-standard-deviation increase in credit-market restrictions explained about 15 to 40 percent of the drop in products in new categories. That’s a “sizable share,” Moreira says. The result makes sense, given that introducing a very different item could require more investment, such as new machinery. And some companies were more vulnerable than others. Credit-market disruptions were linked to bigger cuts in product innovation at younger firms. The researchers saw a similar pattern at companies in sectors that relied heavily on external sources of financing, such as businesses that produce durable goods. The researchers also evaluated the new products’ novelty—that is, how many of their features were new, or in new combinations, in that product category. First, they looked at overall novelty trends across all firms. From 2007 to 2010, the rate of new products having new traits dropped by about 5 percent. Then the team examined the specific effects of credit-market disruptions on the introduction of new features. They found that when credit-constrained firms released new products during the recession, those items tended to be less novel than those created by the same company during other times. “[O]ur results could indicate that consumers are missing out on valuable characteristics and that they may be worse off,” Moreira and Granja write. Lingering Effects But how did the credit crunch affect new products’ performance? Were the effects temporary, or did items introduced during the recession fare worse even after the downturn ended? On one hand, credit-constrained firms had less money to invest in activities such as advertising. On the other hand, since companies were cash-strapped, perhaps they funneled any funds they did have into their best products. In that scenario, “the firm will only invest in the projects that are likely to be very successful,” Moreira says. But if the second scenario was correct, one would expect products launched by those companies during the recession to sell fairly well overall. That’s not what happened: Sales were lackluster even after the recession ended. A one-standard-deviation increase in credit constraints was linked with a 20 percent drop in the first four years of sales in a new product category, the team estimates. “The impacts of the shock are not temporary,” Moreira says. Part of the reason was likely lack of funds for advertising. But other factors may have been at play as well. For instance, customers tend to be attracted to the newest items, or people might not bother trying that item simply because they hadn’t formed the habit of buying it in the past. Uncertain Times So what does all of this mean for the current recession? This downturn is different from the Great Recession in nature, Moreira notes. This time, with companies scrambling to simply survive, product innovation may be relatively low priority. “Think about all the firms that currently don’t even have enough cash flow to pay employees,” she says. It’s possible that some firms may tweak their products in response to customers’ concerns about the pandemic. For example, people might want longer-lasting perishable foods or packaging materials on which the virus is less likely to survive, perhaps making innovation in these areas a worthwhile investment. But with uncertainty much higher than it was during the previous recession, it is hard for companies to predict sales and decide whether investing in a new product makes sense. Many firms “probably have all of their product development divisions shut down completely,” she says. “They are in standby, and they will be, I think, for a long time.”

Standing in line at the airport security last year, a poster caught my eye. “We are this close to ending polio”, Jackie Chan was saying, showing a small gap with his fingers. You could find Desmond Tutu, Jane Goodall, and Itzhak Perlman doing the same on billboards around the world. There was even a Gangnam Style version of the poster. A year later that small gap that celebrities were demonstrating with their hands seems to be widening, with a speed that now gives reason for alarm.

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared polio as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on May 5, 2014. The number of cases has increased significantly this year and, according to the WHO, particularly in conflict-stricken areas, like the Middle-East and Central Asia. One of the main concerns is that the virus has re-appeared in areas where the disease had been eradicated. For instance, Syria was polio-free for 14 years until an outbreak started in 2013.

When lockdown began, climate scientists were horrified at the unfolding tragedy, but also intrigued to observe what they called an “inadvertent experiment” on a global scale. To what extent, they asked, would the Earth system respond to the steepest slowdown in human activity since the second world war?

Environmental activists put the question more succinctly: how much would it help to save the planet?

