Blog

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brian Brivati, Visiting Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights, Kingston University

One of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties, Shas, has announced it will resign from prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The party said its decision was made due to the government’s failure to pass a bill exempting ultra-Orthodox students from military service.

Its exit increases the political pressure on Netanyahu. Days earlier, six members of another ultra-Orthodox coalition partner, the United Torah Judaism party, also quit the government citing the same concerns. The moves leave Netanyahu with a minority in parliament, which will make it difficult for his government to function.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid says the government now “has no authority”, and has called for a new round of elections. But even before these developments, Netanyahu was reportedly considering calling an early election in a bid to remain in power despite his unpopularity.

To win another term he would, in my view, have to spin a narrative of victory on three fronts: securing the release of the hostages, defeating Hamas and delivering regional security. It is a tall order.

In his visit to Washington in early July, Netanyahu emphasised his pursuit of a ceasefire in Gaza that facilitates the return of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

Israelis have grown increasingly weary of the war, with recent surveys showing popular support for ending it if this brings back those still held captive. A ceasefire that sees hostages released would probably help Netanyahu generate support during an election campaign.

But Netanyahu has insisted that, while he wants to reach a hostage-ceasefire deal, he will not agree to one “at any price”. This indicates not only Israel’s refusal to compromise on security but also that any deal Netanyahu does make – whether or not it sees the release of all the hostages – will be presented as a victory to Israeli voters.

To provide the electorate with further hope of an end to the fighting, Netanyahu will also have to claim that the military campaign in Gaza is nearing its goals. Senior military officials stated recently that they have “almost fully achieved” their objectives – namely, defeating Hamas.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Netanyahu has, so far, prolonged the war to remain in power. But he will now need to spin the military campaign as a victory if he wants to win votes. This will be especially hard as critics like Yitzhak Brik, a retired Israeli general, claim that the number of Hamas fighters is now back to its pre-war level.

The hard-right members of Netanyahu’s government add another dimension to this equation. His two ultranationalist coalition partners, Jewish Power and Religious Zionism, oppose ending the war entirely. They insist on fighting Hamas to the finish.

Netanyahu will most likely want to keep his options open during an election campaign to then form a coalition with whatever he can pull together at the time. He may calculate that a short-term pause in fighting to free hostages can be spun as a victory to win votes, after which military operations could resume to appease hardliners if he needs them.

A final part of Netanyahu’s electoral strategy will be to push the message that he has delivered regional security. He has declared the war with Iran in June a success, saying “we sent Iran’s nuclear program down the drain”.

And Israel has also continued its campaign of strikes to assert its military dominance in the region, the latest in Syria and Lebanon.

Slim peace prospects

Observers warn that Netanyahu’s approach is about political survival, and will come at the expense of long-term peace prospects for Israelis and Palestinians. According to New York Times, he seems to be “kicking the Palestinian issue once again down the road”.

Indeed, part of Netanyahu’s mooted strategy for claiming victory in Gaza involves supporting a constrained political outcome for the Palestinians that ends the fighting without Israel conceding on core issues.

In this scenario, the Gaza Strip would be carved up and demilitarised under prolonged Israeli security oversight. Some areas would be annexed by Israel. Remaining parts of Gaza, along with fragments of the West Bank, would be handed over to an interim authority to create the appearance of a nascent Palestinian state.

The goal would be to declare that Israel has facilitated Palestinian statehood – but strictly on Israel’s terms – while eliminating Hamas’s rule in Gaza. The reality would probably be a designed chaos to force as many Palestinians as possible to leave.

Such a state, lacking full sovereignty and territorial continuity, would fall far short of the independent state that Palestinians seek. Crucially, this imposed outcome would also bypass substantive negotiation of issues like borders, refugees and Jerusalem, which both Israel and Palestine claim as their capital.

Palestinian leaders would almost certainly reject a curtailed state. And if they did not then ordinary Palestinians – reeling from the war’s devastation – are unlikely to view it as a just peace. A new cycle of violence would probably begin and the Palestinian population will have been heavily concentrated into restricted spaces that would be wide open to Israeli bombardment.

Read more:
Netanyahu’s occupation plan for Gaza means more suffering for Palestinians and less security for Israel

As Netanyahu weighs pulling the election trigger, he is effectively writing the next chapter of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The outcome of this manoeuvring is highly uncertain.

If his three-pronged victory narrative convinces Israeli voters, he could return to power with a fresh mandate and perhaps a retooled coalition. He might seek a broader unity government after an election, sidelining his most hardline partners in favour of centrist voices to navigate post-war diplomacy.

But if the public deems his victories hollow or indeed false, an election could sweep him out of office. This would open the door for opposition leaders who may take a different approach to Gaza and the Palestinians.

Brian Brivati is executive director of the Britain Palestine Project. He is writing this article in a personal capacity.

– ref. Israel: Netanyahu considering early election but can he convince people he’s winning the war? – https://theconversation.com/israel-netanyahu-considering-early-election-but-can-he-convince-people-hes-winning-the-war-261141

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel James Jolly, PhD candidate, University of East Anglia

Have you felt disgust when taking a walk along the riverside or plunging into the sea to escape the summer heat, only to spy a used wet wipe floating along the surface? Or shock at finding out that animals have died choking on plastic products or that the seafood we eat may be contaminated with microfibres?

These pollutants are common in our waterways because of the mismanagement of sewage and inappropriate disposal that flush hygiene products and microfibres into rivers and oceans. In the UK alone, more than 11 billion wet wipes are thrown away annually. Wet wipe litter was found on 72% of UK beaches in 2023.

They persist because they’re made of plastic, a durable material that won’t easily degrade. Plastic can last for decades to hundreds of years. Therefore, governments and manufacturers are eagerly encouraging the use of non-plastics as more “sustainable” alternatives, with the UK banning plastic in wet wipes in 2024.

These textiles can be made from plant or animal fibres such as cotton and wool, or they may be chemically and physically modified, such as rayon or viscose. They are often labelled “biodegradable” on product packaging, suggesting they are environmentally friendly, break down quickly, and are a safe alternative to plastics. But is this really the case?

