Category: Statistics

  • MIL-Evening Report: After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

    The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

    The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

    At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

    The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

    On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

    With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

    In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

    Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

    The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

    But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

    Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

    In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

    Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

    In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

    Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

    Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

    G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

    Adrian Beaumont 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. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

    The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.

    But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.

    While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.

    This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?

    The climbing Greens vote

    According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.

    Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.



    Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.

    Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.

    This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.

    Capturing young hearts and minds

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.

    If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.

    These proposals have received strong support from young people – even among Coalition voters.




    Read more:
    Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right


    This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.

    They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.

    Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.

    Not doing enough

    Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.

    The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

    Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.

    Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.

    Divided by gender

    Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.

    There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.

    Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.

    This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.

    Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.

    This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.

    So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.

    The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.

    Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.

    Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.

    Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.

    Intifar Chowdhury 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. This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-gen-z-and-millennials-hold-most-of-the-voting-power-how-might-they-wield-it-252803

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland

    LOOKSLIKEPHOTO/Shutterstock

    Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.

    But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?

    In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.

    On climate, Australians fall into six groups

    Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.

    But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.

    At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.

    In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.

    For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.

    Our views aren’t set in stone

    People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.

    What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.

    People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority.
    jon lyall/Shutterstock

    What information would change minds?

    What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.

    The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.

    Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.

    The trust gap

    Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.

    Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.

    In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.

    What about action?

    Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.

    Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.

    In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.

    Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.

    What does concrete evidence of climate action look like?
    Piyaset/Shutterstock

    Why does this matter?

    As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.

    Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.

    If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.

    After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.

    Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.

    Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

    Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

    Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston 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. What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us – https://theconversation.com/what-would-change-your-mind-about-climate-change-we-asked-5-000-australians-heres-what-they-told-us-254329

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Stats NZ information release: Research and development survey: 2024

    Source: Statistics New Zealand

    Research and development survey: 202423 April 2025 – Research and development (R&D) statistics report on research and development activity, including expenditure and related employment across the business, government, and higher education sectors in New Zealand.

    Every two years, including 2024, all three sectors are surveyed. In 2019, 2021, and 2023, the survey was conducted for the business sector only.

    R&D expenditure figures are in nominal terms and are not adjusted for inflation.

    This release focuses on data from 2024, with comparisons back to 2018. The survey design has remained comparable over this time.  Previous data, gathered under old survey designs, date back to 2006 and is available in Infoshare.

    Files:

    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Stats NZ information release: Research and development survey: 2024

    Source: Statistics New Zealand

    Research and development survey: 2024 23 April 2025 – Research and development (R&D) statistics report on research and development activity, including expenditure and related employment across the business, government, and higher education sectors in New Zealand.

    Every two years, including 2024, all three sectors are surveyed. In 2019, 2021, and 2023, the survey was conducted for the business sector only.

    R&D expenditure figures are in nominal terms and are not adjusted for inflation.

    This release focuses on data from 2024, with comparisons back to 2018. The survey design has remained comparable over this time.  Previous data, gathered under old survey designs, date back to 2006 and is available in Infoshare.

    Files:

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Transmission of Monetary Policy

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Juan Pablo. I am delighted to be speaking at the University of Minnesota because, in many ways, this visit feels like a homecoming for me.1 I was born right here in Minneapolis, before I moved to Colombia as a young child. My parents told me so many wonderful stories about this area and the university. My father studied for his Ph.D. here at the economics department. He studied under accomplished economists, including Anne Krueger, Leo Hurwicz, John Buttrick, and Ed Foster, the latter of whom is still here as an emeritus professor. The University of Minnesota has made many contributions to the field of economics and has historically had a close relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. So you really are part of the Fed’s extended family, and it is an honor to speak with you.
    Today, I would like to speak with you about the transmission of the Fed’s monetary policy. I will discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy, then touch on how I monitor its transmission, and, lastly, talk about two elements related to transmission that I evaluate when making monetary policy decisions. Those elements are the long and variable lags of monetary policy and whether its transmission is asymmetric and has changed over time. But before I delve into my primary topic, I would like to start by offering my views on the economic outlook.
    Economic OutlookThe U.S. economy has grown at a solid pace, with real gross domestic product (GDP) expanding 2.5 percent last year. Activity indicators in the first few months of this year show healthy numbers. Last week, the March retail sales release showed resilient consumption, with positive revisions for January and February numbers. However, measures of household sentiment, such as surveys from the University of Michigan, Conference Board, and Morning Consult, have shown signs of softness, albeit to varying degrees. Many survey respondents report that their views reflect trade policy concerns, though, as we have seen, the exact contours of those policies are still taking shape. Thus, GDP growth for the first quarter, which will be reported next week, may show some moderation relative to what we saw in 2024, although this moderation may be offset by increased purchases front-loading the implementation of tariffs. Financial markets have experienced increased volatility in recent weeks. If financial conditions were to tighten persistently, that could weigh on growth in the future.
    The labor market remains solid, but the pace of hiring has eased during this year. In the first quarter, U.S. employers added 152,000 jobs per month, on average, compared with a monthly pace of 168,000, on average, last year. The unemployment rate edged up last month to 4.2 percent, but it is still low and has remained near its current level since last summer. Moreover, initial jobless claims have remained stable at low levels. Those numbers are consistent with other measures indicating that the labor market is broadly in balance.
    With respect to inflation, progress has slowed since last summer, and inflation remains above the 2 percent goal. Based on the consumer price index (CPI) and producer price index (PPI) data, the 12-month change in the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index was estimated to have been 2.3 percent last month and 2.6 percent for the core categories, which exclude food and energy.
    I pay careful attention to two subcategories of inflation: first, core goods—which are goods outside of volatile food and energy products—and, second, nonhousing market-based services, which are based on transactions and not imputed prices, such as car maintenance and haircuts. Goods inflation was negative in most of 2024—as was the norm for several years before the pandemic—but it increased to 0.4 percent in January and February. In March, the CPI and PPI releases pointed to goods inflation decreasing to a still-positive 0.1 percent, which is better news. By contrast, nonhousing market services inflation stayed elevated through March, at an estimated 3.4 percent. That category often provides a good signal of inflationary pressures across all services. As we look ahead, while the long-run level of tariffs is still to be determined, tariffs have moved significantly higher this year. That will likely put upward pressure on prices. For instance, both survey- and market-based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up. Longer-term inflation expectations—those beyond the next few years—largely remain well anchored and consistent with our 2 percent inflation goal, and I hope they continue in that way.
    I am closely monitoring incoming data and the cumulative effects on both sides of our mandate from policies in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. I am also monitoring any risks to the outlook, especially upside risks on inflation or downside risks to employment. Still, I think our monetary policy is well positioned for changes in the macroeconomic environment. Thus, I will support maintaining the current policy rate for as long as these upside risks to inflation continue, while economic activity and employment remain stable. I remain committed to achieving both of our dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices.
    Overview of Monetary Policy TransmissionNow turning to the primary topic of my speech, I will first discuss how monetary policy is transmitted through the economy. In this section, I will give some examples from the recent past as a tool for explaining my arguments, but I am not intending to comment further on the latest developments in the economy.
    Understanding the transmission of monetary policy starts with understanding how the Federal Reserve uses its policy tools. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) adjusts the target range for the federal funds rate, or the rate that banks pay for overnight borrowing. Setting the federal funds rate is the primary means by which the Fed adjusts the stance of monetary policy, among its range of monetary policy tools. In addition to the FOMC directly adjusting the federal funds rate, Fed policymakers’ communications about the future path of monetary policy may also result in changes to longer-term interest rates because households’ and businesses’ expectations about future policy affect the level of interest rates.
    Adjustments to the federal funds rate affect a multitude of financial conditions faced by consumers and businesses. For example, changes to the federal funds rate filter through to the interest rates lenders charge for loans to businesses and households as well as to what financial institutions pay in interest on deposits. The current and expected future path of the federal funds rate also affects asset prices, as it changes the relative attractiveness of different investments, such as stocks and real estate. Fluctuations in both interest rates and asset prices affect a household’s wealth and a corporation’s balance sheet, which can, in turn, affect the terms under which they can borrow.2 I have discussed some of the most common ways in which policy is transmitted. There are, of course, other important channels, such as exchange rates and international spillovers, that I will not discuss today. Research suggests that the channels of transmission are extensive and ever evolving.3
    Consumers and businesses make decisions based on financial conditions.4 For illustrative purposes, let’s consider a period when FOMC policymakers view it as appropriate to ease the restrictiveness of monetary policy by reducing the target range for the federal funds rate over time. The resulting lower interest rates on consumer loans elicit greater spending on goods and services, particularly on durable goods that are often financed. Lower mortgage rates can encourage renters to buy a home by reducing the monthly payment borrowers face and can encourage existing homeowners to refinance their mortgages to free up cash for other purchases. Lower interest rates can make holding equities more attractive, which raises stock prices and adds to wealth. Higher wealth tends to spur more spending, as households tend to consume at least a portion of their increased wealth. Investment projects that businesses previously believed would be marginally unprofitable become attractive because of reduced financing costs, particularly if businesses expect their sales to rise. Expecting a better macroeconomic environment and lower delinquency rates down the road, banks may loosen their lending standards on approving loans for households and businesses. All these decisions support aggregate demand and may put upward pressure on inflation.
    Of course, there are periods when policymakers see it as appropriate to increase the level of restraint placed on the economy by raising the federal funds rate over time. That may occur when policymakers are seeking to lower inflation. Then, the monetary policy effects I just described would be reversed, putting downward pressure on aggregate demand and inflation.
    Developments in Monetary Policy and Financial ConditionsLet me now discuss how I view the transmission and the stance of monetary policy during the past few quarters. To be clear, I will not discuss the developments in financial markets over the past few weeks.
    In the second half of last year, I gained greater confidence that inflation was on a sustainable path toward the FOMC’s 2 percent objective. I also wanted to preserve the strength I saw in the labor market. As a result, I supported the FOMC’s decision to decrease the target range for the federal funds rate by a total of 1 percentage point during the meetings from September through December. However, even before the Committee began to ease policy, some financial conditions started to ease. This easing can be seen in the Financial Conditions Impulse on Growth index.5 That index, developed by Federal Reserve Board staff, showed easier financial conditions from March 2024. And through January, the demand for loans by households and businesses picked up.6 In the early months of the year, financial conditions, however, remained somewhat restrictive, as borrowing costs continued to be elevated and bank credit moderately tight. Through March, interest rates on short-term small business loans had only edged down since their post-pandemic peak.7 Banks stopped tightening lending standards after nine consecutive quarters, but they left standards unchanged in January.8 These financial conditions helped to moderate aggregate demand and aid in moving inflation sustainably toward our 2 percent target.
    Details of Monetary Policy TransmissionMonitoring the financial conditions I just described is one important way I evaluate how well the Fed’s monetary policy is being transmitted to the rest of the economy. But it is not the only way. I also consider two other elements that play important roles in the transmission of our monetary policy.
    Timing MattersThe first element to evaluate is the timing with which monetary policy affects the macroeconomy. The contemporary economics literature uses a variety of statistical models to estimate the effects of what are called monetary policy “shocks.” Those are movements in the policy rate that are not explained by estimates of how monetary policy systematically responds to incoming economic and financial data and are not anticipated by the public.9 Focusing on the estimated effects of these shocks helps isolate the consequences solely coming from monetary policy actions and communications. One lesson that emerges from this research is that, broadly speaking, it turns out that Milton Friedman’s “long and variable lags” concept still holds.10 A selection of key studies on the topic estimates that it takes about one to two years for the maximum effects of policy to be observed in economic activity and inflation.11 These long lags in monetary policy affecting the economy point to why it is important for policymakers to anticipate economic conditions as best as possible and try to be proactive about understanding the effects of different shocks to the economy, so they can act quickly when needed.
    Direction of TravelThe second element to consider when making decisions related to monetary policy is whether its transmission has been equally impactful during different points in time. For example, credible evidence indicates that contractionary monetary shocks may generally decrease economic activity more strongly than expansionary shocks increase it.12 To understand these asymmetric effects, consider the following illustrative metaphor used by Marriner Eccles, who led the Fed back in the 1930s.
    Imagine a string with monetary policy at one end and the economy at the other. Employing tight monetary policy when inflation is rising is like pulling on the string to keep the economy in check—it works fairly well. But attempting to stimulate the economy with loose policy during a downturn is like trying to push on the string to move the economy—a more difficult task.
    There is evidence of this asymmetry in consumer spending on long-lasting durable goods, such as vehicles and appliances. While an easier monetary policy may lower interest rates and thus stimulate spending on durable goods in the near term, the effects of that policy may be smaller over time, as households may have already purchased durable goods.13 If a family replaces their living room furniture when rates are low, they are unlikely to need a new set of furniture a few years later and thus would not consider how current rates would change their decisions. Thus, during an easing cycle, it is reasonable to suspect that the potency of monetary policy may be somewhat diminished.
    Another example of asymmetry can be seen in the transmission of monetary policy to private lending. Board staff research documented strong growth in the period between the Global Financial Crisis and the pandemic, fueled by structural factors, such as the attractiveness of the market to borrowers and investors due to its higher customization.14 One implication of this strong growth during this past policy tightening is that monetary policy transmission to private credit markets appeared more muted relative to financing through public credit markets or bank commercial and industrial lending.
    By contrast, other factors specific to the recent period likely decreased the potency of monetary policy during the tightening cycle but may increase it during the easing cycle. When the pandemic struck and social distancing was common, many households severely curtailed spending. In addition, a historic level of government transfers boosted household income. This combination led the personal savings rate to soar.15 Recent work by Board staff suggests that these excess savings accumulated during the pandemic may have reduced the effects of tighter monetary policy over recent years.16 If households are flush with excess cash, they are less likely to respond to elevated interest rates by curtailing demand. Instead, they may have funds to avoid financing or may feel they are able to afford higher monthly payments.
    Now, some five years after the pandemic began, these excess savings are exhausted.17 This creates an environment in which monetary policy could be having its average effects on the household sector, although we should consider that the financial health of borrowers with lower credit scores has deteriorated meaningfully in recent years and credit card and auto loan delinquencies are now above pre-pandemic levels. For these households, easing monetary policy may have larger effects.
    I am closely monitoring all these possible changes in monetary policy transmission across the economy. Also, I am humbly aware that it is difficult for economists to judge the overall effect of monetary policy actions on the U.S. economy in real time.
    ConclusionTo summarize, I see inflation still running above the 2 percent target while the labor market has remained stable. But the economy is facing heightened uncertainty, with upside risks to inflation and downside risks to employment. This month, we learned that the tariff increases are significantly larger than previously expected. As a result, the economic effects of tariffs and the associated uncertainty are also likely to be larger than anticipated. It is important for monetary policymakers to broadly examine all available information, including market-based measures, surveys, and anecdotal reports, to understand what is happening in the economy as early as possible because, as I discussed, it takes time for policy to have an impact. As the direction of the economy changes, it is critical to pay close attention to real-time data and to consider the lags and asymmetries of policy transmission to ensure we respond not only to the actual movements on both sides of the mandate, but also to the risks to the economic outlook.
    As I observe the economy and consider the appropriate path of monetary policy, I am closely studying how the decisions the FOMC makes are transmitted through the economy. We have learned much about how those transmission channels work and how they may have changed in recent years, and there is much more to learn. I am confident some of that research will be done right here at the University of Minnesota. Overall, of course, when setting policy, I am guided by how best to achieve the dual-mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices given to us by Congress because that results in the best outcomes for all Americans.
    Thank you again for such a warm welcome back to the Twin Cities.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. Such broader changes in credit conditions are called the “credit channel” of monetary policy, discussed in Ben S. Bernanke and Mark Gertler (1995), “Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9 (Autumn), pp. 27–48. Return to text
    3. For evidence on how U.S. monetary policy affects exchange rates, see Martin Eichenbaum and Charles L. Evans (1995), “Some Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Shocks to Monetary Policy on Exchange Rates,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 110 (November), pp. 975–1009. Additionally, U.S. monetary policy also affects global financial conditions, as analyzed by Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Hélène Rey (2020), “U.S. Monetary Policy and the Global Financial Cycle,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 87 (November), pp. 2754–76. Return to text
    4. For evidence that financial conditions are a crucial part of the transmission of monetary policy, see Mark Gertler and Peter Karadi (2015), “Monetary Policy Surprises, Credit Costs, and Economic Activity,”  American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 7 (January), pp. 44–76. Return to text
    5. See Andrea Ajello, Michele Cavallo, Giovanni Favara, William B. Peterman, John Schindler, and Nitish R. Sinha (2023), “A New Index to Measure U.S. Financial Conditions” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 30). Return to text
    6. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (2025), “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices.” Return to text
    7. See survey data from the National Federation of Independent Business, available at William C. Dunkelberg and Holly Wade (2025), “Small Business Economic Trends,” March, https://www.nfib.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/NFIB-SBET-Report-March-2025.pdf. Return to text
    8. See Board of Governors, “The January 2025 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey” (note 6). Return to text
    9. For a literature review on the different ways of identifying monetary policy shocks, see V.A. Ramey (2016), “Macroeconomic Shocks and Their Propagation,” in John B. Taylor and Harald Uhlig, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 2 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 71–162. Return to text
    10. See Edward Nelson (2020), Milton Friedman and Economic Debate in the United States, 1932–1972, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), p. 141. Return to text
    11. See the following papers: Lawrence Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, and Charles L. Evans (1999), “Monetary Policy Shocks: What Have We Learned and to What End?” in John B. Taylor and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Macroeconomics, vol. 1 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 65–148; Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer (2004), “A New Measure of Monetary Shocks: Derivation and Implications,” American Economic Review, vol. 94 (September), pp. 1055–84; Harald Uhlig (2005), “What Are the Effects of Monetary Policy on Output? Results from an Agnostic Identification Procedure,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 52 (March), pp. 381–419; Jean Boivin, Michael T. Kiley, and Frederic S. Mishkin (2010), “How Has the Monetary Transmission Mechanism Evolved over Time?” in Benjamin M. Friedman and Michael Woodford, eds., Handbook of Monetary Economics, vol. 3 (Amsterdam: North-Holland), pp. 369–422; Olivier Coibion (2012), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks Big or Small?” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 4 (April), pp. 1–32; Gertler and Karadi, “Monetary Policy Surprises” (see note 4); Pooyan Amir Ahmadi and Harald Uhlig (2015), “Sign Restrictions in Bayesian FAVARs with an Application to Monetary Policy Shocks (PDF),” NBER Working Papers Series 21738 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, November); Christiane Baumeister and James D. Hamilton (2018), “Inference in Structural Vector Autoregressions When the Identifying Assumptions Are Not Fully Believed: Re-evaluating the Role of Monetary Policy in Economic Fluctuations,” Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 100 (December), pp. 48–65; Marek Jarociński and Peter Karadi (2020), “Deconstructing Monetary Policy Surprises—The Role of Information Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 12 (April), pp. 1–43; Silvia Miranda-Agrippino and Giovanni Ricco (2021), “The Transmission of Monetary Policy Shocks,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 13 (July), pp. 74–107; and Michael D. Bauer and Eric T. Swanson (2023), “A Reassessment of Monetary Policy Surprises and High-Frequency Identification,” in Martin Eichenbaum, Erik Hurst, and Jonathan A. Parker, eds., NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2022, vol. 37 (May), pp. 87–155. Return to text
    12. See, for instance, Silvana Tenreyro and Gregory Thwaites (2016), “Pushing on a String: US Monetary Policy Is Less Powerful in Recessions,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, vol. 8 (October), pp. 43–74; Joshua D. Angrist, Òscar Jordà, and Guido M. Kuersteiner (2018), “Semiparametric Estimates of Monetary Policy Effects: String Theory Revisited,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, vol. 36 (July), pp. 371–87; and Regis Barnichon, Christian Matthes, and Tim Sablik (2017), “Are the Effects of Monetary Policy Asymmetric? (PDF)” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Economic Brief, vol. 3 (March), pp. 1–4. Return to text
    13. See Alisdair McKay and Johannes F. Wieland (2021), “Lumpy Durable Consumption Demand and the Limited Ammunition of Monetary Policy,” Econometrica, vol. 89 (November), pp. 2717–49. Return to text
    14. See Ahmet Degerli and Phillip J. Monin (2024), “Private Credit Growth and Monetary Policy Transmission,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 2). Return to text
    15. See, for instance, Aditya Aladangady, David Cho, Laura Feiveson, and Eugenio Pinto (2022), “Excess Savings during the COVID-19 Pandemic,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 21); and Francois de Soyres, Dylan Moore, and Julio L. Ortiz (2023), “Accumulated Savings during the Pandemic: An International Comparison with Historical Perspective,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 23). Return to text
    16. See Thiago R.T. Ferreira, Nils Gornemann, and Julio L. Ortiz (forthcoming), “Household Excess Savings and the Transmission of Monetary Policy,” International Journal of Central Banking. Return to text
    17. See Hamza Abdelrahman and Luiz Edgard Oliveira (2024), “Pandemic Savings Are Gone: What’s Next for U.S. Consumers?” SF Fed Blog, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, May 3. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Colin Hawes, Associate professor of law, University of Technology Sydney