What does the pandemic mean for entrepreneurs and startups? To answer this, Troy Henikoff, a venture capital investor and adjunct lecturer at Kellogg, starts by dividing businesses into two categories: those that have COVID headwinds—think restaurant suppliers whose customers are struggling to survive—and those with COVID tailwinds—think telehealth technology firms that have never seen more demand. But that doesn’t mean that startups with headwinds are doomed. Instead, entrepreneurs must harness the innovative spirit that drives them and adjust to the moment. “True entrepreneurs are taking the situation they’re in, the cards they’re dealt, and figuring out where the new opportunity is,” says Henikoff, managing director at MATH Venture Partners. He points to 2ndKitchen, which his firm has invested in. Before coronavirus, 2ndKitchen helped pair bars without a kitchen with nearby restaurants so that bar patrons could order food without leaving the watering hole. Today, the company has pivoted to setting up shop in the lobby of large apartment buildings and providing restaurant meals to residents. Henikoff was one of three Kellogg faculty members offering insights into the future of entrepreneurship in the era of COVID-19 on a recent webinar from Kellogg Executive Education. He was joined by Linda Darragh, executive director of Kellogg Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative, and Sara Moreira, an assistant professor of strategy. Moreira has researched business creation and innovation during recessions, and explained that, overall, fewer businesses are started during recessions. And the ones that are start smaller than those formed during boom years. “This may not be super surprising,” she says. “The surprising part is that years later, I’m talking about 30 years later, we can statistically identify a difference in size between a recession-born business and a boom-born business.” The good news, however, is that recession-born businesses tend to be more productive, as measured by revenue per employee. And startups during a recession tend to be grouped into industries that rely heavily on innovation. Where will this innovation come from today? Darragh says it’s all about how COVID-19 will change our long-term behaviors. That covers everything from working remotely to not wanting to touch anything in public. “A crisis creates a change of behavior, which generates new opportunities,” she says. When previous patterns of behavior are no longer possible, she explains, people become desperate to try something else. “We can statistically identify a difference in size between a recession-born business and a boom-born business.” - Sara Moreira In the last financial crisis of 2008, society’s growing distrust of financial institutions led to startups like Venmo and Square. Today, Darragh expects to see innovations in a wide range of industries. For example, healthcare innovations will likely address both drug development and telehealth delivery. There will likely be new types of automation in manufacturing to allow for social distancing between employees. And, for supply chains, she anticipates more real-time monitoring, so companies can manage customer expectations in the event of disruptions. She also hopes to see innovation applied to social-justice movements in the form of startups that can help recruit more diverse workforces. “There’s got to be a better mechanism to identify great talent,” she says. From a research standpoint, Moreira is interested in seeing what types of companies end up shuttering due to the recession. Downturns generally have a “cleansing effect” on the economy, with less productive firms exiting the market, and newer, more productive ones opening and hiring some of the newly available talent. “What I really hope not to see is firms that have big potential, and eventually the [COVID-19] crisis made them [exit the market],” she says. Henikoff says that investors are already searching for those startups that are positioned to flourish in a post-COVID world. He’s seeing companies with COVID tailwinds having “preemptive rounds” of fundraising. Investors are approaching startups and saying, “’I know you’re not planning on raising for 12 months, but I want to preempt that round. I want to fund today,’” he says. “And what they’re really saying is, ‘I have FOMO. I have fear of missing out. I want to get my money into your company because it’s going to grow so fast and I want to get it in now. I’m willing to take the additional risk because I see the future.’”

There are several periods when we get discontinuities, when we get collapses in social development scores. You can see several very clear examples on this graph. When we look back at the history of what happens when we get these great collapses in social development, every time we see the same five forces involved: Mass migrations that the societies of the day cannot cope with. This is always in the mix. The mass migrations often lead to huge epidemic diseases, as previously separate disease pools get merged. Epidemic diseases regularly killing half the population, it would seem, tend to lead to state failure. Governments cannot cope with catastrophe on this scale. The collapse of the governments tends to lead to breakdown in long-distance trade. Famines ensue, many, many more people die. And then, always there in the mix in some way, although it varies in every case, is climate change. It always plays into this. Now, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you these are forces that plenty of people are talking about as threats we are facing in the early 21st century. It seems to me perfectly possible that the 21st century is going to see another collapse of the kind we have seen so many times in the past. So in some ways it's possible the 21st century might be a rerun of what has happened many times before—but with one big difference: We now have nuclear weapons, which ancient people didn't have. The Romans would have loved nuclear weapons. Luckily, they didn't have them. I think if we do stumble into a collapse on the scale that I'm talking about here, we should seriously expect there is a possibility of these being used. It's quite possible that the 21st century will see a disaster that dwarfs anything we have seen earlier.