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

My research focuses on investigating the environmental impact of these non-plastic textiles and their persistence in waterways. My colleagues and I have found that some non-plastic microfibres can be just as problematic or even more harmful than plastic.

While non-plastic textiles are not as long-lived as plastics, with many composting within weeks to months, they can last long enough to accumulate and cause damage to plants, animals and humans. Studies by scientists at the University of Stirling show that biodegradable wet wipes can last up to 15 weeks on beaches, where they can act as a reservoir for faecal bacteria and E.coli. Other studies have highlighted non-plastic textiles lasting for two months or more in rivers and oceans, where they break up into hundreds of thousands of microfibres.

These microfibres are so prevalent in waterways that they have contaminated animals across the food chain, from filter-feeding mussels and oysters to top predators such as sharks and the seafood we eat.

They are also found in remote locations as far away as the Arctic seafloor and deep sea, thousands of miles from civilisation. These discoveries highlight that non-plastics last longer than we think.

The dangers of non-plastics

Once exposed to aquatic life, non-plastic microfibres can be easily ingested or inhaled, where they can become trapped in the body and cause damage. During their manufacture, textile fibres can be modified with various chemical additives to improve their function, such as flame retardants, antibacterials, softeners, UV protection and dyes.

It is known that several toxic synthetic chemicals, including the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), are used for this purpose. These additives can be carcinogenic, cause neurotoxic effects or damage hormonal and reproductive health.

Researchers like me, have only just begun to explore the dangers of non-plastics. Some have shown that non-plastic microfibres and their additives can damage the digestive system, cause stress, hinder development and alter immune responses in animals such as shrimp, mussels, and oysters. However, other studies have shown little to no effect of non-plastic microfibres on animals exposed to them.

We do not yet know how much of a threat these materials are to the environment. Only the manufacturers know exactly what’s in the textiles we use. This makes it hard to understand what threats we are really facing. Nevertheless, assumptions that non-plastics are environmentally friendly and an easy alternative to plastic materials must be challenged and reconsidered.

To do this, we need to push for greater transparency in the contents of our everyday items and test them to make sure that they are truly sustainable and won’t harm the world around us. So next time you are browsing the supermarket aisles and come across a pack of “biodegradable” or “environmentally friendly” wet wipes, just question, are they really?

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Daniel James Jolly receives funding from the University of East Anglia, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and the NERC ARIES doctoral training pathway as part of his PhD studentship.
He is a student member of the UK Green Party.

– ref. Why some ‘biodegradable’ wet wipes can be terrible for the environment – https://theconversation.com/why-some-biodegradable-wet-wipes-can-be-terrible-for-the-environment-258836

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Wanja Kimani, Associate Curator, The Fitzwilliam Museum, University of Cambridge

In Reframing Blackness, writer and curator Alayo Akinkugbe explores the way that art history is taught, and the impact this has had on what we see in national museums in western cities. This teaching has often led to the exclusion of blackness from mainstream art spaces. Akinkugbe challenges this by shifting our gaze – to see blackness first.

Her book interrogates the place of blackness in relation to art history in several ways. First, she observes that the lack of black curators within national museums in western cities means that blackness is subject to “reactive responses”.

For example, when there was a global outcry after the murder of George Floyd in 2020, institutions reacted by foregrounding their efforts to support black artists and pledging commitments for future initiatives.

But many of these initiatives remain on the surface level and temporary, rather than permanently embedded into the institutional fabric. In my experience, long-term change is unlikely to occur when progress is measured by individual projects, while the decision-making remains in the same hands.

Next, the book draws on Akinkugbe’s experience as a history of art student at the University of Cambridge, during which time there was a call to “decolonise” the curriculum.

She then explores the intersection of race, gender and class, highlighting the double-bind of racial and gender bias that black women may encounter. She suggests ways to shift the gaze by focusing on people of colour depicted in historic artworks, including Portrait d’une Femme Noire (Portrait of a Black Woman) (1800) by Marie-Guillemine Benoist.

Along the way, we are acquainted with figures that have always been present on museum and gallery walls – albeit often ignored or faded into obscurity. Akinkugbe speculates about who some of these unnamed figures were, and what worlds they inhabited.

In Jacques Amans’ painting, Bélizaire and the Frey Children (1837), for example, Bélizaire, a black enslaved child, was over time painted over and faded into the background.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Akinkugbe provides an overview of exhibitions held between 2022 and 2024 at the Royal Academy in London and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge. And she has conversations with curators at other museums, whose work contributes to the understanding of the complexity of black life experiences reflected in contemporary art.

These include Antwaun Sargent (curator of The New Black Vanguard: Photography Between Art and Fashion) and Ekow Eshun (curator, In the Black Fantastic and The Time is Always Now: Artists Reframe the Black Figure). Akinkugbe also discusses the late Koyo Kouoh’s When We See Us: A Century of Black Figuration exhibition. Kouoh, who died in May, was the first African woman to curate the Venice Biennale.

By engaging in dialogue with the curators of these pivotal exhibitions, Akinkugbe demonstrates a shared commitment to uncovering what has been overlooked – and a commitment to deepening the discourse around blackness.

Cautious optimism

Reframing Blackness draws attention to important considerations for museums, curators and higher education institutions. There’s also food for thought for students who are keen to understand some of the factors that have contributed to the historic exclusion of blackness within museum walls and art education.

The book raises key questions that black cultural producers have grappled with in the UK since the 1960s, at the height of the Caribbean artists movement, and during the British black arts movement of the early 1980s. These movements created vital opportunities for discussion around issues of racial justice, visibility and representation.

Following the resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement in mainstream media in 2020, institutions reacted with pledges for self-reflective work that would lead to more black artists’ work being exhibited and collected. Numerous large exhibitions across national museums followed – some of which are discussed in the book, as are the departmental overhauls of art curricula within higher education.

I share in some of Akinkugbe’s optimism – but I do so cautiously.

Following the call to decolonise the curriculum, some art departments in UK higher education have expanded their geographic focus beyond the west. Others have stated their intention to address the legacies of enslavement and colonialism through a commitment to diversity and equality in their job advertisements. Some have done both.