    Slow Walker/Shutterstock

    Far from causing trade frictions, an Australian buyout of the Port of Darwin lease may provide a lifeline for its struggling Chinese parent company Landbridge Group.

    Both Labor and the Coalition have proposed such a buyout based on national security grounds.

    But neither party has placed a dollar amount on a potential buyout, preferring to seek out private investors first. Any enforced acquisition would need to provide fair market value compensation to Landbridge.

    The previous Northern Territory government leased the port to Landbridge for 99 years in 2015. The A$506 million contract was supported by the then Turnbull government.

    Finding a buyer

    This could put Australian taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. Private investors might baulk at taking on a port lease that has consistently lost money for many years.

    It is not clear why the national security situation has changed. The latest government inquiry found there were no security risks requiring Landbridge to divest their lease.

    The more pressing risk threatening the port is a financial one.

    Troubled times

    If Landbridge Group, which holds the lease through its Australian subsidiary, declares insolvency, it will no longer be able to sustain the port’s operations. And the terminal could not support itself.

    Several hundred employees would lose their jobs, and serious disruptions to trade and cruise ship tourism would follow.

    The closure of the port would cause significant disruptions.
    Claudine Van Massenhove/Shutterstock

    The Australian media reported last November that the Port of Darwin racked up losses of $34 million in the 2023–24 financial year. Yet this figure is overshadowed by the financial liabilities Landbridge has in China.

    Where the problems started

    The problems started with Landbridge Group’s ambitious expansion between 2014 and 2017.

    In that time it shelled out almost $5 billion on international and Chinese assets. Purchases included Australian gas producer WestSide Corporation Ltd, ($180 million in 2014); the Port of Darwin lease ($506 million in 2015); and another port in Panama ($1.2 billion in 2016). Landbridge reportedly planned to plough a further $1.5 billion into that port.

    In China, the Landbridge Group also signed a partnership deal with Beijing Gas Co in 2019 to construct a huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at its main port site in Rizhao City, Shandong Province. The planned co-investment was worth $1.4 billion.

    Rushing to invest

    This was a heady time for Chinese private firms to invest overseas. Their often charismatic founders took advantage of the central government’s devolution of approval powers to the provinces and dressed up their pet investment projects as Belt and Road initiatives.

    Much of this breakneck expansion was funded by high-interest bonds issued on the Chinese commercial interbank debt markets or so-called shadow banking.

    Most private Chinese firms did not have easy access to the generous bank loans available to state-owned enterprises.

    Landbridge, a private firm controlled by Shandong entrepreneur Ye Cheng and his sister Ye Fang, was no exception. They borrowed heavily to fund their acquisitions.

    Mounting debt

    Unfortunately, Landbridge’s income from its Chinese and international operations has not kept pace with its debt obligations. As early as 2017, the group was already struggling to pay debts.

    Landbridge has been struggling to pay down debt.
    lovemydesigns/Shutterstock

    By 2021, Landbridge had been sued by at least 14 major financial or trade creditors. Outstanding judgment debts were issued by the Shanghai People’s Court amounting to about $600 million.

    Since then, all of the group’s main assets have been frozen in lieu of payment. Unpaid debts and interest amounting to more than $1 billion have been passed on to state asset management companies to collect or sell off at knockdown prices, an indication the group is effectively insolvent.

    Time to restructure

    In early 2025, a restructuring committee was formed by the local government in Rizhao City, where Landbridge is headquartered. Its job is to find a way to keep the company’s Rizhao Port operating and avoid losing thousands of local jobs.

    As recently as 2021, Ye Cheng was still ranked among the top 300 richest entrepreneurs in China, with an estimated net worth of more than $3 billion.

    He is currently on the hook for his company’s debts after mortgaging all his business assets and giving personal guarantees to major creditors. He has also been fined by China’s corporate regulator for failing to lodge any annual financial reports for Landbridge Group since 2021.

    Landbridge’s plans to develop its Panama port were cut short and its lease there was terminated in 2021 due to financial shortfalls.

    Ye’s next move?

    Ye Cheng may be unwilling to sell off his remaining overseas assets as this would be an admission of defeat. Yet an enforced buyout of the Darwin Port lease arranged by Australia may provide his businesses with a temporary financial lifeline in China.

    It would also absolve Landbridge of its previously announced commitments to invest about $35 million in expanding Darwin Port’s infrastructure.

    Far from causing trade frictions between Australia and China, such an enforced buyout – or more accurately, a bail-out – should be privately welcomed by both Landbridge and the Chinese government.

    Colin Hawes is a research associate at the Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney.

    ref. Port of Darwin’s struggling Chinese leaseholder may welcome an Australian buy-out – https://theconversation.com/port-of-darwins-struggling-chinese-leaseholder-may-welcome-an-australian-buy-out-254716

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

    Mick Tsikas/AAP, Joel Carret/AAP, Darren England/AAP, Ihor Koptilin/Shutterstock, The Conversation, CC BY

    Gambling prevalence studies provide a snapshot of gambling behaviour, problems and harm in our communities. They are typically conducted about every five years.

    In some Australian states and territories, four or five have been conducted over the past 20 or so years. These have provided a snapshot into how gambling has changed – and how it has not.

    So, how has gambling in Australia changed in the past two decades or so, and where may we be heading?

    The intensification of gambling

    In 1997-98, the Productivity Commission found about 82% of Australians had gambled in the previous 12 months.

    Almost all further prevalence studies show the proportion of adults gambling has declined substantially over time.

    The 2024 NSW prevalence survey, for example, found 54% reported gambling in the previous 12 months, down from 69% in 2006.

    While fewer people are gambling, the proportion of people experiencing problems has not changed much, nor has gambling turnover.

    In some states, gambling turnover has increased, even when you take inflation into account.

    So while a smaller proportion of people are gambling, those who do gamble are doing so more frequently, and spend more money – a phenomenon we have described as the “intensification” of the industry.

    As figures from the Grattan Institute show, the vast majority of gambling spend comes from a very small proportion of people who gamble.

    What’s the problem?

    Typically, the focus in gambling studies has been on “problem gamblers”, a term we now avoid because it can be stigmatising.

    This refers to those experiencing severe problems due to their gambling, which is typically about 1% of the adult population, and around 2% of people who gamble.

    This doesn’t sound like much, until you remember 1% of adults in Australia is more than 200,000 people. That’s a lot of people struggling with severe problems.

    Based on recent prevalence surveys in Australia, these gamblers spend about 60 times as much as people who do not experience problems.

    However, that’s just the most severe cases.

    How gambling harms people

    When most people think of gambling harm, they think about financial harm. But gambling can cause problems with relationships, work and study, emotional and psychological harm, and even cause health issues.

    Some degree of gambling harm is experienced by around 10-15% of people who gamble.

    Some groups are overrepresented: young men typically experience very high levels of harm compared to others. Other overrepresented groups are:

    • those who have not completed tertiary education
    • people who speak a language other than English
    • people who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

    Harm isn’t just experienced by people who gamble, though – it impacts the people around them.

    While young men are more likely to experience harm from their own gambling, women, particularly young women, are most likely to experience harm from someone else’s gambling.

    When we take all of these sources of harm into account, we get a much better picture of gambling harm in our community: around 15-20% of all adults (not all gamblers) experience harm.

    That’s very different to the figure of 1% we’ve focused on in the past.

    We’re still missing some accounting, though: we don’t know how much harm is experienced by people under 18, for example, because prevalence studies typically only include adults.

    Where does the harm come from?

    The most problematic form in Australia is pokies, responsible for about 51-57% of problems.

    Casinos are responsible for another 10-14%, although fewer people have been gambling in casino games in recent years.




    Read more:
    Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended


    Sports betting and race betting together account for about another 19-20% of harm.

    Between them, pokies, casino games and sports and race betting account for about 90% of harm to Australian gamblers.

    Availability is an issue

    This widespread availability of pokies is the biggest single driver behind gambling harm in Australia.

    In other countries, pokies are limited to venues that are specifically used for gambling, like casinos or betting shops.

    We have pokies in a huge number of our pubs and clubs, except in Western Australia.

    A couple of years ago, we used national prevalence data to compare gambling problems in WA to the rest of the country.

    A higher percentage of adults in WA gamble, but mostly on the lotteries which are typically not associated with much harm.

    Gambling on pokies is far less prevalent in WA because they’re only available in one casino. Gambling problems and harm are about one-third lower in WA, and our analysis shows this can be attributed to the limited access to pokies.

    This also tells us something important. If pokies are not available, people will typically not substitute them with other harmful forms. It points to the role of the availability of dangerous gambling products in gambling harm, rather than personal characteristics.

    Online gambling has also become a lot more available. Most of us now have a mobile phone almost surgically implanted onto our hand, making online gambling more accessible than ever. Not surprisingly, online gambling continues to increase.

    An obvious solution to try

    Governments have taken increasingly proactive measures to help address gambling harm, such as the National Consumer Protection Framework for Online Gambling, strategies for minimising harm such as NSW’s investment into gambling harm minimisation, Victoria’s proposed reforms on pokies including mandatory precommitment limits, Queensland’s Gambling Harm Minimisation Plan and the ACT’s Strategy for Gambling Harm Prevention.

    Voluntary limits have been trialled to help people keep their gambling under control, but have had virtually no uptake.

    For example, the recent NSW Digital Gaming Wallet trial was conducted in 14 venues. Only 32 people were active users, and 14 of these were deemed genuine users. Another study found only 0.01% of all money put through machines in Victoria used the voluntary YourPlay scheme.

    The problem with voluntary limits is, no one volunteers.

    Mandatory limits though are almost certainly necessary, just like we have mandatory limits for how fast you can drive, or how much you can drink before the bartender puts you in a taxi.

    There will almost certainly be push back against this, just like the introduction of mandatory seatbelts in the 1970s, or the introduction of random breath testing.

    Now, we accept them as important public health measures.

    History tells us the same will happen with mandatory gambling limits, even if we’re a bit uncomfortable about it at first.

    Alex Russell received funding from the Star Entertainment Group from 2014-2016 to conduct research examining gambling behaviour and problems amongst casino staff, and to provide recommendations to minimise risks associated with occupational exposure to gambling. He no longer accepts industry funding, or works on industry-funded projects.

    Matthew Browne receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.

    Matthew Rockloff has receives funding from New Zealand and Australian State and Federal Government Authorities. Most recently, the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General, the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the Government of South Australia, Gambling Research Australia, and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission.

    ref. Gambling in Australia: how bad is the problem, who gets harmed most and where may we be heading? – https://theconversation.com/gambling-in-australia-how-bad-is-the-problem-who-gets-harmed-most-and-where-may-we-be-heading-252389

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Russia: World Economic Outlook Press Briefing

    Source: IMF – News in Russian

    April 22, 2025

    Speakers:

    Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, Director, Research Department, IMF
    Petya Koeva Brooks, Deputy Director, Research Department, IMF
    Deniz Igan, Division Chief, Research Department, IMF

    Moderator:
    Jose Luis De Haro, Communications Officer, IMF   

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I think we can start and we have a quorum. So good morning, everyone, and welcome. I want to welcome also those joining us online. I am Jose Luis de Haro with the Communications Department at the IMF and we are gathered here today for the presentation of our latest edition of the World Economic Outlook titled, “A Critical Juncture Amid Policy Shifts.” I hope by this time you all have had access to the document. If not, I am going to encourage you, as always, to go to IMF.org. There, you are going to find the document, the World Economic Outlook, also Pierre‑Olivier’s blog and many other assets, including the underlying data for some of the charts that are published on the World Economic Outlook.

    I also want to plug in that we have a new database portal that I encourage you to use, and what’s best, that to discuss the new outlook that having here with us today, Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas. He is the Economic Counsellor, the chief economist, and the Director of the Research Department. Next to him are Petya Koeva Brooks, she is the Deputy Director of the Research Department and last, but not least, we also have Deniz Igan, she is the division chief also with the Research Department.

    Pierre‑Olivier, as usual is going to start with some opening remarks, and then we are going to open the floor to your questions. I just want to remind everyone that this press briefing, it’s on the record and that we also have simultaneous translation.

    So let me stop here. Pierre‑Olivier, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Jose. And good morning, everyone. The landscape has changed since our last World Economic Outlook update in January. We are entering a new era as the global economic system that has operated for the last 80 years is being reset. Since late January, many tariff announcements have been made, culminating on April 2, with near universal levies from the United States and counterresponses from some trading partners. The U.S. effective tariff rate has surged past levels reached more than 100 years ago, while tariff rates on the U.S. have also increased.

    Beyond the abrupt increase in tariffs, the surge in policy uncertainty is a major driver of the economic outlook. If sustained, the increasing trade tensions and uncertainty will slow global growth significantly. Reflecting this complexity, our report presents a reference forecast which incorporates policy announcements up to April 4 by the U.S. and trading partners. Under these reference forecasts, global growth will reach 2.8 percent this year and 3 percent next year, a cumulative downgrade of about 0.8 percentage points relative to our January 2025 WEO update. Our report also offers a range of forecasts under different policy assumptions.

    Under an alternative path that excludes the April tariff announcements, global growth would have seen only a modest downgrade to 3.2 percent this year. We will also use a model‑based forecast to incorporate the temporary suspension of most tariffs announced on April 9, together with the increase in bilateral tariffs between China and the U.S. to prohibitive levels. This pause, even if extended permanently, delivers a similar growth outlook as a reference forecast, 2.8 percent, even if some highly tariffed countries could benefit.

    Now, while global growth remains well above recession levels, all regions are negatively impacted this year and next. And the global disinflation process continues, but at a slower pace with inflation revised up by 0.1 percentage point in both years. These trade tensions will greatly impact global trade. We project that global trade growth will be more than cut in half from 3.8 percent last year to 1.7 percent this year. The tariffs will play out differently in different countries. For the United States, the tariffs represent a supply shock that reduces productivity and output permanently and increases price pressures temporarily. This adds to an already weakening outlook and leads us to revise growth down by 0.9 percentage points to 1.8 percent, with a 0.4 percentage point downgrade from the tariffs only. While inflation is revised upwards.

    For trading partners, tariffs act mostly as a negative external demand shock. Weakening activity and prices, even if some countries could benefit from trade diversion. This is why we have lowered our China growth forecast this year to 4 percent, while inflation is revised down by 0.8 percentage points, increasing deflationary pressures. All countries are negatively affected by the surge in trade policy uncertainty, as businesses cut purchases and investment, while financial institutions reassess their borrowers’ exposure. Uncertainty also increases because of the complex sectoral disruptions that tariffs could cause up and down supply chains, as we saw during the pandemic.