The SARS experience taught us that a mysterious, rapidly spreading, and potentially fatal respiratory infection can trigger a short, sharp, severe economic shock that has longer term consequences. Though less than 900 people died from SARS and Toronto was the only city hit outside the Asia Pacific . region, the losses to airlines, the hospitality sector, and all those associated with the travel industry were estimated at around $50 billion. Two years later, the big hotels in Singapore and Toronto were still recovering. Contrast that with the situation for seasonal influenza: the calculated mortality based on "excess deaths" in the United States alone ranges from 20,000 to 40,000 (250,000-500,000 worldwide) for any given flu year. But influenza is familiar, many of us will have been vaccinated, and the fact that one of the standard strains is circulating does not cause business travelers and tourists to stop flying or induce most people outside Asia to wear face masks in the streets and in airports.¶ Even so, the CDC economists estimate that the total US economic burden, including loss of productivity, hospitalization, and so forth, is in excess of $80 billion for a "normal" influenza year. It may be too soon to cost the "mild" 2009 SW [END PAGE 152] HlNl pandemic, though a 2006 economic modeling exercise put the global expense of an influenza pandemic in the $330 billion to $4.4 trillion range, depending on the severity of the disease. Of course, as the global financial crisis of 2007 taught us, the economic damage that can be done by New York bankers and financial speculators operating in a poorly conceived and administered regulatory framework can be much greater, but the cost of a global infectious disease pandemic is still very substantial, in addition to the enormous social dislocation.

Almost two years since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, it continues to represent a global crisis which impacts Member States in varying degrees of scale, scope, and intensity. In order to address this formidable challenge, the United Nations has developed a comprehensive response to deal with the pandemic’s fallout and create a better recovery plan for Member States.

Since the onset of the pandemic, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) has explored its impact on global terrorism. In doing so, it has continued to collaborate with all its partners — including Member States, United Nations agencies, member entities of its Global Research Network (GRN), civil society organizations (CSOs), and the private sector — in order to evaluate, monitor, and assess the short-, medium-, and long-term impacts of the pandemic on the terrorism landscape. Those findings have been shared in three previous analytical reports (published in June1 and December 2020, 2 and June 2021,3 respectively).

Democratic institutions and practices can affect human development in multiple ways, including population health and well-being. The absence of democracy, in particular, can have deleterious affects on health, as the 1958–1961 Chinese famine and the 2003 SARS outbreak demonstrate. These case studies highlight factors that are essential for preventing a full-scale HIV/AIDS epidemic in China: new and better standards of public accountability; an international imperative to cooperate globally to ensure health; freely available information, especially about disease prevention, control, and treatment; protection of individual rights and freedom of assembly, association and expression; and the ability to voice complaints and opposition. By instituting these rights in a timely fashion, China may be able to contain the HIV/AIDS epidemic before it loses millions of its citizens to yet another public health tragedy.

While the theories discussed above focus on the policy effects of the current level of democracy, they are still relevant for our empirical investigation which focuses on the stock of democratic capital. Today's environmental policies are the result of numerous historical institutional and policy choices, all influenced by the level of democracy at the time. Different historical experiences with democracy are likely to lead to different policy outcomes, as previous decisions form the base for subsequent choices. Our measure of democratic capital takes this historical process into account. Moreover, our measure helps capture transitions between democracy and autocracy which are by themselves likely to be detrimental to building the institutions needed to produce global public goods. It may also take time for environmental policy to become a focus of the democratic process. In countries such as Serbia and Sierra Leone with high values of current democracy but with limited histories of democracy, the democratic and electoral process may not have had enough time to focus on a “secondary policy” (List and Sturm, 2006) such as environmental policy.3 Only over time will voters and environmental interest groups (needing time to organize) pressure politicians to start formulating appropriate institutions and policies. One channel through which the democratic capital stock may affect environmental policy is by raising expectations that the country will be a stable democracy in the future (Persson and Tabellini, 2009). Persson and Tabellini report that the probability of a currently democratic country remaining democratic increases with a larger democratic capital stock, and that democratic capital raises economic growth (indirectly, by increasing stability).4 Persson and Tabellini argue that a virtuous circle exists where the accumulation of democratic and physical capital reinforces each other. Thus, democratic capital may actually help drive the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) relationship documented in the literature (Dinda, 2004 and Fosten et al., 2012). Second, an expectation of continued stable democracy may also result in advocates for environmental policies having a greater incentive to fight for reform because their influence will continue in the future. Third, an expectation of continued democracy increases the time horizon of politicians and political parties. This matters for environmental policymaking where costs occur earlier than the benefits, especially for climate change policies. If democracy is more likely to prevail, democratic parties and their constituent groups are more likely to benefit from implemented environmental policies in the future.5 Fourth, if polluting industries have higher expectations that the country will remain democratic it may be relatively less beneficial to wait with investment in pollution control technology and to lobby against regulations. Fifth, competitive leadership selection processes in democracies are likely to yield more competent leaders (Besley and Reynal-Querol, 2011).6 Since environmental policies are generally built slowly over time, a history of competent leaders influences policy outcomes positively.