But there are a few hurdles that may limit these efforts. First, newer courses that may not attract sufficient interest are often the first to be cut when budgets are constrained.

Second, if courses offer additional modules that attempt to cover vast areas in the global south, there is a risk of overgeneralising entire continents, marginalising them further. Such symbolic gestures fall short in an attempt to challenge art historical frameworks.

Finally, by adding works by black scholars to reading lists as supplementary instead of core reading, their contributions are treated as being on the margins rather than key producers of knowledge.

Museums have a responsibility to reflect the communities they serve, in a way that respects the individual and collective autonomy of that community. This may be counterintuitive to the museum’s original purpose, which may have been to serve the upper class, showcasing its founders’ interests.

Museums are better equipped to engage communities as partners in shaping their future when permanent staff reflect the diversity of these communities across the intersections of race, gender, class, sexuality and disability. Museum directors have a duty to serve these communities with a long-term commitment to care and accountability.

This book asks us to see blackness first. Akinkugbe guides us closer to a vision that does not require black people to reinsert ourselves, but insists on our resolute presence – both then and now.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org, The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Wanja Kimani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. In Reframing Blackness, Alayo Akinkugbe challenges museums to see blackness first – https://theconversation.com/in-reframing-blackness-alayo-akinkugbe-challenges-museums-to-see-blackness-first-260734

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robyn Klingler-Vidra, Vice Dean, Global Engagement | Associate Professor in Political Economy and Entrepreneurship, King’s College London

Governments around the world are hustling. European policymakers, for example, are eager to boost the region’s industrial relevance in a world where the US and China dominate cutting-edge technologies. They want to move beyond the adage that “the US innovates, China replicates and the EU regulates”.

As part of this, policymakers worldwide are striving to foster their own versions of Silicon Valley. They have invested to create ecosystems abundant with ambitious startups backed by venture capital investors. Their ultimate aim is to see these firms develop into what are known as scale-ups and compete in global markets.

But if governments – from Berlin and Brussels to Ho Chi Minh City – are to find their edge, I argue they should follow a model closer to Seoul or Tokyo’s playbook than that of Silicon Valley.

South Korean and Japanese policymakers have long understood that the proliferation of startup activity should not be an isolated aim. In our 2025 book, Startup Capitalism, my colleague Ramon Pacheco Pardo and I revealed that the approach of these countries sees national champion firms like Samsung and Toyota use startups as resources to help them compete internationally.

As the head of a government-backed startup centre in Seoul told me, a key aim of South Korean government policy for startups is to “inject innovative DNA” into the country’s large firms. Policies attempt to embed startups into the fabric of lead firms, and do not try to disrupt their competitive positions.

For this objective, the Silicon Valley playbook is sub-optimal. US government policy has enabled venture capital investment through regulatory changes and has ensured that talented people are free to challenge their former employers. Classic examples include the so-called “traitorous eight” who left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor.

A more recent example is Anthony Levandowski, who left Google’s self-driving car project to start his own company, Otto, in 2016. The competition was so close that Google sued Uber – as it had acquired Otto – in 2019 over the trade secrets Levandowski allegedly used to develop his self-driving truck company. Uber eventually paid Google a “substantial portion” of the US$179 million (£134 million) it was awarded initially in arbitration.

Injecting innovative DNA

The Japanese and Korean formula is distinct. South Korea’s 17 Centres for the Creative Economy and Innovation, established about ten years ago to drive innovation and entrepreneurship, each have one of the country’s large firms (chaebol) as an anchor partner. The chaebol’s industrial focus – whether it’s shipbuilding, electronics or heavy machinery – is reflected in the focus of the startups engaging with that centre.

The startups work on issues “that keep the large firm up at night” and, in return, the startups have unparalleled access to distribution channels, marketing and proof-of-concept testing. While the centres have not produced volumes of globally competitive scale-ups, they have delivered on the aim of injecting innovative ideas and talent into large companies like Hyundai, LG Electronics and SK Group.

In Japan, tax incentives encourage big businesses to acquire startups. The “open innovation tax incentive” allows a 25% deduction from the price of the acquisition. The aim here is to encourage Japan’s national champion firms to integrate startups into their core businesses. In 2024, for example, Toyota integrated high-tech wheelchair startup, Whill, into its mobility services offering.

Various government initiatives also aim to provide coaching and mentoring for startups around raising venture capital funding and sharpening a pitch for demo day. In Japan and Korea, these initiatives embed big business throughout.

In J-Startup, an initiative aimed at creating a cohort of so-called unicorns (startups valued at over US$1 billion), the Japanese government involves industrial leaders as judges that help select applicants for the programme. These people then act as coaches and mentors to the startups. Japan’s lead firms are, in return, exposed to innovative technologies and startup culture.

In a similar way, Korea’s K-Startup Grand Challenge connects participating foreign startups with the country’s chaebol for proof-of-concept development. The Korean government cites partnership and licensing agreements between the parties as an important outcome of the programme. Through these connections, Korea’s big businesses have another mechanism for accessing innovative ideas and talent from abroad.

Governments that want to compete with China or the US cannot continue on their existing path. They need to do something different, and Japan and South Korea’s approach offers an alternative.

These approaches are not without downsides. There is, of course, the risk of well-resourced corporations operating “kill zones” around their business lines. This might involve early low-value mergers and acquisitions, or even copying their products in a bid to eliminate them.

The central position of large firms to the economy also means that the innovation agenda of startups is set by incumbent firms. This fosters complementary products, and not those that disrupt – and ultimately improve – domestic firms or technologies. There’s also the worry of perceived corruption.

But I argue that pursuing a half-committed strategy is riskier. If governments maintain a wall between big business and startups, believing this is essential to minimise corruption and that large firms will innovate just as startups will scale-up into larger firms, they risk underwhelming outcomes on all levels.

We may see flailing productivity in the sectors in which countries have excelled. And scale-ups will fail to materialise while populations of “zombie startups”, that simply stagnate while propped up on state largesse, increase.