    The effect of these shocks on exchange rates is complex. The tariffs could appreciate the US dollar, as in previous episodes. However, greater policy uncertainty, lower U.S. growth prospects, and an adjustment in the global demand for dollar assets are weighing down on the dollar.

    Risks to the global economic have increased and are firmly to the downside.

    First, while we are not projecting a global downturn, the risks it may happen this year have increased substantially, from 17 percent projected back in October to 30 percent now. An escalation of trade tensions would further depress growth. Financial conditions could also tighten, as markets react negatively to diminished growth prospects and increased uncertainty. On the flip side, growth prospects could immediately improve if countries ease from their current trade policy stance and promote a new, clear, and stable trade environment.

    Addressing domestic imbalances can also help raise growth while contributing significantly to closing external imbalances. For Europe, this means spending more on public infrastructure to accelerate productivity growth. For China, it means boosting support for domestic demand. While for the U.S., it means stepping up fiscal consolidation.

    Turning to policies. Our recommendations call for prudence and improved collaboration. Let me outline some key ones. First, an obvious priority is to restore trade policy stability. The global economy needs a clear, stable, and predictable trading environment, one that addresses some of the longstanding gaps in international trading rules. Monetary policy will need to remain agile and respond by tightening where inflation pressures re‑emerge, while easing where weak demand dominates. Monetary policy credibility will be key, especially where inflation expectations might de‑anchor. And central bank independence remains a cornerstone.

    Many fiscal authorities will face new spending needs to bolster defense spending or to offset the trade dislocations, likely to come. Some of the poorest countries also hit with reduced official aid could experience debt distress. Yet debt levels are still elevated and most countries still need to rebuild fiscal space, including by implementing structural reforms. Support, where needed, should remain narrowly targeted and temporary. It is easier to turn on the fiscal tap than to turn it off. Where new spending needs are permanent, as for defense spending in some countries, planning for offsetting cuts elsewhere or new revenues should be made.

    Finally, even if some of the grievances against our trading system have merit, we should all work toward fixing the system so that it can deliver better opportunities to all. Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. Before we open the floor to your questions, some ground rules. First of all, if you want to ask a question, raise your hand. If I call on you, please identify yourself and the media outlet you represent. Try to be succinct. Stick to one question. We want to answer as many questions as possible.

    And also, a reminder. We are here to discuss the World Economic Outlook. Those questions regarding country programs, institutional issues are going to be better placed for the regional press briefings that are happening later this week and also the Managing Director’s press briefing this Thursday.

    With that said, I want hands up. OK. So I am going to start here in the center. Then I am going to move the room to my left. Then to my right. I am going to start with the lady with the green jacket there.

    QUESTION: Thank you.. Thanks so much for doing this.

    Pierre‑Olivier, I wonder if you can speak a little bit to the fact that you haven’t called out a recession. And you know, we are hearing lots of economists in the United States and other places‑‑most recently yesterday, the IIF is now also forecasting a small recession in the second half of the year. What we see in the WEO is that the percentage of risk of a recession has increased pretty dramatically. Can you walk us through why you are not at this point calling a recession, for instance, likely in the United States and what it would take to tip it that way? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Andrea.

    So for the United States, we are projecting a significant slowdown. We are projecting growth will be at 1.8 percent in 2025. And that’s a 0.9 percentage‑point slowdown‑‑revision in our projections from January. But 1.9 percent is obviously not a recession. And the reason for this is is that we have a U.S. economy that, in our view, is coming from a position of strength. We had an economy that was growing very rapidly. We have a labor market that is still very robust. We have seen some signs of weakening and slowdown in the U.S. economy, even before the tariff announcements. So, in fact, the 0.9 percentage point downward revision that I just mentioned, only a part of this‑‑maybe 0.4 percentage points‑‑is coming from the tariffs. Some of that is also coming from weakening momentum. This was an economy that was doing very, very well but was self‑correcting and cooling off a bit on its own. And we were seeing already consumption numbers coming down. We are seeing consumer confidence coming down. So all of that was already factored in. But we are not seeing a recession in our reference forecast.

    As you mentioned, Andrea, we are‑‑when we do our risk assessment, if you want, we are seeing the probability of a recession increasing, from about 25 percent back in October to around 40 percent when we assess it now.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The lady here in red.

    QUESTION: Good morning.

    Pierre, I wanted to ask you about the downward pressure on the dollar now. To what extent you believe it can provide some relief from the pressure on highly indebted emerging economies with a large share of dollar‑denominated debt? And has this downward pressure on the dollar changed your outlook on all of those emerging economies that are still, you know, under the impact of the high debt‑‑as mentioned by the MD in previous meetings, where this high debt is really one of the impediments to growth? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yes. So we are seeing a weakening of the dollar that is fairly broad‑based over the last few weeks, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, some of that is coming from the weaker growth prospects in the U.S. Some it is coming from the increased uncertainty. And it’s leading to a reassessment of the global demand for dollar assets. When we step back, we also have to realize we are coming from a position where, over the last few years, there have been tremendous capital inflows into U.S. markets, in particular, risk markets. That’s something that, of course, my colleague Tobias Adrian will talk about in the GFSR press conference. So we are seeing some adjustment, some contradiction. The markets are handling it. We don’t see signs of stress, even in currency markets.

    Now, the interesting development is, what does it mean for emerging markets? And you are right to point out that, in the past, when the dollar would strengthen, that would not necessarily be good news for emerging markets because they have dollar‑denominated debts, so that increases their liabilities and the pressure on them to service their debts. And this can lead to some tightening of financial conditions. So we are not seeing that right now. And so that’s a plus. The flip side of this is, of course, the appreciation of some of these emerging markets’ currencies means that they are also losing a little bit on the competitiveness side, so there is maybe something that is a bit easier on the finance conditions, something that is not as easy on the trade side.

    Finally, this is an environment of enormous uncertainty, increased volatility. And that I think is something that will dominate for many of the emerging markets. So when we are looking at our assessment, we are actually downgrading the emerging market economies for 2025 and 2026, most of them. Some of them may, as I mentioned, benefit. But overall, as a group, they are downgraded. While because they are also very plugged into the global supply chains, the uncertainty is leading to a pause in investment and activity, and they are going to suffer from the decline in demand for their products coming from the tariffs.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go with the gentleman here with the glasses.

    QUESTION: Thank you. I just have one question. Could you elaborate a little bit on what will happen with the trade flows in your models? I saw that in the basic assumption, the exports from the U.S. are [breaking quite heavily but not that much from China. Why is this so?

    And do I understand it right that this basic model does not yet integrate the additional hikes after ‑‑ happening after basically April 9, so above 100 percent on import tariffs by the U.S.? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: So we are seeing a large impact on global trade coming from the tariffs and that’s going to be the case under any combination of tariffs where the effective tariff rates remains very elevated. And the reason why when we looked at the different scenarios that I mentioned, whether it’s a reference scenario or our April 9 scenario which includes lower tariffs on many countries but sharply increased tariffs between the U.S. and China. The overall impact on the global economy is not very different because the effective tariff rate is, if anything, even higher under that pause. So global trade is going to be significantly affected. The particular configuration of trade, which bilateral trade flows are going to be affected versus others that will depend on the final landscape in terms of tariffs so we can anticipate that there will be much lower bilateral trade under either the reference scenario or the April 9, between the U.S. and China. And that is weighing down on global trade growth. This is weighing down on global trade generally.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to turn here to the center. I am going to go to the first row. I am going to go with the lady with the yellow bottle.

    QUESTION: Thank you,

    You have downgraded the U.K.’s growth forecast quite sharply and given the range of explanations, from higher tariff barriers to more domestic issues, like cost‑of‑living pressures. Out of those, so the global challenges versus domestic challenges, which one is weighing more heavily on the U.K.’s growth forecasts?

    Mr. De Haro: OK we are going to open the round of U.K. questions so if you have questions on the U.K., raise your hand. And I will pass the mic to you. I see  two there. Yep.

    QUESTION: Hi.

    In a world where everyone is warning about the impact of tariffs on U.S. inflation and how much it will raise U.S. prices, why do you have the U.K. with the highest inflation rate in the G‑7 this year? And do you believe tariffs will be inflationary or disinflationary for the U.K.?

    Mr. De Haro: OK. Joe here in the first row.

    QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. So Joel hills from ITV news. Obviously it’s impacting the tariffs are impacting the U.K. They are impacting most countries. I just wonder this, President Trump did say there would be some disruption. He suggested it would be sort of temporary. Is it possible that President Trump is actually a genius? That he knows something you do not?

    Mr. De Haro: And I think we have a last question on the U.K. and this is going to be the last question on the U.K. There on the back of the room.

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    The U.K. inflation forecast is, you know, much higher than we expected it to be, 0.7 percent higher. Is that going to impact on lowering interest rates in the U.K.? And does that affect the growth rate, which seems to be rather optimistic, compared with some of the other European countries?

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to be done with the U.K. questions and then we will move along. So Pierre‑Olivier.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So many questions. Let me address them as best I can. First, on the revision for growth in the U.K. and inflation. So the tariffs are playing a role, as they are in most countries and uncertainty is also playing a role, as it is in all countries. And it’s weighing down on growth in the U.K. But there are some U.K.‑specific factors and I would say that in terms of the zero point 5 percentage point downward revision that we are saying for the U.K., the domestic factors are probably the biggest ones. And in particular, there is a lower carryover from weaker growth in the second half of last year. There is also some tightening of financial conditions, as interest rates have risen, longer‑term interest rates.

    On inflation, the revision in inflation in the U.K. is coming, again, from domestic factors, and in particular some change in regulated energy prices. So that’s expected to be temporary but it’s also very U.K.‑specific. The effect of the tariffs on countries like the U.K., like it is on the EU or China is like a negative demand shock. It’s weakening activity but it’s also lowering price pressures, not increasing them.

    Now, what is the impact of the tariffs in the medium and long term? Not just what’s going to happen this year and next but what’s going to happen longer term? Our assessment is it’s going to be negative. We have a box in our report that looks at the long‑term impact of the tariffs, if they are maintained. And it is negative for all regions, just like the short‑term impact. So we are seeing a negative impact in the short term, in the medium term, in the long term. Again, there are nuances. Some countries might benefit, depending on the particular configuration of tariffs. It might benefit from some trade diversion; but the broad picture is it’s negative for the outlook.

    Now, our ‑‑ and I will end with that. Our forecast for 2025 is slightly higher than OBR’s forecast. Some of this has to do with some of the underlying monetary policy assumptions for the U.K. The bank‑‑

    Our assumption for this year is that there are going to be four cuts through the year. One cut already happened. We expect three more.

    Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. I am not going to forget about the people that are on WebEx, and I am going to pass a question there. I see Anton from TAS.

    QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you for doing this.

    Given the projected slowdown of Russia’s GDP growth from 4.1 in 2024 to 1.5 in 2025, what are the primary factors driving this sharp decline? And how sustainable is Russia’s growth model going forward? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Petya, would you like to answer?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. We are indeed expecting a slowdown in growth to 1.5 this year, and this, to a large extent is kind of the natural slowing of the economy after growing quite robustly in previous years. And also as a result of policy tightening that we have seen, both on the fiscal as well as on the monetary policy side. It is also due to the lower oil prices that have come about as a result of the‑‑as a response to the round of tariffs, as well as the uncertainty about global growth. So all these factors are behind that lower growth number, although I should point out that it is actually a slight upward revision, relative to what we had back in January. And the reason for that is that, again, we actually had seen upward surprises in 2024, which kind of carried into 2025.

    When it comes to the medium‑term growth outlook, we do expect that to be relatively weak. We are‑‑we have penciled in growth number of about 1.2, which is down from 1.7 which is what we had before the start of the war.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. Let’s continue. I am going to go again in the center and then I am going to go to that side. The lady with the glasses there.

    QUESTION: Hi.

    In Latin America, we received almost every country 10 percent. So I want to know about the impact of the tariffs in Latin America and if the impact is going to be limited, versus other regions, and when we are going to start to feeling this impact. Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: And before we answer the question, are there any questions on Mexico, Brazil, Argentina? OK. Argentina friends, go ahead.

    QUESTION: Hello.

    You’ve kept 5.5 growth projection that was decided in the latest program that Argentina signed with the IMF. I would like to know why you are not seeing so much impact yet about‑‑of this general context.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We can go ahead first with the Latin America overview and then we can go to Argentina.

    Mr. Gourinchas: I will just say something briefly and then ask my colleague Petya to come in. So for Latin America, as a whole, we are saying activity that is largely driven by consumption on the back of resilient labor markets while investment remains somewhat sluggish. And the slowdown in our projection reflects the impact of tariffs and the global growth slowdown, of course, which is also affecting countries in the region. Policy uncertainty. And the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus and in some countries monetary policy tightening.

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: I don’t have a lot to add. Just to say that the disinflation process has also slowed a bit, and this is also‑‑also makes the policy trade‑offs a bit more complicated with slow‑‑with growth slowing down and at the same time, you know, having still challenges on the inflation side.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. So we are going to move on. I am going to ask the gentleman in the first row there because‑‑

    Oh, sorry. Sorry. I forgot about Argentina. Please go ahead.

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: We cannot forget about Argentina.

    So the growth forecast for this year‑‑you are right‑‑we still have the upgrade of .5. And this is related to just the positive surprises that we had seen, in spite of a very strong fiscal adjustment, the recovery in confidence I think has definitely played a role in kind of driving us to have this forecast. That said, there are a number of risks related to tighter financial conditions, commodity prices, and a lot of others, which is true for many if not most other countries.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. So now we can move on. I am going to go with the gentleman in the first row.

    QUESTION: Thank you. In the October 2024 outlook you saw a stable but slow growth for Africa. What’s new now? And what kind of initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area do for African economies amidst these trade tensions?

    Mr. De Haro: And before we answer, I think‑‑

    QUESTION: Hi. Good morning.

    One of the things that you mentioned in your report is the demographic shift and the rise in the silver economy. Africa, on the other hand, has the reverse of that. So what is your recommendation in the short and medium term on how to deal with some of these challenges pertaining to tariffs, monetary policy, and now currency exchange? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: OK.

    Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Thank you. I will just say one word about the outlook in sub‑Saharan Africa and then I will ask my colleague Deniz to come in to add more color and answer also the question on the demographic trends.

    So regional growth in sub‑Saharan Africa improved significantly last year, to 4 percent. And it will ease in 2025. And this is in line with a softer global outlook. So we are seeing the same forces at play in the region, as we are seeing more globally. And a downturn‑‑and a downward revision in our projection that is of a similar magnitude at about 0.4 percentage point. Deniz?

    Ms. Igan: Thank you for the question. So on the demographic shifts, our Chapter 2 basically points out that countries’ age structures are evolving at different rates, as you pointed out as well. We have most western economies, some Asian economies that are aging fast. And you know in a health way some of them. And then we have many sub‑Saharan African countries that have a very young population. And what the chapter shows is actually, there are important medium‑term consequences of that, both for growth, as well as external balances of countries.

    In Africa’s case, basically, what we would see is a demographic dividend coming from having a young population. And the question then becomes how best to leverage that, how best to use that and channel it into growth. And the answer there, first and foremost, depends on the structural reforms, the investment that’s necessary on healthcare, on education, on human capital more generally and also international cooperation because our Chapter 3 looks more carefully into migration flows. And again, there, we see migration policy shifts in destination countries has spillovers for other countries. And this is especially true for emerging market economies and lower income economies. So, again, international cooperation there, making sure that growth dividends are utilized in the best way is what we delve into in the chapter.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go to the gentleman with‑‑raise your hand. Yeah. You. No, I am going back. Then I will go‑‑there you go.

    QUESTION: OK. I have a question about China’s growth.

    In your World Economic Outlook, you say China’s growth forecast has been cut to 4 percent for this year, which is a 0.6 percentage drop from an earlier projection. But China’s National Bureau of Statistics a couple of days ago predicted China’s growth GDP growth in the first quarter was 5.4 percent. So my question is, how do you see the disparity in the forecast? Is China more optimistic than you are? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So, yes, we are revising our growth projections for China down by 0.6 percentage points, as you have noted. I should flag that this number does not incorporate the latest release for Q1. That came after we closed our round of projections. So this is not reflected there. And we will have to see how it affects our projections when we have our next round of WEO updates.

    But let me give you a little bit of perspective on the rationale behind our revision for China. The tariff increase in tariffs especially since China is one of the countries that is facing the most elevated tariffs right now, is going to have a very significant impact in our projections on the Chinese economy. In fact, when we do a decomposition, which I showed during my opening remarks, the impact of the tariffs on the Chinese economy would be a negative 1.3 percentage point revision on growth.

    So why do we only have 0.6? Well, because there are other factors that are helping to support Chinese growth in 2025 and 2026. One of which‑‑which is quite important‑‑is the fiscal support that has been announced since the beginning of the year. And that is adding up, something of the amount of 0.5 percentage points. So the impact of the current trade tensions is very significant. It’s partly offset. We expect it to remain quite significant also in 2026 when we also have a downward revision by about 0.5 percentage points.

    The other side of this, where we are seeing the impact of the tariffs is on inflation, which is revised down. Our headline inflation projection for 2025 is actually at zero. So it’s down from 0.8 percent to zero. So China is facing stronger deflationary forces as a result of these trade tensions.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The gentleman with the glasses here.

