NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Pandemic

  • MIL-OSI Global: Scientists around the world report millions of new discoveries every year − but this explosive research growth wasn’t what experts predicted

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By David P. Baker, Professor of Sociology, Education and Demography, Penn State

    The number of research studies published globally has risen exponentially in the past decades. AP Photo/Frank Augstein, file

    Millions of scientific papers are published globally every year. These papers in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine present discoveries that range from the mundane to the profound.

    Since 1900, the number of published scientific articles has doubled about every 10 to 15 years; since 1980, about 8% to 9% annually. This acceleration reflects the immense and ever-growing scope of research across countless topics, from the farthest reaches of the cosmos to the intricacies of life on Earth and human nature.

    Derek de Solla Price wrote an influential book about the growth rate of science.
    The de Solla Price family/Wikimedia Commons

    Yet, this extraordinary expansion was once thought to be unsustainable. In his influential 1963 book, “Little Science, Big Science… And Beyond,” the founder of scientometrics – or data informetrics related to scientific publications – Derek de Solla Price famously predicted limits to scientific growth.

    He warned that the world would soon deplete its resources and talent pool for research. He imagined this would lead to a decline in new discoveries and potential crises in medicine, technology and the economy. At the time, scholars widely accepted his prediction of an impending slowdown in scientific progress.

    Faulty predictions

    In fact, science has spectacularly defied Price’s dire forecast. Instead of stagnation, the world now experiences “global mega-science” – a vast, ever-growing network of scientific discovery. This explosion of scientific production made Price’s prediction of collapse perhaps the most stunningly incorrect forecast in the study of science.

    Unfortunately, Price died in 1983, too early to realize his mistake.

    So, what explains the world’s sustained and dramatically increasing capacity for scientific research?

    We are sociologists who study higher education and science. Our new book, “Global Mega-Science: Universities, Research Collaborations, and Knowledge Production,” published on the 60th anniversary of Price’s fateful prediction, offers explanations for this rapid and sustained scientific growth. It traces the history of scientific discovery globally.

    Factors such as economic growth, warfare, space races and geopolitical competition have undoubtedly spurred research capacity. But these factors alone cannot account for the immense scale of today’s scientific enterprise.

    The education revolution: Science’s secret engine

    In many ways, the world’s scientific capacity has been built upon the educational aspirations of young adults pursuing higher education.

    Funding from higher education supports a large part of the modern scientific enterprise.
    AP Photo/Paul Sancya

    Over the past 125 years, increasing demand for and access to higher education has sparked a global education revolution. Now, more than two-fifths of the world’s young people ages 19-23, although with huge regional differences, are enrolled in higher education. This revolution is the engine driving scientific research capacity.

    Today, more than 38,000 universities and other higher-education institutions worldwide play a crucial role in scientific discovery. The educational mission, both publicly and privately funded, subsidizes the research mission, with a big part of students’ tuition money going toward supporting faculty.

    These faculty scientists balance their teaching with conducting extensive research. University-based scientists contribute 80% to 90% of the discoveries published each year in millions of papers.

    External research funding is still essential for specialized equipment, supplies and additional support for research time. But the day-to-day research capacity of universities, especially academics working in teams, forms the foundation of global scientific progress.

    Even the most generous national science and commercial research and development budgets cannot fully sustain the basic infrastructure and staffing needed for ongoing scientific discovery.

    Likewise, government labs and independent research institutes, such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health or Germany’s Max Planck Institutes, could not replace the production capacity that universities provide.

    Collaboration benefits science and society

    The past few decades have also seen a surge in global scientific collaborations. These arrangements leverage diverse talent from around the world to enhance the quality of research.

    International collaborations have led to millions of co-authored papers. International research partnerships were relatively rare before 1980, accounting for just over 7,000 papers, or about 2% of the global output that year. But by 2010 that number had surged to 440,000 papers, meaning 22% of the world’s scientific publications resulted from international collaborations.

    This growth, building on the “collaboration dividend,” continues today and has been shown to produce the highest-impact research.

    Universities tend to share academic goals with other universities and have wide networks and a culture of openness, which makes these collaborations relatively easy.

    Today, universities also play a key role in international supercollaborations involving teams of hundreds or even thousands of scientists. In these huge collaborations, researchers can tackle major questions they wouldn’t be able to in smaller groups with fewer resources.

    Supercollaborations have facilitated breakthroughs in understanding the intricate physics of the universe and the synthesis of evolution and genetics that scientists in a single country could never achieve alone.

    The IceCube collaboration, a prime example of a global megacollaboration, has made big strides in understanding neutrinos, which are ghostly particles from space that pass through Earth.
    Martin Wolf, IceCube/NSF

    The role of global hubs

    Hubs made up of universities from around the world have made scientific research thoroughly global. The first of these global hubs, consisting of dozens of North American research universities, began in the 1970s. They expanded to Europe in the 1980s and most recently to Southeast Asia.

    These regional hubs and alliances of universities link scientists from hundreds of universities to pursue collaborative research projects.

    Scientists at these universities have often transcended geopolitical boundaries, with Iranian researchers publishing papers with Americans, Germans collaborating with Russians and Ukrainians, and Chinese scientists working with their Japanese and Korean counterparts.

    The COVID-19 pandemic clearly demonstrated the immense scale of international collaboration in global megascience. Within just six months of the start of the pandemic, the world’s scientists had already published 23,000 scientific studies on the virus. These studies contributed to the rapid development of effective vaccines.

    With universities’ expanding global networks, the collaborations can spread through key research hubs to every part of the world.

    Is global megascience sustainable?

    But despite the impressive growth of scientific output, this brand of highly collaborative and transnational megascience does face challenges.

    On the one hand, birthrates in many countries that produce a lot of science are declining. On the other, many youth around the world, particularly those in low-income countries, have less access to higher education, although there is some recent progress in the Global South.

    Sustaining these global collaborations and this high rate of scientific output will mean expanding access to higher education. That’s because the funds from higher education subsidize research costs, and higher education trains the next generation of scientists.

    De Solla Price couldn’t have predicted how integral universities would be in driving global science. For better or worse, the future of scientific production is linked to the future of these institutions.

    David Baker receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Fulbright, FNR
    Luxembourg, and the Qatar Nation Research Fund.

    Justin J.W. Powell has received funding for research on higher education and science from Germany’s BMBF, DFG, and VolkswagenStiftung; Luxembourg’s FNR; and Qatar’s QNRF.

    – ref. Scientists around the world report millions of new discoveries every year − but this explosive research growth wasn’t what experts predicted – https://theconversation.com/scientists-around-the-world-report-millions-of-new-discoveries-every-year-but-this-explosive-research-growth-wasnt-what-experts-predicted-237274

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Mpox anti-vaxx conspiracies target and stigmatise LGBTQ+ people

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen McCarthy, Doctoral Researcher in Criminology and Sociology, York St John University

    According to some conspiracy theorists posting on alternative, uncensored social media networks, Mpox is another “scamdemic”, created by a powerful elite to cull populations and generate profit for “big pharma”. According to these social media users, anyone who takes the Mpox vaccine inevitably faces heart attack and death.

    Other Mpox conspiracies target hate at LGBTQ+ people.

    Through my PhD research into anti-vaccination misinformation, I’ve collected thousands of social media posts, videos, images and links from anti-vaccination Telegram channels, Substack newsletters and Gab groups. Gab Social is a social networking site known for hosting right-wing political content. These platforms are unique in their permissive approach to moderation. Users can post virtually anything they want without restraint.

    According to 2023 research, platforms like Gab have become the home of many “alt-right” content creators who have been de-platformed from mainstream social media channels like Facebook and Instagram. Mpox misinformation is thriving in these online locations.

    Sexuality and stigma

    In the early days of the COVID pandemic, a study identified that misinformation on social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter) and YouTube frequently blamed specific social groups for infection surges. Now, it’s MPox’s turn.

    One Substack creator, for example, considers gay and bisexual men engaging in “high-risk sexual behaviour” a threat to the heterosexual population. He argues abstinence is the only solution – but only for men who have sex with men.

    As well as accusing gay and bisexual men of having a “perverted lifestyle that goes against nature and God’s laws”, some anti-vaxx content creators stigmatise people with Mpox as a hidden enemy, who could be “teaching in schools and indoctrinating children”.

    One common anti-vaxx conspiracy theory is “vaccine shedding”. This is the idea that vaccinated people can harm the unvaccinated through any kind of contact. One online conspiracy states the Mpox vaccine is particularly prone to shedding. Gay and bisexual men, then, are portrayed as dangerous whether they’re vaccinated or not.

    Mpox is routinely characterised by conspiracy theorists as a virus for immoral people. As a result, some anti-vaxx perspectives are shockingly callous – one commenter claims they wouldn’t care at all if “the gays and communists” died from the Mpox vaccine.

    Misinformation surrounding Mpox and the vaccine is peppered with such homophobic narratives of infection and contamination – and it’s familiar territory. People suffering from HIV and Aids in the 1980s and 1990s were relentlessly stigmatised as a dangerous other.

    While online conspiracy theories present those with Mpox as a menace, in reality, there have only been a small number of mild Mpox cases identified in the UK since 2022. Though the majority of confirmed cases of Mpox in the UK have been in gay and bisexual men – and Mpox can be transmitted through close sexual contact – people can also become infected if they’re exposed to coughing and sneezing, or share clothing, bedding and towels with an infected person.

    Moderation and misinformation

    In August 2024, a new strain of Mpox was identified in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and some neighbouring countries. An estimated 10 million vaccines are needed to meet demand in affected African nations. In September 2024, the UK government ordered 150,000 doses of an Mpox vaccine to be distributed among gay and bisexual men and healthcare and humanitarian workers who may be exposed.

    Just as many of us might check a reliable, verified medical source to find out more about Mpox, so alternative social media users look to the sources they trust. This commonly includes doctors blowing the whistle on alleged vaccine injury, conspiracy theory “news” sites and prominent right wing figures like Tucker Carlson. People selling alternative remedies and products promising miraculous detox are never far away to profit from vaccine misinformation.

    Users share these sources across Gab groups, comment threads and Telegram channels, layering their own beliefs on top. This generates even more views and shares, which is one of the reasons why social media is such a good incubator for conspiracy theories and misinformation.

    Another reason is the lack of content moderation on alternative social media sites. Substack describes itself as “a place for independent writing”. Users are not supposed to share any content which incites violence, contains sex or nudity, or illegal activity. Telegram takes a similar approach. Gab also draws the line at illegal content, but mainly encourages users to hide content they don’t want to see or ignore it.

    The arguments for or against unrestrained free speech on the internet are complex. But sites like Gab reveal what an unmoderated internet can look like – hate of every variety can find a home here if that’s what the users choose to post. Mpox is just another topic to generate even more shareable content.

    Helen McCarthy 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. How Mpox anti-vaxx conspiracies target and stigmatise LGBTQ+ people – https://theconversation.com/how-mpox-anti-vaxx-conspiracies-target-and-stigmatise-lgbtq-people-239981

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Statement of the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors Group (09 May 2022)

    Source: Republic of France in English
    The Republic of France has issued the following statement:

    1. We, the G7 Non-Proliferation Directors Group, reiterate the G7´s profound condemnation of Russia’s premeditated, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war of choice against Ukraine, enabled by the Belarusian government. We condemn in the strongest terms the numerous atrocities committed by Russian armed forces in Ukraine. We reaffirm our solidarity with the Ukrainian people and our support to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Russia’s ongoing war of aggression is a blatant violation of international law with severe consequences for international security, including global non-proliferation efforts. We condemn Russia’s disinformation campaign and we warn against any threat or use of chemical or biological weapons. We recall Russia’s obligations under international treaties of which it is a party, and which protect us all. Any use by Russia of such a weapon would be unacceptable and result in further consequences. We condemn Russia’s unjustified use of nuclear rhetoric and signalling. We urge Russia to behave responsibly and exercise restraint.

    2. Besides these deeply disturbing actions of unprecedented scale, our efforts to strengthen non-proliferation have been severely tested in past years. The increasing use of chemical weapons, rapidly evolving biological threats, destabilizing transfer and deployment of conventional weapons, and targeted appropriation of emerging technology all have a considerable impact as does the growing threat of nuclear proliferation and emerging threats to outer space security. Some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals and investing in novel nuclear technologies and weapons systems. Against this highly challenging background, the G7 remains committed to working together, including with our partners, to defend and strengthen international law, norms and institutions and to build a more secure, more stable, and safer world.

    3. In view of the 10th Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in August 2022, we are united in our resolve to comprehensively strengthen the NPT, promote its universalisation, reinforce the importance of commitments made at past Review Conferences and advance implementation of the Treaty across all three of its mutually reinforcing pillars. We underline the authority and primacy of the NPT as the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear technology. We resolutely support the Review Conference President-designate, Ambassador Gustavo Zlauvinen, and commit to working with all NPT States Parties in good faith in the lead up to and during the Review Conference towards achieving a positive outcome.

    4. The G7 reaffirms its commitment to the ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons with undiminished security for all, achieved through concrete, practical, and purposeful steps. The overall decline in global nuclear arsenals must be sustained and not reversed. We welcome diplomatic pathways that offer real possibilities for advancing the universal disarmament goals of the NPT, as promoted through key initiatives such as the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification (IPNDV), the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative, the Stockholm Initiative on Nuclear Disarmament, and Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament.

    5. We welcome efforts by the G7 Nuclear Weapon States to promote effective measures, such as strategic risk reduction, transparency and confidence building measures on their postures, doctrines, and capabilities, which are critical to making progress towards disarmament under the NPT. The G7 underlines that all Nuclear Weapon States have the responsibility to engage actively and in good faith in arms control dialogues. We welcome the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapon States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races of 3 January 2022, including the important affirmation that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. However, we deplore Russia’s provocative statements about raising its nuclear alert levels, which undermines the credibility of Russia’s commitment to this Joint Statement.

    6. Recalling our statements of 15 March and 7 April 2022, we condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including forcefully seizing control of nuclear facilities and other actions that pose serious threats to the safety and security of these facilities and endanger the population of Ukraine, neighbouring states, and the international community. We support the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi’s efforts to ensure the nuclear safety and security of, and the application of safeguards to, nuclear material and facilities in Ukraine as a matter of urgency, while respecting full Ukrainian sovereignty over its territory and infrastructure. We urge Russia’s leadership to immediately withdraw its military forces from Ukraine, cease all violent actions against nuclear and radiological facilities in Ukraine and restore full control to Ukrainian authorities over all facilities within its internationally recognized borders to ensure their safe and secure operations.

    7. The G7 is united in its resolve to promote the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). We underline the urgent need to bring this treaty into force pursuant to Article XIV of the CTBT, and we support Italy as co-coordinator of these efforts. A universal and effectively verifiable CTBT constitutes a fundamental instrument in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Pending the entry into force of the Treaty, we call on all states to declare new or maintain existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosions. We also resolutely support the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission and its important work to develop the Treaty’s verification regime.

    8. The G7 is equally committed to, and underlines the importance of, immediate commencement of negotiations – based on document CD/1299 and the mandate contained therein – with the key countries on a treaty banning the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. We remain convinced that the Conference on Disarmament is an appropriate venue to negotiate such an instrument and we call upon countries to make innovative contributions in all appropriate forums, including the 10th Review Conference of the States Parties to the NPT, to facilitate negotiations of such a treaty. Pending those actions, we call on all states that have not yet done so to declare and maintain voluntary moratoria on the production of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons.

    9. The G7 is committed to working towards effective measures for strategic and nuclear risk reduction that enhance mutual comprehension, increase predictability, promote confidence building and establish effective crisis management and prevention tools. We are equally engaging in the development of multilateral nuclear disarmament verification capabilities and we welcome the start of work of the Group of Governmental Experts on nuclear disarmament verification, the Franco-German exercise NuDiVe 2022 conducted in April 2022 and the continuing work of the IPNDV and the Quad Nuclear Verification Partnership by Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. All of this is essential groundwork for achieving the ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, underpinned by transparency, verification and irreversibility.

    10. The G7 welcomed the extension of the New START Treaty in early 2021 and has supported the U.S.-Russian Strategic Stability Dialogue, aimed at laying the foundation for future U.S.-Russia arms control arrangements. The G7 sees the need for arms control to address all nuclear weapons, including new destabilizing weapon systems and non-strategic nuclear weapons. The G7 also supports and encourages wider efforts towards an active arms control dialogue involving China. The G7 regrets that the U.S.-Russian Strategic Stability Dialogue has come to a halt due to Russia’s brutal and unprovoked war on Ukraine.

    11. The G7 also deplores Belarus’s recent referendum and amendment to its Constitution removing Article 18, which pledged to “make its territory a nuclear-free zone.” Belarus’ actions only further increase uncertainty amidst heightened tensions.

    12. Nuclear-weapons-free zones (NWFZ) make important contributions to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. We see the relevant protocols to existing NWFZ treaties as the vehicle for extending to the treaty parties a legally binding negative security assurance. We remain fully committed to the creation of a zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in the Middle East. We firmly believe that this can only be achieved based on consensus arrangements freely arrived at by all states in the region. We acknowledge the efforts made during the first two sessions of the UN Conference on the Establishment of a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction held in 2019 and 2021. Going forward, we underscore the need for inclusive dialogue among the regional states.

    13. The G7 supports universalisation of key safeguards agreements including Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements, the Additional Protocol thereto, and, where applicable, the revised Small Quantities Protocol. A Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement together with an Additional Protocol represents the de facto safeguards standard under the NPT. We echo the IAEA Director General’s call on those states that have yet to bring into force a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement or an Additional Protocol to do so as soon as possible and applaud his efforts to further strengthen the safeguards system. Recalling our strong support for the professional and impartial work of the IAEA, the G7 underscores the importance of streng-thening the effectiveness and optimizing the efficiency of the international safeguards system and ensuring it remains fit for its purpose in the 21st century.

    14. We reaffirm the IAEA’s central role in strengthening cooperation in nuclear security and the commitments in the Ministerial Declaration of the IAEA’s International Conference on Nuclear Security in 2020. We support the IAEA in facilitating the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies in a safe, secure, and sustainable manner. We support aiding the development of new regulatory frameworks for the deployment of next-generation technologies, including small modular reactors. We encourage all Member States, who are able to do so, to make financial and/or technical contributions to enable the IAEA to continue its work.

    15. The G7 commits to promoting full implementation by all states of the highest standards of nuclear safety, security, and safeguards. This is essential to facilitate the safe and the peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology consistent with the NPT, and thereby promote prosperity and address the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

    16. The G7 urges States engaged in nuclear activities to become parties to and fully implement the Convention on Nuclear Safety, the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident, and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency.

    17. The G7 is resolved to increase political attention to the challenges of countering the threat of non-state actors acquiring nuclear and radioactive materials as weapons of terrorism and to accelerate national and international steps to manage the risks posed by such materials. We affirm our commitment to minimise Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stocks globally and encourage states with civil stocks of HEU to further reduce or eliminate them where economically and technically feasible.

    18. The G7 calls on all States that have not yet done so to become parties to and fully implement the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT) and the Amended Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (A/CPPNM). We welcome the positive outcome of the A/CPPNM Review Conference in March-April 2022. We remain steadfast in our support of the IAEA, the Nuclear Security Contact Group, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.

    19. The G7 supports effective implementation of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 (2004) and the work of the 1540 Committee and its Group of Experts. We encourage all states to fully implement the resolution and to offer assistance to interested states.

    20. The G7 actively supports global efforts to enhance education and professional development in the field of non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament and is strongly committed to the integration of gender equality in this field. We are mindful that learning about the realities of any use of nuclear weapons will help strengthen global efforts towards nuclear disarmament. To raise and sustain awareness, we encourage political leaders, the young generation and others to visit the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    21. We renew our support for a restoration and full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A diplomatic solution remains the best way to restrict Iran’s nuclear programme. We commend the participants of the Vienna talks as well as the EU coordinator for their tireless efforts. We urge Iran to seize the offer currently on the table to bring negotiations to a successful conclusion and to refrain from further escalation of its nuclear activities.

    22. We urge Iran to uphold and fully implement all obligations under its NPT-required safeguards agreement with the IAEA. We further urge Iran to provide all required information to enable the IAEA to clarify and resolve outstanding safeguards issues without further delay. The G7 expresses strong support for the crucial verification and monitoring mandate of the IAEA, underscores the technical nature of the IAEA’s independent work, and commends the Director General’s continued professional and impartial efforts. Full and timely cooperation by Iran is essential for the IAEA to assure the international community that all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful uses and eventually reach the Broader Conclusion.

    23. We recall our serious concerns about Iran’s unabated activities related to ballistic missiles “designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology,” which Iran pursues in defiance of UNSCR 2231 (2015). Iran’s space programme is enabling it to test technology that is essential to the development of ballistic missiles, including future long-range delivery systems, as demonstrated again with Iran’s announcement on March 8 of a launch of a military satellite. We urge Iran to cease all these activities and fully abide by UNSCR 2231 (2015). We also remain extremely concerned about Iran’s destabilising activities in and around the Middle East, including transfers of missiles and missile technology, drones and conventional arms to state and non-state actors. Such proliferation is destabilising for the region and escalates already high tensions, as does the use of such weapons in the region, like the attack by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Erbil on 13 March 2022. We urge Iran to stop all activities inconsistent with relevant UNSCRs and call on all parties to play a constructive role in fostering regional stability and peace.

    24. The G7 strongly condemns the continued testing of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), including the recent Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launch conducted on 24 March 2022, which are blatant violations of the DPRK’s obligations under numerous UNSCRs. Since 2021, the DPRK has conducted an unprecedented series of missile tests, including launches of alleged hypersonic weapons using ballistic missiles and a submarine-launched ballistic missile test. These tests demonstrate the DPRK’s continued efforts to expand and further develop its ballistic missile capabilities. We deeply regret that the DPRK has abandoned its self-declared moratorium on ICBM launches. In addition, nuclear activities (such as restarting nuclear reactors and behaviour consistent with fissile material production) have been observed at several nuclear sites since 2020, suggesting an ongoing nuclear program development. All these reckless actions threaten regional and international peace and security, pose a dangerous and unpredictable risk to international civil aviation and maritime navigation in the region and demand a united response by the international community, including further measures to be taken by the UN Security Council.

    25. The G7 remains fully committed to the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea of all its nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles of all ranges, as well as related programs and facilities, consistent with UNSCRs. We strongly urge the DPRK to fully comply with all obligations arising from the relevant UNSCRs, to abandon its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner and to return at an early date to, and fully comply with, the NPT and IAEA safeguards. We call on the DPRK to accept the repeated offers of dialogue put forward by all parties concerned, including the United States, the Republic of Korea, and Japan.

    26. The G7 is committed to working with all relevant partners towards the goal of peace on the Korean Peninsula and to upholding the rules-based international order. We call on all states to fully and effectively implement all restrictive measures relating to the DPRK imposed by the UN Security Council and to address the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and related delivery systems, from the DPRK as an urgent priority, particularly through additional UN Security Council action. We note with concern the report by the Panel of Experts established pursuant to UNSCR 1874 (2009) that illicit ship-to-ship transfers continue to take place. We remain ready to assist in and strengthen capacities for effective sanctions implementation. We are clear that the dire humanitarian situation in the DPRK is primarily the result of the diversion of the DPRK’s resources into unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs rather than into the welfare of its people. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, we commend the work of the 1718 Committee, which has swiftly approved all Covid-19 related sanctions exemption requests for humanitarian assistance for the DPRK.

    27. The G7 intends to bolster efforts to counter the weaponization of biological agents and toxins. Never has it been so urgent for all states to work together to achieve universal adherence to and full compliance with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). Good faith and engagement are essential to overcoming the longstanding stalemate of the Convention in order to meet evolving biological threats stemming from state and non-state actors and to address new developments in science and technology. We intend to work towards a successful Review Conference which would promote effective implementation, increase transparency, enhance compliance and confidence-building measures. Near-term concrete action should include the establishment of a new expert working group to examine concrete measures to strengthen the Convention.

    28. We pledge our continued support to the United Nations Secretary-General’s Mechanism to investigate alleged uses of chemical, biological or toxin weapons. We will firmly resist and condemn any attempts by any state or individual seeking to undermine its integrity, independence, and impartial character and mandate. As the only established international mechanism mandated to investigate alleged uses of biological weapons, we pledge to cooperate with partners to ensure that the mechanism is properly resourced, equipped, and operationalized to conduct effective investigations when needed.

    29. We salute the 20th anniversary of the G7-led, 31-member Global Partnership (GP) against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. With its unparalleled networks, expertise, partnerships, and collective funding, the GP has been instrumental in countering threats posed by chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and materials. The GP’s contribution to global threat reduction has made the world a safer and more secure place. We are committed to coordinated action with the GP to provide leadership to ensure that the GP remains a key contributor to countering persistent and emerging threats.