Startups should be considered as resources to boost nationwide industrial capabilities, not efforts aimed at seeding a country’s answer to Silicon Valley’s Google or OpenAI.

Robyn Klingler-Vidra does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Japan and South Korea can show governments how to compete with China and US – https://theconversation.com/japan-and-south-korea-can-show-governments-how-to-compete-with-china-and-us-260623

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Lamont, Research Fellow, Marine Biology, Lancaster University

Why do people care about coral reefs? Why does their damage cause such concern and outrage? What drives people to go to great lengths to protect and restore them?

Of course, it’s partly because of their ecological importance and economic value – but it’s also because they are beautiful. Healthy coral reefs are among the most visually spectacular ecosystems on the planet – and this beauty is far from superficial. It underpins cultural heritage value, supports tourism industries, encourages ocean stewardship and deepens people’s emotional connections to the sea.

But how can such beauty be measured? And when it is destroyed, can it be rebuilt?

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Traditionally, many coral reef monitoring and restoration programmes overlook their beauty, considering it too subjective to measure. And as a team of scientists, that frustrated us. We knew that to most effectively draw on this key motivator for coral conservation, we had to be able to measure beauty.

In some ways, it’s an impossible task. But our new study grapples with this challenge, delivering a way of quantifying the aesthetic value of a coral reef, as well as measuring its recovery when previously damaged reefs are restored.

Our international team of marine scientists has been working at the Mars coral restoration programme (the largest project of its kind) in central Indonesia. Here, local communities and international businesses have collaborated for over a decade, rebuilding reefs that were once decimated by dynamite fishing. This illegal fishing method uses explosives to stun and kill fish for easy collection, while shattering coral reefs into rubble – wiping out entire reef communities in seconds.

This Indonesian project has already successfully regrown coral reefs. But we wanted to explore whether this programme had been able to recreate the visual appeal of a natural reef ecosystem.

We took standardised seabed photos using settings that automatically adjust white balance and colour to compensate for underwater light conditions. This enabled us to capture accurate colours under consistent shallow-water conditions across healthy, degraded and restored reef sites.

Then we conducted online surveys with more than 3,000 participants, asking them to compare pairs of photographs and choose which they found more beautiful – enabling us to derive a rating for each photograph. Our results showed that people from very different backgrounds consistently shared similar opinions on which reefs were beautiful.

Whether respondents were young or old, from countries with coral reefs or without, or had different levels of education and familiarity with the ocean, they tended to favour images with high coral cover, vibrant colours and complex coral structures. This suggests there is a shared human appreciation for the beauty of thriving reefs.

We also used these ratings to train a machine-learning algorithm based on AI to reliably predict people’s visual preferences for photographs of different coral habitats.

The results of people’s survey responses and the machine learning algorithm were the same. Images of restored reefs were consistently rated just as beautiful as those of healthy reefs, and far more aesthetically pleasing than degraded reefs. This is encouraging, and important. It shows that efforts to rebuild these charismatic ecosystems can recreate the beauty that makes them so highly valued.

Tracking recovery

We found that beauty was strongly linked to the number of colours present in the picture, the proportion of the image taken up by living coral, and the complexity of shapes exhibited by the corals. Meanwhile, images showing grey rubble fields of dead corals with little life were consistently rated lowest.

Our results suggest that promoting a range of different coral colours and shapes will not only help marine life, but also restore the visual, cultural and tourism value of thriving coral reefs. Reef restoration experts can achieve this by choosing donor corals – healthy corals transplanted to degraded sites to aid recovery – to add colour and variety to the reefs they plant.

This also means that coral reef recovery can be tracked using simple photo-based monitoring, like that used in our study.

Coral reefs need long-term care to help them survive, thrive and maintain their beauty and ecological function. To ensure that initial restoration gains are not quickly lost, such efforts need to be paired with ongoing monitoring and maintenance. Any tourism development around restored reefs also needs to be managed carefully and sustainably.

Restoration and sustainable tourism practices can help protect and sustain the ecological and social benefits of beautiful, healthy reefs. Ultimately, restoring beautiful reefs will be crucial for communities that rely on marine tourism, and for inspiring people to care for the ocean.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Tim Lamont receives funding from the Royal Commission of 1851 and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

Gita Alisa receives funding from Friends of Lancaster University in America and Sheba Hope Advocate Program.

Tries Blandine Razak receives funding from the Pew Charitable Trust and the Fisheries Society of the British Isles.

– ref. The beauty of coral reefs is key to their survival – so we came up with a way to measure it – https://theconversation.com/the-beauty-of-coral-reefs-is-key-to-their-survival-so-we-came-up-with-a-way-to-measure-it-261013

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Herbs like ashwagandha and turmeric are now widely recognised as part of the global wellness lexicon. But ayurveda, India’s traditional system of medicine with a history spanning more than 3,000 years, encompasses a much broader range of therapeutic plants.

Grounded in principles of balance between body, mind and spirit, ayurvedic medicine relies on diet, lifestyle and natural substances to prevent and treat disease. Beyond the familiar, a number of lesser known herbs and spices are now gaining attention for their potential health benefits.

Here are three ayurvedic botanicals worth knowing more about:

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

1. Bitter melon (momordica charantia)

Despite its name, bitter melon’s benefits may be surprisingly sweet. Also called bitter gourd, this bumpy green vegetable has long been used in Ayurveda to support blood sugar control, combat infections and address inflammation, high cholesterol and even cancer.

Laboratory studies suggest bitter melon can fight microbes like E. coli, Salmonella, herpes viruses and even malaria parasites. Early research also points to potential anti-cancer properties, particularly in breast cancer, where it may interfere with how cancer cells grow and communicate. However, most of this evidence comes from lab and animal studies; large-scale trials in humans are still lacking.

Where bitter melon shows the strongest promise is in diabetes management. It contains several bioactive compounds – charantin (a plant steroid), polypeptide-p (a plant-derived insulin-like protein) and cucurbitanoids (a group of anti-inflammatory compounds) – which may mimic the effects of insulin, support its production, or improve the body’s use of glucose. In one study, bitter melon extract significantly lowered fasting blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes after four weeks.