    QUESTION: What impact did the oil price also have in exporting and importing countries in the Middle East? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gourinchas: So we have seen oil prices declining since our last projections, and the decline in oil prices in our and our interpretation is coming mostly from weaker global demand, so it’s the weakening of global activity that is driving the decline in prices. There has been some increase in supply coming from OPEC Plus countries, but broadly speaking, the decline is mostly coming from weaker demand.

    So that is going to play out in ways you sort of would expect. The commodity exporters are going to face lower export revenues from the decline in oil prices. That’s going to weigh on their fiscal outlook, on their growth.

    For those countries that are oil importers, it’s going to lower inflation pressures because that‑‑lower oil prices is going to feed into lower headline inflation. It’s going to also provide some modest support to economic activity there.

    Deniz, anything to add on oil prices or‑‑or Petya?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: No, I don’t.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to move to the center. I am going to get the gentleman with the white shirt there.

    QUESTION: h I am not going to ask another question about the U.K., you will be pleased to know. Over the last week we have seen a number of attacks by the White House on the independence of the Federal Reserve. How destabilizing do you think this might be for financial markets?

    Mr. Gourinchas: So central banks are facing a delicate moment. As I have explained in many countries, the impact of the tariffs is going to be to increase recessionary forces and it is going to lower price pressures. And that will help central banks cut interest rates faster and provide some support to their economies. But in other countries ‑‑ and in our projections, the U.S. is in that category‑‑the tariffs are going to increase price pressures. Price pressures in the U.S. are increasing for other reasons as well. Service prices have been quite‑‑inflation of service prices have been quite strong. And that is something that we are seeing already. But the tariffs are likely to increase price pressures. We are projecting inflation to remain at 3 percent in the U.S. this year, the same level as last year, headline inflation.

    So in that context, if you also think about where we are coming from, we are coming from a period of very elevated inflation. We are just coming off the cost‑of‑living crisis, a surge in inflation rates to double digits that we haven’t seen in more than a generation. So the critical thing is to make sure that inflation expectations remain anchored, that everyone remains convinced that central banks will do what is necessary to bring inflation back to central bank targets in an orderly manner. And central banks have instruments to do this. They have their interest rate instruments. They have various instruments of monetary policy. But one critical aspect of what they do is coming from their credibility. So central banks need to remain credible. And part of that credibility is built upon their central bank independence. And so from that perspective, it’s very important to preserve that.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to have time for two questions. One of them is going back to WebEx. I see Weier, please. Come in.

    QUESTION: Yes.I have a question.

    You mentioned that the global economic system is being reset. And I am not sure if one of the early signs in the financial markets, as we see that the markets moving from American exceptionalism to the sort of sell the U.S. narrative. So could you assess the implications for the financial markets and the world economy, as a whole?

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yeah, well we have seen some volatility in the markets, of course, whenever there is going to be potentially a significant change in the economic structure of the global economy. I think we are bound to see some reassessment. And investors are going to try to figure out what’s happening, and that’s going to inject volatility. And we are seeing some of that.

    The good news is a lot of that volatility we have seen in the last few weeks has not led to significant market dislocations or market stress to levels that would, for instance, have necessitated the interventions by central banks around the world.

    So whether you are looking at equity markets, whether you are looking at bond markets, whether you are looking at currency markets, what we are saying is a reassessment of the world we are in now and that means that there is a reassessment of valuations of risk assets, of different currencies. But that is happening in an orderly manner. So from that perspective, we are seeing a system that is quite resilient, that remained resilient but, of course, we are watching carefully and there has been some tightening of financial conditions and that’s something to be looking out for. We want to make sure that it doesn’t get to a level where the stress in the financial system would become too extreme.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. The lady here in the first row has been waiting patiently. Please go ahead.

    QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. I want to ask about the trading tensions impact on low‑income countries. You mentioned there are like downgrading for emerging markets but how about like those small countries who have lower income as a group, have you assessed the particular impact on them in these ongoing trade tensions? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Well thanks. For low‑income countries as a group, we are also seeing a downgrade in which we report in our report of 0.4 percentage points. We are expecting growth of 4.2 percent in 2025. So the 0.4 is very similar to what we are seeing at the aggregate levels, 0.5. So from that perspective it looks quite the same. However, there are also a lot of differences across countries, and when we look more carefully, you might see some vulnerable countries, especially in sub‑Saharan Africa. But elsewhere as well‑‑who could face very challenging conditions as a result of the tariffs in an environment in which many of the countries, low‑income countries have been facing a funding squeeze for a number of years now, private capital flows to this region have been drying up or have been coming on very expensive terms. We are seeing a drying up also of some official aid flows. So some of these countries have very limited fiscal space. Near a situation where the situation could become more challenging.

    Now, on the flip side, the fact that we are seeing commodity prices coming down for many commodities will help some of them. The commodity importers in that group will hurt the ones who are commodity exporters. And there are a number of countries among the low-income group that are commodity exporters, so that is adding some additional pressure on them.

    Mr. De Haro: I am going to make an exception and just one last question. I am going to go with the gentleman in the white shirt there. He has been waiting patiently, too. And don’t get frustrated. There are going to be many opportunities for you to ask questions.

    QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. AFP.

    I had a quick question about Spain because that’s the only countries among advanced economies where you had an upward revision. It’s going to be way better than the eurozone and even better than other advanced economies. What are the underlying reasons for that? And you formally talked much about tourism but are there any other things that might be pointed out? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yes, indeed. Spain is doing better than its peers. Petya, would you like to talk about it?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. Indeed. We are actually having an upgrade for Spain this year, which is a rare occurrence in the many, many downgrades that we have had for many other countries. This is partly because the Spanish economy just had such strong momentum in 2024, coming into 2025. And part of that was due to the very strong services exports as well as the very strong labor accumulation. Part of that related to immigration. But all of that being said, Spain is still being affected indirectly and directly by the tariffs and the uncertainty associated with that. It’s just that, as I said, that underlying [strength is kind of having a bigger impact in the near term. But then again, in 2026, we do project kind of a slowing of growth to about 1.8.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. And on that point, I want to thank you, everyone, on behalf of Pierre‑Olivier, Petya, Deniz, the Research Department, the Communications Department. Some reminders. Next press briefing is going to happen in this same room, Global Financial Stability Report, please stay tuned. Tomorrow you have the Fiscal Monitor, and then later in the week, you have the Managing Director’s press briefing and also all the regional press briefings that we have been talking about. Thank you very much for your time. If you have questions, comments, send them my way to media@imf.org and hopefully you have a great week. I am sure it’s going to be busy.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Jose De Haro

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2025/04/22/tr-04222025-weo-press-briefing

    MIL OSI

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: World Economic Outlook Press Briefing

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    April 22, 2025

    Speakers:

    Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, Director, Research Department, IMF
    Petya Koeva Brooks, Deputy Director, Research Department, IMF
    Deniz Igan, Division Chief, Research Department, IMF

    Moderator:
    Jose Luis De Haro, Communications Officer, IMF   

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I think we can start and we have a quorum. So good morning, everyone, and welcome. I want to welcome also those joining us online. I am Jose Luis de Haro with the Communications Department at the IMF and we are gathered here today for the presentation of our latest edition of the World Economic Outlook titled, “A Critical Juncture Amid Policy Shifts.” I hope by this time you all have had access to the document. If not, I am going to encourage you, as always, to go to IMF.org. There, you are going to find the document, the World Economic Outlook, also Pierre‑Olivier’s blog and many other assets, including the underlying data for some of the charts that are published on the World Economic Outlook.

    I also want to plug in that we have a new database portal that I encourage you to use, and what’s best, that to discuss the new outlook that having here with us today, Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas. He is the Economic Counsellor, the chief economist, and the Director of the Research Department. Next to him are Petya Koeva Brooks, she is the Deputy Director of the Research Department and last, but not least, we also have Deniz Igan, she is the division chief also with the Research Department.

    Pierre‑Olivier, as usual is going to start with some opening remarks, and then we are going to open the floor to your questions. I just want to remind everyone that this press briefing, it’s on the record and that we also have simultaneous translation.

    So let me stop here. Pierre‑Olivier, the floor is yours.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Jose. And good morning, everyone. The landscape has changed since our last World Economic Outlook update in January. We are entering a new era as the global economic system that has operated for the last 80 years is being reset. Since late January, many tariff announcements have been made, culminating on April 2, with near universal levies from the United States and counterresponses from some trading partners. The U.S. effective tariff rate has surged past levels reached more than 100 years ago, while tariff rates on the U.S. have also increased.

    Beyond the abrupt increase in tariffs, the surge in policy uncertainty is a major driver of the economic outlook. If sustained, the increasing trade tensions and uncertainty will slow global growth significantly. Reflecting this complexity, our report presents a reference forecast which incorporates policy announcements up to April 4 by the U.S. and trading partners. Under these reference forecasts, global growth will reach 2.8 percent this year and 3 percent next year, a cumulative downgrade of about 0.8 percentage points relative to our January 2025 WEO update. Our report also offers a range of forecasts under different policy assumptions.

    Under an alternative path that excludes the April tariff announcements, global growth would have seen only a modest downgrade to 3.2 percent this year. We will also use a model‑based forecast to incorporate the temporary suspension of most tariffs announced on April 9, together with the increase in bilateral tariffs between China and the U.S. to prohibitive levels. This pause, even if extended permanently, delivers a similar growth outlook as a reference forecast, 2.8 percent, even if some highly tariffed countries could benefit.

    Now, while global growth remains well above recession levels, all regions are negatively impacted this year and next. And the global disinflation process continues, but at a slower pace with inflation revised up by 0.1 percentage point in both years. These trade tensions will greatly impact global trade. We project that global trade growth will be more than cut in half from 3.8 percent last year to 1.7 percent this year. The tariffs will play out differently in different countries. For the United States, the tariffs represent a supply shock that reduces productivity and output permanently and increases price pressures temporarily. This adds to an already weakening outlook and leads us to revise growth down by 0.9 percentage points to 1.8 percent, with a 0.4 percentage point downgrade from the tariffs only. While inflation is revised upwards.

    For trading partners, tariffs act mostly as a negative external demand shock. Weakening activity and prices, even if some countries could benefit from trade diversion. This is why we have lowered our China growth forecast this year to 4 percent, while inflation is revised down by 0.8 percentage points, increasing deflationary pressures. All countries are negatively affected by the surge in trade policy uncertainty, as businesses cut purchases and investment, while financial institutions reassess their borrowers’ exposure. Uncertainty also increases because of the complex sectoral disruptions that tariffs could cause up and down supply chains, as we saw during the pandemic.

    The effect of these shocks on exchange rates is complex. The tariffs could appreciate the US dollar, as in previous episodes. However, greater policy uncertainty, lower U.S. growth prospects, and an adjustment in the global demand for dollar assets are weighing down on the dollar.

    Risks to the global economic have increased and are firmly to the downside.

    First, while we are not projecting a global downturn, the risks it may happen this year have increased substantially, from 17 percent projected back in October to 30 percent now. An escalation of trade tensions would further depress growth. Financial conditions could also tighten, as markets react negatively to diminished growth prospects and increased uncertainty. On the flip side, growth prospects could immediately improve if countries ease from their current trade policy stance and promote a new, clear, and stable trade environment.

    Addressing domestic imbalances can also help raise growth while contributing significantly to closing external imbalances. For Europe, this means spending more on public infrastructure to accelerate productivity growth. For China, it means boosting support for domestic demand. While for the U.S., it means stepping up fiscal consolidation.

    Turning to policies. Our recommendations call for prudence and improved collaboration. Let me outline some key ones. First, an obvious priority is to restore trade policy stability. The global economy needs a clear, stable, and predictable trading environment, one that addresses some of the longstanding gaps in international trading rules. Monetary policy will need to remain agile and respond by tightening where inflation pressures re‑emerge, while easing where weak demand dominates. Monetary policy credibility will be key, especially where inflation expectations might de‑anchor. And central bank independence remains a cornerstone.

    Many fiscal authorities will face new spending needs to bolster defense spending or to offset the trade dislocations, likely to come. Some of the poorest countries also hit with reduced official aid could experience debt distress. Yet debt levels are still elevated and most countries still need to rebuild fiscal space, including by implementing structural reforms. Support, where needed, should remain narrowly targeted and temporary. It is easier to turn on the fiscal tap than to turn it off. Where new spending needs are permanent, as for defense spending in some countries, planning for offsetting cuts elsewhere or new revenues should be made.

    Finally, even if some of the grievances against our trading system have merit, we should all work toward fixing the system so that it can deliver better opportunities to all. Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. Before we open the floor to your questions, some ground rules. First of all, if you want to ask a question, raise your hand. If I call on you, please identify yourself and the media outlet you represent. Try to be succinct. Stick to one question. We want to answer as many questions as possible.

    And also, a reminder. We are here to discuss the World Economic Outlook. Those questions regarding country programs, institutional issues are going to be better placed for the regional press briefings that are happening later this week and also the Managing Director’s press briefing this Thursday.

    With that said, I want hands up. OK. So I am going to start here in the center. Then I am going to move the room to my left. Then to my right. I am going to start with the lady with the green jacket there.

    QUESTION: Thank you.. Thanks so much for doing this.

    Pierre‑Olivier, I wonder if you can speak a little bit to the fact that you haven’t called out a recession. And you know, we are hearing lots of economists in the United States and other places‑‑most recently yesterday, the IIF is now also forecasting a small recession in the second half of the year. What we see in the WEO is that the percentage of risk of a recession has increased pretty dramatically. Can you walk us through why you are not at this point calling a recession, for instance, likely in the United States and what it would take to tip it that way? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you, Andrea.

    So for the United States, we are projecting a significant slowdown. We are projecting growth will be at 1.8 percent in 2025. And that’s a 0.9 percentage‑point slowdown‑‑revision in our projections from January. But 1.9 percent is obviously not a recession. And the reason for this is is that we have a U.S. economy that, in our view, is coming from a position of strength. We had an economy that was growing very rapidly. We have a labor market that is still very robust. We have seen some signs of weakening and slowdown in the U.S. economy, even before the tariff announcements. So, in fact, the 0.9 percentage point downward revision that I just mentioned, only a part of this‑‑maybe 0.4 percentage points‑‑is coming from the tariffs. Some of that is also coming from weakening momentum. This was an economy that was doing very, very well but was self‑correcting and cooling off a bit on its own. And we were seeing already consumption numbers coming down. We are seeing consumer confidence coming down. So all of that was already factored in. But we are not seeing a recession in our reference forecast.

    As you mentioned, Andrea, we are‑‑when we do our risk assessment, if you want, we are seeing the probability of a recession increasing, from about 25 percent back in October to around 40 percent when we assess it now.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The lady here in red.

    QUESTION: Good morning.

    Pierre, I wanted to ask you about the downward pressure on the dollar now. To what extent you believe it can provide some relief from the pressure on highly indebted emerging economies with a large share of dollar‑denominated debt? And has this downward pressure on the dollar changed your outlook on all of those emerging economies that are still, you know, under the impact of the high debt‑‑as mentioned by the MD in previous meetings, where this high debt is really one of the impediments to growth? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yes. So we are seeing a weakening of the dollar that is fairly broad‑based over the last few weeks, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, some of that is coming from the weaker growth prospects in the U.S. Some it is coming from the increased uncertainty. And it’s leading to a reassessment of the global demand for dollar assets. When we step back, we also have to realize we are coming from a position where, over the last few years, there have been tremendous capital inflows into U.S. markets, in particular, risk markets. That’s something that, of course, my colleague Tobias Adrian will talk about in the GFSR press conference. So we are seeing some adjustment, some contradiction. The markets are handling it. We don’t see signs of stress, even in currency markets.

    Now, the interesting development is, what does it mean for emerging markets? And you are right to point out that, in the past, when the dollar would strengthen, that would not necessarily be good news for emerging markets because they have dollar‑denominated debts, so that increases their liabilities and the pressure on them to service their debts. And this can lead to some tightening of financial conditions. So we are not seeing that right now. And so that’s a plus. The flip side of this is, of course, the appreciation of some of these emerging markets’ currencies means that they are also losing a little bit on the competitiveness side, so there is maybe something that is a bit easier on the finance conditions, something that is not as easy on the trade side.

    Finally, this is an environment of enormous uncertainty, increased volatility. And that I think is something that will dominate for many of the emerging markets. So when we are looking at our assessment, we are actually downgrading the emerging market economies for 2025 and 2026, most of them. Some of them may, as I mentioned, benefit. But overall, as a group, they are downgraded. While because they are also very plugged into the global supply chains, the uncertainty is leading to a pause in investment and activity, and they are going to suffer from the decline in demand for their products coming from the tariffs.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go with the gentleman here with the glasses.

    QUESTION: Thank you. I just have one question. Could you elaborate a little bit on what will happen with the trade flows in your models? I saw that in the basic assumption, the exports from the U.S. are [breaking quite heavily but not that much from China. Why is this so?

    And do I understand it right that this basic model does not yet integrate the additional hikes after ‑‑ happening after basically April 9, so above 100 percent on import tariffs by the U.S.? Thanks.

    Mr. Gourinchas: So we are seeing a large impact on global trade coming from the tariffs and that’s going to be the case under any combination of tariffs where the effective tariff rates remains very elevated. And the reason why when we looked at the different scenarios that I mentioned, whether it’s a reference scenario or our April 9 scenario which includes lower tariffs on many countries but sharply increased tariffs between the U.S. and China. The overall impact on the global economy is not very different because the effective tariff rate is, if anything, even higher under that pause. So global trade is going to be significantly affected. The particular configuration of trade, which bilateral trade flows are going to be affected versus others that will depend on the final landscape in terms of tariffs so we can anticipate that there will be much lower bilateral trade under either the reference scenario or the April 9, between the U.S. and China. And that is weighing down on global trade growth. This is weighing down on global trade generally.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to turn here to the center. I am going to go to the first row. I am going to go with the lady with the yellow bottle.