    30. The G7, as expressed in the 29 March statement of the GP on Ukraine, finds Russia’s unsubstantiated claims concerning alleged biological weapons development in Ukraine outrageous. Such allegations about legitimate biological research for civilian purposes are especially cynical, as the world has suffered a pandemic for two years during which biological laboratories have been of crucial importance to humankind. These allegations are part of Russia’s disinformation campaign against Ukraine and have undermined the subject and purpose of the BTWC and the international rules-based order. Ukraine is a respected member of the GP and the BTWC and has our full support.

    31. We will dedicate further efforts to addressing biological threats in the GP framework. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the far-reaching impact of large-scale disease outbreaks and the importance of strengthening global capacity to prevent, detect and respond to all forms of biological threats, whether deliberate, accidental, or natural. Covid-19 has also accelerated the global life sciences and biotechnology revolution, including the research and development of new diagnostics, vaccines, and treatments for potentially high-consequence pathogens. Substantial improvements are needed in global biosafety, biosecurity, and oversight for dual use research, in order to prevent laboratory accidents and deliberate misuse. We commit to reinforcing existing national efforts, as well as to improving the level of biosafety and biosecurity practices globally. With this imperative, we intend to deepen our health-security cooperation with African partners and other key stakeholders to develop and implement the GP’s signature initiative aimed at mitigating biological threats in Africa. We recognize the significant contribution already made by the G7 and the EU to the GP signature initiative and encourage all GP members to actively contribute to this important initiative.

    32. We are determined to uphold the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons and support the full implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As participating States of the International Partnership against Impunity for the Use of Chemical Weapons, we stand together to reaffirm that any use of chemical weapons by anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances is unacceptable and contravenes international standards and norms against such use. There can be no impunity for chemical weapon use.

    33. We will work towards a successful 2023 Review Conference to strengthen the Convention. We are unwavering in our support of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and its work to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons and we applaud the OPCW’s professionalism and integrity. The G7 seeks to ensure that the OPCW is equipped to continue to fulfil its mandate, including through funding via the GP for important initiatives such as the new Centre for Chemistry and Technology.

    34. We welcome the decision of the OPCW Conference of the States Parties “Understanding Regarding the Aerosolised Use of Central Nervous System-Acting Chemicals for Law Enforcement Purposes” that affirms that the aerosolized use of CNS-acting chemicals is understood to be inconsistent with law enforcement purposes as a “purpose not prohibited” under the Convention. This forward-thinking decision by CWC States Parties sends a strong signal to countries that they cannot hide work on such chemicals for offensive purposes under the guise of legitimate purposes under the Convention.

    35. We condemn attempts to impede the OPCW’s vital work, including investigations, through baseless attacks and outrageous disinformation, notably Russia’s unsubstantiated claims and false allegations that Ukraine was preparing to use chemical weapons. Ukraine is in full compliance with its obligations under the CWC, in stark contrast to Russia’s continued refusal to investigate the well-documented use of a chemical weapon on its own territory, contrary to its obligations under the Convention.

    36. In that context, the G7 reaffirms the statement made by Ministers on 26 January 2021 condemning in the strongest possible terms the poisoning of Alexey Navalny with a military grade chemical nerve agent of the “Novichok” group, a substance developed by the Soviet Union, and retained by Russia. There is no plausible account other than the involvement and responsibility of Russian state actors, as Russia continues to evade all appeals to launch an investigation of the case. We recall the OPCW’s conclusion that a similar nerve agent was used in Salisbury in 2018, resulting in the death of a British citizen, for which three Russian suspects have been charged.

    37. We again urge the Russian authorities to investigate and credibly explain the use of a chemical weapon on its soil considering Russia’s obligations under the CWC. We recall the questions asked on 5 October 2021 by 45 States Parties, including all G7 members, to Russia under Article IX of the CWC, which were not adequately answered by the Russian Federation. We support the statement made by 56 States Parties at the November 2021 OPCW Conference of the States Parties, calling on Russia to account for the use of a chemical weapon on its territory. We welcome actions, such as sanctions, taken by G7 members in response to those individuals and entities deemed to be involved in the development and use of chemical weapons. We also condemn Russia’s attempts to shield Syria from accountability for the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons.

    38. Syria’s chemical weapon use in violation of the CWC continues to be a matter of grave concern. We welcome the decision of the OPCW Conference of the States Parties to suspend Syria’s rights and privileges under the CWC, until it completes the steps set out in the OPCW Executive Council Decision of 9 July 2020. We urge the Syrian authorities to cooperate fully and comply with their obligations. We deplore disinformation about chemical weapon use in Syria and we are committed to supporting the OPCW Technical Secretariat’s work in investigating chemical weapon use in Syria, identifying those responsible, and ensuring Syria’s declaration is full and accurate. Syria will be held to account for any failures to meet its obligations. We commit to ensuring the full implementation of UNSCR 2118 (2013) and the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons programme once and for all.

    39. We remain gravely concerned by the accelerating proliferation of ballistic and other missile technologies, including at the hands of non-state actors, which is a threat to regional and global security. Recalling the G7 NPDG “Initiative on Countering Illicit and/or Destabilizing Missile Activities” launched by the French Presidency in 2019, we remain engaged in countering missile proliferation activities and strengthening missile governance.

    40. We reaffirm our commitment to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and we call on all states to unilaterally adhere to the MTCR guidelines and reiterate the importance of the fundamental principles underpinning ballistic missile non-proliferation including in accordance with UNSCR 1540 (2004). We are committed to further increasing the effectiveness of the MTCR.

    41. We strongly support the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCoC) and call for its universalisation. In the 20 years since its establishment, the HCoC has proven to be an important transparency and confidence building measure that encourages responsible behaviour and restraint in the development, testing and deployment of ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, and aims to curb and prevent proliferation of such ballistic missiles. We will work towards the goals of universalization and full implementation of the HCoC, notably on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

    42. The G7 re-affirms the importance of coordinated action to counter illicit intangible technology transfer and protecting academia and business sectors from hostile state exploitation. While promoting an environment in which science, technology and research collaboration can flourish, we are resolved to address the challenges posed by the misuse and illicit diversion of technology critical for the development of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and for advanced military technology programmes by state and non-state actors, as well as by dual-use research of concern, notably in the field of life sciences.

    43. The G7 members commit to enhancing export controls on materials, technology and research that could be used to develop weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We plan to strengthen controls on materials (including dual-use components), technology and research that could support the development of advanced conventional weapons, ensuring that enhancements are proportionate and avoid negatively impacting on legitimate exports.

    44. The G7 is committed to acting to counter proliferation financing which, left unchecked, undermines the integrity of the global financial system and fuels threats to our common security. We therefore welcome the recent changes to the Financial Action Task Force standards regarding targeted financial sanctions on the DPRK and Iran, which, for the first time, expect all countries and regions to take concrete steps to understand the proliferation financing risks they face, and to oblige their financial sectors and designated non-financial business professions to do the same. Only by understanding the truly global reach of proliferation networks will we meet our responsibility to tackle this activity.

    45. We are determined to prevent illicit transfers and destabilizing accumulation of conventional weapons and ammunition, and to increase the safety and security of stockpiles, including by deploying our technical expertise, sharing best practices, e.g. in the framework of the UN Programme of Action on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), and the International Ammunition Technical Guidelines, and by adhering to international law and norms on responsible transfer.

    46. The diversion of ammunition to unauthorized users, including criminals and terrorists, facilitates and fuels armed violence and armed conflict. Mindful of these implications for security and sustainable development, we strongly support the German-led initiative for a comprehensive framework to support safe, secure, and sustainable ammunition management at the national, sub-regional, regional, and global level and the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) mandated to carry out work in this regard. We encourage all states to engage constructively in the OEWG aiming at elaborating a set of political commitments as a new global framework that will address existing gaps in through-life ammunition management, including international cooperation and assistance.

    47. We advocate for the reinforcement of regimes that regulate the transfer and prevent the diversion of conventional weapons and ammunition in line with international law and norms, including the Arms Trade Treaty. We commit to adapting, where necessary, relevant regimes as new technologies are developed. In dialogue with other technology leaders, we seek to shape the global debate on responsible civilian and military use of new technologies, considering security and defence considerations and securing adherence to international law, in particular International Humanitarian Law and, where applicable, International Human Rights Law. Where necessary, new international principles for responsible use should be considered.

    48. As space activities evolve, the norms, rules and principles governing space activities should also evolve. State threats to the secure, safe, sustainable, and peaceful uses of outer space are of serious concern. Given that our societies are increasingly reliant on space systems for their security and prosperity, we are determined to reduce the risk of misperception and miscalculation and reduce space threats. We commit to engaging the international community to uphold and strengthen a rules-based international order for outer space.

    49. Establishing norms, rules and principles for responsible space behaviours is a pragmatic way forward to enhance security, mitigate threats against space systems and reduce the risks of misperception, miscalculation, and escalation. We strongly support the UK-led initiative at the UN General Assembly and the resulting UN Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on “Reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours”. We encourage all states to positively engage in the OEWG that aims to build a common understanding of responsible space behaviours and consider first proposals for norms, rules, and principles in that regard.

    50. We call upon all nations to refrain from conducting dangerous and irresponsible destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile tests like those carried out by the Russian Federation on 15 November, 2021. We welcome the US commitment not to conduct destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile tests. We reiterate the need to cooperate with all States and space actors to strengthen safety, security, stability, and sustainability of outer space and help all countries benefit from the peaceful exploration and use of outer space.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Economics: John C Williams: All about data

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Introduction

    Good morning. I’m so pleased to be here at Binghamton University, a true gem of the SUNY system. Meeting with students, educators, and business and community leaders is a valuable and enjoyable part of my job.

    The New York Fed represents the Federal Reserve System’s Second District, which includes New York State, northern New Jersey, western Connecticut, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This is a diverse region made up of many smaller local economies. Therefore, it’s important for me and my colleagues at the New York Fed to collect data and learn about the challenges and opportunities facing all of the communities we serve.

    That said, monetary policy affects everyone, and the Federal Reserve is committed to using its tools to achieve its dual mandate of maximum employment and price stability. Today, I will talk about monetary policy and how the Fed is working to fulfill this dual mandate. I’ll also give you my outlook on the U.S. economy.

    Before I do, I will give the standard Fed disclaimer that the views I express today are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) or others in the Federal Reserve System.

    Obsessing Over Data

    As I’ve traveled around the Southern Tier region, I’ve enjoyed seeing the emergence of the colors of autumn. Tracking fall foliage is a hobby for many. What I like is that it’s all about data. “Leaf peepers” submit field reports on changing color conditions, and experts pore over the information. One forecast predicts we will hit peak foliage in four days.1

    At the Fed, we’re equally obsessed with data. In our case, we study data about the economy-whether here in the district, across the country, or around the world. So, I’ll highlight some of the data that help my understanding of how the economy is performing relative to our dual mandate goals, as well as what policy actions we can take to achieve these goals.

    When inflation became unacceptably high and the labor market exceptionally tight, the FOMC acted with resolve to bring inflation back down to our 2 percent longer-run target. The Committee’s strong actions have helped bring the economy much closer to our goals. Imbalances between supply and demand in the economy have mostly dissipated, even as the economy and employment have continued to grow. And inflation, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, has declined from over 7 percent in June of 2022 to just 2-1/4 percent in the latest reading. There’s still some distance to go to reach our goal of 2 percent, but we’re definitely moving in the right direction.

    The data paint a picture of an economy that has returned to balance, or in a word that the English majors in the room may appreciate, “equipoise.” In light of the progress we have seen in reducing inflation and restoring balance to the economy, the FOMC decided at its most recent meeting to lower the interest rate that it sets. Simply put, this action will help maintain the strength of the economy and labor market while inflation moves back to 2 percent on a sustainable basis.

    Moving to Price Stability

    I’ll go further into our policy decision and what it means for the economic outlook in a minute. But first, I’ll give more details about each side of our dual mandate, starting with inflation. I’ll use an onion analogy that I have found useful over the past two years to demonstrate how inflation’s three distinct layers are normalizing at different rates.2

    The onion’s outer layer represents globally traded commodities. As the economy started to rebound from pandemic shutdowns and demand began to soar, inflation surged, then rose further when Russia invaded Ukraine. Since then, supply and demand have come into balance, and these prices have generally been flat or falling.

    The middle onion layer is made up of core goods, excluding commodities. Demand for goods rose sharply as the economy emerged from the pandemic downturn-just as global pandemic-related supply-chain disruptions significantly hampered supply. But, as seen in the New York Fed’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index, those supply pressures have eased, and core goods inflation has returned to pre-pandemic norms.3

    The inner onion layer comprises core services. Although this category is taking the longest to normalize, the disinflationary process is well underway here too. For example, measures of underlying inflation that tend to be heavily influenced by core services inflation today average around 2-1/2 percent.4

    One positive piece of data that reinforces my confidence that inflation is on course to reach our 2 percent goal is that inflation expectations remain well anchored across all forecast horizons. This is seen in the New York Fed’s Survey of Consumer Expectations as well as other surveys and market-based measures.5

    A Labor Market in Balance

    Now I’ll turn to the employment side of our mandate. And no surprise, I’ll point to data. A wide range of metrics-including the unemployment rate; measures of job openings, hiring, quits, and employment flows; and perceptions of job and worker availability-indicate that the very tight labor market of the past few years has now returned to more normal conditions and is unlikely to be a source of inflationary pressures going forward.

    Recent analysis by researchers at the New York Fed provides a useful way to gauge whether the labor market is tight or loose.6 They find that you can effectively summarize the state of the overall labor market in terms of its effect on compensation growth by using just two indicators: the rate at which employees quit their jobs and the ratio of job openings to job seekers. In fact, once you take these two measures into account, other labor market metrics that get a lot of attention-such as the unemployment rate and the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio-don’t provide additional useful information. 

    Combining these two measures into an index of labor market tightness provides two key insights. First, data as of the second quarter of this year indicate that the labor market is about where it was in early 2018-a period of solid labor market conditions and low inflation. Second, compensation growth should soon return to levels that prevailed prior to the pandemic.

    Seasons of Change

    So, the labor market is solid. The economy is in a good place. And inflation is closing in on our 2 percent longer-run goal. With the risks to achieving our goals now in balance, the FOMC decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by half a percentage point, to 4-3/4 to 5 percent. In addition, the Committee continued to normalize the holdings of securities on the Fed’s balance sheet.7

    Looking ahead, based on my current forecast for the economy, I expect that it will be appropriate to continue the process of moving the stance of monetary policy to a more neutral setting over time. The timing and pace of future adjustments to interest rates will be based on the evolution of the data, the economic outlook, and the risks to achieving our goals. We will continue to be data-dependent and attuned to the evolution of economic conditions in making our decisions.

    With monetary policy moving to a more neutral setting over time, I expect real GDP to grow between 2-1/4 and 2-1/2 percent this year and to average about 2-1/4 percent over the next two years. I anticipate the unemployment rate to edge up from its current level of about 4 percent to around 4-1/4 percent at the end of this year and stay around that level next year. With the economy in balance and inflation expectations well anchored, I expect overall PCE inflation to be around 2-1/4 percent this year, and to be close to 2 percent next year.

    Conclusion

    The economy has been on a remarkable journey. In two years, the red-hot labor market has normalized, and inflation has come within striking distance of our 2 percent longer-run goal-all while employment and the economy continue to grow.

    We instituted and maintained a very restrictive monetary policy stance until the data gave us confidence that inflation is sustainably on course to 2 percent. With this progress toward achieving price stability, moving toward a more neutral monetary policy stance will help maintain the strength of the economy and labor market. Although the outlook remains uncertain, we are well positioned to achieve our dual mandate goals.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Shaktikanta Das: Central banking at crossroads

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    I feel highly privileged to be here at this High Level Conference on ‘Central Banking at Crossroads’ and share some of my thoughts. When the definitive history of our times is written, the turn of the current decade will, in all probability, be regarded as a watershed in the evolution of central banking. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and the persistent geopolitical strife thereafter, central banks are treading in the uncharted terrain of a twilight zone. Today, like never before in the five centuries of their existence, central banks are confronted with a future where their mandates, their functions and their performances are all up for unforgiving scrutiny.

    Around them, the environment in which central banks have been operating is undergoing tectonic transformations. Structural changes are underway that have the power to fundamentally alter the context of central banking with headwinds from geo-economic fragmentation; muscular industrial, trade and financial policies that are already reshaping supply chains and the availability of critical minerals, intermediates, resources and services; new technologies; and climate change. In this rapidly evolving environment, central banks are required to navigate not just known unknowns but unknown unknowns too.

    Yet, even at these exceptional intersections, central banks are exploring new pathways and striving to reinvent their remit and functioning as the guardians of financial stability. Their effort is to stay ahead of these developments by strengthening guardrails and leveraging on technological innovations.

    For the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as we commemorate its 90th year, it has been an eventful journey since its establishment in 1935. In many significant ways, the Reserve Bank embodies the developmental aspirations of India. The landmarks of its journey are equally milestones in the progress of India. At the current juncture and looking ahead, developments around the world are impacting India on a continuous basis and challenging us as practitioners of central banking.

    Today’s conference gives us an opportunity to introspect on the journey of central banking so far and how we want to visualise and shape our role in the future. In my remarks today, I propose to briefly focus on three areas where central banking is likely to be redefined in the future: monetary policy; financial stability; and new technologies. In fact, these are among the themes of specific sessions in today’s conference. My observations would be mainly in the context of central banking across countries.

    Monetary Policy

    The three decades of restrained volatility of business cycles and the co-existence of price stability and uninterrupted growth that preceded the global financial crisis (GFC), perhaps lulled central banks into the belief that inflation expectations are enduringly anchored. The beast of inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s seemed completely behind our times. Conditioned by that experience, central banks shed their role of ‘lender of the last resort’ and became lender of the first resort to defend their financial systems when they responded to the GFC. They continued from their GFC moment and once again rushed to the frontline as warriors of the first resort to protect and preserve lives and livelihood when the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world. They took interest rates to all-time lows, undertook unconventional policy measures to reach out to interest rates across the spectrum, including at the longer end, and gave assurances about low for longer interest rates. This was an uncharacteristic departure from the monetary mysticism that had prevailed up to the 1990s. Clearly, central banking has evolved in line with the developments of the 21st century.

    While the pandemic time measures provided the much needed support to the economies, in the aftermath of the pandemic the limits and downsides of easy monetary policy in protecting economic activity in a crisis period became evident. Today, rightly or wrongly, the central banks are accused of distributional consequences of their actions. The negative equity that weighs in the balance sheets of certain central banks is seen as compromising their independence in the conduct of monetary policy. The story in India was, however, different as most of our liquidity measures were calibrated and carried end dates at the time of their announcement itself.

    Another challenge staring at central banks today emanates from soaring public debt caused, in a considerable measure, by the pandemic-related fiscal stimuli and the subsequent efforts for fiscal consolidation not gaining adequate traction. Such a situation is becoming a binding constraint on monetary policy in several countries. Global public debt has surged post the pandemic to 93.2 per cent of GDP in 2023 and is likely to increase to 100 per cent of GDP by 20291. In major economies, debt-GDP ratios are on an upward trajectory, raising concerns about their sustainability and their negative spillovers for the broader global economy. In several other countries, central banks are willy-nilly expected to facilitate financing of such huge public debts. In fact, the debt overhang is simmering underneath the radar of central banks, threatening to un-anchor inflation expectations and undermine macroeconomic stability.

    For emerging market economy (EME) central banks, the international dimensions of monetary policy continues to be a testing challenge. For them, the trilemma is real. Today the global economy is more financially integrated than ever before. Monetary policy actions in systemic economies produce large fluctuations in capital flows and exchange rates, which can then feed into domestic liquidity, inflation and eventually affect the real economy. While monetary policies in the systemic economies are determined by their domestic inflation-growth considerations, they have large spillovers to the emerging and developing economies and even to other advanced economies. These spillovers can be expected to accentuate as capital flows dwarf trade flows. Quite naturally, emerging economies are having to strengthen their policy frameworks and buffers to manage this external flux and mitigate its adverse consequences.

    Financial Stability

    Financial stability is the essential reason why central banks exist. Price stability as a central bank objective is of more recent vintage. There is a growing opinion today that ‘low for long’ policies practiced during the GFC and again during the pandemic, apart from providing support to the real economy, also produced exuberant financial asset prices that have come back to haunt central banks in their role as guardians of financial stability. Amidst ultra-low interest rates and super abundant liquidity, leveraging and risk-taking were celebrated as if there is no tomorrow. Consequently, when central banks were confronted with inflation surges in 2022 in the shadow of the war in Ukraine, they reacted with one of the most aggressive and synchronised tightening of monetary policies in history. This resulted in risks to financial stability, especially when these risks morphed into banking crises in certain countries in March 2023 and sell-offs in financial markets in August and September 2024. These developments have once again brought to fore the role of central banks in securing and preserving financial stability. Specifically, how should they account for financial stability considerations in their pursuit of price stability?

    Let me now address some of the emerging risks to financial stability. First, the divergence in global monetary policies – monetary easing in some economies, tightening in a few, and pause in several other economies – can be expected to lead to volatility in capital flows and exchange rates, which may disrupt financial stability. We saw a glimpse of this with the sharp appreciation of the Japanese Yen in early August which led to disruptive reversals in the Yen carry trade and rattled financial markets across the globe.

    Second, private credit markets have expanded rapidly with limited regulation. They pose significant risks to financial stability, particularly since they have not been stress-tested in a downturn.

    Third, higher interest rates, aimed at curtailing inflationary pressures, have led to increase in debt servicing costs, financial market volatility, and risks to asset quality. Stretched asset valuations in some jurisdictions could trigger contagion across financial markets, creating further instability. The correction in commercial real estate (CRE) prices in some jurisdictions can put small and medium-sized banks under stress, given their large exposures to this sector. The interconnectedness between CRE, non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs), and the broader banking system amplifies these risks.

    New Technologies

    In recent years, the technology-driven digitalisation wave in the payments sphere has been revolutionary. While most of the innovations have been at the national level focusing on retail payments, the market for cross-border payments has also expanded substantially. The significant volume of cross-border worker remittances, the growing size of gross flows of capital, and the increasing importance of cross-border e-commerce have acted as catalysts to this growth.23 Remittances are the starting point for many emerging and developing economies, including India, to explore cross-border peer-to-peer (P2P) payments. We believe there is immense scope to significantly reduce the cost and time for such remittances.

    India is one of the few large economies with a 24×7 real time gross settlement (RTGS) system. The feasibility of expanding RTGS to settle transactions in major trade currencies such as USD, EUR and GBP can be explored through bilateral or multilateral arrangements. India and a few other economies have already commenced efforts to expand linkage of cross-border fast payment systems both in the bilateral and multilateral modes.4

    India has developed a world-class digital public infrastructure (DPI), which has facilitated the development of high-quality digital financial products with enormous potential for cross-border payments. India is now home to the world’s third most vibrant startup ecosystem, with over 140,000 recognised startups, more than a hundred unicorns, and over US$150 billion in funding raised. India’s experience in DPI can be leveraged by other countries to improve and usher in a global digital revolution.

    Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) is another area which has the potential to facilitate efficient cross-border payments. India is one of the few countries that have launched both wholesale and retail CBDCs. Programmability, interoperability with the UPI retail fast payment system and development of offline solutions for remote areas and underserved segments of the population, are some of the value added services which we are now experimenting as part of our CBDC pilot.

    Going forward, harmonisation of standards and interoperability would be important for CBDCs for cross-border payments and to overcome the serious financial stability concerns associated with cryptocurrencies. A key challenge could be the fact that countries may prefer to design their own systems as per their domestic considerations. I feel we can overcome this challenge by developing a plug-and-play system that allows replicability of India’s experience while also maintaining the sovereignty of respective countries.

    It is well recognised that growing digitalisation of financial services has enhanced the efficiency of the financial sector across the globe. At the same time, it has brought in several challenges which central banks have to deal with. For instance, in the modern world with deep social media presence and vast access to online banking with money transfer happening in seconds, rumours and misinformation can spread very quickly and can cause liquidity stress. Banks have to remain alert in the social media space and also strengthen their liquidity buffers.