How it works isn’t clear. It may help the pancreas produce insulin, protect insulin producing cells, or increase sugar uptake by the muscles. But the effects can be powerful, and when combined with diabetes medications, may cause blood sugar to drop too low. If you’re taking medication, it’s important to monitor your levels closely.

Animal studies have also linked high doses to miscarriage risk, so pregnant people should eat it in moderation.

2. Fenugreek (trigonella foenum-graecum)

Fenugreek is a botanical multitasker. Depending on the part of the plant used, it can function as a herb, spice, or vegetable. Across various cultures, fenugreek has traditionally been used to relieve menstrual cramps, support breastfeeding and manage blood sugar.

Emerging clinical evidence suggests fenugreek may help regulate cholesterol. It contains several potentially active compounds: sapogenins (plant-based compounds that enhance bile flow), pectin (a type of soluble fibre that binds to cholesterol in the digestive tract) and phytosterols (plant sterols that compete with cholesterol for absorption in the gut). Together, these may reduce fat absorption, block cholesterol uptake and promote cholesterol elimination by the liver. Fenugreek also contains antioxidants that may protect the heart and support healthy fat metabolism.

It’s also gaining attention for blood sugar control. Fenugreek may slow carbohydrate digestion, reduce glucose absorption in the gut and enhance insulin release. Some longer-term studies show it can reduce both post-meal and fasting blood sugar levels, though findings are mixed.

Fenugreek may also support lactation. It’s been classified as a galactagogue – a substance that promotes milk production – possibly by boosting key hormones: insulin (which helps regulate metabolism), prolactin (which stimulates milk production), and oxytocin (which triggers the let-down reflex during breastfeeding). In one study, mothers who drank fenugreek tea produced more breast milk than those in control groups. But as with many natural remedies, evidence is mixed, and placebo effects may play a role. It’s best to consult a healthcare provider before using fenugreek for breastfeeding support.

Some trials suggest fenugreek may help increase testosterone in men – improving libido, reducing body fat and boosting energy – especially when paired with strength training. However, more robust studies are needed.

Side effects are mostly mild and gastrointestinal, such as nausea, bloating or diarrhoea. Most studies have used relatively low doses, so it’s unclear what risks might exist at higher intake levels.

3. Asafoetida (ferula asafoetida)

You might know asafoetida as that strong-smelling spice often used in Indian cooking, but it’s also a respected digestive remedy in Ayurveda. Derived from the dried sap of ferula plant roots, asafoetida is known for easing bloating and gas.

Its active compound, ferulic acid, may help digest complex carbs and reduce flatulence. In a clinical trial, asafoetida supplements significantly improved indigestion symptoms, including bloating, early fullness and heartburn. It appears to stimulate digestive enzymes and bile production, improving fat digestion.

Asafoetida may also support people with irritable bowel syndrome. In one study, two weeks of asafoetida supplements led to improvements in IBS symptoms, though results have been mixed overall.

Early lab studies suggest even more benefits – potential antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects, as well as roles in regulating blood pressure, easing asthma and possibly reducing blood sugar. But again, human trials are needed to confirm these effects.

Caution is warranted if you’re taking blood pressure medications or anticoagulants like warfarin, as asafoetida may lower blood pressure and thin the blood.

Read more:
Ashwagandha: this ancient herb is trending for its potential health benefits – but also comes with risks

Ancient remedies, modern caution

Although research in humans is still developing, these lesser-known ayurvedic botanicals have been trusted in traditional medicine for centuries. They may offer promising support in managing chronic conditions or enhancing overall wellbeing, but they’re not without risk.

Small amounts used in cooking are generally safe. But if you’re considering supplements or therapeutic doses, it’s important to speak with a healthcare professional, especially if you’re pregnant, taking medication, or managing a medical condition.

Used wisely, these ancient ingredients could bridge the gap between holistic healing and modern science, bringing a little balance to both your kitchen and your health.

Dipa Kamdar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Bitter melon for diabetes? Fenugreek for cholesterol? The research behind ancient remedies – https://theconversation.com/bitter-melon-for-diabetes-fenugreek-for-cholesterol-the-research-behind-ancient-remedies-259300

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexandra Fanghanel, Associate Professor in Criminology, University of Greenwich

New government guidance for England will see pupils at secondary schools taught about the risks of choking and suffocation in sex and relationships education. If you’re a parent, the idea of this topic being introduced to your child might sound alarming.

But as an academic expert researching risky sexual practices, I believe this inclusion – and the way it’s presented – is absolutely a good thing. We can’t ignore that choking is becoming a more normalised part of sex for young people. To keep them safe, they need to know about it – and how dangerous it is.

The Department for Education guidance states that by the end of secondary education, schools should cover: “That strangulation and suffocation are criminal offences, and that strangulation (applying pressure to the neck) is an offence, regardless of whether it causes injury. That any activity that involves applying force or pressure to someone’s neck or covering someone’s mouth and nose is dangerous and can lead to serious injury or death.”

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Though this stipulation does not explicitly link strangulation to sex, it marks a step in the right direction. Add to this acknowledgement that any sexual practice that explores these themes should only occur if participants are informed about the dangers, and we start some of the work of raising awareness of the risks associated with strangulation during sex.

Research from the US which surveyed nearly 5,000 undergraduate students – with an average age of 20 – found that 58% of the women had experienced choking during sex. In the UK, a 2024 survey of 2,344 people found that 16% had taken part in choking during sex. But this rose to over a third of younger people aged 16 to 35.

In 2020, I was teaching a postgraduate module on sexuality, gender and crime. In one of the classes about unconventional sexual expression and sexual subcultures, we were talking about bondage and sadomasochism (BDSM) and rough sex, including practices such as choking and strangulation. I remember one of the students was incredulous – not that people enjoy choking for sexual gratification, but that some people weren’t doing it. “Surely everyone does choking during sex,” she declared.

I was really taken aback by her certainty that this practice was normal. I said to her, and the class, that choking is one of the most dangerous things you can do in a sexual encounter – but it struck me that the message of this risk is getting lost in representations of “kinky” sex in the mainstream.