    QUESTION: Thank you,

    You have downgraded the U.K.’s growth forecast quite sharply and given the range of explanations, from higher tariff barriers to more domestic issues, like cost‑of‑living pressures. Out of those, so the global challenges versus domestic challenges, which one is weighing more heavily on the U.K.’s growth forecasts?

    Mr. De Haro: OK we are going to open the round of U.K. questions so if you have questions on the U.K., raise your hand. And I will pass the mic to you. I see  two there. Yep.

    QUESTION: Hi.

    In a world where everyone is warning about the impact of tariffs on U.S. inflation and how much it will raise U.S. prices, why do you have the U.K. with the highest inflation rate in the G‑7 this year? And do you believe tariffs will be inflationary or disinflationary for the U.K.?

    Mr. De Haro: OK. Joe here in the first row.

    QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. So Joel hills from ITV news. Obviously it’s impacting the tariffs are impacting the U.K. They are impacting most countries. I just wonder this, President Trump did say there would be some disruption. He suggested it would be sort of temporary. Is it possible that President Trump is actually a genius? That he knows something you do not?

    Mr. De Haro: And I think we have a last question on the U.K. and this is going to be the last question on the U.K. There on the back of the room.

    QUESTION: Yeah.

    The U.K. inflation forecast is, you know, much higher than we expected it to be, 0.7 percent higher. Is that going to impact on lowering interest rates in the U.K.? And does that affect the growth rate, which seems to be rather optimistic, compared with some of the other European countries?

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to be done with the U.K. questions and then we will move along. So Pierre‑Olivier.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So many questions. Let me address them as best I can. First, on the revision for growth in the U.K. and inflation. So the tariffs are playing a role, as they are in most countries and uncertainty is also playing a role, as it is in all countries. And it’s weighing down on growth in the U.K. But there are some U.K.‑specific factors and I would say that in terms of the zero point 5 percentage point downward revision that we are saying for the U.K., the domestic factors are probably the biggest ones. And in particular, there is a lower carryover from weaker growth in the second half of last year. There is also some tightening of financial conditions, as interest rates have risen, longer‑term interest rates.

    On inflation, the revision in inflation in the U.K. is coming, again, from domestic factors, and in particular some change in regulated energy prices. So that’s expected to be temporary but it’s also very U.K.‑specific. The effect of the tariffs on countries like the U.K., like it is on the EU or China is like a negative demand shock. It’s weakening activity but it’s also lowering price pressures, not increasing them.

    Now, what is the impact of the tariffs in the medium and long term? Not just what’s going to happen this year and next but what’s going to happen longer term? Our assessment is it’s going to be negative. We have a box in our report that looks at the long‑term impact of the tariffs, if they are maintained. And it is negative for all regions, just like the short‑term impact. So we are seeing a negative impact in the short term, in the medium term, in the long term. Again, there are nuances. Some countries might benefit, depending on the particular configuration of tariffs. It might benefit from some trade diversion; but the broad picture is it’s negative for the outlook.

    Now, our ‑‑ and I will end with that. Our forecast for 2025 is slightly higher than OBR’s forecast. Some of this has to do with some of the underlying monetary policy assumptions for the U.K. The bank‑‑

    Our assumption for this year is that there are going to be four cuts through the year. One cut already happened. We expect three more.

    Mr. De Haro: Thank you, Pierre‑Olivier. I am not going to forget about the people that are on WebEx, and I am going to pass a question there. I see Anton from TAS.

    QUESTION: Good morning. Thank you for doing this.

    Given the projected slowdown of Russia’s GDP growth from 4.1 in 2024 to 1.5 in 2025, what are the primary factors driving this sharp decline? And how sustainable is Russia’s growth model going forward? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Petya, would you like to answer?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. We are indeed expecting a slowdown in growth to 1.5 this year, and this, to a large extent is kind of the natural slowing of the economy after growing quite robustly in previous years. And also as a result of policy tightening that we have seen, both on the fiscal as well as on the monetary policy side. It is also due to the lower oil prices that have come about as a result of the‑‑as a response to the round of tariffs, as well as the uncertainty about global growth. So all these factors are behind that lower growth number, although I should point out that it is actually a slight upward revision, relative to what we had back in January. And the reason for that is that, again, we actually had seen upward surprises in 2024, which kind of carried into 2025.

    When it comes to the medium‑term growth outlook, we do expect that to be relatively weak. We are‑‑we have penciled in growth number of about 1.2, which is down from 1.7 which is what we had before the start of the war.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. Let’s continue. I am going to go again in the center and then I am going to go to that side. The lady with the glasses there.

    QUESTION: Hi.

    In Latin America, we received almost every country 10 percent. So I want to know about the impact of the tariffs in Latin America and if the impact is going to be limited, versus other regions, and when we are going to start to feeling this impact. Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: And before we answer the question, are there any questions on Mexico, Brazil, Argentina? OK. Argentina friends, go ahead.

    QUESTION: Hello.

    You’ve kept 5.5 growth projection that was decided in the latest program that Argentina signed with the IMF. I would like to know why you are not seeing so much impact yet about‑‑of this general context.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We can go ahead first with the Latin America overview and then we can go to Argentina.

    Mr. Gourinchas: I will just say something briefly and then ask my colleague Petya to come in. So for Latin America, as a whole, we are saying activity that is largely driven by consumption on the back of resilient labor markets while investment remains somewhat sluggish. And the slowdown in our projection reflects the impact of tariffs and the global growth slowdown, of course, which is also affecting countries in the region. Policy uncertainty. And the withdrawal of fiscal stimulus and in some countries monetary policy tightening.

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: I don’t have a lot to add. Just to say that the disinflation process has also slowed a bit, and this is also‑‑also makes the policy trade‑offs a bit more complicated with slow‑‑with growth slowing down and at the same time, you know, having still challenges on the inflation side.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. So we are going to move on. I am going to ask the gentleman in the first row there because‑‑

    Oh, sorry. Sorry. I forgot about Argentina. Please go ahead.

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: We cannot forget about Argentina.

    So the growth forecast for this year‑‑you are right‑‑we still have the upgrade of .5. And this is related to just the positive surprises that we had seen, in spite of a very strong fiscal adjustment, the recovery in confidence I think has definitely played a role in kind of driving us to have this forecast. That said, there are a number of risks related to tighter financial conditions, commodity prices, and a lot of others, which is true for many if not most other countries.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. So now we can move on. I am going to go with the gentleman in the first row.

    QUESTION: Thank you. In the October 2024 outlook you saw a stable but slow growth for Africa. What’s new now? And what kind of initiatives like the African Continental Free Trade Area do for African economies amidst these trade tensions?

    Mr. De Haro: And before we answer, I think‑‑

    QUESTION: Hi. Good morning.

    One of the things that you mentioned in your report is the demographic shift and the rise in the silver economy. Africa, on the other hand, has the reverse of that. So what is your recommendation in the short and medium term on how to deal with some of these challenges pertaining to tariffs, monetary policy, and now currency exchange? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: OK.

    Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Thank you. I will just say one word about the outlook in sub‑Saharan Africa and then I will ask my colleague Deniz to come in to add more color and answer also the question on the demographic trends.

    So regional growth in sub‑Saharan Africa improved significantly last year, to 4 percent. And it will ease in 2025. And this is in line with a softer global outlook. So we are seeing the same forces at play in the region, as we are seeing more globally. And a downturn‑‑and a downward revision in our projection that is of a similar magnitude at about 0.4 percentage point. Deniz?

    Ms. Igan: Thank you for the question. So on the demographic shifts, our Chapter 2 basically points out that countries’ age structures are evolving at different rates, as you pointed out as well. We have most western economies, some Asian economies that are aging fast. And you know in a health way some of them. And then we have many sub‑Saharan African countries that have a very young population. And what the chapter shows is actually, there are important medium‑term consequences of that, both for growth, as well as external balances of countries.

    In Africa’s case, basically, what we would see is a demographic dividend coming from having a young population. And the question then becomes how best to leverage that, how best to use that and channel it into growth. And the answer there, first and foremost, depends on the structural reforms, the investment that’s necessary on healthcare, on education, on human capital more generally and also international cooperation because our Chapter 3 looks more carefully into migration flows. And again, there, we see migration policy shifts in destination countries has spillovers for other countries. And this is especially true for emerging market economies and lower income economies. So, again, international cooperation there, making sure that growth dividends are utilized in the best way is what we delve into in the chapter.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to go to the gentleman with‑‑raise your hand. Yeah. You. No, I am going back. Then I will go‑‑there you go.

    QUESTION: OK. I have a question about China’s growth.

    In your World Economic Outlook, you say China’s growth forecast has been cut to 4 percent for this year, which is a 0.6 percentage drop from an earlier projection. But China’s National Bureau of Statistics a couple of days ago predicted China’s growth GDP growth in the first quarter was 5.4 percent. So my question is, how do you see the disparity in the forecast? Is China more optimistic than you are? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Thank you. So, yes, we are revising our growth projections for China down by 0.6 percentage points, as you have noted. I should flag that this number does not incorporate the latest release for Q1. That came after we closed our round of projections. So this is not reflected there. And we will have to see how it affects our projections when we have our next round of WEO updates.

    But let me give you a little bit of perspective on the rationale behind our revision for China. The tariff increase in tariffs especially since China is one of the countries that is facing the most elevated tariffs right now, is going to have a very significant impact in our projections on the Chinese economy. In fact, when we do a decomposition, which I showed during my opening remarks, the impact of the tariffs on the Chinese economy would be a negative 1.3 percentage point revision on growth.

    So why do we only have 0.6? Well, because there are other factors that are helping to support Chinese growth in 2025 and 2026. One of which‑‑which is quite important‑‑is the fiscal support that has been announced since the beginning of the year. And that is adding up, something of the amount of 0.5 percentage points. So the impact of the current trade tensions is very significant. It’s partly offset. We expect it to remain quite significant also in 2026 when we also have a downward revision by about 0.5 percentage points.

    The other side of this, where we are seeing the impact of the tariffs is on inflation, which is revised down. Our headline inflation projection for 2025 is actually at zero. So it’s down from 0.8 percent to zero. So China is facing stronger deflationary forces as a result of these trade tensions.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. I am going to move to this side. The gentleman with the glasses here.

    QUESTION: What impact did the oil price also have in exporting and importing countries in the Middle East? Thank you.

    Mr. De Haro: Go ahead.

    Mr. Gourinchas: So we have seen oil prices declining since our last projections, and the decline in oil prices in our and our interpretation is coming mostly from weaker global demand, so it’s the weakening of global activity that is driving the decline in prices. There has been some increase in supply coming from OPEC Plus countries, but broadly speaking, the decline is mostly coming from weaker demand.

    So that is going to play out in ways you sort of would expect. The commodity exporters are going to face lower export revenues from the decline in oil prices. That’s going to weigh on their fiscal outlook, on their growth.

    For those countries that are oil importers, it’s going to lower inflation pressures because that‑‑lower oil prices is going to feed into lower headline inflation. It’s going to also provide some modest support to economic activity there.

    Deniz, anything to add on oil prices or‑‑or Petya?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: No, I don’t.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to move to the center. I am going to get the gentleman with the white shirt there.

    QUESTION: h I am not going to ask another question about the U.K., you will be pleased to know. Over the last week we have seen a number of attacks by the White House on the independence of the Federal Reserve. How destabilizing do you think this might be for financial markets?

    Mr. Gourinchas: So central banks are facing a delicate moment. As I have explained in many countries, the impact of the tariffs is going to be to increase recessionary forces and it is going to lower price pressures. And that will help central banks cut interest rates faster and provide some support to their economies. But in other countries ‑‑ and in our projections, the U.S. is in that category‑‑the tariffs are going to increase price pressures. Price pressures in the U.S. are increasing for other reasons as well. Service prices have been quite‑‑inflation of service prices have been quite strong. And that is something that we are seeing already. But the tariffs are likely to increase price pressures. We are projecting inflation to remain at 3 percent in the U.S. this year, the same level as last year, headline inflation.

    So in that context, if you also think about where we are coming from, we are coming from a period of very elevated inflation. We are just coming off the cost‑of‑living crisis, a surge in inflation rates to double digits that we haven’t seen in more than a generation. So the critical thing is to make sure that inflation expectations remain anchored, that everyone remains convinced that central banks will do what is necessary to bring inflation back to central bank targets in an orderly manner. And central banks have instruments to do this. They have their interest rate instruments. They have various instruments of monetary policy. But one critical aspect of what they do is coming from their credibility. So central banks need to remain credible. And part of that credibility is built upon their central bank independence. And so from that perspective, it’s very important to preserve that.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. We are going to have time for two questions. One of them is going back to WebEx. I see Weier, please. Come in.

    QUESTION: Yes.I have a question.

    You mentioned that the global economic system is being reset. And I am not sure if one of the early signs in the financial markets, as we see that the markets moving from American exceptionalism to the sort of sell the U.S. narrative. So could you assess the implications for the financial markets and the world economy, as a whole?

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yeah, well we have seen some volatility in the markets, of course, whenever there is going to be potentially a significant change in the economic structure of the global economy. I think we are bound to see some reassessment. And investors are going to try to figure out what’s happening, and that’s going to inject volatility. And we are seeing some of that.

    The good news is a lot of that volatility we have seen in the last few weeks has not led to significant market dislocations or market stress to levels that would, for instance, have necessitated the interventions by central banks around the world.

    So whether you are looking at equity markets, whether you are looking at bond markets, whether you are looking at currency markets, what we are saying is a reassessment of the world we are in now and that means that there is a reassessment of valuations of risk assets, of different currencies. But that is happening in an orderly manner. So from that perspective, we are seeing a system that is quite resilient, that remained resilient but, of course, we are watching carefully and there has been some tightening of financial conditions and that’s something to be looking out for. We want to make sure that it doesn’t get to a level where the stress in the financial system would become too extreme.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. The lady here in the first row has been waiting patiently. Please go ahead.

    QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. I want to ask about the trading tensions impact on low‑income countries. You mentioned there are like downgrading for emerging markets but how about like those small countries who have lower income as a group, have you assessed the particular impact on them in these ongoing trade tensions? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: OK. Well thanks. For low‑income countries as a group, we are also seeing a downgrade in which we report in our report of 0.4 percentage points. We are expecting growth of 4.2 percent in 2025. So the 0.4 is very similar to what we are seeing at the aggregate levels, 0.5. So from that perspective it looks quite the same. However, there are also a lot of differences across countries, and when we look more carefully, you might see some vulnerable countries, especially in sub‑Saharan Africa. But elsewhere as well‑‑who could face very challenging conditions as a result of the tariffs in an environment in which many of the countries, low‑income countries have been facing a funding squeeze for a number of years now, private capital flows to this region have been drying up or have been coming on very expensive terms. We are seeing a drying up also of some official aid flows. So some of these countries have very limited fiscal space. Near a situation where the situation could become more challenging.

    Now, on the flip side, the fact that we are seeing commodity prices coming down for many commodities will help some of them. The commodity importers in that group will hurt the ones who are commodity exporters. And there are a number of countries among the low-income group that are commodity exporters, so that is adding some additional pressure on them.

    Mr. De Haro: I am going to make an exception and just one last question. I am going to go with the gentleman in the white shirt there. He has been waiting patiently, too. And don’t get frustrated. There are going to be many opportunities for you to ask questions.

    QUESTION: Thank you, Jose. AFP.

    I had a quick question about Spain because that’s the only countries among advanced economies where you had an upward revision. It’s going to be way better than the eurozone and even better than other advanced economies. What are the underlying reasons for that? And you formally talked much about tourism but are there any other things that might be pointed out? Thank you.

    Mr. Gourinchas: Yes, indeed. Spain is doing better than its peers. Petya, would you like to talk about it?

    Ms. Koeva Brooks: Sure. Indeed. We are actually having an upgrade for Spain this year, which is a rare occurrence in the many, many downgrades that we have had for many other countries. This is partly because the Spanish economy just had such strong momentum in 2024, coming into 2025. And part of that was due to the very strong services exports as well as the very strong labor accumulation. Part of that related to immigration. But all of that being said, Spain is still being affected indirectly and directly by the tariffs and the uncertainty associated with that. It’s just that, as I said, that underlying [strength is kind of having a bigger impact in the near term. But then again, in 2026, we do project kind of a slowing of growth to about 1.8.

    Mr. De Haro: OK. And on that point, I want to thank you, everyone, on behalf of Pierre‑Olivier, Petya, Deniz, the Research Department, the Communications Department. Some reminders. Next press briefing is going to happen in this same room, Global Financial Stability Report, please stay tuned. Tomorrow you have the Fiscal Monitor, and then later in the week, you have the Managing Director’s press briefing and also all the regional press briefings that we have been talking about. Thank you very much for your time. If you have questions, comments, send them my way to media@imf.org and hopefully you have a great week. I am sure it’s going to be busy.

    IMF Communications Department
    MEDIA RELATIONS

    PRESS OFFICER: Jose De Haro

    Phone: +1 202 623-7100Email: MEDIA@IMF.org

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Knife attacks – E-002892/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    The European Statistical Office (Eurostat) collects statistics on crime in the Member State s annually on voluntary basis, focusing on criminal offences as set out in the International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS)[1]. Data on police-recorded offences are disseminated in the Eurostat database[2].

    However, separate data on the number of criminal offences or number of victims of knife attacks are not available. More information on the annual crime data collection is available on the Eurostat website[3].

    Insights can be drawn from the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT), issued annually by the EU Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol).

    The TE-SAT provides a situational overview of terrorist-related incidents, including the number of terrorist attacks, arrests, convictions, and penalties for terrorist offences, as reported by Member States to Europol.

    While the TE-SAT may include references to stabbing as a modus operandi in terrorist attacks when such information is reported by Member States, its scope is strictly limited to terrorism-related incidents.