    Latest technological advancements such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have opened new avenues of business and profit expansion for financial institutions. At the same time, these technologies also pose financial stability risks. The heavy reliance on AI can lead to concentration risks, especially when a small number of tech providers dominate the market. This could amplify systemic risks, as failures or disruptions in these systems may cascade across the entire financial sector. Moreover, the growing use of AI introduces new vulnerabilities, such as increased susceptibility to cyberattacks and data breaches. Additionally, AI’s opacity makes it difficult to audit or interpret the algorithms which drive decisions. This could potentially lead to unpredictable consequences in the markets. Banks and other financial institutions must put in place adequate risk mitigation measures against all these risks. In the ultimate analysis, banks have to ride on the advantages of AI and Bigtech and not allow the latter to ride on them.

    Conclusion

    Despite the difficult trials and trade-offs, central banking in the current decade is a success story. In the realm of monetary policy, central banks have been successful in bringing inflation closer to targets. Major financial collapses or recessions, seen during earlier episodes of crisis, have been averted. Central banks are now at the forefront of technological innovations and are driving them through sandboxes, innovation hubs and hackathons.

    As we navigate the high intensity tail events and black swans of the current decade, the lessons imbibed can well form the basis of our deliberations today to chart out a course for the future. Central banks must remain vigilant, adaptable, continuously assess risks and build resilience. They should remain prepared to navigate complex challenges, support sustainable growth, maintain price stability and promote sound and vibrant financial systems.

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Eddie Yue: China and the changing global trade landscape – challenges and opportunities

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Professor Wei [Shang-Jin, N.T. Wang Professor of Chinese Business and Economy, Columbia University], Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good Morning!  

    It is my pleasure to welcome you all to the 14th Annual International Conference on the Chinese Economy, organised by the Hong Kong Institute for Monetary and Financial Research. The theme of this year’s conference is “China and the Changing Global Trade Landscape: Challenges and Opportunities”.  This is a timely and important topic – not just for China, but also with far-reaching and enduring implications for the global economy.     

    There is ample evidence that globalisation has brought enormous benefits to the world, through increasing cross-border flow of trade, investments, technology, ideas, and people. For emerging market economies, integration into the global supply chain has been a crucial contributor to their economic development.  As global income rose in tandem with global trade from the 1980s onwards, billions of people have been lifted out of poverty. 

    Since the 2008 global financial crisis, however, the golden era of globalisation has given way to a gradual slowdown in global trade in goods. There is a combination of factors.  First, it reflects doubts or even scepticism about the distributional effects of globalisation.  Secondly, rising geopolitical considerations in recent years have led to a re-imposition of various trade and investment restrictions by some jurisdictions.  And thirdly, recent disruptions to supply chain, caused by the pandemic and regional military conflicts, have prompted discussions about ways to mitigate such risks.

    These developments have not yet translated into a wholesale reconfiguration of the global trade landscape. But it appears that the slow-down in global goods trade is likely to continue.  A recent joint study by the HKMA and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) suggests that some supply chain realignment has already been taking place during the pandemic.  

    Any escalation of geo-economic fragmentation would almost certainly result in a costly transition, especially for Asia given the region’s relatively open economies. For those who believe in the value of free trade and globalization, the key question then is how best to collectively minimise the risks of full blown economic fragmentation, and what actions can be taken to sustain globalisation, even in the face of a changing global trade landscape?

    Since this is a conference about the Chinese economy, perhaps we can start with a quick examination of how China is adapting to the change and turning the challenge into opportunity. Despite the headwinds in the trade sector, China’s world export share has remained at around 15 per cent since 2018.  This reflects two important trends. 

    First, China has continued its economic diversification and regional collaboration through expanding its import and export network, particularly to broader emerging markets. It has also stepped up outward direct investments to establish stronger footholds in the global supply chain amidst friend-shoring or near-shoring.

    Second, China’s manufacturing industries have doubled down on their efforts to move up the value chain, from low-end, labour-intensive component manufacturing to higher-tech, full-spectrum product manufacturing, supported by China’s own domestic market and growing capability in more sophisticated technology goods.

    Indeed, this is a process that pre-dates the recent rise in global trade protectionism, if just for the classic reason of comparative advantage. What we have witnessed is that even as some production may have been diverted away from China, these have been largely concentrated in a few sectors – namely, textiles, electronics and autos – and in the assembly segment rather than upstream.  While Chinese exports might take up a smaller share of some markets as a result, it is exporting more intermediate goods and capturing a larger share of imports from other regional economies. 

    China’s search for new trade opportunities through diversification and supply chain upscaling has brought structural transformation to the Chinese economy and helped maintain China’s key position in global manufacturing. The process, together with other changes in the global supply chain, will bring fundamental changes to global trade and investment.  It would be premature to predict what the new order will be.  But one thing is for sure, those who embrace the change and rise to the challenge will benefit greatly, and it should not be a zero-sum game. 

    Now let me shift gear and touch on some emerging opportunities we are going to discuss at this conference. I will focus on two panel themes: digital trade transformation and innovative trade finance – two topics that are increasingly relevant as we transition towards a digitalised global economy.

    Digitalisation of trade offers a range of benefits. For firms, digital transformation of trade and supply chain processes can produce efficiencies in terms of time and labour saved. It also enhances the traceability and security of cross-border trade in goods and services, by enabling real-time visibility into all stages of the supply chain from production to delivery.

    For economies, digital trade transformation offers substantial productivity gains through, for example, rapid growth of e-commerce. It also offers better prospects of helping to distribute the gains generated from trade more widely and equitably among the various stakeholders. 

    Indeed, digitally delivered services already account for a little over half of total services trade1. They are increasingly facilitating trade flow across borders, in support of raising the market share of developing economies, which has increased from about 20 percent to 30 percent of global service trade between 2005 and 2023. 

    Meanwhile, digital technologies can be leveraged to enhance cross-border trade settlement and financing, where there is plenty of scope for coordinated solutions to existing pain points. For example, Project mBridge has been exploring the use of wholesale central bank digital currencies of Hong Kong and a number of other participating central banks as a way to speed up cross-border payments at reduced cost, faster settlement, and with better transparency. 

    Equally exciting is the use of innovative technologies in trade finance – from blockchain, AI to digital signatures – and greater cooperation around cross-border interoperability that will help close the widening global trade finance gap, estimated by the Asian Development Bank last year to have reached a record US$2.5 trillion.

    Another area of opportunity and cooperation is around green technologies. The consequences of climate change, in the form of higher frequency of extreme weather events, have only become more visible these last few years, and Asia is particularly exposed. 

    We need open and predictable trade to enable scale economies and direct low-carbon technologies and services to where they are most needed. In this respect, major regional trade networks can serve as key platforms that facilitate sustainable trade and investment, support climate-resilient economic developments, and enhance the ecosystem of green finance.

    Let me close by noting that the global trading system as we know has brought mutual benefits and shared prosperity to the world economy. Granted, there’s always scope to make the system work better and fairer.  Let’s focus not just on the challenges, but more on the solutions and the opportunities.  

    There are excellent research papers to be presented at the conference, covering many of the topics I outlined just now. So I wish you all a most engaging and productive conference. 

    Thank you.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Global: Five simple questions can help spot exaggerated research claims over sex differences in the brain

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gina Rippon, Professor Emeritus of Cognitive NeuroImaging, Aston University

    shutterstock FocalFinder/Shutterstock

    In the last ten years, some 20,000 or so academic papers have been published on the neuroscience of sex and gender. Perhaps you have read the media coverage of such papers, suggesting there’s finally proof that stereotypical abilities such as men being good at reading maps or women excelling at nurturing can be pinpointed in the brain.

    Given the sheer quantity of output in this area, how can you tell what is really groundbreaking research, and what is an overenthusiastic application of hype?

    Misleading spin is often blamed on university PR teams, non-specialist science writers in mainstream newspapers, or social media. But the source of deceptive impressions may sometimes be the research papers themselves.

    For example, researchers may hyper-focus on a limited set of findings. They may fail to report that many of the differences they were looking for didn’t make the statistical cut. Or they may be less than cautious in discussing the impact of their findings.

    Just as much as researchers need to be meticulous about the best methodology and the most powerful statistics, they need to manage the impressions they make when communicating their research. And, if they don’t, then the interested but non-expert reader may need help to spot this.

    Magic: spotting the spin

    My colleagues and I recently published a set of guidelines which offer just such assistance, identifying five sources of potential misrepresentation to look out for. The initials helpfully form the acronym “Magic”, which is short for magnitude, accuracy, generalisability, inflation and credibility.

    For magnitude, the question is: is the extent of any differences clearly and accurately described? Take this 2015 study on sex differences in the human brain. It reported on 34,716 different patterns of functional brain connectivity, and found statistical differences between females and males in 178 of them.

    Yet given that less than 0.5% of all possible differences they were measuring actually turned out to be statistically significant, they wouldn’t really be justified in reporting sex differences as prominent. In this study, they weren’t.

    The next question is to do with accuracy. Are techniques and variables clearly defined and carefully used in the interpretation of results? It should be really clear how the study was run, what measures were taken, and why.

    For example, a recent paper suggesting that the Covid lockdown effects had a more pronounced effect on adolescent girls’ brain structure than boys’ fell at this hurdle. The abstract referred to “longitudinal measures” and much of the narrative was couched in longitudinal “pre- and post-Covid” terms. Longitudinal studies –– which follow the same group of people over time –– are great as they can discover crucial changes in them.

    But if you peer closely at the paper, it emerges that the pre- and post-Covid lockdown comparisons appear to be between two different samples – admittedly selected from an ongoing longitudinal study. Nonetheless, it is not clear that like was compared with like.

    Don’t believe everything you hear about male and female capabilities.
    CrispyPork/Shutterstock

    The third question has to do with generalisability. Are authors cautious about how widely the results might be applied? Here we encounter the problem with many scientific studies being carried out on carefully selected and screened groups of participants – sometimes just their own students.

    Care should be taken to ensure this is clear to the reader, who shouldn’t be left with the impression that one or more sets of participants can be taken to be fully representative of (say) all females or all males. If all study participants are selected from the same single community, then referring to “hundreds of millions of people” in interpreting the relevance of the results is something of an overstatement.

    The fourth category, inflation, is to do with whether the authors avoid language that overstates the importance of their results. Terms such as “profound” and “fundamental” may be misplaced, for instance. Remember, James Watson and Francis Crick merely described their discovery of DNA’s double helix structure as of “considerable biological interest”.

    Finally, we should consider credibility: are authors careful to acknowledge how their findings do or do not fit with existing research? Authors should be up front about alternative explanations for their findings, or suggest other factors that might need to be investigated in further studies.

    Suppose, for example, they are looking at the allegedly robust sex differences in visuospatial skills, which include things like visual perception and spatial awareness. Have the authors acknowledged research suggesting that the amount of time people spend on practising this skill, such as when playing video games, has been shown to be more significant than biological sex in determining such differences?

    If gamers are more likely to be boys, that doesn’t necessarily mean their brains are wired for them – it could equally well be reflecting gendered pressures that make such games a popular, culturally comfortable pastime among boys.

    The focus of these guidelines is on sex/gender brain imaging studies, but they could well be applied to other areas of research.

    Post-lockdown surveys have suggested that the public has greater trust in what scientists are saying than they did before the pandemic. Scientists need to be careful that they retain that trust by ensuring that what they report is unambiguous and free from hype.

    Hopefully the Magic guidelines will help them and their editors achieve this; if they don’t, then eagle-eyed readers, Magic-ally armed, will be on their guard.

    Gina Rippon 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. Five simple questions can help spot exaggerated research claims over sex differences in the brain – https://theconversation.com/five-simple-questions-can-help-spot-exaggerated-research-claims-over-sex-differences-in-the-brain-240356

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to make sure the budget secures the investment Britain needs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Linda Yueh, Fellow in Economics/Adjunct Professor of Economics, University of Oxford

    Growth won’t happen without greater investment. I Wei Huang/Shutterstock

    Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to “rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment” in the UK. He was speaking at his government’s first international investment summit, an attempt to encourage the finance and business worlds to put more money into the country.

    But the government will need much more investment – by both the private and public sectors – than can be drummed up with one summit and an intent to slash red tape if it is to meet its economic goals. So Labour’s upcoming first budget on October 30 presents a vital opportunity to lay the foundations for an investment boost over the coming years.

    A major, long-term aim is to get the UK’s annual growth back to its pre-2008 banking crisis rate, when it was around 2% a year. The UK has been growing at about half that rate since then.

    This slower economic growth has damaged people’s living standards as well as the tax receipts the government needs to fund public services, particularly since the pressures of the COVID pandemic.

    Slow growth could be turned around by increasing investment in things like infrastructure. The UK has lagged behind comparable economies in this regard – it has had the lowest rate of investment in the G7 group of major economies for 24 of the last 30 years.

    Last year, the UK’s GDP per capita (a measure of the average income) was nearly £11,000 lower than it would have been had the economy continued to grow at its pre-2008 rate.

    Rather unusually, despite the UK’s debt recently reaching 100% of GDP – the highest amount in more than half a century – the usually fiscally conservative International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said the UK should consider focusing on investment. This, it says, could potentially boost GDP growth and thus stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio.

    And the UK’s spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), believes it is possible to raise economic growth through more investment. The OBR estimates that a sustained 1% of GDP increase in public investment could increase the level of potential national output by just under 0.5% after five years, and around 2.5% in 50 years.

    So, there will undoubtedly be a number of investment measures in the Budget. But how many depends, in part, on whether the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, revises some restrictions on borrowing, known as the fiscal rules. There could be adjustments such as offsetting government debt with its assets, including student loans. Reeves is reportedly looking at this possibility – which could create as much as £50 billion of additional fiscal headroom.



    Read more:
    The chancellor has tied her own hands with her fiscal rules – here’s why she should change them

    She could also re-institute the previous Labour government’s golden rule: only borrow to invest. This could separate out capital investment (spending on things like roads and other infrastructure), which is needed to support long-term growth, from day-to-day spending on public services. It would also increase the transparency of what the borrowing is for, and whether it can deliver growth that can help stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio.

    These changes would prevent public investment from being cut in order to meet one of the current fiscal rules Reeves is adhering to. That is, that debt must be falling as a percentage of GDP over a rolling five-year period. As it stands, this rule restricts how much Reeves can borrow – even if that is what the country needs to grow economically.

    A change to this rule could help the government fund its two new initiatives to promote public investment: the National Wealth Fund, which requires just over £7 billion over the parliament, and GB Energy, which needs about £8 billion.

    Convincing investors

    Investments in the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy could further raise economic growth by “crowding in” private investment. For example, investing in infrastructure like a road entices private firms to invest too, perhaps in new premises or more staff, because a better transport link will make these firms’ investments more profitable.

    The government’s aim is to bring in three times the public investment in the National Wealth Fund to invest in infrastructure and key sectors. GB Energy likewise intends to bring in private investors to support the green transition that can generate new output and jobs.

    But targeting growth will take more than just finding the money. It also requires a regulatory approach and planning system that generates confidence among private investors to put their money in alongside the government.

    The impending Budget won’t set out all of the details that investors are looking for, but they will expect to see the growth strategy and assess whether it is credible. For instance, successive governments have struggled with planning reform, so investors will be justified in wondering what will be different this time.

    Rachel Reeves could potentially give herself an extra £50 billion to spend if she changes the fiscal rules.
    Fred Duval/Shutterstock

    Investors will also be on the lookout for a more certain regulatory regime over several years. The main impediments to investment tend to be uncertainty, including over regulation and planning, as well as being able to find workers with the right skills. This Budget is an opportunity to set out what the government plans to do in both areas over its five-year parliament.

    One positive signal to investors would be if the Budget sets out a broad definition of “capital”. For physical capital like a factory to be properly used, it requires people (human capital). And we hear a lot about green assets and digital assets, which essentially means that capital can be physical, human or green, as well as digital.

    By outlining its policies around infrastructure and skills, as well as its environmental and digital policies, any proposed growth strategy would be more holistic and likelier to have a positive impact on growth.

    But the difference between a strategy and a great strategy is in its execution. The Budget will almost certainly set out various fiscal policies to support growth. But the ability to deliver this strategy will determine whether it is truly a budget for growth.

    Linda Yueh 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. How to make sure the budget secures the investment Britain needs – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-sure-the-budget-secures-the-investment-britain-needs-241074

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI USA: Waller, Thoughts on the Economy and Policy Rules at the Federal Open Market Committee

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Athanasios, and thank you for the opportunity to be part of this very worthy celebration.1 In support of the theme of this conference, I do have some thoughts on the Shadow Open Market Committee’s contributions to the policy debate, in particular its advocacy for policy rules. But before I get to that, I am going to exercise the keynote speaker’s freedom to talk about whatever I want. To that end, I want to take a few minutes to offer my views on the economic outlook and its implications for monetary policy. So let me start there, and afterward I will discuss the role that policy rules play in my decision making and in the deliberations of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC).
    In the three weeks or so since the most recent FOMC meeting, data we have received has been uneven, as it sometimes has been over the past year. I continue to judge that the U.S. economy is on a solid footing, with employment near the FOMC’s maximum employment objective and inflation in the vicinity of our target, even though the latest inflation data was disappointing.
    Real gross domestic product (GDP) grew at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the first half of 2024, and I expect it to grow a bit faster in the third quarter. The Blue Chip consensus of private sector forecasters predicts 2.3 percent, while the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow model, based on up-to-the moment data, is predicting real growth of 3.2 percent.
    Earlier, there were concerns that GDP in the first half of this year was overstating the strength of the economy, since gross domestic income (GDI) was estimated to have grown a mere 1.3 percent in the first half of this year, suggesting a big downward revision to GDP was coming. But revisions received after our most recent FOMC meeting showed the opposite—GDI growth was revised up substantially to 3.2 percent. This change in turn led to an upward revision in the personal saving rate of about 2 percentage points in the second quarter, leaving it at 5.2 percent in June. This revision suggests that household resources for future consumption are actually in good shape, although data and anecdotal evidence suggests lower-income groups are struggling. These revisions suggest that the economy is much stronger than previously thought, with little indication of a major slowdown in economic activity.
    That outlook is supported by consumer spending that has been and continues to be strong. Though the growth in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) has moderated since the second half of 2023, it has continued at an average pace of close to 2.5 percent so far this year. Also, my business contacts believe that there is considerable pent-up demand for durable goods, home improvements, and other big-ticket items, demand that built up due to high interest rates for credit cards and home equity loans. Now that rates have started to come down and are expected to come down more, consumers will be eager to make those purchases. For business spending, purchasing managers for manufacturers describe ongoing weakness in that sector, but those for the large majority of businesses outside of manufacturing continue to report a solid expansion of activity.
    Now let’s talk about the labor market. Only a couple months ago, it appeared that the labor market was cooling too quickly. Low numbers for job creation and a jump in the unemployment rate from 4.1 percent in June to 4.3 percent in July raised risks that the labor market was deteriorating. To remind you of how bad the markets viewed the July data, some Fed watchers were calling for an emergency FOMC meeting to discuss a rate cut. While the unemployment rate ticked down in August, job growth was once again well below expectations. Many were arguing that the labor market was on the verge of a serious deterioration and that the Fed was behind the curve even after a 50 basis point cut in the policy rate at the September FOMC meeting.
    Then we got the September employment report. Job creation in September was unexpectedly strong at 254,000 and the unemployment rate fell back down to 4.1 percent, which is where it was in June. The report also showed big upward revisions to payroll gains for the previous two months. Together, the message was loud and clear: While job creation has moderated and the unemployment rate has risen over the past year, the labor market remains quite healthy.
    Along with other new data on the labor market, the evidence is that labor supply and demand have come into balance. The number of job vacancies, a sign of strength in the labor market, has fallen gradually since the beginning of the year. The ratio of vacancies to unemployed is at 1.2, about the level in 2019, which was a pretty strong labor market. To put this number into perspective, recent research has shown that this ratio has been above 1 only three times since 1960.2 The quits rate, another sign of labor market strength, has fallen lower than it was in 2019, a decrease which partly reflects that the hiring rate has fallen as labor supply and demand have come into better balance.
    In sum, based on payrolls, the unemployment rate and job revisions, there has been a very gradual moderation in labor demand relative to supply, but not a deterioration. The stability of the labor market, as reflected in these two measures as well as the other metrics I mentioned, bolsters my confidence that we can achieve further progress toward the FOMC’s inflation goal while supporting a healthy labor market that adds jobs and boosts wages and living standards for workers.
    I will be looking for more evidence to support this outlook in the weeks and months to come. But, unfortunately, it won’t be easy to interpret the October jobs report to be released just before the next FOMC meeting. This report will most likely show a significant but temporary loss of jobs from the two recent hurricanes and the strike at Boeing. I expect these factors may reduce employment growth by more than 100,000 this month, and there may be a small effect on the unemployment rate, but I’m not sure it will be that visible. Since the jobs report will come during the usual blackout period for policymakers commenting on the economy, you won’t have any of us trying to put this low reading into perspective, though I hope others will.
    Looking ahead, I expect payroll gains to moderate from their current pace but continue at a solid rate. The unemployment rate may drift a bit higher but is likely to remain quite low in historical terms. While I believe the labor market is on a solid footing, I will continue to watch the full range of data for signs of weakness.
    Meanwhile, inflation, after showing considerable progress for several months toward the FOMC’s 2 percent target, likely moved up in September. The consumer price index grew 0.2 percent over the past month, 2.1 percent over the past three months, 1.6 percent over six months and 2.4 percent in the past year. Oil prices fell over most of the summer but then more recently have surged. Excluding energy and also food prices that likewise tend to be volatile, and just as it did in August, core CPI inflation printed at 0.3 percent in September and 3.3 percent over the past year.
    Private-sector forecasts are predicting that PCE inflation, the FOMC’s preferred measure, will also move up in September. Core PCE prices are expected to have risen around 0.25 percent last month. While not a welcome development, if the monthly core PCE inflation number comes in around this level, over the last 5 months it is still running very close to 2 percent on an annualized basis. We have made a lot of progress on inflation over the course of the last year and half, but that progress has clearly been uneven—at times it feels like being on a rollercoaster. Whether or not this month’s inflation reading is just noise or if it signals ongoing increases, is yet to be seen. I will be watching the data carefully to see how persistent this recent uptick is.
    The FOMC’s inflation goal is an average of 2 percent over the longer run and there are some good reasons to think that price increases will be modest going forward. I am hearing reports from firms that their pricing power seems to have waned as consumers have become more sensitive to price changes. There has also been a steady slowing in the growth of labor compensation. It is true that average hourly earnings growth in September ticked up to 4 percent over the past year. And though it might seem like wage increases of 4 percent a year would put upward pressure on inflation that is near 2 percent, that might not be true if one considers productivity, which has grown at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent for the past five quarters. Some of this strength was making up for productivity that shrank due to the pandemic, but the longer it continues—up 2.5 percent for the second quarter—the better productivity supports wage growth of 4 percent, or even higher, without driving up inflation. All that said, I will be watching all the data related to inflation closely.
    With the labor market in rough balance, employment near its maximum level, and inflation generally running close to our target over the past several months, I want to do what I can as a policymaker to keep the economy on this path. For me, the central question is how much and how fast to reduce the target for the federal funds rate, which I believe is currently set at a restrictive level. To help answer questions like this, I often look at various monetary policy rules to assess the appropriate setting of policy. Policy rules have long been of serious interest to the Shadow Open Market Committee. So before I turn to my views on the future path of policy, I thought I would talk about monetary policy rules versus discretion and begin with some background about the use of rules at the FOMC.
    For a brief overview of the history of the advent of rules at the Board, I have been directed to the second chapter of The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy written by George Kahn, and I have also consulted the memories of longtime members of the Board staff.3 Rules came along in the 1990s as the Fed was moving away from monetary targeting, focusing more on interest-rate policy, and taking its first major steps toward increased transparency. There was immediate interest in Taylor-type rules among Fed staff, and even some contributions of research.4 There was a presentation to the FOMC on rules in 1995, and that was the same year that John Taylor’s Bay Area colleague, Janet Yellen, was apparently the first policymaker to mention the Taylor rule at an FOMC meeting. While FOMC decisions mimicked a Taylor rule much of the time under Chairman Alan Greenspan, he was famously an advocate of “constructive ambiguity” in communication, and he and other central bankers since have resisted the suggestion that decisions could be handed over to strict rules. Today, of course, a number of rules-based analyses are included in the material submitted to policymakers ahead of every FOMC meeting, and we publish the policy prescriptions of different rules as part of the Board’s semi-annual Monetary Policy Report. Rules have become part of the furniture in modern policymaking.
    As everyone here knows, but for the benefit of other listeners, Taylor rules relate the level of the policy interest rate to a limited number of other economic variables, most often including the deviation of inflation from a target value and a measure of resource use in the economy relative to some long-run trend.5 There are numerous forms of the Taylor rule, but they generally fall into two categories.
    The first of these, an inertial rule, has the property that the policy rate changes only slowly over time. I tend to think of it as an approach that captures the reaction function of a policymaker in a stable economy where the forces that would tend to change the economy and policy build over time. When change does occur, a gradual response may give policymakers time to assess the true state of the economy and the possible effects of their decision. One example I can use is the steadfastness of policymakers in the latter part of 2023, when inflation fell more rapidly than was widely expected, and again in early 2024, when it briefly escalated. The FOMC did not change course either time, an approach validated by inertial rules.
    A non-inertial rule, on the other hand, allows and in fact calls for relatively quick adjustments to policy. The guidance from these rules is more useful when there is a turning point in the economy, and policymakers need to stay ahead of events. One saw these non-inertial rules prescribe a sharper rise in the policy rate above the effective lower bound starting in 2021 as inflation began climbing above the FOMC’s 2 percent target. Non-inertial rules are also more useful in the face of major shocks to the economy such as the 2008 financial crisis and the start of the pandemic.
    The great promise of rules is that they provide a simple and reliable guide to policy, but what should one do when different rules recommend different policy actions given the same economic conditions? Right now, inertial rules tell us to move slowly in reducing policy rates toward a neutral stance that neither restricts nor stimulates the economy. On the other hand, non-inertial rules tell us to cut the policy rate more aggressively, subject to the caveat that one is certain of the values of all the ‘star’ variables: U*, Y* and r*. I think the answer is that while rules are valuable in helping analyze policy options, they have limitations. Among these are the limits of the data considered, which is typically narrower than the range of data that policymakers use to make decisions, and also the fact that simple policy rules do not take into account risk management, which is often a critical consideration in policy decisions. So, while policy rules serve as a good check on discretionary policy, there are times when discretion is needed. As a result, I prefer to think of them as “policy rules of thumb”.
    Turning to my view for the path for policy, let me discuss three scenarios that I have had in mind to manage the risks of upcoming decisions in the medium term.
    The first scenario is one where the overall strong economic developments that I have described today continue, with inflation nearing the FOMC’s target and the unemployment rate moving up only slightly. This scenario implies to me that we can proceed with moving policy toward a neutral stance at a deliberate pace. This path would be based on the judgment that the risks to both sides of our dual mandate are balanced. In this circumstance, our job is to keep inflation near 2 percent and not slow the economy unnecessarily.
    Another scenario, less likely in light of recent data, is that inflation falls materially below 2 percent for some time, and/or the labor market significantly deteriorates. The message here is that demand is falling, the FOMC may suddenly be behind the curve, and that message would argue for moving to neutral more quickly by front-loading cuts to the policy rate.
    The third scenario applies if inflation unexpectedly escalates either because of stronger-than-expected consumer demand or wage pressure, or because of some shock to supply that pushes up inflation. As we learned in the recovery from the pandemic recession, when demand was stronger and supply weaker than initially expected, such surprises do occur. In this circumstance, as long as the labor market isn’t deteriorating, we can pause rate cuts until progress resumes and uncertainty diminishes.
    Most recently, we have seen upward revisions to GDI, an increase in job vacancies, high GDP growth forecasts, a strong jobs report and a hotter than expected CPI report. This data is signaling that the economy may not be slowing as much as desired. While we do not want to overreact to this data or look through it, I view the totality of the data as saying monetary policy should proceed with more caution on the pace of rate cuts than was needed at the September meeting. I will be watching to see whether data, due out before our next meeting, on inflation, the labor market and economic activity confirms or undercuts my inclination to be more cautious about loosening monetary policy.
    Whatever happens in the near term, my baseline still calls for reducing the policy rate gradually over the next year. The median rate for FOMC participants at the end of 2025 is 3.4 percent, so most of my colleagues likewise expect to reduce policy over the next year. There is less certainty about the final destination. The median estimated longer-run level of the federal funds rate in the Committee’s Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) is 2.9 percent, but with quite a wide dispersion, ranging from 2.4 percent to 3.8 percent. While much attention is given to the size of cuts over the next meeting or two, I think the larger message of the SEP is that there is a considerable extent of policy accommodation to remove, and if the economy continues in its current sweet spot, this will happen gradually.
    Thank you again, for the opportunity to be part of today’s conference, and for allowing me to share some thoughts, relevant to monetary policy rules and my day job back in Washington. The Shadow Committee has elevated the public debate about monetary policy. May you continue to play that role for many years to come.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. See Pierpaolo Benigno and Gauti B. Eggertsson (2024), “Revisiting the Phillips and Beveridge Curves: Insights from the 2020s Inflation Surge (PDF),” paper presented at “Reassessing the Effectiveness and Transmission of Monetary Policy,” a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, held in Jackson Hole, Wyo., August 23. Return to text
    3. See Evan F. Koenig, Robert Leeson, and George A. Kahn, eds. (2012), The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press). I was assisted in this brief history by Board economists James Clouse and Edward Nelson. Return to text
    4. See Dale W. Henderson and Warwick J. McKibbin (1993), “A Comparison of Some Basic Monetary Policy Regimes for Open Economies: Implications of Different Degrees of Instrument Adjustment and Wage Persistence,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, vol. 39 (December), pp. 221–317). This paper was also published in the International Finance Discussion Papers series and is available on the Board’s website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/1993/458/ifdp458.pdf. Return to text
    5. For a variety of Taylor rules and their implication for policy, see the Monetary Policy Report, available on the Board’s website at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/publications/mpr_default.htm. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-Evening Report: Lessons for the next pandemic: where did Australia go right and wrong in responding to COVID?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