It has become so ordinary, it is even treated as a joke: in episode four of the new season of the BBC comedy Such Brave Girls, Josie, a lesbian, pretends to be hypersexually attracted to her husband, Seb, and goads him into having sex with her. As she recoils under his touch, she cries “choke me” while thrusting his hand on to her neck.

This, according to social psychologist and sexuality expert Nicola Gavey, is the “mythology of everyday kink”: that everyone is doing it, that this is how we have sex now.

Knowing the risk

Choking really is dangerous. According to campaign group We Can’t Consent To This, instances where women have been killed during a sexual encounter in the UK, often as a result of choking, have increased significantly over the past 50 years.

Since 2020, I have been researching rough sex gone wrong, and what happens when these cases go to court: my book on this topic is coming out later this year. My research demonstrates that more education about unconventional sexual expression is needed, so that people who are curious about it can explore it from a risk-aware, empowered vantage point. This includes knowing which aspects of rough sex can not ever be done safely.

The issue is that people, including young people, are curious about being choked during sex. Some people want to do it. Some people find it arousing. Some find it exciting, even if it is also scary. Simply denying that these desires or curiosities exist makes it much more difficult for people to explore rough sex in an informed or risk-aware way.

It’s only by talking about it candidly that young people can learn there is absolutely no safe way to strangle or choke their partner, and that there are other ways to explore these more unconventional desires.

BDSM educator Jay Wiseman has noted that in his experience, the more people know about how unpredictable and risky suffocation and strangulation is, the fewer choose to do it.

This is how we can deal with dangerous, reckless sexual practice and better protect women, who are disproportionately harmed or killed in these cases.

Alexandra Fanghanel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Sex education in England to include warnings about choking – what parents need to know – https://theconversation.com/sex-education-in-england-to-include-warnings-about-choking-what-parents-need-to-know-261224

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham

Sex and relationships education for children at primary and secondary state-funded schools in England will see significant changes following the release of new statutory guidance from the government. There are some stark differences between this and the draft guidance issued by the previous Conservative government in May 2024.

The new guidance also looks different in many ways to the last statutory guidance, released in 2019. It includes many new and valuable topics such as the law around strangulation, sextortion, upskirting, deepfakes, suicide prevention and bereavement. Schools are also required to challenge misogynistic ideas, cover misogynistic influencers and online content, and explore prejudice and pornography.

As a researcher working on sex education and masculinity, I see many positives in how these issues are approached in the government’s new guidance. The new topics are a move in the right direction, meeting the needs of the pupils being taught.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Another key change is the removal of the proposal to put age restrictions on the teaching of certain topics. This is welcome news: it aligns with evidence and allows teachers to design sex education that takes context into account. It means they can teach their pupils what they need to know in a proactive and responsive way.

The guidance also explicitly mentions giving pupils the opportunity to discuss incels. Incel, an abbreviation of “involuntary celibate”, refers to those who identify as wanting romantic and sexual partners but find it difficult to achieve this.

Online incel communities are underpinned by hostility towards women, resentment, misogyny and the support of extreme violence against women. They may espouse an ideological position that claims societal structures are set up to unfairly disadvantage them.

Keeping boys in the conversation

One aspect included in the guidance is that it is important for pupils to understand that “most boys and young men are respectful to girls and young women and each other”. It also states that “teachers should avoid language which stigmatises boys, or suggests that boys or men are always perpetrators or that girls or women are always victims”.

These are really important points that need to underpin the teaching of misogyny and online incel culture. A risk is that such teaching may otherwise portray boys, as a group, as perpetrators. This can create a culture of blame that may alienate boys and young men. Instead, seeing boys as valuable contributors to these conversations around misogyny can foster educational progress.

Another important reference in the guidance is that children and young people should have opportunities to develop “positive conceptions of masculinity and femininity”, and how to “identify and learn from positive male role models”.

This focus on positive examples of masculinity is a welcome way to support boys and young men in developing healthy identities – not only considering gender but other intersecting aspects of their identity, such as class, ethnicity, culture and values.

Good relationships and sex education needs dialogue and understanding between pupils, teachers and parents. For adults, this means knowing the landscape first. Familiarisation with why young people may be attracted to problematic online spaces will be useful.

These online spaces often offer a skewed sense of belonging, and offer simplistic answers to complex emotions and questions. Young people’s thoughts and opinions of misogynist online influencers may be contradictory, rather than simple approval or disapproval. This requires thoughtful unpicking of concepts and ideals, and open conversation rather than blame. It is also important to recognise that teaching these topics is not easy, and that teachers may need support too.

New content

While much of the new guidance is welcome, it’s important that teacher training and professional development keeps pace with these changes. Teachers may not feel confident addressing such a broad range of often-sensitive topics without support.

The guidance also falls short of making relationships and sex education statutory for those aged 16-18 in sixth-form colleges, 16-19 academies or further education colleges, despite evidence that it is very much needed for this age group.

The rights of transgender people and the issues affecting them are dealt with in a limited way, which could affect teachers’ ability to have supportive conversations with trans and non-binary pupils. There is also limited detail for those working in special education for pupils with complex needs.

One of the most important aspects of teaching on sex and relationships is to create a safe space for open discussion.

Young people should be encouraged to provide their own input into how relationships and sex education is taught, and to give their ideas on what they feel they need to learn about – and what they already know. While this approach is often overlooked, meaningful engagement with pupils is highlighted as a key guiding principle in the new guidance.

Young people are the experts on the world they inhabit. It is essential they are listened to to ensure that lessons are relevant and effective.

Sophie King-Hill receives funding from the ESRC.

– ref. Incels, misogyny, role models: what England’s new relationships and sex education lessons will cover – and how young people will benefit – https://theconversation.com/incels-misogyny-role-models-what-englands-new-relationships-and-sex-education-lessons-will-cover-and-how-young-people-will-benefit-261217

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Penn, Lecturer in Roman and Late Antique Material Culture, University of Reading

Excavations at the Roman fort of Magna near Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland in north east England have uncovered some very large leather footwear. Their discovery, according to some news coverage, has “baffled” archaeologists.