“We are living through the end of abundance,” French President Emmanuel Macron recently declared after a summer that saw parts of Europe ravaged by forest fires and unprecedented heat and drought. Meanwhile, officials at the European Central Bank and the Federal Reserve have warned of a larger “sacrifice” that will be needed to “tame surging inflation”.

The language political and economic leaders are using to send a message to the public that it should prepare to accept the end of the limitless availability of products and resources may sound quite familiar to some.

Most discussions surrounding economic downturns revolve around the human impact. For example, news outlets examine how people wade through inflation or market crashes. City infrastructure also takes a hit, and people often overlook its importance in reflecting national conditions. It’s why governments shift to infrastructure funding to help instill a new normal. What does infrastructure look like during a recession? Investing in infrastructure during an economic downturn equates to job openings. Additionally, it catalyzes demand in numerous industries, from concrete to tech. Construction and engineering projects require people to transport materials and manufacture products related to the blueprints. Funding infrastructure through legislation is one of the most sweeping actions that impact a significant web of sectors. These are some of the ways city and state governments might spur infrastructure regeneration: Upgraded or increased public transportation New bridges Added interstate or highway exits Widened roadways or added lanes Green infrastructure projects Smart city implementation and digital infrastructure, like increased cybersecurity Improved waterway structures like dams Many times, infrastructure during a recession gets a revamp. Workers get new prospects and skills from boosting the economy through mobility, city services and eco-friendly routes. What can’t infrastructure do? Putting all of the government’s hope into infrastructure, however, is slightly misguided. Though it provides numerous benefits, it’s not the ultimate fail-safe. Governments, urban planners, and businesses should consider the economic cycle and plan their investments accordingly. These are the four main stages: Expansion: Signaled by growth, high demand and low interest with the potential for inciting inflation. Peak: Indicated by a brief stable period at the economy’s max height and efficiency. Contraction: Shown by decreased spending, employment and investments, which could lead to depression. Trough: Demonstrated when supply and demand plummet and spending is sparse. Citizens await recovery. Right now, there appear to be some negative trends citing overall contraction, but experts suggest that the U.S. is far from a complete depression. Infrastructure spending could help avoid catastrophe. Focusing on infrastructure without considering economic context could be a region’s downfall. Though infrastructure is highly resilient against these cyclical trends, the sector impacts numerous others, which are more vulnerable to changes during different periods. For example, investing in infrastructure during a recession doesn’t assist leisure or retail sectors much, especially when these workers aren’t skilled in construction or areas related to infrastructure advancement. How would spending impact them during each phase of the economic cycle? Does it impact infrastructure other than new builds? Funding infrastructure isn’t always cosmetic in the way it manifests. It also focuses on maintenance and efficiency. Countless buildings in the nation are centuries old and desperately need retrofitting. These wastes of energy often lead to sector inadequacies like supply loss in manufacturing because of old machinery or loss of power in old transmission lines. Whether the motivation is to better the planet or to improve bottom lines, infrastructure spending requires looking at the fine details and seeing how minimal improvements multiply over time to improve economic conditions even more. It could aid nations striving to go greener and achieve decarbonization or electrification efforts in clean energy. Infrastructure spending could also provide more housing or arable land if demolition projects open more land and institute the right resources for communities. It might look like incorporating smart tech and artificial intelligence to gather information for data-driven solutions to efficiently inform future projects. The possibilities are endless, with a medley of byproducts other than the new tunnel or train. Every $1 invested yield an average of $3.70 in return for the next two decades. It’s so effective because of the compounding benefits from new buildings, jobs and motivations for spending. Infrastructure spending during a recession At the end of a recession, citizens might see shining new bridges or enjoy less traffic on expanded and sturdy highways. An economic downturn provoking infrastructure spending offers more job opportunities than most governmental investments. It ignites spending again as households become more stable, making the economic cycle take an upward turn. Though it’s not a complete solution and doesn’t help every sector equally, combined with other market and personal considerations, most citizens can benefit from boosted infrastructure, especially after the benefits reveal themselves.