    Igor Corovic/Shutterstock

    With COVID still classified as an ongoing pandemic, it’s difficult to contemplate the next one. But we need to be prepared. We’ve seen several pandemics in recent decades and it’s fair to expect we’ll see more.

    For the final part in a series of articles on the next pandemic, we’ve asked a range of experts what Australia got right and wrong it its response to COVID. Here they share their thoughts on the country’s COVID response – and what we can learn for the next pandemic.

    Quarantine

    The federal government mandated 14 days of quarantine for all international arrivals between March 2020 and November 2021. During that period, 452,550 people passed through the system.

    The states and Northern Territory were given just 48 hours to set up their quarantine systems. The states chose hotel quarantine, while the Northern Territory repurposed an old miner’s camp, Howard Springs, which had individual cabins with outdoor verandas. The ACT had very few international arrivals, while Tasmania only had hotel quarantine for domestic travellers.

    During the first 15 months of the program, at least 22 breaches occurred in five states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia). An inquiry into Victoria’s hotel quarantine found the lack of warning and planning to set up the complex system resulted in breaches that caused Victoria’s second COVID wave of 2020, leading to almost 800 deaths. A breach at Sydney airport led to the introduction of the Delta variant into Australia.

    In the next pandemic, mistakes from COVID need to be avoided. They included failure to protect hotel residents and staff from airborne transmission through ventilation and mask usage. Protocols need to be consistent across the country, such as the type of security staff used, N95 masks for staff and testing frequency.

    These protocols need to be included in a national pandemic preparedness plan, which is frequently reviewed and tested through simulations. This did not occur with the pre-COVID preparedness plan.

    Dedicated quarantine centres like Howard Springs already exist in Victoria and Queensland. Ideally, they should be constructed in every jurisdiction.

    Michael Toole

    Treatments

    Scientists had to move quickly after COVID was discovered to find effective treatments.

    Many COVID treatments involved repurposing existing drugs designed for other viruses. For example, the HIV drug ritonavir is a key element of the antiviral Paxlovid, while remdesivir was originally developed to treat hepatitis C.

    At the outset of the pandemic, there was a lot of uncertainty about COVID treatment among Australian health professionals. To keep up with the rapidly developing science, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020. We were involved in its COVID response with more than 250 clinicians, consumers and researchers.

    Unusually for evidence-based guidelines, which are often updated only every five years or so, the taskforce’s guidelines were designed to be “living” – updated as new research became available. In April 2020 we released the first guidelines for care of people with COVID, and over the next three years these were updated more than 100 times.

    While health-care professionals always had access to up-to-date guidance on COVID treatments, this same information was not as accessible for the public. This may partly explain why many people turned to unproven treatments. The taskforce’s benefits could have been increased with funding to help the community understand COVID treatments.

    COVID drugs faced other obstacles too. For example, changes to the virus itself meant some treatments became less effective as new variants emerged. Meanwhile, provision of antiviral treatments has not been equitable across the country.

    COVID drugs have had important, though not game-changing, impacts. Ultimately, effective vaccines played a much greater role in shifting the course of the pandemic. But we might not be so fortunate next time.

    In any future pandemic it will be crucial to have a clear pathway for rapid, reliable methods to develop and evaluate new treatments, disseminate that research to clinicians, policymakers and the public, and ensure all Australians can access the treatments they need.

    Steven McGloughlin and Tari Turner, Monash University

    Vaccine rollout

    COVID vaccines were developed in record time, but rolling them out quickly and seamlessly proved to be a challenge. In Australia, there were several missteps along the way.

    First, there was poor preparation and execution. Detailed planning was not finalised until after the rollout had begun.

    Then the federal government had overly ambitious targets. For example, the goal of vaccinating four million people by the end of March 2021 fell drastically short, with less than one-fifth of that number actually vaccinated by that time.

    There were also supply issues, with the European Union blocking some deliveries to Australia.

    Unfortunately, the government was heavily reliant on the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was found, in rare cases, to lead to blood clots in younger people.

    Despite all this, Australia ultimately achieved high vaccination rates. By the end of December 2021, more than 94% of the population aged 16 and over had received at least one dose.

    This was a significant public health achievement and saved thousands of lives.

    But over the past couple of years, Australia’s initially strong vaccine uptake has been waning.

    The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation recommends booster doses for vulnerable groups annually or twice annually. However, only 30% of people aged 75 and over (for whom a booster is recommended every six months) have had a booster dose in the past six months.

    There are several lessons to be learned from the COVID vaccine rollout for any future pandemic, though it’s not entirely clear whether they are being heeded.

    For example, several manufacturers have developed updated COVID vaccines based on the JN.1 subvariant. But reports indicate the government will only be purchasing the Pfizer JN.1 booster. This doesn’t seem like the best approach to shore up vaccine supply.

    Adrian Esterman, University of South Australia

    Mode of transmission

    Nearly five years since SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) first emerged, we now know airborne transmission plays a far greater role than we originally thought.

    In contrast, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via surfaces is likely to be low, and perhaps effectively non-existent in many situations.

    Early in the pandemic, the role contaminated surfaces and inanimate objects played in COVID transmission was overestimated. The main reason we got this wrong, at least initially, was that in the absence of any direct experience with SARS-CoV-2, we extrapolated what we believed to be true for other respiratory viruses. This was understandable, but it proved to be inadequate for predicting how SARS-CoV-2 would behave.

    One of the main consequences of overestimating the role of surface transmission was that it resulted in a lot of unnecessary anxiety and the adoption of what can only be viewed in retrospect as over-the-top cleaning practices. Remember the teams of people who walked the streets wiping down traffic light poles? How about the concern over reusable coffee cups?

    Considerable resources that could have been better invested elsewhere were directed towards disinfecting surfaces. This also potentially distracted our focus from other preventive measures that were likely to have been more effective, such as wearing masks.

    We now understand COVID spreads predominantly through the air.
    Kate Trifo/Pexels

    The focus on surface transmission was amplified by a number of studies published early in the pandemic that documented the survival of SARS-CoV-2 for long periods on surfaces. However, these were conducted in the lab with little similarity to real-world conditions. In particular, the amounts of virus placed on surfaces were greater than what people would likely encounter outside the lab. This inflated viral survival times and therefore the perception of risk.

    The emphasis on surface transmission early in the pandemic ultimately proved to be a miscalculation. It highlights the challenges in understanding how a new virus spreads.

    Hassan Vally, Deakin University

    National unity

    Initially, Commonwealth, state and territory leaders were relatively united in their response to the COVID pandemic. The establishment of the National Cabinet in March 2020 indicated a commitment to consensus-based public health policy. Meanwhile, different jurisdictions came together to deliver a range of measures aimed at supporting businesses and workers affected by COVID restrictions.

    But as the pandemic continued, tensions gave way to deeper ideological fractures between jurisdictions and individuals. The issues of vaccine mandates, border closures and lockdowns all created fragmentation between governments, and among experts.

    The blame game began between and within jurisdictions. For example, the politicisation of quarantine regulations on cruise ships revealed disunity. School closures, on which the Commonwealth and state and territory governments took different positions, also generated controversy.

    These and other instances of polarisation undermined the intent of the newly established National Cabinet.

    The COVID pandemic showed us that disunity across the country threatens the collective work needed for an effective response in the face of emergencies.

    The COVID response inquiry, due to release its results soon, will hopefully help us work toward national uniform legislation that may benefit Australia in the event of any future pandemics.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean identical legislation across the country – this won’t always be appropriate. But a cohesive, long-term approach is crucial to ensure the best outcomes for the Australian federation in its entirety.

    Guzyal Hill and Kim M Caudwell, Charles Darwin University

    This article is part of a series on the next pandemic.

    Adrian Esterman receives funding from the NHMRC, MRFF and ARC.

    Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    Steven McGloughlin works with the Australian Living Evidence Collaboration and is a consultant for the World Health Organisation Health Emergencies Program.

    Tari Turner receives funding from MRFF; NHMRC; the Victorian, WA and Commonwealth governments; and philanthropy.

    Guzyal Hill, Hassan Vally, and Kim M Caudwell do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Lessons for the next pandemic: where did Australia go right and wrong in responding to COVID? – https://theconversation.com/lessons-for-the-next-pandemic-where-did-australia-go-right-and-wrong-in-responding-to-covid-239819

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-Evening Report: The government spent twice what it needed to on economic support during COVID, modelling shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Economics (modelling), Australian National University

    ChristieCooper/Shutterstock

    The independent inquiry into the government’s COVID response is due to report on October 25.

    As part of its investigation into the government’s economic responses, I briefed it on the findings of my economic modelling, using the sort of model I helped design for the Australian Treasury and consulting firms including Econtech and Independent Economics, specially customised for this study.

    I found that government responses such as JobKeeper and the Jobseeker Supplement were initially successful. They reduced the peak rate of unemployment by two percentage points, or by more if we count workers who are stood down as employed.

    But they lingered too long, ultimately providing $2 of compensation for every $1 of private income lost to COVID.

    Government support was essential

    Some parts of the economy were deeply affected by the COVID shutdowns which began in early 2020, others much less so.

    It is widely accepted that the best response to that (unusual) circumstance is to replace the income those workers and businesses lose. This means, for example, when movie theatres close, the government should replace the incomes of their workers.

    This has two benefits. The first is to allow movie theatre workers to maintain their normal spending, stopping the downturn spreading to unrestricted industries. The second is to ensure movie theatre workers don’t have to bear an unfair share of the cost of measures put in place to protect everyone’s health.

    Around one sixth of the Australian economy was severely restricted by government measures in the early months of COVID.

    This made measures such as JobKeeper, the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers program and the JobSeeker Supplement appropriate.

    Too much support for some, too little for others

    The government spent $144 billion on these three programs, and my modelling finds the total was about right to compensate for the early losses of income.
    But the pattern of compensation was wide of the mark, with a mix of overcompensation and undercompensation.

    JobKeeper was designed to guarantee workers a minimum income rather than compensate them for lost income. This meant typical full-time workers were undercompensated while typical part-time workers were overcompensated.

    For businesses, the compensation for lost profits depended on workers being active, which meant the firms that lost the most because they had suspended their entire operations got no compensation for losing their entire profits even though some of their expenses continued.

    Better programs were put in place in 2021 when the Delta wave of COVID struck. A COVID disaster payment more accurately compensated workers for lost hours, and programs such as NSW JobSaver more accurately targeted lost profits.

    Extra support for the entire economy wasn’t needed

    In principle, well-designed compensation for the parts of the economy that were actually shut down would have been enough to support the rest of the economy, but despite this, the government also announced broader supports aimed at the entire economy.

    Among them were bringing forward the so-called Stage 2 tax cuts and allowing businesses to immediately expense equipment.

    These general stimulus measures almost doubled the size of stimulus from $219 billion to $428 billion. Besides being large and unnecessary, most of the general stimulus was delivered late, after the worst of the pandemic was over.

    How it could have been done better

    I have modelled what could have happened if the government had only spent on the health measures that were clearly warranted and had limited its compensation to income actually lost at the time it was lost.

    This so-called shorter stimulus scenario also includes a more usual response to economic recovery by the Reserve Bank in which it began lifting interest rates one year earlier, in May 2021 instead of May 2022.

    In the shorter stimulus scenario, the Reserve Bank’s cash rate would by now be 2.85% instead of 4.35% because of lower inflation. Equally, in two or three years interest rates are similar in both scenarios once the economy has stabilised.

    Australia’s unemployment rate would be higher than it is now at about 5.1% instead of 4.2% as it glides towards a sustainable equilibrium rather than having been pushed below it.

    This glide path keeps inflation lower by avoiding a boom and bust and results in the same endpoint for unemployment.

    Inflation would have peaked much lower at about 5% instead of about 7%.

    About 1.4% percentage points of the reduction would have been due to better fiscal (spending and taxing) policy and about 0.7 points due to better management of interest rates.

    In addition, the government would have saved about $209 billion in avoidable spending and government debt.

    Nevertheless, even if the government had limited its response to the more targeted measures modelled in the shorter stimulus scenario, inflation would have reached 5% and interest rates and government debt would have still climbed, but by less.

    Hindsight can help

    The government’s responses to COVID were developed quickly at a time when no one knew what was going to happen, which makes some overcompensation understandable.

    But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine what happened in order to work out how it could have been done better.

    Australia will be hit by future pandemics and pandemic-like crises, which means it’s important to learn from our mistakes. Next time the government should concentrate on replacing income where and when it is lost.

    Chris Murphy assisted the COVID-19 Response Inquiry.

    – ref. The government spent twice what it needed to on economic support during COVID, modelling shows – https://theconversation.com/the-government-spent-twice-what-it-needed-to-on-economic-support-during-covid-modelling-shows-240999

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Hon’ble Union minister of Jal Shakti announces 5th National Water Awards

    Source: Government of India

    Posted On: 14 OCT 2024 6:43PM by PIB Delhi

    Hon’ble Union minister of Jal Shakti that Shri CR Patil announced the list of winners of 5th National Water Awards, today, at Shram Shakti Bhawan New Delhi.

     The Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation (DoWR, RD &GR),  under the Ministry of Jal Shakti announced the 38 winners, including joint winners, for the 5th  National Water Awards, 2023, in 09 categories viz Best State, Best District, Best Village Panchayat, Best Urban Local Body, Best School or College, Best Industry, Best Water User Association, Best Institution (other than school or college), and Best Civil Society. The list of winners is annexed.

    In the category of Best State, the first prize has been conferred upon Odisha, with Uttar Pradesh securing the second position, and Gujarat and Puducherry jointly securing the third position.

    Each award winner will be conferred with a citation and a trophy as well as cash prizes in certain categories.

    The Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation (DoWR, RD &GR), announced that award distribution ceremony for the 5th National Water Awards, 2023 is going to be held on 22nd October, 2023 at 11.00 am at Plenary Hall, Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi. Hon’ble President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu will be the Chief Guest at the event.

    The two Ministers of State for the Ministry of Jal Shakti Shri Raj Bhushan Chowdhary and Shri V Somanna, The Department of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation (DoWR, RD &GR),  Miss Devashree Mukherjee Secretary Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Miss Vinni Mahajan, OSD to Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation Shri Ashok K.K Meena other Senior officials of Ministry of Jal Shakti joined the Cabinet Minister in announcing the National Water Awards.

    The Ministry of Jal Shakti serves as the central ministry entrusted with the responsibility of establishing policy frameworks and implementing programs for the development, preservation, and efficient management of water as a national asset. Under the guidance of Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Ministry of Jal Shakti has been undertaking a comprehensive campaign to spread awareness about water management and water conservation on a national level. From this standpoint and to create awareness among the people about the importance of water and to help motivate people to adopt the best water usage practices, the 1st National Water Awards were launched in 2018 by the DoWR, RD & GR. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th National Water Awards were given for the years 2019, 2020 and 2022. The awards were not given in the year 2021 due to CoVID pandemic.

    For the year 2023, 5th National Water Awards were launched on 13th October 2023 on Rashtriya Puraskar Portal of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). A total of 686 applications were received. The applications were scrutinised and evaluated by a Jury Committee. The ground truthing of the shortlisted applications was carried out by the Central Water Commission (CWC) and Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). Based on the ground truthing reports, a total of 38 winners, including Joint winners, covering 09 different categories have been selected for the 5th NWA, 2023.

    The National Water Awards (NWAs) focus on the good work and efforts made by individuals and organisations across the country in attaining the government’s vision of a ‘Jal Samridh Bharat’. The awards are for creating awareness among the people about the importance of water and motivating them to adopt best water usage practices. The event provides an occasion for all people and organizations to further cement a strong partnership and people engagement in water resources conservation and management activities.

    ***

    DSK

    (Release ID: 2064769) Visitor Counter : 38

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Union Health Secretary addresses Annual India Leadership Summit organised by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum in New Delhi

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Union Health Secretary addresses Annual India Leadership Summit organised by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum in New Delhi

    The medicines from Indian companies provided 219 billion USD savings to the US healthcare system in 2022 and a total 1.3 Trillion USD savings between 2013 – 2022: Union Health Secretary

    “50% of all vaccines manufactured in the world are from India. In the last one year alone, of the 8 billion vaccine doses manufactured and distributed across the world, 4 billion doses were manufactured in India”

    “India appreciates the NCDC and ICMR Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETP) organized in collaboration with the U.S CDC which has trained over 200 Epidemic Intelligence Services Officers so far with another 50 currently undergoing training through various programs”

    “U.S.-India Cancer Moonshot Dialogue launched in August aims to enhance U.S.-India biomedical research cooperation, particularly focusing on cervical cancer”

    “Initiatives like the Indo-U.S. Health Dialogue have yielded tangible results in disease surveillance, pandemic preparedness, and antimicrobial resistance. Joint efforts, such as the recent U.S.-India Cancer Dialogue, focus on enhancing biomedical research and cancer prevention in the Indo-Pacific region”

    “India and the U.S. can further strengthen global health security by prioritizing research, technology transfer, and capacity building”

    Posted On: 14 OCT 2024 8:04PM by PIB Delhi

    Smt. Punya Salila Srivastava, Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, addressed the annual India Leadership Summit 2024, organised by the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum, here today.

    Addressing the gathering, Smt. Punya said that India has emerged as a global leader in pharmaceuticals, being the third-largest producer and a key supplier of generic medicines. This sector’s success has resulted in substantial savings for healthcare systems worldwide, including a notable contribution to the U.S. healthcare system. “The contribution of the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is evidenced by the fact that India has the highest number of US FDA-approved pharmaceutical plants outside of the United States. This is 25% of the total number of US FDA-approved pants outside of the US. The medicines from Indian companies, I am told, provided 219 billion USD savings to the US healthcare system in 2022 and a total 1.3 Trillion USD savings between 2013 – 2022”, she stated.

    The country also leads in vaccine production, with a significant share of global manufacturing, underscoring its role as the “pharmacy of the world”. “50% of all vaccines manufactured in the world are from India. In the last one year alone, of the 8 billion vaccine doses manufactured and distributed across the world, 4 billion doses were manufactured in India”, she said.

    To ensure a robust healthcare system, the Union Health Secretary noted that India has reformed medical education, replacing outdated regulatory frameworks with the National Medical Commission Act and related laws. This has led to a significant increase in medical and nursing college numbers and enrolment, addressing disparities in healthcare professional availability”. Consequently, India is poised to produce a competent health workforce that meets both national and global needs.

    Smt. Punya emphasized that government efforts have progressively improved the quality, scale, and cost-effectiveness of healthcare in India. “It is a testament to our expanded healthcare services that the Out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE), which is borne entirely by the households, has declined by 25 percentage points as a share of Total Health Expenditure between 2013-2014 and 2021-22.

    On the strong Indo-US Partnership in the health sector, the Union Health Secretary stated that “our mutual and shared priorities in the field of surveillance, pandemic preparedness and anti-microbial resistance are underscored in the deep partnership between National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and the US Centre for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)”. “India appreciates the NCDC and ICMR Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETP) organized in collaboration with the U.S CDC. We are happy to inform that over 200 Epidemic Intelligence Services (EIS) Officers have been trained so far with another 50 currently undergoing training through various programs”, she added.

    India and US have also agreed to initiate a joint strategic framework for optimizing the biopharmaceutical supply chain, for optimizing and strengthening global supply chains and to reduce dependencies on single-source suppliers, through the Bio- 5 alliance. 