The survival of the shoes is not by itself miraculous or unusual. Excellent preservation conditions caused by waterlogged environments with low-oxygen means that leather, and other organic materials, survive in the wet soil of this part of northern England.

Many years of excavations by the Vindolanda Trust at Vindolanda just south of Hadrian’s Wall, and now at Magna, have recovered an enormous collection of Roman shoes. These finds have provided us with an excellent record of the footwear of soldiers and the civilians who lived around them.

The shoes from Magna stand out because many of them are big. Big shoes have also been found at Vindolanda. However, of those whose size can be determined, only 0.4% are big. The average shoe size at Vindolanda is 9.5 to 10.2 inches in length, which is between a modern UK shoe size 7 to 8.

Big shoes make up a much larger share of the shoes at Magna. The biggest shoe is a whopping 12.8 inches long, roughly equivalent to a modern UK size 12 to 14.

This shoe collection raises an immediate and obvious question: why did people at Magna have such large shoes?

The possible answers to this question raise more questions and bring to the fore a central component of archaeological research: a good debate.

Emma Frame, senior archaeologist for the Magna excavations, suggests: “We have to assume it’s something to do with the people living here, having bigger feet, being potentially taller but we don’t know.”

This idea of bigger feet, bigger people makes a good deal of sense, though it would suggest that some of the military community at Magna were very tall indeed. And, as the Roman cemeteries of Hadrian’s Wall have been little excavated or studied, we have little information about how tall people were in this part of the Roman world.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Other ideas might be worth entertaining too, however. For example, could these be some kind of snowshoes or winter boots meant to allow extra layers of padding or multiple pairs of socks to be worn?

A letter, preserved by similar conditions to the shoes at Vindolanda, refers to a gift of socks and underpants that was sent to someone stationed there, presumably to keep them warm during the cold winter nights. We also know from other evidence that Syrian archers made up one of the units stationed at Magna. These men would not have been used to the frosty climate of northern England.

Could these large shoes be an attempt to cope with the bitter shock of a British winter? Or instead, could these shoes have a medical purpose, perhaps to allow people with swollen feet or people utilising medical dressings to wear shoes?

It’s important to note, I am not claiming to have the answers. I’m simply putting out some hypotheses which could explain the extra-large shoes based on other evidence we have and potential logical explanations for such large footwear.

These kinds of hypotheses lie right at the heart of the archaeological method. Fresh archaeological discoveries are made everyday, and they often make headlines with phrases about “baffled archaeologists.” While this language can spark public interest, it also risks giving a misleading impression of the discipline. In reality, the work archaeologists like me and thousands of my colleagues around the world do is grounded in careful, evidence-based analysis.

The challenge lies not in our lack of expertise, but in the nature of the evidence itself. Much of the distant past has been lost to time, and what we do recover represents only a small fragment of the original picture.

We’re not so much “baffled” as we are rigorously testing multiple hypotheses to arrive at the most plausible interpretations. Interpreting these fragments is a complex process, like piecing together a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle with many of the most crucial pieces (like the edges) missing.

Sometimes we have exactly the right pieces to understand the big picture, but other times we have gaps, and we have to put forward a series of different suggestions until more evidence comes to light.

Tim Penn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Big Roman shoes discovered near Hadrian’s Wall – but they don’t necessarily mean big Roman feet – https://theconversation.com/big-roman-shoes-discovered-near-hadrians-wall-but-they-dont-necessarily-mean-big-roman-feet-256369

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

The 2024 election was the most expensive in British political history, new figures confirm. Across parties, candidates and third parties, a whopping £94.5 million was spent. This compares with £72.6 million in 2019, which was a record high.

Some parties got a fantastic return on their investment. Others, to put it mildly, didn’t. I wouldn’t let those in charge of Conservative party coffers run your household, for example. They spent £23.9 million in 2024 to record their worst electoral showing in recent history.

Given that they won, Labour will consider the £30.1 million they spent on a huge – but shallow – majority money well spent. It is also easily the most they’ve ever spent on an election (although spending limits have recently been increased).

The real winners in 2024 though, certainly in terms of bang for their respective bucks, are Reform and the Lib Dems, both of which only spent around £5.5 million. To put that in direct context, the Lib Dems spent £14.4 million in 2019 for a far poorer result.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

This also means that Reform entered parliament for the first time, won five seats and came second in 98 others on a relatively shoestring budget. They laid the groundwork for completely upending the British political system while only spending a fraction of what the established parties did.

A striking thing about the Reform spending is quite how much they used traditional media. Although they have a reputation for social media success, they spent £900,000 advertising with the Mail Online, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and the Telegraph – and £300,000 advertising with The Sun. In fact, at a time when we talk of the power of data-driven microtargeting on social networks, it seems they spent £2.2 million (40% of their total expenditure) on what we would understand as “traditional” media advertising.

Money does not reflect reality

These elections were fought under different rules and significantly higher spending limits than in previous contests. In 2023, the Conservatives raised how much parties could spend by 80%, to bring it in line with inflation (the prior spending limit was set in the year 2000). This meant parties could spend just over £34m in 2024 – but only Labour came close to this limit.

It’s clear, looking at these figures, that the money spent does not reflect political reality. The two traditional parties continue to spend far more than others, but the results from 2024 make a mockery of the spending limits currently in place.

Spending limits are implemented by those regulating money in politics to prevent money playing an outsize role. It is supposed to level the playing field in the same way that wage caps in certain sports intend to.

But if only two parties can even get close to the spending limit, with others fighting for scraps – albeit much more effectively – what is the need for the limit to be so high? And, as Reform and the Liberal Democrats have shown, a party can get its message out very well without coming anywhere near the spending limit.

Perhaps, given concerns about the rising power of mega-donors in UK politics – especially after Elon Musk’s threat of a £70 million donation to Reform – we should be thinking more carefully about limiting donations in UK politics. The financial story of the 2024 election, at least from a first glance, is one of complete profligacy from Labour and the Conservatives.