Market uncertainty. An ongoing global pandemic. Supply chain issues and unstable prices. Today’s headlines can stir up anxiety even for the most herculean among us. Yet downturns are also a time of innovation. Just as mathematics and nature follow a pattern, so does the relationship between market downturns and innovation. When we look over the past 100 years, there have been many examples of downturn-wrought necessity sparking innovation that helps brands evolve for the future. From the 50s to the 2008 financial crisis, brands we all know and love – like Amazon, LEGO, Play-Doh, Starbucks and Time – found themselves in a metamorphosis during a crisis, and evolved to cement their success in modern times. HERE ARE FIVE TALES OF BRANDS WHO INNOVATED THEIR WAY THROUGH UNCERTAIN TIMES: Child’s play: Play-Doh’s shift from cleaner to toy. It first landed on the market in 1933 as a wallpaper cleaner to remove soot produced by coal stoves. Within the next decade, coal stoves went out of fashion, reducing the need for the brand’s product. Faced with declining demand and a recession in 1953, the product needed reinvention. After discovering that some teachers were using the products as a material for kids to play with, founder Joseph McVicker saw the potential to pivot the product to a children’s toy. By 1965, the product was available in a mix of bright colors that we all know today. Time launched People. During the Great Depression, Time magazine bet on its own success with the launch of a new publication, Fortune. When faced with another downturn, between 1973–1975, Time magazine took a bold approach to shift from journalistic rigor to personality reporting with its launch of People magazine. The new magazine was also a change from the era's tabloids, featuring a range of personal stories from the public. This bet continues to pay off: in 2009, amidst a global financial crisis – and well into the decline of print – it had 46.6 million readers, the biggest audience of any magazine in the U.S. LEGO built a global brand by expanding during a downturn. During the 2008 financial crisis, LEGO was primarily focused on the North American market, and was in a rut when it came to product innovation. The economic crisis forced the Danish toymaker to rethink their approach and build a new path forward. They initiated licensing deals with brands such as Star Wars, and licensed their own brand for The Lego Movie — a unique move for a toymaker at that time. They also expanded their targeted geographic reach beyond North America, as well as introducing production facilities in new countries. By 2019, all of the pieces seemed to fit into place with LEGO’s 65% increase in pre-tax profits – with the iconic blocks, loved by children and adults alike, arguably becoming the world’s favorite toy. Amazon didn't stop innovating. Throughout the recession period of 2007 to 2009, Amazon's stock declined, putting the company’s upward trajectory in doubt. While the financial crisis was hurting their competition, they doubled down on innovation, using their driving company principles, including long-term thinking and a passion for invention, to launch a whole suite of new products: Amazon prime, Amazon Kindle, and AWS, their hosting service. By 2009 their profits were up 68%, and each of the products introduced has become a category leader and major profit driver for Amazon. Starbucks ordered a double shot of customer participation. During the 2008 economic downturn, Starbucks closed hundreds of stores. Then, the company appointed a new CEO, who drove a change of focus “away from bureaucracy and back to customers.” This shift brought a series of changes, from cafes, to welcoming hubs, to the launch of “My Starbucks Idea,” an online portal where customers contributed ideas for products, services, and stores. Starbucks brought the voice of the customer into their decision-making — transforming their brand experiences to emphasize human values of belonging and connection. THE TAKEAWAY: GIVE PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED Among these five success stories, three elements stand out. The first: A focus on the voice of the customer by understanding the motivation behind their purchase, known as the jobs-to-be-done theory. A deep understanding of the customer’s goal spawns products and services that solve real market gaps and pain points better than their competitors. 95% of new products fail in-market largely because of brainstorming sessions where the customers' core needs are not well understood. The second: An understanding of the changing economic and sociocultural context, fundamental human needs, and tensions to identify a meaningful brand shift. And finally: Balancing short-term ambition with long-term business sustainability. Each of these products or services launched during a recession was created with longevity in mind — not a short-term hedge during uncertain times. Which brands will be referred to as points of inspiration next time there's a downturn? It won’t be the ones that simply “play it safe” and avoid risk, but the ones that see the bigger picture, respond to evolving needs, and invest in innovation for the long term.