    In 2023, Prime Minister, India and President, USA committed to accelerating the fight against cancer, leading to the inaugural U.S.-India Cancer Moonshot Dialogue launched in August. Smt. Punya highlighted that this initiative aims to enhance U.S.-India biomedical research cooperation, particularly focusing on cervical cancer. It includes partnerships with institutions like AIIMS and Tata Memorial Hospital and has evolved into the Quad Cancer Moonshot Initiative. She said that “reflecting India’s vision of ‘One World, One Health,’ a grant of $7.5 million has been dedicated to cancer testing and diagnostics in the Indo-Pacific region. India will also support radiotherapy and cancer prevention efforts in the region, contributing 40 million vaccine doses under GAVI and Quad programs to assist several countries in need of these services.”

    Smt. Punya noted that the India-U.S. partnership in healthcare exemplifies collaborative efforts to address shared health challenges. Initiatives like the Indo-U.S. Health Dialogue have yielded tangible results in disease surveillance, pandemic preparedness, and antimicrobial resistance. Joint efforts, such as the recent U.S.-India Cancer Dialogue, focus on enhancing biomedical research and cancer prevention in the Indo-Pacific region”.

    She concluded her address by stating that “looking ahead, India and the U.S. can further strengthen global health security by prioritizing research, technology transfer, and capacity building. By fostering public-private partnerships and expanding collaborative vaccine initiatives, both nations can improve health outcomes”. Guided by the philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,’ India emphasizes that global security depends on collective efforts, aiming for inclusive growth and shared well-being, she further added.

    ***

    MV

    HFW/ Secy addresses Annual India Leadership Summit /14th October 2024/2

     

    (Release ID: 2064818) Visitor Counter : 63

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic reforms

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Roy Havemann, Research Associate, Stellenbosch University

    Tito Mboweni, former South African Reserve Bank Governor, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Labour was arguably one of the country’s most consequential economic policymakers and drove several significant economic
    reforms.

    Mboweni passed away on 12 October 2024 after a short illness.

    Born on 16 March 1959, he received a Bachelor of Arts in Economic and Political Science from the National University of Lesotho in 1985. He had attended the University of the North between 1979 and 1980 but left South Africa to go into exile in his second year of studies. In 1987, he obtained a Master of Arts in Development Economics from the University of East Anglia in the UK.

    He began his career in government as Minister of Labour in President Nelson Mandela’s 1994 administration. As the first Minister of Labour in the new democratic South Africa, he took several steps to improve the relationship between business and labour.

    Among these were major legislative reforms, including the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Labour Relations Act, Mines Health Safety Act and the NEDLAC Act, designed to improve cooperation between different “constituencies” – labour, business, and government.

    He was appointed as the Eighth Governor of the South African Reserve Bank in
    1999. In this role he introduced inflation targeting and presided over the first monetary policy committee meetings. This substantially modernised the Bank’s approach. For instance, Mboweni introduced a monetary policy statement outlining the reasons for the Bank’s decisions. These were televised, bringing new transparency to the conduct of monetary policy. Before this, the bank’s targeted monetary policy aggregates, and its communications, were made through printed documents.

    Monetary Policy Forums took monetary policy to many parts of the country, bringing a new openness and engagement between the Bank and ordinary South Africans.

    He held the position of Governor until 2009. But his legacy endures. The South African Reserve Bank is highly regarded across the world, with an inflation rate that is firmly within the target range and well-anchored inflation expectations.

    As finance minister

    Shortly after Cyril Ramaphosa was inaugurated as President of the Republic of South Africa in 2018, the then Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene resigned. The President appointed Mboweni as Minister of Finance in October 2018.

    Mboweni made three consequential decisions in South Africa’s economic policy
    trajectory.

    The first was the decision, in 2019, to freeze government wages from 2020. He was alarmed by the rapid and unsustainable increase in government wages. Together with slowing economic growth, this led to a fiscal position that was deteriorating at an alarming pace. The wage freeze ultimately started the slow return to the fiscal rectitude that had been the hallmark of the period of government before Jacob Zuma became president in 2009.

    The second, also in 2019, was the publication of a paper on economic growth. It was known officially as “Economic transformation, inclusive growth, and competitiveness: Towards an Economic Strategy for South Africa”.

    Unofficially it was known as the “Tito Paper”.

    This set out a programme of much-needed economic reforms – including steps to lift the restrictions on private power generation. In the six years since the publication of the policy paper (and the subsequent reforms), a total of 6 GW of non-Eskom electricity has been added to the grid, saving South Africa six stages of load-shedding.

    Other recommendations of the paper are being followed, including those for rail, telecommunications and ports.

    The third was the introduction of a comprehensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included a significant expansion of the grants system, with a Social Relief of Distress grant pegged at R350 per person per month. Research by the NIDS-CRAM initiative, led by Dr Nic Spaull of Stellenbosch University, has highlighted how the grant positively affected millions of people’s lives.

    Enduring legacy

    It is difficult to think of any other economic policymaker who has left such an enduring legacy.

    Stellenbosch University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2010 and appointed him Professor Extraordinary of Economics from 2002 to 2005 . He was a frequent participant at Bureau for Economic Research conferences. There, his engaging speaking style made him a popular drawcard.

    His love of red wine and engaging conversation made him a popular visitor at the university. In 2010, he spent time at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Studies as part of a research group working on the global financial crisis and its consequences for democracy.

    This is an edited version of a tribute published by the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University.

    Roy Havemann is a senior economist at the Bureau for Economic Research where he leads the Impumelelo Economic Growth Lab. He was previously at the National Treasury where, amongst other things, he was Tito Mboweni’s speechwriter.

    – ref. Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic
    reforms – https://theconversation.com/tito-mboweni-south-african-minister-and-reserve-bank-governor-who-drove-significant-economic-reforms-241236

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Africa: Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic reforms

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Roy Havemann, Research Associate, Stellenbosch University

    Tito Mboweni, former South African Reserve Bank Governor, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Labour was arguably one of the country’s most consequential economic policymakers and drove several significant economic reforms.

    Mboweni passed away on 12 October 2024 after a short illness.

    Born on 16 March 1959, he received a Bachelor of Arts in Economic and Political Science from the National University of Lesotho in 1985. He had attended the University of the North between 1979 and 1980 but left South Africa to go into exile in his second year of studies. In 1987, he obtained a Master of Arts in Development Economics from the University of East Anglia in the UK.

    He began his career in government as Minister of Labour in President Nelson Mandela’s 1994 administration. As the first Minister of Labour in the new democratic South Africa, he took several steps to improve the relationship between business and labour.

    Among these were major legislative reforms, including the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Labour Relations Act, Mines Health Safety Act and the NEDLAC Act, designed to improve cooperation between different “constituencies” – labour, business, and government.

    He was appointed as the Eighth Governor of the South African Reserve Bank in 1999. In this role he introduced inflation targeting and presided over the first monetary policy committee meetings. This substantially modernised the Bank’s approach. For instance, Mboweni introduced a monetary policy statement outlining the reasons for the Bank’s decisions. These were televised, bringing new transparency to the conduct of monetary policy. Before this, the bank’s targeted monetary policy aggregates, and its communications, were made through printed documents.

    Monetary Policy Forums took monetary policy to many parts of the country, bringing a new openness and engagement between the Bank and ordinary South Africans.

    He held the position of Governor until 2009. But his legacy endures. The South African Reserve Bank is highly regarded across the world, with an inflation rate that is firmly within the target range and well-anchored inflation expectations.

    As finance minister

    Shortly after Cyril Ramaphosa was inaugurated as President of the Republic of South Africa in 2018, the then Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene resigned. The President appointed Mboweni as Minister of Finance in October 2018.

    Mboweni made three consequential decisions in South Africa’s economic policy trajectory.

    The first was the decision, in 2019, to freeze government wages from 2020. He was alarmed by the rapid and unsustainable increase in government wages. Together with slowing economic growth, this led to a fiscal position that was deteriorating at an alarming pace. The wage freeze ultimately started the slow return to the fiscal rectitude that had been the hallmark of the period of government before Jacob Zuma became president in 2009.

    The second, also in 2019, was the publication of a paper on economic growth. It was known officially as “Economic transformation, inclusive growth, and competitiveness: Towards an Economic Strategy for South Africa”.

    Unofficially it was known as the “Tito Paper”.

    This set out a programme of much-needed economic reforms – including steps to lift the restrictions on private power generation. In the six years since the publication of the policy paper (and the subsequent reforms), a total of 6 GW of non-Eskom electricity has been added to the grid, saving South Africa six stages of load-shedding.

    Other recommendations of the paper are being followed, including those for rail, telecommunications and ports.

    The third was the introduction of a comprehensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included a significant expansion of the grants system, with a Social Relief of Distress grant pegged at R350 per person per month. Research by the NIDS-CRAM initiative, led by Dr Nic Spaull of Stellenbosch University, has highlighted how the grant positively affected millions of people’s lives.

    Enduring legacy

    It is difficult to think of any other economic policymaker who has left such an enduring legacy.

    Stellenbosch University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2010 and appointed him Professor Extraordinary of Economics from 2002 to 2005 . He was a frequent participant at Bureau for Economic Research conferences. There, his engaging speaking style made him a popular drawcard.

    His love of red wine and engaging conversation made him a popular visitor at the university. In 2010, he spent time at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Studies as part of a research group working on the global financial crisis and its consequences for democracy.

    This is an edited version of a tribute published by the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University.

    – Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic
    reforms
    – https://theconversation.com/tito-mboweni-south-african-minister-and-reserve-bank-governor-who-drove-significant-economic-reforms-241236

    MIL OSI Africa –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Union Health Minister Shri JP Nadda inaugurates 19th International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Union Health Minister Shri JP Nadda inaugurates 19th International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities

    ICDRA is being hosted for the first time in India, bringing together regulatory authorities, policymakers, and health officials from over 194 WHO member states

    During the unprecedented COVID 19 pandemic, India emerged not only as a global leader in health resilience and innovation but also reaffirmed its role as the Pharmacy of the World: Shri JP Nadda

    “The ICDRA platform provides a space to share knowledge, foster partnerships, and develop regulatory frameworks that ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of medical products worldwide”

    “CDSCO has developed robust systems for approving safe and efficacious drugs and medical devices in the country and for export to more than 200 countries in the world”

    “More than 95% regulatory processes currently have been digitized at CDSCO, bringing transparency and increasing trust among stakeholders”

    Global cooperation is important in drug regulation, particularly in light of challenges such as antimicrobial resistance, the post-pandemic world, and the safe use of AI in healthcare: Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

    Posted On: 14 OCT 2024 1:48PM by PIB Delhi

    Shri Jagat Prakash Nadda, Union Minister of Health and Family Welfare inaugurated the 19th International Conference of Drug Regulatory Authorities (ICDRA), here today. The event which is being hosted for the first time in India, from 14th – 18th October by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO) brought together regulatory authorities, policymakers, and health officials from over 194 WHO member states.

     

    Addressing the occasion, Shri JP Nadda emphasized on the shared commitment for enhancing global healthcare standards and safeguarding public health. He highlighted that during the unprecedented COVID 19 pandemic, India emerged not only as a global leader in health resilience and innovation but also reaffirmed its role as the Pharmacy of the World. “India rapidly expanded its healthcare infrastructure and scaled up vaccine production to meet both domestic and global demands. The successful rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination program, covering over a billion people, is a testament to the robustness of our healthcare system, the dedication of our health workers, and the soundness of our policies”, he said.

    The Union Health Minister highlighted that India played a crucial role in ensuring affordable access to essential medicines, vaccines, and medical supplies for nations across the globe. “Guided by the principle of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – the world is one family, we extended our support to more than 150 countries, providing life-saving drugs and vaccines during the pandemic. This spirit of international solidarity is at the heart of India’s approach to global health. We believe that our progress is inseparable from the progress of the world, and as such, we remain committed to contributing to global health security and sustainability”, he said.

     

    Shri Nadda noted that “the ICDRA platform provides a space to share knowledge, foster partnerships, and develop regulatory frameworks that ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of medical products worldwide.”

    Highlighting the achievements of CDSCO, Shri Nadda said that “it has developed robust systems for approving safe and efficacious drugs and medical devices in the country and for export to more than 200 countries in the world”. Availability of Quality medicine at affordable price is at the core, he said. He also informed that “8 drug testing labs are operational today while 2 more are in pipeline. 8 Mini testing Labs are operational at different ports for quick testing and release of drugs and raw material being imported. In addition, 38 State Drug Regulator’s Testing Labs are operational. Altogether, more than a hundred thousand samples are being tested every year under regulatory surveillance mechanism.”

    The Union Minister also stated that “more than 95% regulatory processes currently have been digitized at CDSCO, bringing transparency and increasing trust among stakeholders.” He also stated that, “Considering the importance of medical devices in health care delivery, Medical Device industry in India is also being regulated. Drugs Rules have been amended to make Good Manufacturing Practice Guidelines more comprehensive and at par with the WHO-GMP guidelines.”

    It was also pointed out that in order to make drug supply chain robust, it has been made mandatory to provide Bar Code or Quick Response Code (QR Code) on top 300 brands of drug products. Similarly, QR Code is mandatory on all API packs, either being imported or manufactured in India.

    The Union Minister concluded his address by underscoring India’s full committed to advancing global health. “We believe in 3 Ss i.e. “Skill, Speed and Scale” and by focusing on these three aspects, we have been able to meet the increasing demand for Pharma products while adhering to global quality standards without any compromise. We are prepared to address pressing challenges, from antimicrobial resistance to ensuring equitable access to life-saving treatments. We are not just participants in this dialogue; we are partners in building a healthier, safer and more resilient world”, he said.

    Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of WHO, in his speech, commended India for hosting this crucial global regulatory forum and highlighted the importance of global cooperation in drug regulation, particularly in light of challenges such as antimicrobial resistance, the post-pandemic world, and the safe use of AI in healthcare.

    Dr Saima Wazed, Regional Director, WHO Southeast Asia Region stated that “India is the largest provider of generic medicines while the Indian Pharmaceutical Industry is the third largest in the world. She noted that India provides over 50% of the world’s vaccine demands. She emphasized that a strong regulatory system is crucial to achieving universal health coverage and highlighted the need for strengthened regulatory convergence and information sharing between national regulatory authorities.

    Smt. Punya Salila Srivastava, Union Health Secretary stated that “the Indian pharmaceutical industry has recently become the 4th largest export sector of India, exemplifying the level of our integration into the global pharmaceutical supply chain. India is the third largest producer of pharmaceuticals in the world, and has the largest number of US FDA approved plants outside the USA.” She also highlighted that “India supply 50% of the world’s vaccines, most of them going to UN agencies like WHO, UNICEF and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and to organisations like GAVI.

    Ms. Malebona Precious Matsoso, Co-Chair, WHO Intergovernmental Negotiation Body, South Africa said that “regulation of medical products is one of the most crucial aspects today. The impact of regulatory decisions is found not only at the national or global level but also in the hospital rooms.” Public health interventions and response can be shortened through efficient regulation and oversight, she said.

    Highlighting India as the pharmacy of the world, she said that this tag comes with certain expectations and capacities about India. She concluded her address by emphasising on smart regulation as opposed to under-regulation and over-regulation.

    Dr. Rajeev Singh Raghuvanshi, Drugs Controller General of India highlighted India’s achievements in drugs control and medical devices sector, including the approval of India’s first CAR T-cell therapy. “We are continuously upgrading our skills and capacities in our systems and are on a path towards low regulation and high execution”, he said.

    As a precursor to the main conference, an exhibition was also held which showcased India’s innovation, capabilities, and leadership in the pharmaceutical, medical devices, and clinical research sectors. Key industry players, including pharmaceutical giants, medical device manufacturers, and healthcare innovators, presented their advancements and breakthroughs to an international audience of regulators and stakeholders. This exhibition served as a testament to India’s standing as the “Pharmacy of the World” and its growing influence in global healthcare.

    In addition to the main conference sessions, several side meetings will take place, where representatives from various countries will engage in focused discussions on specific regulatory challenges and opportunities. These meetings will facilitate bilateral and multilateral dialogues on strengthening regulatory systems, promoting innovation, and fostering collaboration to address global health needs.

    Key Discussions and Regulatory Challenges

    The 5-day conference will feature a series of insightful sessions where regulatory authorities and industry leaders will deliberate on key issues affecting global drug and medical device regulation. Some of the prominent sessions include:

    • Plenary Session on Smart Regulation: Discussions will revolve around the evolving landscape of regulatory reliance and the World Listed Authorities (WLA) framework. Global regulators will explore how to enhance cooperation to streamline processes across countries.
    • Workshops on Medical Devices: A significant focus will be placed on the regulation of medical devices, including IVDs (In Vitro Diagnostics), where experts will discuss trends in global and regional regulatory frameworks.
    • Quality of Pharmaceutical Starting Materials: This workshop will shed light on the need for stringent regulations in ensuring the quality and safety of pharmaceutical products from their very inception.
    • Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Regulators and industry experts will discuss the role of AI in improving regulatory oversight, pharmaco-vigilance, and clinical trials, while also addressing the challenges related to data privacy and implementation.
    • Regulatory Preparedness in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: This is a plenary session focused on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for continued regulatory innovation to prepare for future public health emergencies.

    The 19th ICDRA will emphasize strengthening global regulatory systems through partnerships and collective efforts. Regulatory authorities from various nations will discuss challenges and opportunities in harmonizing regulations for medical products, addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and advancing traditional medicines.

    Dr Rajiv Bahl, Secretary, Dept. of Health Research and DG ICMR; Shri Rajiv Wadhawan, Advisor (Cost), Health Ministry; Dr Roderico H. Ofrin, WHO Representative to India and senior officials of the Union Health Ministry were present at the event.

    ***

    MV

    HFW/ HFM ICDRA Inaugural /14th October 2024/1

    (Release ID: 2064618) Visitor Counter : 105

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI: Radware Reports Results of 2024 Annual General Meeting

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TEL AVIV, Israel, Oct. 14, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Radware® (NASDAQ: RDWR), a global leader in application security and delivery solutions for multi-cloud environments, today announced the results of its Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held October 10, 2024. The Company presented three proposals for the shareholders to vote on at the meeting, of which one proposal (to approve grants of equity-based awards to the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company) was not adopted by the requisite shareholder vote. The two other proposals voted on at the Annual General Meeting were adopted by the requisite shareholder vote.

    About Radware
    Radware® (NASDAQ: RDWR) is a global leader in application security and delivery solutions for multi-cloud environments. The company’s cloud application, infrastructure, and API security solutions use AI-driven algorithms for precise, hands-free, real-time protection from the most sophisticated web, application, and DDoS attacks, API abuse, and bad bots. Enterprises and carriers worldwide rely on Radware’s solutions to address evolving cybersecurity challenges and protect their brands and business operations while reducing costs. For more information, please visit the Radware website.

    Radware encourages you to join our community and follow us on: Facebook, LinkedIn, Radware Blog, X, YouTube, and Radware Mobile for iOS.

    ©2024 Radware Ltd. All rights reserved. Any Radware products and solutions mentioned in this press release are protected by trademarks, patents, and pending patent applications of Radware in the U.S. and other countries. For more details, please see: https://www.radware.com/LegalNotice/. All other trademarks and names are property of their respective owners.

    Radware believes the information in this document is accurate in all material respects as of its publication date. However, the information is provided without any express, statutory, or implied warranties and is subject to change without notice.

    The contents of any website or hyperlinks mentioned in this press release are for informational purposes and the contents thereof are not part of this press release.

    Contacts
    Investor Relations:
    Yisca Erez, +972-72-3917211, ir@radware.com

    Media Contacts:
    Gerri Dyrek, gerri.dyrek@radware.com

    Safe Harbor Statement

    This press release includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements made herein that are not statements of historical fact, including statements about Radware’s plans, outlook, beliefs, or opinions, are forward-looking statements. Generally, forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “believes,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “estimates,” “plans,” and similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “should,” “would,” “may,” and “could.” Because such statements deal with future events, they are subject to various risks and uncertainties, and actual results, expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, could differ materially from Radware’s current forecasts and estimates. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to: the impact of global economic conditions, including as a result of the state of war declared in Israel in October 2023 and instability in the Middle East, the war in Ukraine, and the tensions between China and Taiwan; our dependence on independent distributors to sell our products; our ability to manage our anticipated growth effectively; a shortage of components or manufacturing capacity could cause a delay in our ability to fulfill orders or increase our manufacturing costs; our business may be affected by sanctions, export controls, and similar measures, targeting Russia and other countries and territories, as well as other responses to Russia’s military conflict in Ukraine, including indefinite suspension of operations in Russia and dealings with Russian entities by many multi-national businesses across a variety of industries; the ability of vendors to provide our hardware platforms and components for the manufacture of our products; our ability to attract, train, and retain highly qualified personnel; intense competition in the market for cyber security and application delivery solutions and in our industry in general, and changes in the competitive landscape; our ability to develop new solutions and enhance existing solutions; the impact to our reputation and business in the event of real or perceived shortcomings, defects, or vulnerabilities in our solutions, if our end-users experience security breaches, if our information technology systems and data, or those of our service providers and other contractors, are compromised by cyber-attackers or other malicious actors or by a critical system failure; outages, interruptions, or delays in hosting services; the risks associated with our global operations, such as difficulties and costs of staffing and managing foreign operations, compliance costs arising from host country laws or regulations, partial or total expropriation, export duties and quotas, local tax exposure, economic or political instability, including as a result of insurrection, war, natural disasters, and major environmental, climate, or public health concerns, such as the COVID-19 pandemic; our net losses in the past two years and possibility we may incur losses in the future; a slowdown in the growth of the cyber security and application delivery solutions market or in the development of the market for our cloud-based solutions; long sales cycles for our solutions; risks and uncertainties relating to acquisitions or other investments; risks associated with doing business in countries with a history of corruption or with foreign governments; changes in foreign currency exchange rates; risks associated with undetected defects or errors in our products; our ability to protect our proprietary technology; intellectual property infringement claims made by third parties; laws, regulations, and industry standards affecting our business; compliance with open source and third-party licenses; and other factors and risks over which we may have little or no control. This list is intended to identify only certain of the principal factors that could cause actual results to differ. For a more detailed description of the risks and uncertainties affecting Radware, refer to Radware’s Annual Report on Form 20-F, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the other risk factors discussed from time to time by Radware in reports filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which they are made and, except as required by applicable law, Radware undertakes no commitment to revise or update any forward-looking statement in order to reflect events or circumstances after the date any such statement is made. Radware’s public filings are available from the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov or may be obtained on Radware’s website at http://www.radware.com.

    The MIL Network –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Publication of 2020 official development assistance figures by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (13 Apr. 2021)e publique au développement 2020 par le Comité d’aide au développement de l’OCDE (13.04.21)

    Source: Republic of France in English
    The Republic of France has issued the following statement:

    The Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) today published preliminary data on global official development assistance (ODA) for 2020. With ODA at €12.4 billion, i.e. 0.53% of gross national income (GNI) – up by 10.9% in real terms compared to the previous year –, France remains in fifth place among international aid donors.

    In line with the French President’s commitment to increase France’s resources for protecting global public goods, French ODA rose for the sixth consecutive year (up €2.3 billion since the beginning of the five-year term).

    The increase in French ODA is mainly driven by bilateral assistance (up 20.8% in current euros compared to 2019). Bilateral funding in donations increased by 2%, in accordance with the targets set by the Interministerial Committee for International Cooperation and Development (CICID) in February 2018. Assistance for projects, enabling practical projects to be funded on the ground, tripled by comparison with 2019, particularly thanks to increased activity in non-C2D donations directly implemented by the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs and activity entrusted to the French Development Agency (AFD). Sub-Saharan Africa, which is central to France’s development policy, received a third of our bilateral ODA (€2.9 billion), up 40% compared to 2019. The bilateral ODA allocated by France to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) stands at €1.7 billion.

    France allocated €1.9 billion to the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic in developing countries in 2020 – more than the other European donors. In particular, through the AFD, it established a Health in Common Initiative worth €1.2 billion – €150 million of it in donations – which, among other things, improved care for patients and strengthened the capabilities of the Pasteur Institute’s reference laboratories in several sub-Saharan African countries.

    French ODA to international organizations and multilateral funds amounted to €4.4 billion (up 2.8%). Over half corresponded to France’s contribution to the ODA implemented by the European Union. This money also financed the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), Unitaid, Gavi The Vaccine Alliance’s Finance Facility and the Green Climate Fund. France stepped up its support to the least developed countries through its contribution to the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA) and the African Development Fund (ADF).