The wrong reforms ahead

On the same day as these figures were released, the government announced major reforms for the next election. These include votes at 16 and new rules on donations. My view, however, is that these reforms represent about the least ambitious approach one could take if the stated aim (which it apparently is) is the restoration of public trust. They wouldn’t, for example, prevent Musk from donating £70 million through X if he so pleased.

Spending limits are no longer fit for purpose. Instead, limits on donations are the only game in town. At the very least, corporate donations should be tied to profits in the UK – but above and beyond this, a cap of £1 million to £2 million should be on the table.

Recent experience from the US has shown how quickly an unregulated system can turn into an oligarchy. In 2024, the top 0.01% of donors accounted for over 50% of all money candidates raised. Many donors bankrolled parties to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, crowding out everything else. At least one of those donors went on to run a (quasi) government department.

Finally, it should also be noted that it is over a year after the election, and only now is the lid being lifted on what was spent during it. This is a significant (and unnecessary) failure in a system that holds transparency as its foundational ideal.

The Electoral Commission should be empowered to implement semi-automated AI tools of analysis, to move us closer to the ideal of real-time analysis of election spending (and any potential violations therein).

The 2024 figures show how much the landscape has changed. In the forthcoming elections bill, Labour need to meet the challenges where they actually are, not where they want them to be, if they are serious about restoring trust in politics.

Sam Power receives funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. Reform spent just £5.5m on the 2024 election, while Labour’s majority cost £30m – new data – https://theconversation.com/reform-spent-just-5-5m-on-the-2024-election-while-labours-majority-cost-30m-new-data-261341

Source: ForeignAffairs4

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Nolan, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Liverpool John Moores University

It’s no secret that public finances are tight in the UK. This spells trouble for many sectors, not least culture. After all, this is an area that often relies on public funding – with many projects facing an uncertain future. But in an era of economic bad news, can it be justifiable to pump money into what some see as “frivolous” projects?

For some politicians, investment in cultural infrastructure is an investment in place and in people. This is the hope behind a £270 million fund that aims to boost the resilience of cultural institutions following an era of restricted public spending. There are limitations, and the culture-led approach – as with regeneration projects in general – remains only partially successful and deeply uneven.

From the role of large-scale cultural events like the European Capital of Culture to the so-called “Bilbao effect” (where a new cultural site is thought to spark revitalisation and economic growth), the same questions arise. Who is it for? What type of value is created – and is it shared in equitably?

But the question is also about how we might better understand and measure the value of a cultural site, collection or (re)development.

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Pinning down the meaning of “value” is a tricky philosophical question – one that has long plagued economists. The standard evaluation tool of cost-benefit analysis tries to collapse these debates into a number. That is, a price that can measure the multi-faceted benefits a project can provide.

But in the cultural sphere, value often comes without a price tag. Access to many of our museums and galleries is free and the values derived from them transcend the monetary.

Even though economists can estimate this non-monetary value (albeit not without criticism), a more wide-ranging benefit of cultural investment is harder to understand. This is the counter-intuitive notion of “non-use value”.

In other words, this is the benefit that flows to an individual from the existence of a cultural good such as a museum. It can be without that person ever setting foot inside the building or engaging with any of the collections.

Consider a current culture-led redevelopment in the UK: the Waterfront Transformation Project in Liverpool. This ambitious scheme takes in the redevelopment of the International Slavery Museum, Maritime Museum and associated outdoor spaces.

Within this collection of cultural goods, “use” could be a visitor stepping inside the museums. They may derive multiple benefits, from the aesthetics of the building, the creativity of the displays and the histories and stories represented in the collection.

But what about a history lover who either lacks the desire or the ability to visit the collection? Or someone whose memories or heritage intertwines with the history? Despite having no direct contact, they might still benefit from the sites’ continuing existence: the fact, for example, that a place exists where other citizens can visit, challenge and debate.

For some, there is value simply in knowing that there are spaces for this kind of engagement. In this way, public use by others can generate indirect benefits. These benefits cannot be captured by traditional metrics like footfall. But they constitute value to that individual and, in turn, the communities in which they live.

Assessing value

The inclusion of non-use value within the Treasury’s evaluation recommendations recognises this complex public relationship with cultural goods. Correctly capturing these benefits is crucial. If not, funders may misconstrue a project’s total economic value when they make their decisions. Some that could generate significant public value might be overlooked.

However, non-use value can be slippery both to define and measure. Understanding how engagement with publicly funded cultural goods varies across communities and regions is crucial. This current gap in our knowledge means that non-use value is not always fully considered in the design or evaluation of cultural programmes.

Our ongoing project, undertaken along with post-doctoral research fellow Laura Taggart, attempts to improve this understanding in the context of Liverpool’s Waterfront Development Project.

This process raises vital questions. What are the benefits and potential harms of the site? How do relationships with it change over time and across economic and ethnic groups? And how does the public’s historic relationship with the dockside change the nature of the non-use value generated?

Clearly, the answers to these questions cannot easily be calculated from the results of a cost-benefit analysis. Like most economic tools it is a model – a simplification of reality that aims to help policymakers make informed decisions. By engaging locally and regionally, it is easier to understand what drives non-use value – and capture it in a way that is relevant across other projects.

At heart, our project aims to capture the voices that are often excluded or overlooked in decisions about cultural funding. By developing a better understanding of the range of non-use value from these spaces, we hope to support more rounded approaches to cultural policy.

This means improving evaluation tools and funding frameworks. They must better reflect how people relate to cultural goods and how this differs across communities and regions. This will help in the quest for a richer concept of “value for money” — one that supports political choices that recognise the long-term civic, emotional and historical returns of cultural infrastructure.

Ultimately, in an era of tight budgets this allows for better and more targeted decision-making that recognises the often complex value and benefit flows that culture generates. But there is work to be done to help the public articulate the nature of benefits and costs. These are as vital and complex as the cultural goods that generate them.

This article is part of the wider project – Cultural Heritage, People and Place (CHerPP) : Understanding Value via a regional case study. It is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the UK Government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Grant reference AH/Y000242/1

– ref. When public money is tight, how do governments put a price on culture? – https://theconversation.com/when-public-money-is-tight-how-do-governments-put-a-price-on-culture-259483