Grids are the arteries and veins of electricity circulation. Comprising of power stations, substations, transformers, transmission and distribution lines, the grid connects electricity supply to demand. It is a complex and intricate network, exposed to many natural and man-made risks.

One such risk is climate change. To better understand weather related hazards - such as extreme temperatures, floods, droughts, storms and sea level rise - we looked at data from U.S. power outages between 2012 and 2023. 1 Swiss Re Institute analysis suggests that more than 1 in 3 of these power outages was associated with severe weather-related incidents. Moreover, the average number of weather-related power outages have been increasing every four-year block over the time period (Figure 1).

Changing weather patterns induced by climate change are contributing to shifts in the location of terrorist activity, according to new research.

An exploratory study led by extremism expert Dr Jared Dmello, from the University of Adelaide's School of Social Sciences, found some climatological variables affected terrorist activity in India.

NEW DELHI: Asia is facing the brunt of climate change and will see severe stress on water resources and food-grain production in the future, increasing the risk of armed conflict among India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China, the latest report of a UN panel has warned. UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its report assessing impacts of climate change on human health, settlements and natural resources released on Monday, carried a dire warning. "The worst is yet to come," it said, if no measures are taken to curb the ill-effects of global warming. India, like other developing economies, may lose up to 1.7% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) if the annual mean temperature rises by 1 degree Celsius compared to pre-industrialization level, hitting the poor the most. The report also predicts an increase in extreme weather events such as last year's flash floods in Uttarakhand and cyclone Phailin in Odisha if steps are not taken to control the rise in temperature. "Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change," R K Pachauri, IPCC chairman said while making the report public in Yokohama, Japan.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to fundamentally reshape labor markets and the economy. If the gains accrue narrowly while human labor loses value, economic inequality could substantially worsen. In our recent article on “AI’s Economic Peril” for the Journal of Democracy, we argue that this poses a grave threat to democracy that is separate from more traditional AI risks to democracy such as deep fakes and misinformation: High inequality corrodes democratic institutions through increased elite influence, corruption, populism, and greater public discontent. At the same time, weakened democracy loses power to reign in inequality through progressive policies.

This may create a vicious feedback loop of eroding democracy and rising inequality, which may accelerate rapidly following an economic shock like large-scale displacement of workers by AI. The result could be a new society-wide equilibrium with starkly increased income disparities and a weakened voice for ordinary citizens.

The next recession may happen amid a new technological landscape: wide adoption of generative AI, a phenomenon untested by an economic shock.

Why it matters: The potential economic upsides of AI, including how it might fuel productivity growth, are fairly clear. More uncertain are the potential hits to labor and financial markets when the boom time ends.

Our obsession with AI diverts attention and energy away from more imminent and transcendent threats to our society and global human progress. The dangerous misalignment is not of moral values between people and computers, but between people and their ideological opponents. Irrefutable facts and valid (if mistaken) opinions have been replaced by deliberately false ideas injected into our discourse like a potent and addictive narcotic of delusion. If we cannot agree on objective and repeatable scientific insights, or a true historical record, how will we collaborate in the best long-term interests of the country or our planet? Today there is nothing that filters the shibboleths from the facts that are fed to AI computers.

The real hazard is not machine-derived calamity. It is bad human decisions that are accelerated and amplified by AI. There are plenty of things we think we know, from calculating financial risk to determining criminal recidivism, that in the immortal words of Mark Twain, “just ain’t so.” Training computers based on discriminatory precedent is irresponsible at best and prejudicial at worst. Repairing flawed ideology in human memory or computer storage is wickedly difficult, and it takes time to focus ethical lenses in both media.