    The programming bill on inclusive development and combating global inequalities, presented by the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs and adopted by the National Assembly on 2 March 2021, realizes France’s new ambition for development policy. Through increased resources and overhauled methods, it reflects the desire to ensure our action is effective on the ground, helping the most vulnerable people, and to mobilize our partners to take more robust action to protect global public goods (climate, health, education). The Senate is currently discussing the bill.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: David Holdsworth’s speech at CLA 30th anniversary conference

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government Non-Ministerial Departments

    David Holdsworth addresses Charity Law Association Conference.

    Location:
    London
    Delivered on:
    10 October 2024 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

    Good afternoon, and to Welsh colleagues in the room, prynhawn da.

    I’m delighted to be here with you this afternoon, and for this opportunity to be a part of your annual conference. I’d like to say a few words about the Commission’s priorities, and about the ways in which I see us working with the wider charity law community during my time as CEO.

    This is, of course, the 30th anniversary of the CLA conference.

    Milestones like this encourage us to look back at where we’ve come from, and imagine and plan for what lies ahead.

    The milestones since 1994 alone speak of the passing of one generation into the next.

    We’ve had no fewer than 10 Charities Acts, including those passed in devolved parliaments. Some of this legislation has redefined charity, and the powers of the Commission as regulator, expanding our role, influence and responsibilities, ensuring that as the sector has grown and diversified, we have too, keeping pace with changing expectations and needs. The CLA will have been there, inputting, advising, consulting, every step of the way.

    Many leaders have come and gone. Since the early 1990s, we’ve seen 3 Chief Commissioners of the Charity Commission, then since the 2006 Act, 5 chairs, and the same number of chief executives, including myself.

    During the same period – three changes of government, with one coalition, and nine Prime Ministers.

    But perhaps more significant are the fundamental technological, cultural and social changes that have unfolded since the 1990s, transforming the way in which we live, work, and communicate – and the way in which we do good for our communities and for others and the values to which our society holds.  

    We have seen same sex marriage legalised, we’ve seen a huge shift in attitudes towards ….. and investment in ….. mental health, women’s health and wellbeing and we’re beginning to recognise the personal, social, and economic impact of systemic issues such as loneliness and inequality.  

    There are many more such examples. It is worth holding in mind both how recent such progress is, and how important charities and wider civil society are in reflecting, and driving social attitudes.

    Charities serve as a mirror in which society sees reflected not just how things are, but also how they could be.

    Over the past 30 years, the fundamental purpose of charity has remained pretty stable, but its role and relevance to our daily lives has only increased.

    From delivery of and support for emergency response services, to early years provision, medical research, and care and advocacy for the most vulnerable in our society… not to mention the work of charities in promoting the arts, cultural heritage, conservation and so on. Charities save and improve lives, cradle to grave.

    Of course, charities’ status at the heart of our society rests not just on the good intentions of those involved.

    Charities are trusted and valued because they are protected by a framework of statutory duties and obligations that experts such as yourselves both helped shape and importantly also help to uphold.

    Your work goes far beyond advising individual charities. Your voice is crucial in helping to shape the charity law framework, ensuring it keeps pace with changing needs in society.

    Looking ahead – we can’t of course say for sure where we’ll be 30 years from now.

    I would wager that the pace of technological, cultural and social change will only increase.

    And that our ambition will remain to ensure charities continue to be trusted as vehicles for our better nature, and that people continue to support charitable purposes with their time, money, and trust.

    While our research shows that trust is currently at a 10-year high, this is not an outcome we can take for granted.

    I believe there is a role for the Commission and the wider charity law community to help shape the future of charity, anticipating and responding to wider changes in society and public expectations.

    In that context, there are three areas I’d like to reflect on today.

    Picture the sector as the home in which we all live and which we all want to preserve for the future, and consider how you would maintain the structure for the long term.  

    First, there’s housekeeping and maintenance – so the things we need to do and think about now to ensure that we’re keeping the house safe and stable. This is not a small task. The building we are looking after is old, and it has many rooms and keeping it in good shape requires hard work and ingenuity.

    Second are the strategic works we know we need to undertake, because of changes we already know will come. Sticking with the analogy – we know we need to insulate all our walls, because the climate is changing and energy is precious.

    Third, and perhaps trickiest of all, we need to think now about the way in which the building may be used into the next generation. If we want to preserve the best of the building whilst ensuring it’s fit for future generations and not see it torn down or to fall into neglect and disrepair slowly over time due to its lack of attractiveness to new home owners – then we need to adapt it bit by bit over time ensuring it meets the needs of tomorrow’s home owners.

    So first, maintenance of the sector right now. Getting the basics right today.

    Here I’d like to home in on our work to support trustees through our guidance work.

    This forms an important part of the Commission’s corporate strategy – one of our strategic priorities being to support charities to get it right but take robust action where we see wrongdoing and harm. Our statute of course also requires us ‘to promote compliance by charity trustees with their legal obligations’ and empowers us ‘give such advice or guidance with respect to the administration of charities as it considers appropriate’.

    Good, accessible, online guidance really matters. Our strategy, again, puts this well: Ultimately the sustainability of the charitable sector relies on the enthusiasm, generosity, and capability of trustees.

    There are, at least, 700,000 trustees of registered charities covering nearly a million trustee positions. We are undertaking research at the moment, with Pro Bono Economics, to understand better who they are, and what their skills are. For example this work will give us a better idea of how many legal professionals are serving as trustees.

    But what we already know is that the vast majority are volunteers, taking on the rewarding but challenging role of trusteeship on top of already busy lives.

    They have a right to expect, from us as regulator, clear, plain English guidance on what is required of them, and some level of instruction on how to deliver on those expectations.

    And this matters, because we know that the public have high expectations of trustees – research shows that the public expects charities to be efficient and effective in delivering on their purpose, and run according to high ethical standards.  

    Unfortunately, however, we are starting from a point where not enough trustees – our primary audience – use our guidance when undertaking their leadership roles.  

    Research published by the Commission earlier this year shows that only around a quarter – 26% –  of trustees use our information at least once a year, whereas nearly two thirds seek advice from a trusted colleague or fellow trustee.

    Yet almost all (93%) of those who have used the Commission’s information find it helpful. And those who use our guidance have a better understanding of their responsibilities – again our research shows this.

    When we ask trustees why some don’t access our support, they tell us that the length and style of our older guidance can put them off.

    In response, we are doing a huge amount to overhaul and improve our suite of guidance, ensuring it is not just clear in the way it explains charity law, but that it is actually used more and more by trustees. I know some lawyers mourn our longer and more detailed style of guidance. But I’d ask you to understand that our primary audience is the lay trustee, and we need them to access, understand, and action our guidance more routinely than they do at the moment.

    Over the past year alone, we have produced new guidance on accepting, refusing and returning donations – guidance that is helping to underpin and grow a strong philanthropic culture in the UK, and helping trustees make decisions that are right for their charities.

    We have reviewed and improved our guidance on charities and decision making, keeping to the 7 principles set out when we first published that guidance 11 years ago, and retaining all its other key points, but making the guidance more concise through smart editing based on clear writing principles.  We are grateful to the many people in this room who use CC27 and the 7 principles when they are advising Boards on making decisions – this is an example of how our guidance and the advice lawyers give can work in tandem to upskill trustees and keep them making effective decisions.

    Earlier this year, we updated our guidance on charities and meetings, bringing it up to date with the Zoom era, and encouraging charities to ensure their governing documents and policies keep pace with changes to the way in which people meet. This accelerated during the pandemic, during which we gave updated advice, now formalised through the redesigned guidance. 

    And most recently, we updated our guidance on managing finances. We have made the guide much more accessible, splitting its content into three separate pieces, making it easier for trustees to find the information that best relates to their situation, whether they may be starting to experience financial struggles or, worse, facing insolvency.

    We don’t of course, produce our guidance in isolation.

    Much of our resource and energy goes on working in collaboration with our partners to ensure our guidance is clear and fit for purpose.

    How we do this has changed over time, and we now take a more risk-based approach, helping to ensure we can produce and publish new guidance at pace. In some cases, for example when we are producing brand new guidance or reflecting new judgments, for example following the Butler Sloss case on charity investments, the CLA is a crucial partner for us to engage and consult with. At other times, for example when our task is to refresh guidance to improve its accessibility, user-testing with charities is the most important consultative work for us to undertake.

    I’m grateful for the CLA’s support and challenge over the years. I recall from my previous time at the Commission the excellent professional relationship we had and I look forward to rekindling that and hope you will continue to work with us to ensure our new guidance is legally sound, clear, and actionable. I am committed to building on our existing relationship to ensure a strong partnership on our guidance pipeline – and wider support to trustees – into the future.

    Next – the big strategic works that help our house respond to big changes that we already know are heading our way.

    Here I’d like to reference the important work of our horizon scanning and strategic policy work.

    We have recently tackled cryptocurrency models of giving, and AI. Our approach here is not so much to provide all the answers but to help charities and the sector ask the right questions, about how these transformative technologies can be harnessed to further charities’ work and think about the risks of engaging, and the risks of not doing so. As an example, we have reminded charities that under those seven key principles mentioned earlier, trustees remain responsible for decision making in their organisation, so it is vital this process is not delegated to AI or based on AI generated content alone.

    We continue to monitor both these areas, including in assessing applications from charities active in these spaces, and are keen to encourage the sector itself – and experts such as the CLA and its members – to think about how tech developments such as these might be harnessed for the sector into the future.  

    Ensuring legislation is fit for purpose is crucial too. Charity law is never quite done. The 2022 Act attracted fewer headlines, and less controversy than previous iterations of legislation, but it made for important efficiencies and improvements to the operation of charity, and our role in that.

    Looking ahead, we continue to consider whether further strengthening of our powers to address and prevent abuse and mismanagement in charities may be valuable –  enabling us to work more effectively and efficiently at a time when our resources, like those of charities, are stretched.

    And then, thirdly we need to think about the next generation living in our house – about big societal shifts and how they might impact on the sector into future generations.

    I am determined to use my position as CEO, and the wider convening role of the Commission, to help facilitate dialogue on the future of charity. It is not for us as the regulator in isolation to say what the sector “should” or “could” be. That is something for the sector and society more widely. However with technology changes, social media, AI, as well as societal expectations on speed of action or impact, we risk losing what is special about charity and the positive impact it has if we don’t think and adapt. We are already seeing areas where AI is having real world impact which had not been thought about in the creative sectors. So if we are to maximise the positive impacts of technology whilst mitigating the potential negative impacts then we need to think and act now. We are clear in our strategy that we will speak with authority and credibility, free from the influence of others, in areas like this.

    There are great opportunities, and great challenges ahead. What are the cultural factors that will shape the future of charity? What impact do changing giving and volunteering habits, and shifting attitudes towards institutions between generations, have on the role and work of charities?

    In a country where there are huge divisions of world view on fundamental issues, how can different charities continue to use their voice to campaign for the change they want to see in our society, in furtherance of their purposes, without inflaming tensions or entrenching divisions? What changes might we need to help charities respond and adapt to climate change?

    The Commission’s role as regulator is not to support or champion individual charities, and it is not for us to set the direction for charities or the sector as a whole.

    But we can have a role in helping the sector, and its partners in government and beyond, to ask these questions, and we can bring people together in tackling the big issues to unleash the potential of not just the sector but the people it exists to serve.

    And this is where you as charity law experts, and people who care deeply about the sector, come in.

    I think you have a crucial opportunity – perhaps even responsibility – to lead thought and discussion about how charities can be supported to respond to the next big generational shifts, over the next 30 years.

    There is great work underway already in this space.

    One example of this is this year’s research by Bayes Business School about the challenges that charity chairs might face in 30 years’ time. The research mentions the skills that might be required of chairs, the governance models that might be needed, and the future pipeline of chairs: where will they come from?

    We believe we have already started to respond to these issues: by improving our guidance in the way described and continuing to be responsive to trustees’ needs, we are helping to tackle perceived difficulties associated with being a trustee.

    And we are interested in how else we (with partners like the CLA) can continue to ensure that the sector is supported to deliver in the ways I have noted already.

    You have deep insight into the charities you advise, and you have a birds-eye view of the sector, the legislation that defines it and the systems that support it.

    Please use that insight and contribute to debate and discussion that will help equip the Commission, and the sector, for the challenges of the future.

    To conclude – none of us can predict what world we’ll be living in over the next 30 years.

    But we can work together, now, to ensure that charities remain at the beating heart of society, that they remain relevant, and trusted as the vehicles for positive change.

    Thank you.

    Updates to this page

    Published 14 October 2024

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Asia Pacific – Attraction of the ASEAN Economic Sphere: Japanese Companies Transferring Production from China to Southeast Asia – The Shared Future of Asia and Japan

    Source: Japan Connect

    An increasing number of Japanese companies operating in China are transferring their production bases to countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). This comes as Chinese economic growth slows and concerns rise over the risks of doing business in China, where foreign residents have been arrested on vague grounds.

    Chinese real estate slump: Apartment buildings in Guizhou, China. (c) Jiji Press.
    The Chinese economy is stagnating, and this can clearly be seen in production, consumption and investments. The country’s gross domestic product (GDP) for the second quarter (April-June) of 2024 grew 4.7% year over year, which was 0.6 points lower than the first quarter (January-March). Economic data from August shows that retail business sales, an indicator of consumption trends, grew only 2.1% year over year.

    The slump in the real estate industry is a major factor behind this. The real estate market and related industries make up a fourth of China’s GDP, but investments in real estate development fell 10.2% year over year in the period between January and August 2024. During the COVID-19 pandemic, China implemented a “Zero-COVID Strategy,” which kept citizens indoors, dealt a major blow to the tourism and restaurant industries, and led to investments being concentrated in real estate. Home prices rose exponentially. In response, the Chinese government placed heavy restrictions on risky deals. This caused home prices to drop drastically, and the businesses of many major real estate developers fell into a decline. Down payments were made but buildings never got built, and as similar cases followed one after another, the consumption trend cooled among the population.

    Furthermore, the Chinese government, which places utmost importance on national security, established the Counter Espionage Law in 2014. This has resulted in many foreigners, including Japanese, being arrested for “espionage acts,” which are only vaguely defined. Starting in July 2024, new regulations have been implemented that allow authorities to inspect the contents of electronic devices of individuals and organizations for acts of espionage, raising further concerns that even regular economic activities could be scrutinized. With little hope for significant growth in the Chinese market, coupled with the risks of doing business in China, direct international investments into the country fell 29.1% year over year between January and June 2024. There are also other issues, such as the risk of high tariffs on products produced in China and exported to the USA due to the ongoing tension between the two countries, as well as rising labor costs in China.

    Against this backdrop, Japanese companies are turning their eyes to Southeast Asia for new bases of production. In January 2023, Sony transferred the manufacturing of its cameras for Japan, Europe and the USA from China to Thailand. Its factories in China now only make products to be sold domestically, allowing it to reduce dependency on the country. Kyocera also plans to transfer a part of its electric tools production in China to Vietnam in fiscal 2024. The Vietnam site will mainly manufacture products to be sold in the USA in order to avoid the tariffs placed on exports from China. According to Teikoku Databank, the number of Japanese companies operating in China decreased from 14,394 in 2012 to 13,034 in 2023. Many companies are choosing to relocate back to Japan or to Southeast Asia. This can be seen in how Southeast Asian countries now occupy three of the top five locations in terms of the number of Japanese companies’ overseas subsidiaries: No. 1 is China, followed by USA, Thailand, Singapore, and Vietnam.

    Southeast Asia is attractive in many ways for Japanese companies. Not only is it geographically close to Japan but it also offers a rich pool of human resources with technical prowess and fluency in many languages including English, which allows companies to secure a stable labor force. Many ASEAN countries also have highly transparent fiscal policies and stable currency exchange rates. Cities have established solid infrastructure such as electrical power and transportation networks, making it easier for companies to build factories there and secure supply chains, from production and distribution to sales.

    The Southeast Asian market is very appealing. The 10 ASEAN countries have a combined population of around 670 million people. It tops the population of the European Union (EU), which is around 450 million people, and is the third largest in the world after India and China. The median age is also young, and unlike many developed nations, the region has not yet been faced with the issue of an aging society with a low birthrate. The 2023 nominal GDP of the 10 ASEAN countries combined rose to around 3.81 trillion US dollars, which ranks right after the USA, China, Germany and Japan. It is forecast to overtake Japan’s GDP by 2030. Due to the effects of an aging population and low birthrate, there are concerns that Japan’s market and labor force will shrink going forward. Japanese companies will benefit greatly from operating and expanding their businesses in Southeast Asia, which has a large market, offers rich human resources and is referred to as “the world’s growth center.”

    Japan and ASEAN countries have established various cooperative partnerships in politics, foreign policy and the economy. Japan is an active participant in numerous ASEAN foreign policy and security frameworks, including the East Asia Summit (EAS), which started in Malaysia in 2005, ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), which discusses political and security issues, and ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), the only formal meeting of defense ministers in the Asia-Pacific region. In 2020, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was officially signed, including Japan, China, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand in addition to ASEAN. Building an open economic sphere by providing market access and establishing economic rules is accelerating active free trade, including small and medium-sized businesses.

    While Southeast Asia is attractive to Japan, Japan must also be attractive to Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian company managers often say that decisionmaking is slow in Japanese businesses. They say this is due to a uniquely Japanese custom where multiple meetings are needed to make a single decision, and everyone has to then wait for it to be approved by the head office in Japan. Furthermore, Southeast Asians who grew up loving Japanese brands and anime are already in their 40s and 50s, while the attention of the younger generation, which is driving consumption, has been turning to South Korean and Chinese cultures as well. As such, greater efforts must be made to ensure that Southeast Asia will choose Japan as a partner.

    Last year, Japan and ASEAN celebrated their 50th anniversary of cooperative partnerships. The relationship, in fact, began as one of animosity. Japan drew the ire of Southeast Asia by exporting massive quantities of cheap synthetic rubber to ASEAN, a producer of natural rubber, and that led to holding the ASEAN-Japan forum on synthetic rubber in 1973. Friendly relations were established as Japan promised to take care not to interfere with ASEAN’s natural rubber industry. It was a perfect example of the proverb “After rain comes fair weather.” One could call 2024 the first year of the next half-century of new cooperative partnerships. Going forward, Japan’s efforts will determine how strong this partnership with ASEAN will become.

    By Akio Yaita – Journalist. Graduated from the Faculty of Letters at Keio University. After completing his doctorate at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, he worked as a correspondent for the Sankei Shimbun in Beijing and as Taipei bureau chief. Author or co-author of many books.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-Evening Report: The US isn’t the only country voting on Nov 5. This small Pacific nation is also holding an election – and China is watching

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Smith, Associate professor, Australian National University

    The Capitol building in the Pacific island nation of Palau.
     Erika Bisbocci

    The United States isn’t the only country with a big election on November 5. Palau, a tourism-dependent microstate in the north Pacific, will also vote for a new president, Senate and House of Delegates that day.

    Why does this election matter? Palau is one of the few remaining countries that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

    In addition, elections in the Pacific – and the horse-trading to form government that follows – often present a chance for China to steal an ally away from Taiwan in its efforts to further reduce the self-ruling island’s diplomatic space.

    For example, there was speculation Tuvalu could flip its allegiance from Taipei to Beijing based on the outcome of January’s election, but the government decided to remain in Taiwan’s camp.

    Another Pacific nation, Nauru, did flip from Taiwan to China in January, less than 48 hours after Taiwan’s own presidential election.

    I recently visited Palau as part of a research project examining China’s growing extraterritorial reach, and was curious to see if the balance is shifting towards Beijing in the lead-up to this year’s election.

    What’s at stake in Palau’s election?

    Palau, a nation of 16,000 registered voters, has close ties to the US. It was under US administration after the second world war and recently signed a “Compact of Free Association” with the US. Palau also has a similar presidential system of government, with a president directly elected by the people every four years.

    However, there are also some key differences: there are no political parties in Palau, nor is there any replica of the absurd Electoral College voting system.

    The archipelago also has extremely polite yard signs (“Please consider[…]”, “Please vote for […]” and “Moving forward together”). Alliances are based more on clan and kinship relations than ideology (although that’s not entirely dissimilar to the US).

    This year’s presidential race is between the “two juniors”: the incumbent, Surangel Whipps Junior, and the challenger, Tommy Remengensau Junior. If either man were facing a different opponent, he would win easily. Nearly all of Palau’s political insiders deem this contest too close to call.

    Whipps has been in office since 2021. Accompanied by his beloved father, a former president of the Senate and speaker of the House in Palau, he is expected to door-knock each household at least four times.

    Remengensau isn’t a political newbie, either. He’s been president for 16 of Palau’s 30 years as an independent state. In the comments section of the YouTube live feed of a recent presidential debate, one person asked, “you’ve had four terms, how many more do you need?”

    Whipps copped flak for his tax policy, but the comments and the debate itself reached Canadian levels of politeness. As the debate wound up, the rivals embraced warmly – befitting their closeness (they are actually brothers-in-law) and their lack of discernible ideological differences.

    2024 Palau presidential debate.

    A ‘pro-Beijing’ candidate in the race?

    However, there is one issue that has the potential to drive a wedge between the two candidates: the China–Taiwan rivalry.

    In a recent article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Remengensau was described as a “pro-Beijing” candidate who might be inclined to switch Palau’s diplomatic relations to Beijing, cheered on by the “China-sympathetic” national newspaper, Tia Belau.

    Remengensau’s reaction to the ASPI piece was genuine fury, and aside from a few fly-in lobbyists from the US, no one in the country has taken the characterisation seriously. Yes, he is less pro-US than Whipps, reciting the “friends to all, enemies to none” mantra beloved by Pacific leaders in the debate. But that’s some distance from being “pro-Beijing”.

    Other outside commentators have also weighed in with similar viewpoints. Recent pieces by right-wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Federation for the Defence of Democracies, have pushed a similar line that every Pacific nation is just “one election away from a [People’s Republic of China]-proxy assuming power and dismantling democracy”.

    What’s really behind concerns of Chinese influence

    The basis for both allegations in the ASPI piece is a fascinating investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). The story detailed an influence attempt led by a local businessman from China, Hunter Tian, to set up a media conglomerate in Palau with the owner of the newspaper Tia Belau, a man named Moses Uludong. (I played a small part in the investigation.)

    The proposed conglomerate had eyebrow-raising links to China’s secret police and military. But COVID killed the deal, and today, the newspaper runs press releases from Taiwan’s embassy without changing a word.

    Palau’s media is also ranked as the most free in the Pacific, and Tia Belau is a central part of this healthy media ecosystem.

    Uludong is a pragmatic businessman who’s no simple cheerleader for Beijing, explaining to OCCRP’s journalists last year:

    The Chinese, they have a way of doing business. They are really not open.

    This doesn’t mean Chinese operations in Palau will stop, though. Representatives of the Chinese government like Tian, who is the president of the Palau Overseas Chinese Federation and has impressive family links to the People’s Liberation Army, will keep trying to influence Palau’s elites and media.

    Evidence uncovered by Palau’s media suggests some of their elites are vulnerable to capture. In recent months, the immigration chief stepped down for using his position “for private gain or profit”, while the speaker of the House of Delegates was ordered to pay US$3.5 million (A$5.2 million) for a tax violation, in part due to an irregular lease to a Chinese national.

    Chinese triads are also now involved in scam compounds and drug trafficking in Palau, which has done little to burnish China’s image among Palauans.

    Playing into China’s hands

    So, can we expect a dramatic Palau diplomatic flip after November’s election? Not anytime soon.

    But labelling respected leaders and media outlets as “pro-Beijing” with no basis, and fabricating a Manichean struggle in a nation where there’s plenty of goodwill for the US, won’t cause China’s boosters in Palau to lose sleep.

    Egging on US agencies to “do something” to counter Chinese influence in the Pacific, such as a poorly thought-out influence operation run by the Pentagon in the Philippines during the pandemic, will just play into Beijing’s hands. In the Pacific, secrets don’t stay secret for long. And if you call someone “pro-China” for long enough, one day you might get your wish.

    Graeme Smith works for the Australian National University’s Department of Pacific Affairs, which is partially funded by DFAT through the Pacific Research Programme.

    – ref. The US isn’t the only country voting on Nov 5. This small Pacific nation is also holding an election – and China is watching – https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt-the-only-country-voting-on-nov-5-this-small-pacific-nation-is-also-holding-an-election-and-china-is-watching-237321

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Security: Agency, Audiologist Solve Hearing Aid Security Concern, Get Needed Devices in NSA Spaces

    Source: National Security Agency NSA

    FORT MEADE, Md. – Joe K never had to worry about wearing his hearing aid to work at NSA buildings—until he upgraded his device a few years ago.

    Joe, who is now the People with Disabilities Employee Resource Group (PWD ERG) Deaf and Hard of Hearing Subcommittee (DHHSC) chair, formerly used an analog hearing aid, which didn’t present a security risk. When he upgraded, he didn’t realize it was a problem until he was approached by a colleague wondering about the process for his new device to be approved by NSA Security & Counterintelligence (S&CI).