    Therefore, it does not cover all knife attacks against individuals. The TE-SAT reports are publicly accessible via Europol’s website for further consultation[4].

    • [1] https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/iccs.html
    • [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/crim_off_cat/default/table?lang=en&category=crim.crim_off
    • [3] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/crime/overview
    • [4] https://www.europol.europa.eu/publications-events/main-reports/eu-terrorism-situation-and-trend-report
    Last updated: 22 April 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Inconsistencies in published occupational-accident statistics – P-000848/2025(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    There are two sets of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators: those of the United Nations[1] (UN) and those of the EU. Both aim to measure progress towards achieving the SDGs, but differ in scope, focus, and application. Thus, the EU SDG indicator list[2] is tailored and coordinated but not fully aligned with the global indicator list.

    The UN SDG indicators are entirely managed by the UN, either countries produce the indicators and report directly to UN, i.e. not through the Commission, or the UN or its agencies (such as FAO) produce the data without intervention of the countries. In no case the Commission verifies those SDG data sent to the UN or produced by the UN.

    However, if the countries send the same data both to the Commission and UN, the Commission verifies the data received. This happens e.g. if there are EU regulations requiring the EU Member States to report such data to the statistical office of the EU (Eurostat).

    The European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW)[3] data come from administrative sources. Eurostat receives ESAW data from national authorities based on the employers’ declarations of accidents at work.

    As specified in the European reference metadata[4], a significant issue for the accuracy of ESAW is assumed to be the under-reporting of accidents[5].

    The incidence of fatal accidents at work is considered more accurate for cross-country comparisons than the non-fatal accident rate and hence used in the EU SDG indicator list.

    Data on accidents at work are produced using a common methodology[6]. Eurostat and Member States are working to address comparability issues in Commission expert groups.

    The Commission has no influence on national data submitted to international organisations such as the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the UN.

    • [1] https://unstats.un.org/sdgs
    • [2] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/sdi/overview
    • [3] Based on https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2011/349/oj/eng
    • [4] Further detailed in the reference metadata of the dataset https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/hsw_acc_work_esms.htm
    • [5] It is possible that certain accidents that should have been reported were in fact not, e.g. if enterprises or workers are not aware of the obligation/possibility to notify or if they are afraid of the consequences of notification such as possible state investigations and requirements to invest in health and safety.
    • [6] European Statistics on Accidents at Work (ESAW) — Summary methodology — 2013 edition — Products Manuals and Guidelines — Eurostat: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/products-manuals-and-guidelines/-/ks-ra-12-102

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Saskatchewan’s Building Construction Growth Leads Among Provinces

    Source: Government of Canada regional news

    Released on April 22, 2025

    Province Ranks First for Investment in Building Construction 

    Today, Statistics Canada numbers show an increase of 29.9 per cent in February 2025 compared to February 2024 for building construction investment in the province. This places Saskatchewan first among the provinces for year-over-year growth.

    “These numbers reflect Saskatchewan’s strong economy, and continued growth in capital investment as more people are choosing to build and grow their families here in our province,” Trade and Export Development Minister Warren Kaeding said. “Whether they are building new housing, new infrastructure, or new businesses, they are investing in the future of Saskatchewan.”

    Investment in building construction is calculated based on the total spending value on building construction within the province. 

    Statistics Canada’s latest GDP numbers indicate that Saskatchewan’s 2023 real GDP reached an all-time high of $77.9 billion, increasing by $1.77 billion, or 2.3 per cent from 2022. This places Saskatchewan second in the nation for real GDP growth and above the national average of 1.6 per cent.

    Private capital investment in Saskatchewan increased last year by 17.3 per cent to $14.7 billion, ranking first among provinces. Private capital investment is projected to reach $16.2 billion in 2025, an increase of 10.1 per cent over 2024. This is the second highest anticipated percentage increase among the provinces.

    Last year, the Government of Saskatchewan unveiled its new Securing the Next Decade of Growth – Saskatchewan’s Investment Attraction Strategy. This strategy, combined with Saskatchewan’s trade and investment website, InvestSK.ca, contains helpful information for potential markets and solidifies the province as the best place to do business in Canada. 

    For more information visit: InvestSK.ca.

    -30-

    For more information, contact:

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI China: New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor boosts development of mechanical equipment industry

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor boosts development of mechanical equipment industry

    Updated: April 22, 2025 21:52 Xinhua
    A staff member conducts performance test on an excavator at an equipment manufacturing company in southwest China’s Chongqing Municipality, April 21, 2025. Launched in 2017, the New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor is a trade and logistics passage jointly built by provincial-level regions in western China and ASEAN members. In recent years, along with the development of the New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor, equipment manufacturing companies in China’s western regions have sped up digital and intelligent transformation, as a way to boost high-quality development of companies themselves as well as assist the building of the corridor with better mechanical equipment. According to statistics, as of early March, the New International Land-Sea Trade Corridor’s cargo services connect 158 locations across 73 domestic cities and reach 556 ports in 127 countries and regions. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Customs officers inspect loaders for export to Vietnam at the port of the Friendship Pass in Pingxiang, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, March 17, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    An aerial drone photo taken on March 21, 2025 shows loaders for export to Vietnam in Guangxi Pingxiang Integrated Free Trade Zone in Pingxiang, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Staff members work on an assembly line of excavators for export to Laos and Myanmar at an equipment manufacturing company in southwest China’s Chongqing Municipality, April 21, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    An aerial drone photo taken on March 21, 2025 shows trucks loaded with equipment for export to Vietnam in Guangxi Pingxiang Integrated Free Trade Zone in Pingxiang, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A staff member works on a production line of loaders at an equipment manufacturing company in Liuzhou, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, March 11, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A staff member conducts test at an equipment manufacturing company in Liuzhou, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, March 12, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
    A staff member verifies the information of machine parts for export to Qatar at a logistics center in Liuzhou, south China’s Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, March 12, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Latest EU’s #ForOurPlanet campaign kicks off on Earth Day 2025

    Source: European Union 2

    It’s the global campaign everyone is talking about. Fresh from its successes in 2022 and 2024, #ForOurPlanet is back for a third season starting on April 22 with a brand new focus on circular economy: beyond recycling.  

    Running through to European Green Week 3-4 June, the campaign calls on ‘all interested organisations’ — including UN agencies, embassies, ministries, non-profits and companies — to take action for our planet. 

    The organisers of the 2025 #ForOurPlanet campaign promise taking action has never been easier. From cooking with leftovers to composting coffee grounds, from pop-up libraries to local repair cafes, there are dozens of ways that families, communities and businesses can get involved.  

    For inspiration, look no further than LIFE Turn to e-circular, a 5-year €2.2 million project which closed last year. With its slogan ‘I’m still useful’ LIFE Turn to e-circular set itself a big challenge: to persuade consumers — especially families and young people — to cut down on the mountains of WEEE (waste electric and electronic equipment) dumped in the EU each year.  

    Among other initiatives, the project set up 60 ‘reuse corners’ across Slovenia where people could take small electrical items for repair by experts. The team also toured the country in a mobile repair van giving new life to worn-out appliances, and set up a Facebook group to exchange opinions and share tips and guidelines for servicing. 

    ‘Computers, mobile phones, consumer electronics and small white goods were the most popular items for repair, but most of the items brought in were less than 5 years old.’ says Emil Šehić, Director of ZEOS, the Slovenian non-profit which ran the project. ‘A circular economy must go beyond simple reuse. We have to ask ourselves about why we buy things, about servicing and sharing. Products must be made to be useful for as long as possible.’ 

    Also featuring in this year’s #ForOurPlanet campaign is C-MARTLife, a 7-year LIFE project to reduce, recycle and reuse plastic waste in the Flanders region of Belgium. Already the team have cut marine plastic litter by 75% and expect to see completely litter-free beaches by 2027. ‘Today’s waste products are tomorrow’s raw materials,’ says project coordinator Els Herremans. ‘We’re training circular ambassadors to spread the word — education and awareness among leaders and communities drives change!’  

    #ForOurPlanet launches today, on Earth Day, April 22. For updates on activities in your area or ideas about how to get involved, visit the campaign website or email EU-FOR-OUR-PLANET ec [dot] europa [dot] eu (EU-FOR-OUR-PLANET[at]ec[dot]europa[dot]eu)

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Jordan Banjo and Samsung Team Up to Tackle Road Trip Boredom, Powered By The Galaxy Tab S10 FE

    Source: Samsung

    Samsung’s Road Trip Rescue Wall provided a welcome creative recharge for families travelling through Rugby this Good Friday
     
    Whilst 71% of Brits enjoy family road trips, they don’t come without their frustrations.  
     
    Samsung research, conducted to launch the new Galaxy Tab S10 FE and Tab S10 FE+, finds that despite UK families typically traveling over 150 miles on road trips, boredom strikes within a mere 43 minutes, making a boredom-free experience less likely.  
     
    With the average family only making two stops per road trip, limited to essential needs like going to the toilet (81%), having a snack break (57%) or stretching their legs (47%), there are few chances to alleviate the boredom.  
     
    Bringing a much-needed creative break to Brits travelling this Easter Weekend, Jordan Banjo unveiled Samsung’s Road Trip Rescue Wall at Moto Rugby, helping families recharge their imagination with the help of the Galaxy Tab S10 FE and Tab S10 FE+.  
     

     
    Father of three and Diversity member, Jordan Banjo, says: “Let’s be real, with three kids in the back, a ‘quick’ family road trip can feel like an actual expedition. We’re obsessed with the memories we’re going to make at the destination but forget that the getting there bit can sometimes be challenging. 
     
    “Moments like the Samsung Road Trip Rescue Wall inject some fun into the journey itself, making the journey just as much a part of the adventure as the destination. The Galaxy Tab S10 FE is a secret weapon for families. Anything that helps keep the peace and sparks imagination is a win in my book.” 
     
    Families dropping by Samsung’s Road Trip Rescue Wall enjoyed a moment of inspiration as they put Galaxy Tab 10 FE’s creative capabilities to the test, contributing their family’s artwork for the chance to win their very own tablet.  
     
    This comes as new stats reveal that 45% of Brits think using a tablet during a family road trip is a great way to share experiences and engage together. 
     
    And when it comes to how they use tech on the go, a third of parents are looking for gadgets that engage the whole family in a shared activity. Regionally, this number is highest for Londoners (40%) and across generations, is most true for Gen Z (41%), almost double their Gen X counterparts.  
     
    Annika Bizon, Mobile Experience VP of Product and Marketing Samsung UK&I, says: “Working out how to keep your children entertained in the car can be as stressful as planning a family trip itself.  
       
    “Parents often need technology like tablets to be an additional travel companion for long journeys, helping the entire family to beat both boredom and frustration – whether it’s getting creative with the S Pen, or exploring the Galaxy Tab S10 FE’s preloaded apps to encourage imagination and learning whilst on the move.  
       
    “It’s not about filling the time; it’s about enriching the journey for everyone in the car. The Galaxy Tab S10 FE is designed to do just that, turning challenging journeys into shared enjoyment.”  
     
    The Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE and Tab S10 FE+, with its creative and entertainment capabilities, alongside 5G connectivity, ensures an engaging journey for all. And with a powerful processor and longer-lasting battery life, you can do more for longer.  
     
    Pricing and current offers: 
     
    Galaxy Tab S10 FE (starting from £499 RRP) and Galaxy Tab S10 FE+ (starting from £649 RRP) are available now in 5G and Wi-Fi variants and offered in three colours: Grey, Silver and Blue. 
     
    Customers who purchase a Samsung Galaxy Tab S10 FE or a Tab S10 FE+ from Samsung.com and participating retailers can also claim a free Slim Keyboard Cover worth up to £169.  
     
    For more information about the Galaxy Tab S10 FE series, please visit: https://www.samsung.com/uk/tablets/galaxy-tab-s10-fe/buy/ 

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Global: A warning for Democrats from the Gilded Age and the 1896 election

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam M. Silver, Associate Professor of Political Science, Emmanuel College

    Chief Justice Melville Weston Fuller administers the oath of office to William McKinley during his presidential inauguration in 1897, as outgoing President Grover Cleveland looks on. AP Photo/Library of Congress

    More than five months after President Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris, Democrats are still trying to understand why they lost the election and the Senate majority – and how the party can regroup.

    These concerns have only increased in the wake of Trump’s sustained activity at the start of his second term. The American public has witnessed a Democratic Party struggling to craft a coherent strategy.

    Recently, Trump has joined a chorus of people likening the current political period to the Gilded Age – the late 19th-century period known for economic industrialization and wealth inequality.

    As a political scientist focused on electoral politics, I believe the Gilded Age provides a warning for the Democrats’ current situation, as the party’s internal struggles hampered its ability to wage successful national campaigns.

    The party period

    Scholars of U.S. political history often refer to the bulk of the 19th century as the party period due to the degree to which party politics permeated society. Parties framed political discourse through the creation of “brands” centered on distinct ideologies.

    These ideologies offered coherent ideas of what it meant to be a Democrat or a Republican.

    Democrats opposed a strong national government in favor of states’ rights. They resisted vesting too much economic authority in the national government. And they used their states’ rights position to justify human enslavement and racially discriminatory policies.

    Republicans embraced national authority over states’ rights. It was a vision centered on a national political economy that fostered manufacturing and industrialization. This economic approach was accompanied at times by opposition to immigration in often nativist and racist rhetoric.

    The Gilded Age

    The Gilded Age has been compared with the present. That’s due, in part, to the period’s rapid industrialization, increased immigration and prominent debates over economic policy.

    And like today, these Gilded Age years, roughly from 1870 to 1900, witnessed intense competition between Democrats and Republicans, during which only about seven states were contested in any given election due to the regional basis of support for each party.

    From 1860 to 1912, Democrats won the White House only twice – Grover Cleveland in 1884 and 1892. But they won the popular vote two more times, while losing the Electoral College – Samuel Tilden in 1876 and Cleveland in 1888.

    Further, from the 1870s to the 1890s, party control of Congress tended to rely on slim majorities.

    Democrats usually held the House and Republicans controlled the Senate.

    The 1880s and 1890s were characterized by debates over economic policies, primarily the protective tariff. That tariff was supported by Northern industrialists to protect domestic industry and opposed by Southern agrarians. The U.S. monetary standard, which determines how value is measured, also dominated discussions.

    The 1888 election revealed tensions among Democrats, primarily over the tariff, that became a harbinger of the party’s struggles in 1896. The party’s inability to reconcile competing constituencies in its coalition and offer a coherent message on the tariff ultimately cost them the White House.

    After winning reelection in 1892, Democrat Cleveland faced an economic depression that impeded the goals of his second term. The Democrats lost both chambers of Congress in the ensuing midterm election.

    President William McKinley, a Republican, is inaugurated in 1901.
    Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

    The 1896 election

    The battle over the monetary standard consumed the 1896 election.

    From the 1870s-1890s, debates over whether greenbacks, or paper currency, should be redeemable in gold or silver ebbed and flowed.

    Republicans, buoyed by wealthy financiers, tended to support maintaining the gold standard only. Democrats, who courted laborers and farmers, usually supported the increased circulation of greenbacks redeemable in both gold and silver.

    The economic depression in 1893 heightened tensions on this issue, as many Americans sought to pay off their debts with cheaper currency.

    At their national convention, Democrats adopted the pro-silver position and nominated a populist firebrand for president, William Jennings Bryan.

    Republicans also faced internal divisions on the issue. But, as in 1888, they were able to overcome these tensions to maintain their coalition and supported the gold standard in their platform.

    The Republican candidate, William McKinley, defeated Bryan. The outcome solidified Republican primacy for 30 years.

    William Jennings Bryan campaigns in 1896.
    AP Photo

    The legacy of 1896

    Internal strife in the late 19th century hindered Democrats’ ability to advance a unified voice, mobilize their voters and attract new ones. In 1888 and 1896, these divisions harmed Democrats’ electoral prospects. Their organizational problems and intense internal discord proved too much for Bryan to overcome.

    Scholar James Reichley contends that the Republicans’ more effective organizing after Reconstruction may have resulted in a coherent message compared with the Democrats.

    And a lack of enthusiasm on the part of Democratic voters contributed to Republican success in 1894 and 1896, according to historian Richard White. Republicans mobilized their base and attracted new voters, while Democrats did not.

    These elections solidified voter alignments until 1932.

    Although Democrat Woodrow Wilson held the presidency from 1913 to 1921, Republicans dictated national policy and controlled Congress for most of those years. It took a massive economic depression to return the Democrats to the majority on the national level.

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

    ref. A warning for Democrats from the Gilded Age and the 1896 election – https://theconversation.com/a-warning-for-democrats-from-the-gilded-age-and-the-1896-election-250887

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI: MoneyHero Offers End-to-End Car Insurance Purchase Journey in Hong Kong through Strategic Partnership with bolttech

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HONG KONG, April 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — MoneyHero Limited (NASDAQ: MNY) (“MoneyHero” or the “Company”), a leading personal finance aggregation and comparison platform, as well as a digital insurance brokerage provider in Greater Southeast Asia, today announced the launch of its end-to-end car insurance purchasing journey in Hong Kong. In collaboration with global insurtech bolttech, this innovative enhancement enables customers to compare and receive real-time insurance quotes while seamlessly completing their entire car insurance purchase directly on MoneyHero’s platform—an industry milestone in Hong Kong.

    Enhancing Car Insurance Experience with AI Capabilities

    The enhanced platform allows customers to:

    • Compare real-time quotes from leading insurers
    • Customize coverage options based on their needs
    • Purchase policies instantly without redirection to third-party sites
    • Receive immediate confirmation and policy issuance

    By integrating bolttech’s advanced insurance exchange technology, MoneyHero ensures accuracy, efficiency, and a fast, hassle-free experience for customers. This launch marks a major advancement for MoneyHero, building on its initial strategic partnership with bolttech previously announced on October 8, 2024, which introduced real-time car insurance pricing comparisons. With the introduction of a fully integrated purchasing experience, customers can now enjoy unparalleled convenience, a streamlined process, and expedited policy issuance.

    Hong Kong’s motor vehicle business recorded gross written premiums of over HK$5 billion1, with insurance penetration in Hong Kong reaching 17.2% in 20232 — offering a compelling opportunity for transformation through data-driven, embedded distribution. For insurers, this enhancement translates to a higher volume of policies sold and improved customer acquisition, solidifying MoneyHero’s position as a valuable digital distribution partner in the evolving insurance landscape.

    A Stronger Digital Insurance Offering

    The introduction of this fully integrated car insurance journey aligns with MoneyHero’s strategic pillars of leading the insurance brokerage and enhancing its conversion expertise. MoneyHero’s platform has already demonstrated impressive results with travel insurance, achieving conversion rates up to two times higher due to its seamless end-to-end purchasing model. MoneyHero anticipates similar success with car insurance, which will drive increased sales for insurers and contribute to robust revenue growth.

    Strong Insurance Growth and Market Expansion

    MoneyHero’s insurance business has emerged as a significant growth driver, with revenues from this vertical increasing by 54% year-over-year in the first nine months of 2024. The Company expects full-year 2024 growth in its insurance business surpassing its Q3 level of 9.5% of its group revenue, driven by the expansion of end-to-end purchasing journeys across multiple insurance categories.

    This enhancement builds on the success of MoneyHero’s travel insurance platform, which has experienced strong adoption and improved conversion rates due to its streamlined purchasing process. In the upcoming quarters, the Company plans to further enhance insurance purchasing experience across other markets and product lines, ensuring the Company remains at the forefront of innovation in the industry.

    Rohith Murthy, CEO of MoneyHero, said: “Customers increasingly seek a seamless experience where they can compare, select, and purchase insurance all in one place. With this launch in Hong Kong, we are not only streamlining the car insurance shopping process—we are fully embracing the entire purchasing journey. Our data indicates that end-to-end insurance transactions yield significantly higher conversion rates, and we anticipate strong adoption in Hong Kong. This initiative represents a natural evolution of our partnership with bolttech3, and we believe we have found the perfect partner to enhance our offerings. Together, we are taking a pivotal step toward positioning MoneyHero as the go-to destination for digital insurance in the region. With bolttech’s technological expertise and commitment to innovation, we are confident in our ability to significantly improve the purchase experience for our customers.”

    Philip Weiner, CEO for Asia and Middle East of bolttech added: “Following our partnership announcement late last year, we are excited to be heading into the next stage with MoneyHero. Our insurance exchange platform will enable them to deliver a more intuitive and transparent user experience, enhancing the overall car insurance purchasing journey for consumers in Hong Kong. Together with MoneyHero, we look forward to bringing more value-added services to consumers.”

    About MoneyHero Group

    MoneyHero Limited (NASDAQ: MNY) is a leading personal finance aggregation and comparison platform, as well as a digital insurance brokerage provider in Greater Southeast Asia. The Company operates in Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Philippines.  Its brand portfolio includes B2C platforms MoneyHero, SingSaver, Money101, Moneymax and Seedly, as well as the B2B platform Creatory.  The Company also retains an equity stake in Malaysian fintech company, Jirnexu Pte. Ltd., parent company of Jirnexu Sdn. Bhd., the operator of RinggitPlus, Malaysia’s largest operating B2C platform. MoneyHero had over 270 commercial partner relationships as at September 30, 2024, and had approximately 7.4 million Monthly Unique Users across its platform for the three months ended September 30, 2024. The Company’s backers include Peter Thiel—co-founder of PayPal, Palantir Technologies, and the Founders Fund—and Hong Kong businessman, Richard Li, the founder and chairman of Pacific Century Group. To learn more about MoneyHero and how the innovative fintech company is driving Greater Southeast Asia’s digital economy, please visit www.MoneyHeroGroup.com.

    About bolttech

    bolttech is a global insurtech with a mission to build the world’s leading, technology-enabled ecosystem for protection and insurance. bolttech serves customers in more than 35 markets across Asia, Europe, North America, and Africa.

    With a full suite of digital and data-driven capabilities, bolttech powers connections between insurers, distributors, and customers to make it easier and more efficient to buy and sell insurance and protection products.

    For more information, please visit www.bolttech.io.

    Forward Looking Statements

    This document includes “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States federal securities laws and also contains certain financial forecasts and projections. All statements other than statements of historical fact contained in this communication, including, but not limited to, statements as to the Group’s growth strategies, future results of operations and financial position, market size, industry trends and growth opportunities, are forward-looking statements. Some of these forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking words, including “outlook,” “believes,” “expects,” “potential,” “continues,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “seeks,” “predicts,” “intends,” “trends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “anticipates” or the negative version of these words or other comparable words. All forward-looking statements are based upon estimates and forecasts and reflect the views, assumptions, expectations, and opinions of the Company, which are all subject to change due to various factors including, without limitation, changes in general economic conditions. Any such estimates, assumptions, expectations, forecasts, views or opinions, whether or not identified in this communication, should be regarded as indicative, preliminary and for illustrative purposes only and should not be relied upon as being necessarily indicative of future results. The forward-looking statements and financial forecasts and projections contained in this communication are subject to a number of factors, risks and uncertainties. Potential risks and uncertainties that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, changes in business, market, financial, political and legal conditions; the Company’s ability to attract new and retain existing customers in a cost effective manner; competitive pressures in and any disruption to the industries in which the Company and its subsidiaries (the “Group”) operates; the Group’s ability to achieve profitability despite a history of losses; and the Group’s ability to implement its growth strategies and manage its growth; the Group’s ability to meet consumer expectations; the success of the Group’s new product or service offerings; the Group’s ability to attract traffic to its websites; the Group’s internal controls; fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; the Group’s ability to raise capital; media coverage of the Group; the Group’s ability to obtain adequate insurance coverage; changes in the regulatory environments (such as anti-trust laws, foreign ownership restrictions and tax regimes) and general economic conditions in the countries in which the Group operates; the Group’s ability to attract and retain management and skilled employees; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic or any other pandemic on the business of the Group; the success of the Group’s strategic investments and acquisitions, changes in the Group’s relationship with its current customers, suppliers and service providers; disruptions to the Group’s information technology systems and networks; the Group’s ability to grow and protect its brand and the Group’s reputation; the Group’s ability to protect its intellectual property; changes in regulation and other contingencies; the Group’s ability to achieve tax efficiencies of its corporate structure and intercompany arrangements; potential and future litigation that the Group may be involved in; and unanticipated losses, write-downs or write-offs, restructuring and impairment or other charges, taxes or other liabilities that may be incurred or required and technological advancements in the Group’s industry. The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors and the other risks and uncertainties described in the “Risk Factors” section of the Company’s annual report for the year ended December 31, 2023 on Form 20-F (File No.: 001-41838), registration statement on Form F-1 (File No.: 333-275205), and other documents to be filed by the Company from time to time with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. In addition, there may be additional risks that the Company currently does not know, or that the Company currently believes are immaterial, that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements reflect the Company’s expectations, plans, projections or forecasts of future events and view. If any of the risks materialize or the Company’s assumptions prove incorrect, actual results could differ materially from the results implied by these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. The Company anticipates that subsequent events and developments may cause their assessments to change. However, while the Company may elect to update these forward-looking statements at some point in the future, the Company specifically disclaims any obligation to do so, except as required by law. The inclusion of any statement in this document does not constitute an admission by the Company or any other person that the events or circumstances described in such statement are material. These forward-looking statements should not be relied upon as representing the Company’s assessments as of any date subsequent to the date of this document. Accordingly, undue reliance should not be placed upon the forward-looking statements. In addition, the analyses of the Company contained herein are not, and do not purport to be, appraisals of the securities, assets, or business of the Company.

    For MoneyHero inquiries, please contact:

    Investor Relations:
    MoneyHero IR Team
    IR@MoneyHeroGroup.com

    Media Relations:
    MoneyHero PR Team
    Press@MoneyHeroGroup.com

    For bolttech inquiries, please contact:
    FTI Consulting on behalf of bolttech
    bolttech@fticonsulting.com

    _______________________________

    1 Insurance Authority, Market Overview, https://www.ia.org.hk/en/infocenter/statistics/files/GB_Market_Overview_2023_Eng_Final.pdf

    2 Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, https://www.fstb.gov.hk/en/financial_ser/insurance-industry.htm

    3 An affiliate of the Company.

    The MIL Network

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The capital’s center “Professions of the Future” and the Republic of Tatarstan intend to cooperate in the areas of career guidance for schoolchildren and personnel training

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –

    Head of the Republic of Tatarstan Rustam Minnikhanov and Deputy Mayor of Moscow for Social Development Anastasia Rakova visited the capital’s “Professions of the Future” center. They familiarized themselves with the work of the institution, with special attention paid to key areas of career guidance and interaction with employers.

    “The capital’s personnel center “Professions of the Future” is a response to the demands of the time and the challenges of the labor market. We are building a system in which everyone can consciously choose a profession and quickly master a sought-after specialty. Short training programs are available for adults; last year alone, more than 20 thousand people completed them with the support of the city, and 85 percent of them chose blue-collar jobs. And for Moscow ninth-graders, a unique comprehensive career guidance program is presented to help them choose their model of success and build a future career. More than 100 thousand schoolchildren have already completed the program. We are confident that such projects are an investment in a sustainable economy and a stable labor market. And Moscow is ready to share this experience with other regions of our country,” said Anastasia Rakova.

    Rustam Minnikhanov emphasized the importance of early career guidance and expressed interest in cooperation with Moscow.

    “A modern career guidance system is very important today, when children can try themselves in different professions and decide on their future already at school. I am sure that such centers as “Professions of the Future” in Moscow are in demand and relevant. We will definitely cooperate with our Moscow colleagues. We have already agreed to exchange experience both in the field of career guidance for schoolchildren and in terms of training and retraining of personnel,” said the head of Tatarstan.

    The guests got acquainted with the key services that help schoolchildren and adults choose a profession and build a career. Thus, the Deputy Mayor of Moscow and the head of Tatarstan were shown a 5D cinema, where they can try themselves in different professions, VR simulators for 13 working specialties, and an interactive quiz. The tour participants also talked to career mentors.

    The Professions of the Future Center opened in the capital in 2023 and became the fulcrum of the city’s career guidance system. It helps schoolchildren not only get acquainted with in-demand professions, but also build a real route for their future career.

    Thus, at the center, ninth-graders from Moscow schools undergo the first stage of the comprehensive career guidance program. The next stage is professional trials at colleges and excursions to employers’ sites. Over the past year and a half, more than 100 thousand Moscow ninth-graders have become participants in this program.

    The center offers short retraining programs for adults. In 3.5 months, you can master one of 75 professions in industry, construction, logistics, information technology, hospitality and other areas. Last year, more than 20 thousand Muscovites took advantage of this opportunity. According to statistics, 85 percent of them chose blue-collar jobs. Many applicants received job offers while still studying. Internships take place at real production facilities, including Roscosmos, Rostec and other flagships of the capital’s industry.

    The project is being implemented with the support of Moscow’s largest employers. The Professions of the Future Center cooperates with more than three thousand companies, and its aggregated database contains over 500 thousand current vacancies.

    The project is already attracting interest from other regions. The capital’s authorities are ready for cooperation and exchange of best practices in the field of career guidance and personnel training.

    Get the latest news quicklyofficial telegram channel the city of Moscow.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect

    https: //vv.mos.ru/nevs/ite/152979073/

    MIL OSI Russia News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Reminder: Infoshare downtime tomorrow

    Reminder: Infoshare downtime tomorrow

    Kia ora,

    This is a friendly reminder that Infoshare will be undergoing a routine maintenance update starting tomorrow, Wednesday 23 April, and will be temporarily unavailable from 5pm to 6pm.

    We appreciate your patience during this time.

    Ngā mihi nui (kind regards)
    Stats NZ Tatatauranga Aotearoa

    Ends

    The Government Statistician authorises all statistics and data we publish.

    If you wish to change your details or unsubscribe please email subscriptions@stats.govt.nz.

    Thank you for using the Stats NZ subscription service.

    Publishing team
    +64 4 931 4600
    publishing@stats.govt.nz
    www.stats.govt.nz

    More information is available on the Stats NZ website at www.stats.govt.nz

     Follow us on Twitter

     Like us on Facebook  


    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Unemployment rate stays at 3.2%

    Source: Hong Kong Information Services

    The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 3.2% in the January to March period, same as that in December 2024 to February 2025, the Census & Statistics Department announced today.

     

    The underemployment rate remained at 1.1%.

     

    Total employment was 3,692,700, down 16,800 from December 2024 to February 2025, while the labour force also dropped 5,800 to 3,815,500.

     

    The number of unemployed people increased from 111,700 to 122,800. Meanwhile, the number of underemployed people increased from 40,700 to 42,700.

     

    Secretary for Labour & Welfare Chris Sun said the increasingly uncertain external environment due to escalated trade conflicts may weigh on hiring sentiment in some sectors.

     

    Nonetheless, the continued growth of the Mainland economy, supported by the central government’s boosting policies, alongside the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government’s various policy measures to continuously promote economic growth and support enterprises, are expected to provide support to labour demand, he added.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Reminder: Infoshare downtime tomorrow

    Reminder: Infoshare downtime tomorrow

    Kia ora,

    This is a friendly reminder that Infoshare will be undergoing a routine maintenance update starting tomorrow, Wednesday 23 April, and will be temporarily unavailable from 5pm to 6pm.

    We appreciate your patience during this time.

    Ngā mihi nui (kind regards)
    Stats NZ Tatatauranga Aotearoa

    Ends

    The Government Statistician authorises all statistics and data we publish.

    If you wish to change your details or unsubscribe please email subscriptions@stats.govt.nz.

    Thank you for using the Stats NZ subscription service.

    Publishing team
    +64 4 931 4600
    publishing@stats.govt.nz

    www.stats.govt.nz

    More information is available on the Stats NZ website at www.stats.govt.nz

     Follow us on Twitter

     Like us on Facebook  


    MIL OSI

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: CSSA caseload for March 2025

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    The overall Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) caseload in March showed a drop of 194 cases, representing a decrease of 0.1 per cent compared with that of February, according to the latest CSSA caseload statistics released by the Social Welfare Department today (April 22).

    The total CSSA caseload at the end of March stood at 195 581 (see attached table), with a total of 262 266 recipients.

    Analysed by case nature, ill-health cases registered a month-to-month decrease of 0.3 per cent to 27 689 cases. Both permanent disability cases and single parent cases decreased by 0.2 per cent to 16 667 cases and 18 993 cases respectively. Both old age cases and unemployment cases dropped by 0.1 per cent to 110 846 cases and 16 057 cases respectively.

    Low-earnings cases registered an increase of 0.1 per cent to 1 356 cases.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: Unemployment and underemployment statistics for January – March 2025

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

         According to the latest labour force statistics (i.e. provisional figures for January – March 2025) released today (April 22) by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stood at 3.2% in January – March 2025, same as that in December 2024 – February 2025. The underemployment rate also remained unchanged at 1.1% in the two periods.
     
         Comparing January – March 2025 with December 2024 – February 2025, movements in the unemployment rate (not seasonally adjusted) in different industry sectors varied. Relatively notable increases were observed in the information and communications sector, social work activities sector, professional and business services sector (excluding cleaning and similar activities), and construction sector. Movements in the underemployment rate in different industry sectors also varied, but the magnitudes were generally not large.
     
         Total employment decreased by around 16 800 from 3 709 500 in December 2024 – February 2025 to 3 692 700 in January – March 2025.  Over the same period, the labour force also decreased by around 5 800 from 3 821 300 to 3 815 500.
     
         The number of unemployed persons (not seasonally adjusted) increased by around 11 100 from 111 700 in December 2024 – February 2025 to 122 800 in January – March 2025.  Over the same period, the number of underemployed persons also increased by around 2 000 from 40 700 to 42 700.
      
    Commentary
     
         Commenting on the latest unemployment figures, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Mr Chris Sun, said, “The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate stayed low at 3.2% in January – March 2025, same as December 2024 – February 2025. The underemployment rate also remained unchanged at 1.1%. The labour force and total employment declined further to 3 815 500 and 3 692 700 respectively from the preceding three-month period.”
     
         The unemployment rates of various sectors showed different movements in January – March 2025 compared with the preceding three-month period, with increases recorded in sectors such as the information and communications sector, the social work activities sector, the professional and business services sector (excluding cleaning and similar activities), and the construction sector; while declines were observed in the transportation sector and the insurance sector.
     
         Looking ahead, Mr Sun said, “The increasingly uncertain external environment due to escalated trade conflicts may weigh on hiring sentiment in some sectors. Nonetheless, the continued growth of the Mainland economy, supported by the Central Government’s boosting policies, alongside the SAR Government’s various policy measures to continuously promote economic growth and support enterprises, are expected to provide support to labour demand. The SAR Government will stay vigilant and continue to closely monitor the labour market situation.”
     
    Further information
     
         The unemployment and underemployment statistics were compiled from the findings of the continuous General Household Survey.
     
         In the survey, the definitions used in measuring unemployment and underemployment follow closely those recommended by the International Labour Organization. The employed population covers all employers, self-employed persons, employees (including full-time, part-time, casual workers, etc.) and unpaid family workers. Unemployed persons by industry (or occupation) are classified according to their previous industry (or occupation).
     
         The survey for January – March 2025 covered a sample of some 26 000 households or 68 000 persons, selected in accordance with a scientifically designed sampling scheme to represent the population of Hong Kong. Labour force statistics compiled from this sample represented the situation in the moving three-month period of January to March 2025.
     
         Data on labour force characteristics were obtained from the survey by interviewing each member aged 15 or over in the sampled households.
     
         Statistical tables on the latest labour force statistics can be downloaded at the website of the C&SD (www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/scode200.html). More detailed analysis of the labour force characteristics is given in the “Quarterly Report on General Household Survey” which is published four times a year. The latest issue of the report contains statistics for the quarter October – December 2024 while the next issue covering the quarter January – March 2025 will be available by end May 2025. Users can also browse and download this publication at the website of the C&SD (www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/EIndexbySubject.html?pcode=B1050001&scode=200).
     
         For enquiries about labour force statistics, please contact the General Household Survey Section (3) of the C&SD (Tel: 2887 5508 or email: ghs@censtatd.gov.hk).

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Looked After Children Statistics: 2023-24

    Source: Scottish Government

    An Accredited Official Statistics Publication

    Looked After Children Statistics were published on 22 April 2025. These statistics cover data collected from local authorities in Scotland on looked after children and care leavers, for the reporting year 01 August 2023 – 31 July 2024.

    Key findings include:

    • On 31 July 2024, 11,844 children were looked after – down 2% since 31 July 2023 (12,084) and down 24% since 2013-14 (15,600).
    • A total of 2,313 looked after children were looked after at home on 31 July 2024. This accounts for 20% of looked after children. The most common placements away from home were kinship care (35%), foster care (32%), and residential accommodation (11%).
    • During 2023-24, 3,105 children started to be looked after – down 1% since 2022-23 (3,133) and down 28% since 2013-14 (4,295).A total of 3,398 children ceased to be looked after during 2023-24 – down 3% since 2022-23 (3,494) and down 28% since 2013-14 (4,696). 
    • Just over half (54%) of looked after children have a home address in one of the 20% most deprived areas in Scotland, whereas 3% were from one of the 20% least deprived areas in Scotland.
    • During 2023-24, 967 young people aged 16 years or over ceased to be looked after and were eligible for continuing care. Of these, 33% (315) entered continuing care.On 31 July 2024, 1,115 young people were in continuing care. This is 22% of those who were eligible for continuing care at the time of ceasing to be looked after (4,985). 
    • On 31 July 2024, an estimated 9,369 young people were eligible for aftercare services.4,454 (48% of those eligible) were receiving aftercare services – up 7% on 31 July 2023 (4,151). 

    Background

    This report is part of the Children’s Social Work Statistics publication series. The data used to produce the statistics was collected from 32 local authorities across Scotland. The figures refer to the reporting year 01 August 2023 to 31 July 2024.

    Looked after children are defined as those in the care of their local authority (Children Scotland Act 1995). There are many reasons children may become looked after including: facing abuse or neglect at home; having disabilities that require special care; unaccompanied minors seeking asylum, or illegally trafficked into the UK; or involvement in the youth justice system.

    The full statistical publication is available with the Excel tables at the following link: https://www.gov.scot/publications/childrens-social-work-statistics-looked-after-children-2023-24/.

    Official statistics are produced in accordance with the Code of Practice for Statistics.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Views on climate crisis

    Source: Scottish Government

    Almost half of Scots say reaching net zero will improve their quality of life.

    Almost half (44%) of Scots think that reaching net zero by 2045 would improve their quality of life – compared to just 1 in 10 who think it would make it worse –  according to new official statistics published for the first time today.

    The Scottish Climate Survey also found that almost three-quarters of those surveyed (72%) feel climate change is an immediate and urgent problem and almost all households have experienced a severe weather event in the past 12 months. 

    More than 4,000 adults across Scotland shared their views on a range of climate-related issues, including transport, nature, preparing for the impacts of climate change and home energy.

    The survey found that a third of households (33%) were finding it difficult to afford their energy bills whilst more than four in ten (42%) said they were having to cut back spending on food and other essentials to spend more on energy bills.​

    People were also asked about their overall views on climate change and the impact of the transition to net zero. Almost half of adults (46%) reported feeling worried about climate change – with one in ten (11%) saying that their feelings about climate change had a negative effect on them most of the time.

    Acting Minister for Climate Action, Alasdair Allan, said: “The findings from this survey highlight that people recognise the benefits that reaching net zero by 2045 will bring.

    “However, if we are to persuade people to back climate action wholeheartedly, we must speak not only of the costs and challenges but also demonstrate clear and direct household and community benefits where possible.

    “Whilst the powers over energy price setting and regulation are reserved, we continue to prioritise support for the most vulnerable households through access to long-term, sustainable measures with our energy efficiency programmes. We are also calling on the UK Government to introduce targeted energy bill discounts to support those who need it most.

    “Scotland is now halfway to net zero and continues to be ahead of the UK as a whole in delivering long term emissions reductions. However in order to reach our target, we need to work together more effectively, at all levels of Government and beyond – and the findings from this survey help demonstrate that Scots not only understand the seriousness of the climate crisis – but want to see action.

    “That’s why we will continue to drive climate action that is fair, ambitious and effective at addressing the scale of the emergency which faces us.”

    Background

    Scottish Climate Survey: main findings – gov.scot

    MIL OSI United Kingdom

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Expert Meeting on Dissemination and Communication of Statistics

    Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

    About the meeting

    In today’s rapidly changing world, statistical organisations are facing increasingly complex challenges in effectively disseminating and communicating data. With the continuous emergence of new technologies and platforms, the growing need to provide the right data product to the right people in a timelier manner as well as the rising competition from private data providers, statistical organisations must adapt quickly to continue serving their critical role as providers of official statistics that are fundamental to informed decision-making in society.

    The Expert Meeting on Dissemination and Communication of Statistics aims to bring together experts from around the world to exchange their experiences and lessons learned from these challenges. The target audience of the expert meeting includes senior and middle-level managers responsible for data dissemination and communication, across all statistical domains.

    Detailed information and examples of topics to be covered in the meeting, registration, contributions and other organizational aspects can be found in Information Notice #1. 

    Document Title Documents Paper  Presentations
    ENG ENG
    Information Notice 1 PDF
    Information Notice 2 (logistic information)  
    Timetable  

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-Evening Report: The government has pledged $10 million for inclusive LGBTQIA+ health care. Here’s what that means

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Karinna Saxby, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne

    Lee Charlie/Shutterstock

    Last week, the federal government announced a $10 million commitment to make Medicare more inclusive for LGBTQIA+ Australians. It aims to improve their access to “inclusive, culturally safe primary care” through training and accreditation for GPs, nurses and other health-care providers.

    The precise details will depend on which training provider wins the government’s grant. But they will have a strong body of evidence to draw on, which shows the challenges LGBTQIA+ people face in health care – and what it would take to make mainstream services more inclusive.

    Why is this needed?

    Many LGBTQIA+ Australians lead happy and healthy lives. But, unfortunately, a disproportionate number experience significantly poorer health outcomes compared to the general population.

    LGBTQIA+ Australians are more likely to experience depression, anxiety and psychological distress. They also have higher rates of suicidal thoughts, self-harm and suicide.

    Many of these health inequalities stem from experiences of discrimination and stigma. These can lead LGBTQIA+ people to avoid health services for routine as well as preventive care (such as screening and regular check-ups).

    LGBTQIA+ Australians are also less likely to have a regular GP. And they report lower levels of satisfaction with the care they receive.

    They are also more likely to live with disability or long-term health conditions and have unmet health needs. For some groups, such as trans and gender-diverse Australians, these health disparities are even getting worse.

    This points to the unique and diverse needs of different groups within the LGBTQIA+ community.

    For example, young people are more likely to have elevated mental health distress. Some communities have higher rates of HIV, while others face barriers to preventive care. For instance, trans men and non-binary people may miss out on cervical cancer screening.

    Young people in the LGBTQIA+ community are more likely to experience mental health distress.
    Alexx60/Shutterstock

    What does ‘inclusive, culturally safe’ care look like?

    Inclusive and safe health care means more than just rainbow posters in the waiting room. It’s a concrete change in how care is delivered.

    At a basic level, this involves respectful communication – using a patient’s correct pronouns and chosen name, and avoiding assumptions about their body, relationships or identity.

    For example, an inclusive GP will ask open-ended questions (“do you have a partner?”) rather than presume a patient’s partner is of the opposite sex. They will not assume a trans patient’s health-care needs are only related to being trans.

    Training might cover how to discuss sensitive topics (such as sexual behaviour or gender dysphoria) in a non-judgmental, inclusive way, and how to handle mistakes.

    Making people feel safe to disclose their LGBTQIA+ status is also crucial. This has been shown to improve continuity of care and access to high-value preventive care. It may also help people disclose other sensitive issues, such as family violence.

    When GPs and others in primary care understand LGBTQIA+ health needs, they’re better placed to make appropriate referrals – for example, to psychologists with relevant expertise or to specialist gender-affirming care services.

    How this funding could help

    This funding is part of the government’s ten-year national action plan to improve the health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ people.

    The plan focuses on enhancing community-led and specialist LGBTQIA+ services (such as gender-affirming care or HIV medicine) and mainstream services, so they work better in tandem.

    It was developed through extensive consultations with LGBTQIA+ communities across Australia. These consultations found inclusive primary care was a top concern.

    Making “mainstream” health care more inclusive is important because it is the most frequently accessed point of care for most Australians, including LGBTQIA+ Australians.

    An estimated 84% of LGBTQIA+ Australians use “mainstream” medical clinics for their primary health care. Only 6% use LGBTQIA+ specific clinics – in part, because they are not widely available.

    Improving mainstream primary care for LGBTQIA+ Australians is therefore particularly important for those in rural areas, where there can be reduced access to specialist health-care providers. People should not have to hide who they are or travel long distances to get the care they need.




    Read more:
    We tracked the mental health of trans and gender-diverse Australians for over 20 years. And we’re worried


    Translation into practice

    The announcement will also fund a voluntary LGBTQIA+ accreditation program for health-care providers who meet best practice standards.

    This means patients will be able to easily identify services that are “safe and trusted” for LGBTQIA+ communities. It could affect the look and feel of the waiting room, but will also be reflected in policies, procedures and management.

    For example, accredited services should have intake forms that meet Australian Bureau of Statistics standards. Record-keeping would reflect options for diverse genders, titles and family structures. Patients would be assured their information is kept private and confidential, so they feel safe disclosing personal information.

    Accredited services would recognise different genders and family structures.
    Kaboompics.com/Pexels

    Existing training resources have been available and processes such as Rainbow Tick accreditation have had modest take-up in some larger hospitals and community health centres.

    But primary care providers are often overwhelmed by many other essential training needs and have under-utilised these offerings to date.

    This funding will be a huge incentive for many of these clinicians and services to step up, as it signals a new level of priority.

    If implemented effectively, this program could mark a significant step toward a health-care system where LGBTQIA+ Australians – whether a queer teenager in the city, a Brotherboy in a remote community, or an older trans woman in aged care – can get the care they need without discrimination or fear.

    The challenge now will be turning this $10 million promise into real on-the-ground change. This means accrediting a majority of clinics, training thousands of health workers, partnering with LGBTQIA+ community organisations and ultimately ensuring every patient is treated with the understanding and respect they deserve.

    Karinna Saxby has previously received funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.

    Ruth McNair was part of the expert advisory group for the LGBTIQA+ health and wellbeing ten-year action plan from 2023 to 2024.

    Mo Hammoud 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. The government has pledged $10 million for inclusive LGBTQIA+ health care. Here’s what that means – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-pledged-10-million-for-inclusive-lgbtqia-health-care-heres-what-that-means-254611

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI China: Eight regions report population increases

    Source: China State Council Information Office 2

    A nurse works at a maternal and child health care hospital in Huai’an City, east China’s Jiangsu province, May 12, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]
    At least eight provincial-level regions in China reported growth in their resident populations last year amid rapid urbanization, according to data released by local authorities and experts.
    The regions that reported population growth are the Xinjiang Uygur and Xizang autonomous regions, and Shaanxi province in western China; Zhejiang, Anhui and Fujian provinces in the east; and Guangdong and Hainan provinces in the south, according to statistics from regional authorities.
    Meanwhile, the populations of Jiangsu province and Tianjin remained stable from the previous year, while 19 provincial-level regions reported a decline. Heilongjiang province and the Ningxia Hui autonomous region have yet to release their demographic data for last year.
    China’s total population declined for the third consecutive year in 2024, falling by 1.39 million to 1.408 billion, largely due to lower birth rates and a shrinking number of women of childbearing age.
    Population changes at the regional level are shaped by natural shifts — defined as the difference between births and deaths — as well as internal migration.
    Wang Jinying, a professor at Hebei University’s School of Economics and a demography expert, said provinces that saw population increases last year follow three distinct growth models.
    “Thanks to their thriving economies and ample job opportunities, provinces such as Zhejiang and Guangdong witnessed significant influxes of migrants from other regions, leading to an increase in their resident populations,” he said.
    Official data show Guangdong’s population grew by 740,000 to reach 127.8 million, while Zhejiang’s increased by 430,000 to 66.7 million.
    Xinjiang also followed this pattern, Wang said. The frontier region bordering Central Asia has become a key hub of the Belt and Road Initiative in recent years, drawing residents with increased economic and trade opportunities.
    In addition, provinces such as Anhui, Shaanxi and Fujian — once beset by a high number of out-migrants due to underdeveloped economies — have seen accelerated economic growth in recent years, Wang said.
    “This has not only curbed outward migration but also spurred a return of residents, boosting their resident population figures,” he said.
    However, the population growth in these regions remains relatively modest. Shaanxi and Anhui each recorded a year-on-year increase of fewer than 20,000 people, while Fujian’s population rose by 100,000.
    The third growth model is exemplified by Xizang, Yunnan and Hainan, where population increases are largely due to natural growth, with birth rates exceeding death rates, Wang said.
    Among the regions experiencing population decline last year are Jilin and Liaoning provinces in Northeast China. The region has seen the steepest declines in recent years due to large-scale emigration and low fertility rates.
    Still, both provinces recorded a modest rebound in the number of newborns, with each reporting about 9,000 more births year-on-year.
    Nationwide, China also saw a slight uptick in the number of newborns last year, rising by 520,000 to reach 9.54 million.
    “The increase in these regions, as well as the national figure, can be attributed to a sizable number of people who had postponed marriage and childbearing deciding to tie the knot and have babies,” Wang said. “Other contributing factors include the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and the auspicious Year of the Dragon in 2024. But the overall scale of the increase remains modest.”
    Experts said China’s urban population has been steadily growing and is expected to continue expanding as more people move to cities. However, Northeast China’s population is likely to keep shrinking.
    A recent study by Liu Houlian, a researcher at the China Population and Development Research Center, projected that China’s urbanization rate will reach 75.4 percent by 2035, up from 67 percent in 2024.
    The study noted a significant population increase in cities along the Yangtze River and coastal areas, as well as in provincial capitals. Meanwhile, the trend of population decline has spread from northeastern provinces to some central and western regions.
    “Driven by high-quality economic development, scientific innovation and improved public services, it is expected that the populations of economically vibrant cities in the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta and Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei regions will continue to grow,” the study said. “Conversely, less developed small and medium-sized cities are likely to face continued population shrinkage.”
    Wang said China’s total population will likely continue to decline, intensifying competition among regions for labor and widening the divergence in regional development.
    To address the trend, he suggested promoting high-quality, balanced regional development, with a focus on cultivating more central cities and urban clusters.
    “Hefei in Anhui province serves as a prime illustration of how an emerging economic hub can draw in population. An increasing number of people, previously concentrated in urban giants such as Shanghai, have opted to settle down in the city instead,” he said.
    Wang added that expanding public services, such as fertility support policies, healthcare and education, is essential to accommodate the influx of people into urban areas.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Compulsory consent education proposed in schools

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Parents are being encouraged to provide feedback on how relationships and sexuality education (RSE) is taught in schools.
    “As young people grow up, they deserve the chance to be equipped with the knowledge and skills they need to interact respectfully with others. Relationships and sexuality education can play an important role in this. Parents deserve certainty and clarity on what their children are learning, when and how in RSE at school so they can make informed decisions about their education,” Education Minister Erica Stanford says. 
    The Ministry of Education has released the draft relationships and sexuality framework for consultation. It was developed by Ministry of Education subject matter experts and quality assured by both internal and external experts. It outlines the proposed teaching to be covered in RSE each year, from Years 0 to 13.
    “It aims to ensure the content is age-appropriate, evidence-informed, and detailed about what is taught and when.”
    Research conducted by the Education Review Office (ERO) last year highlighted significant inconsistencies in the delivery of RSE across the country. It found more than three quarters of recent school leavers say they didn’t learn enough about consent.
    “Young people have been very clear that consent education is important to their development and have advocated for its inclusion in the national curriculum. We have ensured that age-appropriate consent education is present in all year levels of the draft framework,” Ms Stanford says.
    The consultation period is open until May 9 2025. The feedback will help shape the wider health and physical education learning area will be released for consultation in Term 4, 2025.
    “The new curriculum will give certainty to schools about what is to be taught, choice to parents over the level of their child’s participation, and consistency across the country, so all young people get the information they need to keep them safe and healthy.”
    Minister for Women, Nicola Grigg says she wants all women and girls to be safe from all forms of violence, including sexual violence.
    “Statistics show that in New Zealand, women are nearly three times more likely to experience sexual violence compared to men.
    “It is important that both boys and girls are taught how to engage in healthy relationships and that parents are aware of what their children are being taught. While consent education is not the only solution, it can contribute towards the necessary shift in behaviour to prevent forms of sexual violence and better equip young adults to be safe.”

    MIL OSI New Zealand News