     “Using hearing aids can be second nature, like putting your glasses on. Sometimes you don’t think about the technology behind it,” Joe said. “Many of us [deaf and hard of hearing affiliates] weren’t aware of the security requirements to bring them in NSA buildings.”

    Starting in 2019, hearing aids began incorporating “hands-free calling,” a two-way audio Bluetooth technology. The new technology, however, presented an increased security threat to NSA — the potential for the transmission of classified conversations outside of a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

    The issue with hearing aid technological improvements eventually brought together a number of stakeholders — including NSA Security & Counterintelligence (S&CI), NSA Research, and a Walter Reed Medical Center audiologist with close ties to the Veterans Administration (VA). The goal was to figure out how the deaf and hard of hearing community could take advantage of the new technology without compromising security.

     “The reason manufacturers are putting two-way audio Bluetooth in hearing aids is because it improves audio quality. It allows people to hear and speak through phone calls more clearly without holding the phone up to their ear and mouth,” said Jason B, technology officer for the PWD ERG DHHSC. “In the past, many hearing aids included a one-way Bluetooth feature which did not pose a threat. But lately, the two-way audio Bluetooth feature is being added as standard in all hearing aids, and that is where it became pretty problematic.”

    Some jobs at NSA specifically require keen hearing to listen to and translate audio samples. Without the support of a hearing aid, some affiliates would be unable to perform their jobs successfully, Jason explained.

    “I met with the chief of S&CI to brief him on the importance of hearing aids and how they allow members of the DHH community to do our jobs,” Jason said. “Mitigating security risks of modern hearing aid devices is essential because there are currently thousands of NSA employees with both diagnosed and undiagnosed hearing loss, and potentially thousands more that could be impacted in the future.”

    S&CI’s Office of Physical Security conducted some initial testing of devices equipped with this new two-way audio Bluetooth technology and determined the new hands-free calling feature would, in fact, introduce a wireless microphone into a SCIF, presenting a big security challenge.

    “Mitigations were being considered to address the new challenge but the COVID pandemic intervened,” said Heather J, technical director in S&CI’s Office of Physical Security. “We were working hard because we knew this was important, but we couldn’t rush something that could have such serious implications.”

    As denials of hearing aid applications began to pile up, some of the Agency ERGs stepped in to advocate on behalf of the affected workforce, according to Jason. The American Veterans ERG (AV ERG) raised the recurring denial concerns to the PWD ERG.

    Around the same time as the spike in hearing aid denials at NSA, an audiologist from Walter Reed Medical Center noticed a large number of her VA patients were returning new devices she had prescribed due to their inability to wear them at work. The audiologist contacted S&CI to gain insight into the problem, and S&CI engaged Research’s Laboratory for Advanced Cybersecurity Research (LACR) to help find a solution.

    One of the biggest challenges with assessing medical devices with two-way audio Bluetooth is that most of the information about the devices is proprietary, according to Stephanie P, Internet of Things (IoT) Security team lead for LACR’s Trust Mechanisms office.

    “We were really fortunate that the audiologist worked closely with Veterans Affairs and had connections with the six major companies that manufacture hearing aids,” Heather said. “She was able to provide context to them on the hands-free Bluetooth feature, share the challenges it presented to employers, and discuss potential solutions.”

    When a new hearing aid needed to be evaluated, the LACR team was there with its tailored test scenarios, Stephanie explained.

    “We provided detailed testing reports and vulnerability analysis, empowering senior leadership to make informed decisions on which devices to allow into our secured spaces,” she said. “One of the largest hearing aid manufacturers offered a disablement mitigation,” by programming software into its devices that would allow only the audiologist to deactivate the two-way audio Bluetooth feature. The user would still have the benefit of streaming the audio, one-way, directly into their hearing aid without external transmission.

    “This viable mitigation was a monumental first step in ensuring NSA affiliates could have access to the latest advances in smart medical technology while at work,” said Stephanie, explaining Research doesn’t normally do this type of work but was pulled in to lead the Bluetooth assessment because of its expertise in IoT security.

    In early 2023, the Agency announced it would allow this company’s Bluetooth hearing aids in SCIFs after going through the approval process.
    The challenge of these two-way audio Bluetooth medical devices isn’t limited to NSA, according to Heather, who has been partnering with Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to address concerns across the Intelligence Community.

    “I wrote the current [NSA hearing aid Bluetooth mitigation] policy and am currently working with ODNI to write the medical device policy, which will apply to the entire Intelligence Community,” Heather said.

    Both Heather and Stephanie are thrilled at the progress that has been made.

    “I am extremely happy and proud that I was able to play a part in allowing certain Bluetooth enabled hearing aids into NSA SCIFs,” Stephanie said. “It is fantastic that this work is enabling employees with hearing loss to be able to take advantage of the latest advancements in hearing aid technology while they’re at work.”

    “Balancing the needs of our workforce with the security of our facilities is getting harder as technologies get more advanced,” Heather agreed. “We’re really excited to have a way forward for this hearing aid feature, and we’re continuing to look at novel ways to mitigate new and emerging technical threats to maximize our ability to permit the latest and greatest in technology without compromising our missions.”

    NSA Media Relations
    MediaRelations@nsa.gov
    443-634-0721

    MIL Security OSI –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Military Academy Wins First Place at the 2024 NSA Cyber Exercise

    Source: National Security Agency NSA

    FORT MEADE, Md. – After months of preparation and three days of elaborate and challenging cyber operations, the U.S. Military Academy has emerged as the champion of the sixth annual NSA Cyber Exercise (NCX).
     
    The battle for the coveted NCX trophy included participants from the U.S. service academies and senior military colleges, who competed alongside individuals from multiple NSA professional development programs. A team from USCYBERCOM’s Cyber National Mission Force (CNMF) participated in a For Exhibition Only (FEO) status. All team members rose to the challenge, applying their technical, collaborative, and critical thinking skills to simulated scenarios they can expect to encounter throughout their cyber careers.
     
    “Agility and adaptability have been and will continue to be keys to our success,” Maj Gen Matteo Martemucci, deputy chief of the Central Security Service said during his welcome message “Remain alert, focused, and trust your training. This is what we prepare for.”
     
    The U.S. Air Force Academy placed second, while the University of North Georgia finished third, beating out the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the senior military colleges, including Norwich University, Texas A&M University, The Citadel, Virginia Military Institute, and Virginia Tech. NSA’s Cybersecurity Operations Development Program (CSODP took first amongst the development programs.
     
    This year’s NCX was the first hybrid competition since the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing institutions to participate in person or virtually.
     
    Teams engaged in offensive cyber activities against a fictional adversary that attacked a satellite downlink. Exercises focused on active attack and malware, software development, and cybersecurity policy. These, along with the final attack-and-defend cyber combat exercise, challenged participants to use their creativity and collaboration skills to prevail against complex cyber threats.
     
    “The competition is more than a trophy,” said Kenneth Allison, associate director of the Hollingsworth Center for Ethical Leadership at Texas A&M University, whose team competed in this year’s contest. “The additional knowledge and exposure to real-world challenges, the opportunities to ask questions, build confidence, and meet people that you may work with in the future – that’s what makes the NCX such a valuable part of our academic program.”

    Martemucci awarded West Point’s cyber competition team members with the NCX trophy after edging out their competition in the tournament.
     
    “Congratulations to the U.S. Military Academy,” Martemucci said during the closing ceremony. “We hope that this simulation not only deepened your understanding of the current threat environment, but also inspired you to continue to hone your skills and talents to help protect our Nation, whether in uniform, academia, government, or industry.”

    This three-day, unclassified cyber competition is the culmination of the Agency’s effort to advance strategic goals by developing and testing the skills, teamwork, planning, and decision-making of future cybersecurity professionals.

     “The most exciting part for me is witnessing our future leaders put their skills to use,” said NCX Program Manager Kelley Welch. “Throughout the year, and especially during the competition, planting the seeds giving students firsthand insight into the vast cyber career opportunities within NSA’s mission, and how they can apply their passions and skills to help secure our Nation’s future.”
     
    The final cyber combat exercise required participants to work collaboratively as they applied their cybersecurity knowledge to exploit and extract data from a physical device. Strong coordination, planning, communication, teamwork, and decision-making skills were essential to each team’s success.
     
     “I was a little intimidated at first because I assumed that we would only interact with our team members during the event,” said Joselyn Cordova-Flores, a junior at Norwich University and first-time NCX participant. “Instead, I had a chance to engage with people from NSA and different teams while working on other activities. The collaborative environment not only showed me that I have what it takes to be successful in this field, but also solidified NSA as my No. 1 career choice after graduation.”
     
    Fostering connections across the cyber defense community in a conducive learning environment is what LT Ryan Quarry, instructor for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, finds most rewarding about the NCX.
     
    “This is a unique opportunity for students to network with their peers in other service academies, and other like-minded individuals who can help them reach their career goals,” he said. “In addition, the real-world scenarios give them immediate insight into their strengths and areas for development. These are two of many factors which make the NCX a premiere event for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and a critical component of its cyber education programs.” 
     
    For more information on the NSA Cyber Exercise, visit https://www.nsa.gov/Cybersecurity/NSA-Cyber-Exercise/

    NSA Media Relations
    MediaRelations@nsa.gov
    443-634-0721

    MIL Security OSI –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Security: Women of Installations & Logistics Build Strong Future for NSA

    Source: National Security Agency NSA

    FORT MEADE, Md. – Construction is booming across the NSA/CSS Washington (NSAW) campus, with upgrades to existing buildings and the expansion of East Campus.

    Behind these innovative projects are the women of Installations & Logistics (I&L), who play a critical role in paving the way for the future of NSA. During Women’s History Month, NSA celebrates them and all of the women helping drive mission outcomes.

    Caryn O. began her career in I&L about 15 years ago and although she had no construction background when she started, she has since flourished in her role as an I&L project manager.

    “I absolutely love being in the construction field because it is really cool to see drawings and then see it actually turn into something physical,” she said.

    After joining I&L, Caryn earned a graduate degree in construction management and has since managed major upgrades to the Friedman Conference Center in 2017 and floor to ceiling renovations in the OPS1 building on NSAW’s main campus that began in 2019. According to Caryn, both projects involved obstacles that had to be overcome, including supply chain issues associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Despite these obstacles, Caryn said she would definitely recommend construction as a career.

    “I enjoy working with dedicated and hard-working individuals who endure dirt, climate issues, and long hours and never complain,” she said.

    Project Manager Katie F. is leading renovations to the 70-year-old 9800 barracks buildings located east of the “Big 4” – a group of buildings on NSAW’s main campus. This $44.5M project was awarded in 2020, and the final phases are expected to be finished in April.

    “Overall, it was gratifying to support a project that improves the quality of life for service members,” she said.  “It is personally satisfying to use my background and skills to help deliver facilities that will ultimately support NSA’s mission.”

    Katie worked as a civil engineer for several years at an external organization before joining I&L’s Design & Engineering team in 2012. After several years, she decided to learn more about the construction side of projects. In 2017, she joined the Infrastructure team within Project Execution, whose mission is to improve existing spaces and infrastructure at NSAW.

    “As a project manager, I am able to leverage my work experience, as well as my master’s degrees in civil engineering and business administration, to execute projects from start to finish,” Katie said. “It was challenging to balance the requirements of various stakeholders while staying within budget and complying with the contract.”

    Katie said she enjoys learning from people with different areas of expertise.

    “It’s inspiring to watch people with diverse backgrounds, including engineering, business, and trades, collaborate to execute a successful project,” she said.

    Carolyn S. is the deputy project manager supporting the construction of the Chiari Center on East Campus. She has more than 12 years of interior design and project management experience, both external and internal to NSA. She joined NSA in August 2016 as an interior designer in the Design and Engineering office, where she gained a strong foundational knowledge of I&L’s facility design and construction requirements. She joined the Military Construction (MILCON) team in September 2023.

    Carolyn said her favorite part about the MILCON office is that every day is different, and she is able to witness all aspects of a project.

    “Being able to see designs come to life in construction and eventually become a finished building that will support some of our Agency’s biggest missions is one of the best parts of my job,” she said. “Since we are working in active construction, you never know what each day will bring.”

    Jessica M., who joined NSA as a contractor in 2010 and became an Agency employee in 2019, is currently a project manager in the MILCON office working on East Campus Building 5.

    “I enjoy the varied and changing work,” she said, adding that she enjoys the work/life balance that includes telework and a flexible schedule.

    “Being a woman in construction can be intimidating at first,” said Jessica. “According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 1 in 10 of those in the construction industry are women. Advice I have as a woman in this male-dominated field would be to be your own best advocate, be confident enough to use your skillset and knowledgeable to make the right decisions, understand your strengths, and use all the tools you’ve acquired throughout your life to be successful.”  

    According to Jessica, she and the MILCON team work to build long-lasting facilities that will serve NSA’s workforce for the next 50 years, and keep the mission moving forward.

    “We are being good stewards for being fiscally responsible,” she said. “We are problem solvers. We look at the big picture and find how to reduce or mitigate a problem.”

    All of the women said they enjoy their work and are proud to be a part of the construction field.

    “There are many professional opportunities in construction, and women should not be intimidated by outdated stereotypes of the industry,” Katie said.

    NSA Media Relations
    MediaRelations@nsa.gov
    443-634-0721

    MIL Security OSI –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-Evening Report: Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Green, Research Fellow, Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

    Multinational concert promoter Live Nation Entertainment has come under fire, with an ABC Four Corners investigation saying its unprecedented market power is open to abuse.

    The report follows concerns about the introduction of dynamic pricing – where ticket prices change according to demand – to the Australian concert market. A parliamentary inquiry into the live music sector is also underway.

    Industry luminaries such as Peter Garrett and Michael Chugg told the ABC that Australia’s music scene is under threat, echoing the concerns of frustrated bands and fans. Live Nation issued a statement ahead of the program, calling it inaccurate and unbalanced.

    So what is Live Nation and how is market concentration affecting our music scene?

    The business

    Live music is one of our most popular forms of cultural participation, engaging almost half of Australians over 15. In the decade before COVID, ticket buying and revenue for contemporary music doubled.

    Ticket revenue doubled again in the year 2022–23 to well above pre-pandemic levels. How can such growth be squared against widespread talk of a sector in crisis, with venues closing and festivals cancelled?

    This is because the growth is top-heavy. Overall figures have been boosted by an influx of stadium concerts by international superstars such as Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran. Rising revenue outpaced attendance growth by almost three to one, with average ticket prices rising 47.4% to A$128.21. Market power is increasingly concentrated in a few corporate hands, notably Live Nation Entertainment.

    ‘We’re in an extinction event right now.’

    What is Live Nation?

    Live Nation began in the United States as a concert promoter. Traditionally, a promoter funds and arranges live events, negotiating with artists, their agents, venues and ticketing services. But Live Nation has integrated many such components into its operations. Now, everything from artist management to venues and merchandise can be done in-house.

    In 2010, the US Department of Justice allowed the merger of Live Nation with major ticketing company Ticketmaster. The resulting entity, Live Nation Entertainment, has since acquired a growing set of interests internationally.

    Live Nation’s acquisitions over the past decade in Australia include:

    • Michael Coppel Presents

    • Secret Sounds Group, which promotes Splendour in the Grass and Falls Festival in addition to touring, sponsorship, PR and artist management businesses (the acquisition excluded Secret Sounds record labels and venues)

    • Moshtix, billed as Australia’s leading provider of general admission tickets for unreserved or standing-room events

    • Mellen Events, a leading Western Australian concert promoter

    • Kicks Entertainment, which operates Spilt Milk festival

    • Face to Face Touring, a regional promoter with events including Red Hot Summer, SummerSalt and By the C.

    Live Nation Entertainment also acquired venues, leasing Melbourne’s Palais Theatre for 30 years from 2017 and Festival Hall. The group purchased Anita’s Theatre in Thirroul in 2022 and opened Brisbane’s Fortitude Music Hall (2020) and Adelaide’s Hindley Street Music Hall (2022) in partnership with local entities.

    Ticketmaster is the authorised ticketing agency for Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium and for Australian tours promoted by Live Nation. These include concerts by Oasis, Green Day, P!nk and Red Hot Chili Peppers.

    Live Nation has also acquired several Australian booking agencies, including Village Sounds, which represents Bernard Fanning, Courtney Barnett and Vance Joy.

    The only competitors are TEG (which owns Ticketek) and AEG-Frontier. Music industry stakeholders are concerned about the oversized influence of these three “corporate giants”.

    Keeping the shareholders happy

    For consumers, a lack of competition can mean higher prices. Dynamic pricing made headlines, but Four Corners also alleged there were a range of “hidden fees” in the price of tickets ordinarily sold by Ticketmaster and Ticketek.

    Artists are at a disadvantage when negotiating with a mass of connected businesses that are often owned by one entity and which sometimes includes their own agent.

    South Australian rock band Bad//Dreems told the ABC they were left with just $9,000 from a tour that grossed $100,000.

    Veteran promoter Michael Chugg complained major artists were being overpaid, skewing the sector to the detriment of local musicians. While Australian promoters, including Chugg and the late Michael Gudinski, have a history of consolidating interests and crowding out competition, they also had skin in the Australian music game. Live Nation is a publicly listed company with duties to its shareholders, including US hedge funds and Saudi royalty.

    Midnight Oil singer and former politician Peter Garrett said this meant there was “no loyalty” to Australian artists. A multinational promoter with a shareholder-driven approach might be more likely to cancel a festival after weak opening sales, instead of weathering short-term losses to preserve the brand and relationships.

    That cancellation might even consolidate demand for the company’s upcoming headline tours. But opportunities are lost for Australian artists, businesses and culture.

    What can be done?

    Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke told Four Corners he has put Live Nation on notice and warned the company not to use its power in an anti-competitive way. But he did not commit to legislative change.

    In the United States, the Department of Justice and dozens of states have sued Live Nation for antitrust, seeking “to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists”.

    Australian courts currently have no power to break up monopolies without new legislation. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can investigate and prosecute misuse of market power, as alleged by some in this case.

    Fair trading authorities in the United Kingdom and Europe are examining Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing in the wake of the Oasis ticket-pricing controversy. However, Burke said surge pricing is something consumers have always dealt with, and “not something we’re looking at, at the moment”.

    Governments could also regulate more transparency in ticket fees, as well as the rights of artists, who sit uncomfortably between employees and small businesses. Their union, MEAA’s Musicians Australia, is currently advocating about these matters.

    Those passionate about Australia’s live music scene fear that if the sector isn’t better regulated, it’ll soon be too late to save it.

    Ben Green receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

    Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

    – ref. Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried – https://theconversation.com/are-market-giants-endangering-australias-live-music-scene-industry-veterans-and-local-artists-are-worried-241244

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: “Advancing New Zealand and Asia relations”

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Good evening

    Before discussing the ‘advancing of New Zealand and Asia relations’, we would like to congratulate the Asia New Zealand Foundation and acknowledge its significant contribution to New Zealand’s relationship with, and understanding of, Asia over the past 30 years.

    Can we also welcome Thitinan Pongsudhirak, one of the Foundation’s Honorary Advisers, and Michael Fullilove, Executive Director of the Lowy Institute.  

    I would also like to acknowledge Members of Parliament; members of the diplomatic corps; Asia New Zealand Foundation founders Sir Don McKinnon and Philip Burdon; and its Chair, Dame Fran Wilde.

    A lot has happened over the past 30 years – in New Zealand, in Asia, and indeed in New Zealand’s engagement with Asia.

    30 years ago

    It is, of course, difficult to talk about Asia in general terms. The region has 23 countries, hundreds of languages and a vast swathe of peoples and cultures and political systems. 

    This is to say nothing of the vast distances in Asia.  Indeed, it’s closer from London to Moscow than Auckland to Jakarta, and yet we tend to think Indonesia as our back yard. 

    We tend to zone in on one country, or one issue.

    Our understanding needs to be more nuanced than this – something the Asia New Zealand Foundation knows well and is in fact its core mission.

    We can, however, look at some trends, as we think about New Zealand’s relationship with Asia over the past 30 years.

    In 1994, for example, Asia’s population was over three billion people. The region accounted for one quarter of the world’s GDP, and economic growth was underway in many countries. 

    The region had experienced years of peace and stability, albeit with some notable exceptions. Many parts of the region were at the start of a long, although sometimes uneven, path of rising urbanisation, productivity and incomes.

    In New Zealand, our population had just tipped over three million. Asian countries had become important trading partners – this was 20 years after Britain joined the European Economic Community and forced us to look beyond our traditional trading partners. 

    We had adapted by looking closer to home. 

    Thirty five percent of New Zealand’s exports went to Asia, with Japan accounting for close to half of this. 

    Remarkably, at that time China took just two percent of our exports, compared to 20 percent of today.

    Many New Zealanders had come to realise the importance of Asia to our future prosperity.

    Along with this came a recognition that we needed to better understand the vast range of cultures, languages and peoples of the region. This would be a shift for us. 

    Just three percent of New Zealanders at the time identified as being of Asian origin – compared to 17 percent today. 

    We had the beginnings of some cultural and culinary influences, with tourists and students starting to flow. 

    Under the Colombo Plan, we had welcomed many Asian students to New Zealand. But for the most part, these cultural influences were not mainstream or well-understood at the time.

    It was in this context that the Asia New Zealand Foundation was born and began its important work that we are here to discuss today.

    What has changed in Asia? 

    Even those who were aficionados back in 1994 might have been surprised at just how important Asia would become to New Zealand.

    The Asian financial crisis in 1997 was devastating to the region. It was an unsettled and unpredictable time. But the region has recovered, and in fact boomed.

    The figures are certainly impressive. More than one billion people have been lifted out of poverty in Asia since 1990. Asia now comprises over 40 percent of the world’s GDP. In the next quarter century, this is forecast to reach 50 percent. 

    It is important for us all to remember that there has not been just one linear trajectory in the region. Each country has had its own path, and these paths can have different twists and turns over time.

    China’s growth story is of course well-known, but the statistics remain extraordinary. Today, China stands as the world’s second-largest economy worth nearly 18 trillion US dollars in 2023, soaring a staggering 4,000 percent since the 1990s.

    This is not, however, just a China story. There has been astonishing success in other countries, too. 

    India overtook China to become the most populous country in the world last year, and with 900 million registered voters it is also the world’s largest democracy. This year India’s economy will be the fastest growing in the G20, and it is expected to overtake Germany and Japan to become the world’s third largest economy in the next few years. 

    India’s advances in science, technology, education, and space, are inspiring to many countries around the world. In short, India has become a significant global actor playing a key role in securing a stable and prosperous region.

    Japan itself continues to be an economic powerhouse.

    We must also recognise that ASEAN’s growth, after starting down the path of economic integration, has been remarkable. 

    If ASEAN today were one economy, it would be New Zealand’s fourth-largest trading partner. Its countries are growing at an impressive clip – more than five percent year in, year out. 

    The total GDP of ASEAN reached nearly four trillion US dollars last years, positioning it as the fifth largest economy in the world. 

    Projections indicate that ASEAN’s GDP is poised to reach an estimated four and a half trillion US dollars by the year 2030. This will propel ASEAN to become the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2040.

    Much of Asia’s economic growth has been built on trade and manufacturing. But the region is now also central across many facets of the modern economy – from finance and capital, to people, and to innovation.

    To take just two examples, Asia’s services trade is growing 1.7 times faster than the rest of the world. And by 2030, Asia’s fintech revenues are expected to be larger even than North America’s.

    We know economic growth doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It is regional security that has provided the foundation for the significant rise in living standards we have witnessed across Asia. 

    In this time of global upheaval and challenges to the rules-based order, the role of regional security in our collective economic security is undeniable. 

    In Southeast Asia, ASEAN centrality is playing a pivotal role. ASEAN has led the way in bringing the region together in peaceful dialogue. This includes initiatives like the Regional Forum we attended in July, or last week’s East Asia Summit – which was attended by Prime Minister Luxon.

    Notwithstanding the various peaceful offramps that exist, Asia has had, and continues to have, security challenges. 

    The liberal rules-based order – underpinned by US hegemony – is under strain.

    As China’s power and influence have increased, so too have the areas of difference that we have had to navigate.

    We are seeing a rising and more active India.

    And we shouldn’t forget that Russia considers itself an Indo-Pacific power, too.

    Added to this are hemispheric wild cards: the DPRK; other nuclear powers; arms build-up; and alliance and proxy relationships.

    We also have population trends that will have not just economic but also geostrategic consequences. 

    Also, fierce competition for resources: protein and commodities like rare metals.

    Finally – environmental challenges, which are an existential threat for many countries in the region – are exacerbating all of these factors. 

    What has this meant for New Zealand? 

    For New Zealand, the message is clear: we need to continue to understand and engage Asia.

    The Coalition Government, via the Foreign Policy Reset, is focused on building and advancing relationships in a way that engages more actively the region’s opportunities and risks. 

    The work of the Asia New Zealand Foundation remains as relevant today as it was 30 years ago. 

    Understanding Asia starts here at home. The past 30 years has seen a boom, and our ethnic communities have grown significantly. 

    While there is still some way to go, we have started to see Asian New Zealanders in leadership roles – from Members of Parliament to business leaders, sports, and entertainment. 

    Along with this has come a richness of culture and language. Kiwis have enjoyed new festivities and embraced an array of Asian cuisine, at home and at restaurants – something almost completely unavailable 30 years ago.

    The top 25 languages spoken in New Zealand include many Asian languages, such as Mandarin, with nearly 100,000 speakers, as well as Hindi with almost 70,000, Cantonese, Tagalog, Punjabi, Korean, Japanese, Gujarati, and Tamil.

    We celebrate Diwali, Lunar New Year and Eid – festivals that showcase cultural traditions to New Zealanders.

    Last year, 54,000 students from Asian countries came to study in New Zealand education institutions. 

    In the last year we have welcomed over 700,000 international visitors from Asia – nearly double that of a year ago – and we’re looking forward to seeing this growth continue over the coming years as the pandemic fall-out recedes.

    Over the last 70 years, we have provided scholarships and training to 21 countries from the Asian region under our International Development Cooperation programme. This remains a foundation of our enduring people-to-people connections.

    Thanks to the Asia New Zealand Foundation, we have some tangible evidence of how New Zealanders’ attitudes toward Asia have changed over time. 

    The first Perceptions of Asia survey was conducted in 1997 and showed that New Zealanders saw Asia as something largely external. 

    Today, however, over half of New Zealanders feel a connection to Asia in their daily lives, with more than a third regularly enjoying Asia-related entertainment. 

    Over the past decade, public awareness and engagement with Asia has grown significantly. In 2013, one third of New Zealanders said they felt knowledgeable about Asia. 

    That number has now risen to an all-time high, with nearly 60 percent saying they possess at least a fair amount of understanding about the region.

    This is wonderful and thanks in no small part to the work of the Foundation. We hope we will see this familiarity grow further in the coming years.

    New Zealand in Asia

    Alongside these developments in New Zealand, we have been engaging both with Asia but also in Asia.

    Today you can fly direct from Auckland and Christchurch to 14 destinations across Asia, connecting New Zealand to the region and providing opportunities for New Zealanders to interact with and learn about Asia.

     

    Kiwis have been broadening their traditional “OE” and heading to Asia. As just one example, 3,300 New Zealanders have travelled to Japan under the Japan Exchange and Teaching, or “JET”, programme since its inception, teaching English in Japan. 

    Programmes such as the Prime Minister’s Scholarships for Asia have seen thousands of young New Zealanders study at Asian institutions and return with meaningful skills and experience. 

    The Asia New Zealand Foundation has also contributed to this through the internships, grants, and residencies it offers throughout Asia.

    It is important to highlight that seven of our top 10 export destinations are Asian economies. 

    Exports to China amounted to 20 billion New Zealand dollars last year; Japan more than four billion. Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Indonesia round out the list of our top export destinations in Asia.

    This has been supported by the network of free trade agreements we have negotiated to support our commercial partnerships over the past 20 years. It is notable that our second oldest FTA is with Singapore – second only to Australia. 

    The origins of CPTPP, one of our most significant trade agreements, also finds its origins in our relationships with Asia. 

    Its precursor, the P4 agreement with Singapore, Brunei, and Chile in 2006, provided the foundation stone for what would become CPTPP.

    CPTPP is itself a high watermark agreement that includes other economies from the region such as Japan, Malaysia, and Viet Nam, and we continue to encourage others who can meet the agreement’s high standards to seek to join in the future.

    All in all, 95 percent of our trade with Asia takes place under a trade agreement.

    New Zealand has also invested in regional institutions. This architecture provides space for dialogue and the exchange of ideas on key issues impacting us. 

    We were the second country to become an ASEAN dialogue partner, and we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of this next year. In that time New Zealand has been and continues to be a trusted partner to ASEAN and its member states. 

    We know that by contributing to ASEAN’s success, and the success of ASEAN-led councils like the East Asia Summit, we contribute to our own success and to that of the region.

    In 1994, New Zealand was a member of one regional body – APEC, which was founded just five years earlier. 

    This platform gives us a venue to influence regional economic policy together with members, who today make up two thirds of global economic growth and take 80 percent of New Zealand’s exports.

    Just over 10 years later, in 2005, our delegation was proud to take part in the inaugural East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur. 

    We had put intensive effort into laying the groundwork for the shape of the grouping and New Zealand’s participation. 

    Our membership as a founding partner made clear to all that New Zealand was part of the region and had a role to play in regional decisions. 

    The EAS is now the premier forum for strategic dialogue and regional cooperation. 

    New Zealand is showing up today, as we did then, because we want to support peace and stability in the region in tangible ways.

    Recent years have seen the emergence of new plurilateral and ‘minilateral’ architecture alongside established multilateral architecture. 

    New Zealand supports new groupings that advance and defend our interests and capabilities, and we no reason why these can’t coexist as long as they are constructive, advanced in an open and transparent way, and are respectful of ASEAN centrality.

    We have championed a stable, peaceful and nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. In the current climate, it is not possible to visit North Korea. But in the past, we have. 

    During a 2007 visit, we met with political leaders and advocated in favour of multi-party peace talks. 

    To this day, New Zealand Defence Force assets and personnel are deployed in Korea to maintain the armistice. The Defence Force also has a separate deployment to monitor and deter North Korea’s evasion of UN sanctions.

    In 2006, we received a request from Timor-Leste, seeking assistance to restore stability and freedom of movement. We responded swiftly, deploying police and military troops. 

    In a testament to our security cooperation in the region, Singaporean personnel were integrated seamlessly into a New Zealand battalion.

    New Zealand has a long-standing development programme in Asia. It is our largest programme outside the Pacific and is growing. 

    It goes beyond training and scholarships to respond to the priorities of our ASEAN partners, as well as humanitarian assistance. 

    Just last month, for example, we contributed humanitarian assistance in response to the devastating impacts of Typhoon Yagi in Viet Nam and Myanmar, and to extreme flooding in Bangladesh. 

    It is also worth noting that, for the past 30 years, New Zealand has advanced its policy towards Asia in a bipartisan way wherever possible. 

    This has ensured successive governments can follow through on policy commitments and is one of our greatest strengths.

    What next? 

    It is instructive to think about how far we have come in the past 30 years

    But it is also clear that we need to do more. 

    The world today is disordered and becoming more dangerous. 

    As we said to the NZIIA in May, “the challenges we face are stark, the worst that anyone today working in politics or foreign affairs can remember.” 

    As MFAT’s own strategic assessment has identified, one of the drivers for this has been a shift from rules to power:  the Cold War era of predominant US western hegemony is over. 

    The multipolar world is here to stay, and states: large, middle, and small are all jostling to advance their interests.

    Added to this is the fact that global problems – whether health, environmental, demographic, or migratory – present global risks, but at the same time require state-to-state cooperation to resolve. 

    We offer this simply to point out that we’re living in a time where relationships, norms and rules – many of which have enabled the rise of countries in Asia, including those which seek to challenge those same rules – are changing at the very time when we need to maximise global cooperation.

    This is at the heart of what’s happening in Asia, as well as around the world more broadly. 

    This is why the Government decided earlier this year on a Foreign Policy Reset. A fundamental driver was that our foreign policy needs to reflect and respond to the challenging strategic context we find ourselves in. We need to act now to bring more energy, ambition and engagement to our relationships. 

    Under the Foreign Policy Reset, we have been explicit: we will be increasing the focus on and resources applied to Southeast Asia, South Asia especially India, and North Asia. This is what will have a major impact on our security and prosperity. 

    We are already delivering on this. The Prime Minister and international-facing Ministers have been incredibly active in our engagements with the region, having travelled between us to over 20 countries.

    We have taken forward concrete initiatives to demonstrate the importance and future trajectory of our partnerships. 

    This ranges from cooperation with Japan on a hospital in Kiribati, to a Customs Cooperation Arrangement with India, to advancing toward Comprehensive Strategic Partnerships with ASEAN and Korea.

    Conclusion 

    New Zealand is an Indo-Pacific country. This is our identity, and we know this is where our future lies. With every forecast about Asia’s trajectory, this becomes clearer and clearer.

    It was this realisation that led to the Asia New Zealand Foundation’s birth 30 years ago. And as we have heard today, a lot has changed since then. Asia has evolved, and New Zealand’s relationship with Asian countries has evolved too, in some ways beyond recognition. 

    As we navigate our own pathway forward, we need to understand Asia. If we don’t, our relationships will be characterised by misconceptions, bias and miscalculation. So, our work has really only just begun. New Zealand’s security and prosperity depends on us continuing it.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI China: OPEC further cuts 2024, 2025 global oil demand forecast

    Source: China State Council Information Office 3

    The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) on Monday further trimmed forecasts for global oil demand growth this year and next, marking the organization’s downward revision for the third consecutive month.

    In its monthly oil market report for October, OPEC projected a global oil demand growth of 1.93 million barrels per day (bpd) for 2024, down 106,000 bpd from the growth of 2.03 million bpd expected last month.

    OPEC attributed the adjustment to “actual data received combined with slightly lower expectations for the oil demand performance in some regions.”

    Despite the third successive downward revision, OPEC said this year’s world oil demand growth is “still well above the historical average of 1.4 million bpd seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.”

    For next year, the oil-producer group cut its 2025 global oil demand growth estimate to 1.64 million bpd from last month’s assessment of 1.74 million bpd.

    OPEC twice lowered its forecasts for global oil demand growth in 2024 and 2025 in its monthly market reports published in August and September. Until August, OPEC had maintained its global oil demand growth forecasts of 2.25 million bpd this year and 1.85 million bpd next year since they were first made in July last year.

    Last month, eight member countries of OPEC+, a group comprising OPEC and its allies, announced an extension of their voluntary oil production cuts by two months until November. The countries will start to gradually phase out these output cuts from December.

    MIL OSI China News –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Asahi Noguchi: Economic activity, prices, and monetary policy in Japan

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    I. Economic Activity and Prices

    A. Economic Developments at Home and Abroad

    I will begin my speech by talking about recent economic developments at home and abroad.

    In the wake of global inflation following the COVID-19 pandemic, Japan’s economy has been steadily shifting away from the deflation, or low inflation, that had continued from the late 1990s. It is approaching an extremely crucial turning point, in terms of whether the Bank of Japan’s price stability target of 2 percent will be achieved in a sustainable and stable manner. This depends on future economic developments at home and abroad and the underlying developments in policy conduct among the various authorities.

    Turning to overseas economies, many countries and regions have been increasingly shifting the focus of their policy conduct to maintaining economic growth, as the high inflation caused by the post-pandemic reopening of the economies has begun to subside. Major central banks in the United States and Europe maintained high policy interest rates until recently in order to contain inflation. Meanwhile, as their economies have started out on a slowing trend because of this sustained monetary tightening, some of the central banks have gradually begun to reduce their policy interest rates. That said, the degree of economic slowdown in many countries and regions is quite mild, excluding China, which is undergoing real estate adjustments, and high inflation has started to be subdued without an accompanying significant rise in the unemployment rate (Chart 1). In that sense, these countries and regions have come close to containing inflation with a very soft landing.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Gabriel Makhlouf: Opening statement – joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Good afternoon Chair, Committee members.

    Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. I am joined by Deputy Governors Vasileios Madouros and Derville Rowland.

    I will begin by giving a brief overview of the economic outlook in the EU and in Ireland, before I touch on some consumer protection issues.

    The economic outlook in the EU

    Turning to the outlook, growth in the euro area as a whole slowed in the second quarter of 2024, driven by weaker investment and consumption. Having said this, the latest projections are for a consumption-led growth recovery, albeit marginally weaker than what was previously expected. Employment growth is projected to be somewhat weaker than its pre-pandemic average.  

    We remain on track to reach our 2 per cent inflation target in the fourth quarter of 2025, although some uncertainty remains around this baseline forecast. In particular more persistent services inflation and stronger than expected wage growth could impact the forecast.

    At the most recent ECB Governing Council meeting, my colleagues and I decided to lower the deposit facility rate by 25 basis points, to 3.5 per cent. This was informed by the euro area inflation outlook, the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission.

    Last month we also implemented changes we had announced in March to the operational framework for implementing monetary policy, which sees the spread between the main refinancing operations rate (MRO) and our main policy rate – the deposit facility rate – set at 15 basis points.

    The economic outlook in Ireland

    Turning to the Irish economy, it continues to grow at a strong pace supported by the buoyancy of domestic economic activity.  Our latest Quarterly Bulletin – published last month – paints a picture of a resilient domestic economy poised to grow in the region of 2.5 per cent annually through to 2026.  Headline inflation has eased considerably to below 2 per cent, and is expected to remain between 1.5 and 2 per cent out to 2026.

    However, challenges to maintaining such performance are becoming more evident. Stronger than expected growth, over and above the economy’s potential rate, has brought into sharp focus domestic supply and infrastructure constraints. These, in turn, present a situation where globally-determined inflation in Ireland is declining substantially, while more domestically-driven inflation, as reflected in services price inflation, remains significant at around 4 per cent.

    Given current conditions, the continued expansionary fiscal stance adds unnecessary stimulus to an economy at full employment. Against the current macroeconomic backdrop, increasing net spending in excess of 5 per cent over an extended period implies that the fiscal stance will aggravate price inflation and wage pressures, undermining competitiveness and creating risks that could damage sustainable economic growth.

    As my pre-Budget letter of 4 July to the Minister for Finance – and the paper on the housing market we published last month – observed, higher levels of public investment are likely to be required over the coming years given known deficits in housing and to meet longer term structural challenges linked to the climate transition.

    So while the projected increases in public investment are necessary, careful management of the overall fiscal stance is needed to avoid overheating. With the economy already at full employment, there is a risk that increasing public investment on the scale envisaged fuels overheating pressures and results in poor value for money. To avoid this outcome, it would have been preferable if the upward revisions to public investment had been accommodated while keeping overall net spending below 5 per cent. Undoubtedly, this would have presented difficult choices and trade-offs to be made in other areas of expenditure and on taxation.

    Furthermore, to ensure additional government expenditure yields real improvements in services and that infrastructure investment is delivered efficiently, essential change outside of fiscal measures is needed in broader public policy areas. This includes in particular addressing delays and bottlenecks in the planning system, in the building regulation process and in construction. Progress in these areas would also help to further incentivise and crowd-in private investment.

    Consumer protection

    Let me turn to consumer protection.  The Central Bank’s mission is to serve the public interest by maintaining monetary and financial stability while ensuring that the financial system operates in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy. All of our work is aimed at serving the public interest and protecting consumers of financial services, whether it is through the Consumer Protection Code, the mortgage measures, monetary policy, our oversight of payments systems, or supervising to ensure firms are resilient and are acting in the best interests of their consumers.

    The environment in which we operate is changing rapidly, driven by technological change and by consumer preferences. The ways in which we as consumers buy, use and engage with financial services has changed hugely, leading to new risks in the financial sector we supervise and for the consumers we protect.

    As outlined in my two recent letters to yourselves, the Central Bank is making changes to the way we are organised to deliver our financial regulation responsibilities. Consumer protection remains a core part of those responsibilities. But in order to continue to deliver on our mandate both today and into the future, we are changing our approach to ensure that consumers of financial services are protected in an increasingly complex environment. This enhanced approach is based on accumulated experience, on insight, on best practice and is built for a faster moving and more complex financial services sector. We are making the most fundamental strengthening of our consumer protection approach for more than a decade.

    In terms of frameworks, as you know, we will shortly be introducing an updated Consumer Protection Code. This follows the largest, most in-depth review of the Code since it was introduced to ensure that it is fit for purpose into the future, is reflective of the changed nature of financial services and strengthens protections for consumers. This is a tangible demonstration of our ongoing commitment to the protection of consumers of financial services right across the country, and we have consulted widely on it to ensure we hear consumers’ and other stakeholders’ views directly.

    To implement the rules we need the right operational approach internally. This includes moving to an integrated framework where, at an operational level, directorates with oversight of banks, insurance companies and capital markets will be responsible for the supervision of all the functions of their respective sectors (as opposed to separate directorates undertaking supervisory activities for consumer protection, prudential regulation and market supervision).  

    The new approach will make it easier to direct our supervisory resources to the areas of most risk to consumers or the system more widely. Importantly, we are taking the existing team that stood in a single consumer protection directorate and placing them where their expertise is most required, directly in supervisory directorates across banks, insurance and funds. ‘Mainstreaming’ consumer protection activity in this way will enable us to dedicate greater attention and resources to where the particular risk is at a point in time. The new approach will allow us to do more, not less, to protect consumers.

    Let me give an example of how we see the interconnections in our work in relation to consumer protection. Next week we will publish our analysis of the shortfall between the cost of flooding in Ireland and that portion of the cost which is not insured. We know that Ireland will face more frequent and severe floods as the effects of climate change continue to crystallise and as we approach critical tipping points in a range of significant areas that increasingly require urgent action. Climate change has implications for the economy and for the financial system and floods in particular will impact directly on communities and consumers as well as the balance sheets of insurance companies. We cannot require insurance companies to provide flood insurance cover but our analysis can help everyone to understand the risks and support the cooperation and coordination required from the many stakeholders involved in building flood resilience in Ireland.

    Finally, and as set out in my letter, the internal operational changes that we are making will not change the focus on consumer protection at the most senior levels of the Central Bank. Derville Rowland, as Deputy Governor (Consumer and Investor Protection), will continue to have consumer protection at the core of her responsibilities. The Central Bank Commission’s Consumer Advisory Group will also continue to operate as it does now. And the entire senior leadership team led by me will continue to have a focus on consumer protection.

    These changes will come into effect in January and we are convinced that they are the best way for the Central Bank to continue to deliver on its mission, ensuring the financial system continues to operate in the best interests of consumers and the wider economy.

    Conclusion

    We are happy to take your questions.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    January 23, 2025

  • MIL-OSI: Himax Achieves Mass Production of In-Cell Touch TDDI Technology for Leading AI Laptop Brands

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TAINAN, Taiwan, Oct. 15, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Himax Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: HIMX), an industry leader in fabless display driver ICs and other semiconductors, today announced the successful mass production of its cutting-edge In-Cell Touch TDDI (Touch and Display Driver Integration) solution, the HX83132, for high-end LCD AI laptops. The HX83132 has already been adopted by several leading panel makers across the board. By entering mass production during the third quarter of 2024, this marks a significant milestone for the first-of-its-kind, innovative product. As notebook brand customers increasingly prioritize product differentiation and value enhancement, the integration of touch functionality into displays of high-end laptops and AI PCs has emerged as a key trend. Himax HX83132 is featured in one marquee brand’s first AI laptops, which boasts a 15.3-inch, 2.8K high-resolution touch display with a 120Hz refresh rate, significantly enhancing both interactivity and visual experience for seamless, intuitive user operations.

    In-cell TDDI has become a mainstream technology for LCD displays, characterized by the seamless integration of touch functionality with display driver ICs. This integration not only simplifies the supply chain but also provides substantial cost benefits to panel manufacturers. Having pioneered the mass production of In-cell TDDI technology for mid-sized tablets and automotive displays in 2019, Himax has established itself as the industry leader by introducing an industry-first touch display solution supporting screen sizes of up to 45 inches for ultra-large automotive applications. The newly launched HX83132 series further expands the application of In-cell TDDI technology to laptops, boasting a unique design architecture that pairs seamlessly with timing controller (Tcon) chips supporting various eDP specifications which make it suitable for both mainstream and high-end LCD laptops. This TDDI and Tcon configuration effectively minimizes the need for supporting components, resulting in a more compact PCB size and narrower bezel design. The HX83132 series offers precise touch sensitivity, ensuring smooth human-machine interaction, significantly enhancing user experience and improving productivity.

    The industry-leading HX83132 In-cell TDDI solution offers the following key features:

    • Flexible support for diverse panel sizes and resolutions: The advanced chip architecture can interconnect up to 6 chips, accommodating a wide range of laptop display needs with support for screen sizes up to 16 inches and resolutions up to 4K
    • Optimized and streamlined module architecture design: The HX83132 solution outperforms competition by providing more display and touch channels at the same resolution while utilizing fewer ICs. Additionally, the integrated microprocessor and level shifter minimize the need for external components, resulting in a smaller PCB size and enhanced design efficiency
    • Leveraging existing architecture for rapid In-cell Touch upgrades: The HX83132 features a state-of-the-art, integrated proprietary display driver and touch controller architecture. From a display perspective, it utilizes a standard Tcon architecture, which enables pure display panels, without the need for a dedicated Tcon for the In-cell touch functionality. Meanwhile, the TDDI integrates an in-house proprietary distributed touch microprocessor architecture, specifically designed to handle the high computational demands of touch data processing, effectively reducing development time
    • Comprehensive support for various power-saving operation scenarios: The HX83132 is compatible with eDP 1.4 and eDP 1.5 Tcons, and supports multiple power-saving features, including Panel Self Refresh (PSR) and User-Based Refresh Rate (UBRR), optimizing energy efficiency across different usage scenarios

    About Himax Technologies, Inc.

    Himax Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HIMX) is a leading global fabless semiconductor solution provider dedicated to display imaging processing technologies. The Company’s display driver ICs and timing controllers have been adopted at scale across multiple industries worldwide including TVs, PC monitors, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, automotive, ePaper devices, industrial displays, among others. As the global market share leader in automotive display technology, the Company offers innovative and comprehensive automotive IC solutions, including traditional driver ICs, advanced in-cell Touch and Display Driver Integration (TDDI), local dimming timing controllers (Local Dimming Tcon), Large Touch and Display Driver Integration (LTDI) and OLED display technologies. Himax is also a pioneer in tinyML visual-AI and optical technology related fields. The Company’s industry-leading WiseEyeTM Ultralow Power AI Sensing technology which incorporates Himax proprietary ultralow power AI processor, always-on CMOS image sensor, and CNN-based AI algorithm has been widely deployed in consumer electronics and AIoT related applications. Himax optics technologies, such as diffractive wafer level optics, LCoS microdisplays and 3D sensing solutions, are critical for facilitating emerging AR/VR/metaverse technologies. Additionally, Himax designs and provides touch controllers, OLED ICs, LED ICs, EPD ICs, power management ICs, and CMOS image sensors for diverse display application coverage. Founded in 2001 and headquartered in Tainan, Taiwan, Himax currently employs around 2,200 people from three Taiwan-based offices in Tainan, Hsinchu and Taipei and country offices in China, Korea, Japan, Germany, and the US. Himax has 2,683 patents granted and 390 patents pending approval worldwide as of September 30, 2024.

    http://www.himax.com.tw

    Forward Looking Statements

    Factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from those described in this conference call include, but are not limited to, the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on the Company’s business; general business and economic conditions and the state of the semiconductor industry; market acceptance and competitiveness of the driver and non-driver products developed by the Company; demand for end-use applications products; reliance on a small group of principal customers; the uncertainty of continued success in technological innovations; our ability to develop and protect our intellectual property; pricing pressures including declines in average selling prices; changes in customer order patterns; changes in estimated full-year effective tax rate; shortage in supply of key components; changes in environmental laws and regulations; changes in export license regulated by Export Administration Regulations (EAR); exchange rate fluctuations; regulatory approvals for further investments in our subsidiaries; our ability to collect accounts receivable and manage inventory and other risks described from time to time in the Company’s SEC filings, including those risks identified in the section entitled “Risk Factors” in its Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023 filed with the SEC, as may be amended.

    Company Contacts:

    Eric Li, Chief IR/PR Officer
    Himax Technologies, Inc.
    Tel: +886-6-505-0880
    Fax: +886-2-2314-0877
    Email: hx_ir@himax.com.tw
    http://www.himax.com.tw
      
    Karen Tiao, Investor Relations
    Himax Technologies, Inc.
    Tel: +886-2-2370-3999
    Fax: +886-2-2314-0877
    Email: hx_ir@himax.com.tw
    http://www.himax.com.tw

    Mark Schwalenberg, Director
    Investor Relations – US Representative
    MZ North America
    Tel: +1-312-261-6430
    Email: HIMX@mzgroup.us
    http://www.mzgroup.us

    The MIL Network –

    January 23, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 146 147 148 149 150 … 162
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress