The Metaverse is a concept unfathomable to those who lived just 50 years ago. Coined by Neal Stephenson in his 1992 science fiction novel “Snow Crash”, the metaverse has transcended its fictional origins to become the future of communication and digital markets. The metaverse is defined as a non-physical virtual world wherein users interact; experiences made possible through sensory- and 3D-technology. In this context, we define experiences as the virtual environment and events that users interact with in a metaverse server. The metaverse exists in many forms, such as the games Minecraft, Fortnite, or Second Life. A big player in the metaverse field is Meta, formerly known as Facebook and founded by Mark Zuckerberg. Through bold strategic moves, Meta announced the creation of its metaverse, “Horizon Worlds”, operating in a fully VR environment. Furthermore, Meta had also penetrated the hardware market for metaverse apps to be run by acquiring Oculus and launching the Meta Quest VR headsets. The introduction of Meta’s metaverse plans led to an initial stock plummet of 70% in 2022 due to uncertainty surrounding the metaverse’s viability and substantial investment expenses. Zuckerberg has since reimagined the metaverse as “the next evolution in social connection and the successor to the mobile internet” with growing success in mainstream digital services and communications markets. As of 2023, Meta Quest has a rising user base of over 400 million, along with a 300% rebound in its stocks. The Meta Quest is in the growth stage of its product life cycle. Another prominent player in the metaverse industry is Roblox, with over 40 million experiences, 70 million daily active users, and a net worth of $23 billion. Roblox is available on all platforms and is also accessible through the Meta Quest VR environment. The Metaverse is coming to fruition, bringing new markets such as NFTs, digital real estate, and cryptocurrencies. Background Information Many different metaverses can be joined from any device. Smartphones, tablets, and computers were the standard method of accessing virtual environments; however, Meta has popularized VR and their association with the metaverse. Horizon Worlds is accessible through a Meta Quest headset, a hardware device designed for VR interactions. Originally owned by Oculus, the VR headset developer was acquired by Meta in 2014 for $2 billion. The user wearing the headset is able to interact with a digital environment due to sound and sensory technology. Movement in VR is made possible with two handheld controllers and a digital avatar. The VR headset allows the user to access many different metaverse applications. The most prominent activities include gaming, experiencing and exploring environments, watching movies, purchasing products or NFTs, exercising, social media, art, and work activities. The most popular apps in the Meta Quest platform consist of social media and games, or a combination of both. The top eight Meta Quest applications, as of 2024. Many other business sectors such as the Healthcare, Education, and Construction industries are investing in Meta, reflecting the potential of the technology tool to improve society. The common reason is that VR allows for realistic simulations, which can be used for a broad range of activities such as planning projects, training employees, providing stress relief therapy, and creating immersive educational environments to increase the effectiveness of learning. The primary demographics include 47% of users aged 18-34, 47% being 35-54 and 6% being 55-64 years of age. Approximately 60% are male and 40% female.  49% of VR headset users own one at home, while others visit family’s houses or VR parks to use VR. Currencies in the Metaverse Metaverse Digital Currencies Metaverse currencies consist largely of digital and cryptocurrencies. Digital currencies are a currency type that lacks a physical form and are controlled centrally by specific organizations. For example, Robux from the game Roblox is in the top 10 most-played games in the Metaverse. Users can exchange Robux for non-physical cosmetic items, games, land, and experiences. Many video games utilize digital currencies for real currency to digital currency conversions, to receive purchases from customers. Roblox converts dollar prices into the digital currency of “Robux”. Metaverse Cryptocurrencies Cryptocurrencies are defined as decentralized, virtual currencies that operate on a blockchain. The leading cryptocurrencies include Internet Computer (ICP), Stacks (STX), Axie Infinity (AXS), The Sandbox (SAND), etc. Cryptocurrencies help exchange NFTs. NFTs allow for ownership of digital items, such as art, games, and songs. Cryptocurrency and blockchains allow for recorded transactions to be more accurate. Metaverse Markets Consumer Culture and Digital Products Why do consumers spend money on virtual products that serve no physical function? How can they be valuable or useful? The answer lies in Consumer Culture Theory (CCT) and the popularization of video games and avatar customization. The Metaverse offers endless experiences that are impossible in the physical world, from using magic powers to slaying dragons. Within these interesting and growing numbers of experiences, individuals aim to express themselves by crafting avatars that mirror their style. According to Consumer Culture Theory, emotional factors such as gratification derived from purchases lead customers to purchase non-physical, functionally “useless” products. Prestige perception and a desire to be unique also play a role in the consumption of digital products. Furthermore, the network effect is prevalent, defined as the value of products increasing as more users use compatible products. As more users are on the metaverse, metaverse products and one’s avatar customization becomes more valuable. Businesses Selling Products The metaverse has become a method for businesses to sell digital products, as a primary or secondary purpose, and utilize digital currencies or cryptocurrencies. Many corporations can also leverage metaverse platforms to advertise, increase brand awareness, and reach new customer segments. Monetizing metaverses is done in many ways, for example, limiting access to a metaverse with a one-off payment, or making the metaverse free with in-app purchases and subscriptions. NFT products may also be exchanged with big success, for example, in the case of Nike. Nike launched its NFT shoes after acquiring NFT manufacturers such as RTFKT. It had released 20,000 NFT shoes for the Metaverse. As of May 2024, RTFKT has stopped sales for Nike shoes, increasing their rarity and value. On Opensea, the Nike shoes can be exchanged for the cryptocurrency, Ether, at sales prices ranging from the highest sale performed by Nike at 45 ETH ($134,000) to as low as 0.00097 ETH ($28.56) depending on the time of sale and style of NFT shoe. The advantage of using NFTs is the authentication system combating counterfeit products. This is done through the use of an NFC tag, which is a tag or chip attached to a smartphone that verifies the virtual shoes are authentic and not counterfeit 3d products replicated by another brand. Markets are not limited to NFTs or 3d products; experiences are also a prominent market in the form of the intangible value of memories. NIKELAND was launched on Roblox, a video game on the metaverse. This is an effective business strategy, as the demographics of VR games consist largely of the youth. NIKELAND can create positive brand associations through enjoyable experiences, creating nostalgic value that will likely influence customer purchasing behavior as they mature. Other brands such as Forever 21, Gucci, and Hyundai have employed similar strategies, building metaverses to reach the global demographic and create unique experiences to market their brands. The Metaverse Real Estate Industry The virtual world is technically limitless; however, several large corporations have created virtual environments. These specific virtual environments have limited spaces and are distinct in their branding. The companies operate their cryptocurrency, which can then be used to buy and sell the limited land spaces. With blockchain technologies, they track land owned by specific users. On the land space, 3d models can render realistic or cartoon-like environments and buildings. The largest transaction of digital real estate was performed by Republic Realm, who invested $4.3 million into Sandbox (SAND) beating the earlier record of $2.43 million invested by Metaverse Group into Decentraland (MANA). By limiting the land to be purchased, the metaverses increase the property value of their virtual environments. Sandbox (SAND) permanently limits the amount of land in their metaverse to 166,464 LANDS. Similarly to the real world, the more user traffic in certain areas in the metaverse, the greater the property value price. Furthermore, more users increase the value of products due to the network effect. Investors predict that capital appreciation will occur as the metaverse gains a growing number of users, and thus the real estate can later be sold for a much higher price. Furthermore, many buildings can be built on the virtual land, such as a mall in which businesses can showcase and sell their NFTs, concert areas for virtual events, offices for online meetings, etc. Investors may aim to “rent” these virtual environments to companies for commercial purposes to recover losses. Although the real estate market in the metaverse remains largely speculative, it has significant potential. Implications of Intangible Products The line between tangible and intangible products has been blurred due to the metaverse. Goods are traditionally viewed as physical manufactured objects, while services are intangible skills that are purchased. However, technology has altered this definition. Digital products such as virtual shoes cannot be classified as services; they are goods, but they are non-physical. A better definition would be that goods are commercial units in the form of a digital or physical object, with transferable ownership. Services encompass skills, labor, and value-adding processes, which can manifest as digital or physical experiences, and are produced and consumed simultaneously. To classify a distinction between the two, we label intangible goods as digital cosmetics, NFTs, and virtual real estate, whereas intangible services are metaverse experiences. The value of intangible products is generally difficult to predict. However, the value of digital products can be controlled. In the metaverse, experiences are usually quantified with a rigid one-off access price or have in-app purchases. Intangible goods such as NFTs, digital cosmetics, or real estate are technically unlimited, however, as shown in the case of Sandbox (SAND), companies must limit quantities to increase value. Luxurious goods consist of the most rare and popular NFT products or land spaces or in the context of experiences, the ones of greatest quality and with the highest access price. Digital products can be easily altered in quantity and can be customized and produced at low costs. Products are instantly delivered, and there are few pollution concerns for digital products. Services form the basis of value in the metaverse, as customers’ primary purpose is to experience virtual worlds, and cosmetics or real estate are purchased as a supplement. All things considered, the metaverse is massively risky but has the potential to reap great rewards. Paradoxically, despite the conceptual limitlessness of the metaverse, the commercial aspect demands limitations to be placed on land or NFT quantities to create value. Other factors increasing the value include the network effects and “hype” marketing strategies. To ensure success in conducting business in the metaverse, corporations must develop captivating and immersive experiences that users perceive as worthy of investment. Initial skepticism for crypto investing is giving way to acceptance as cryptocurrencies are further substantiated within the metaverse. References Howarth, J. (2023, November 22). 75+ Metaverse Statistics (New 2024 Data). Exploding Topics. Retrieved May 7, 2024, from https://explodingtopics.com/blog/metaverse-stats (2009, June 3). YouTube: Home. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://middleeast-business.com/metas-stock-value-plunged-70-in-2022-the-biggest-drop-among-the-big-five-tech-giants/ Ahmed, A. (2022, April 26). New Survey Reveals Awareness of Virtual Reality and its Adoption Among Consumers. Digital Information World. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.digitalinformationworld.com/2022/04/new-survey-reveals-awareness-of-virtual.html Banton, C., & Kvilhaug, S. (n.d.). Network Effect: What It Is, How It Works, Pros and Cons. Investopedia. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/network-effect.asp The Basics about Cryptocurrency | CTS. (n.d.). SUNY Oswego. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.oswego.edu/cts/basics-about-cryptocurrency Bernardon, P. (2023, October 19). Digital Currency. National Geographic Society. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/digital-currency/ Community - Sandbox (Land). (n.d.). Dune Dashboards. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://dune.com/metaland/Metaverse-land-Sandbox Garrett, U. (2023, August 11). What is Roblox? Here’s everything you need to know. CNN. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/electronics/what-is-roblox Howarth, J. (2023, November 22). 75+ Metaverse Statistics (New 2024 Data). Exploding Topics. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://explodingtopics.com/blog/metaverse-stats Lawton, G. (n.d.). History of the Metaverse Explained. TechTarget. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/tip/History-of-the-metaverse-explained Mainers, J. (n.d.). Goods & Services | Definition, Differences & Examples - Lesson. Study.com. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://study.com/academy/lesson/goods-services-definition-examples.html Metaverse Property Sale for $4.3 Million in Sandbox Is Most Expensive. (2021, November 30). Markets Insider. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/metaverse-property-sandbox-virtual-real-estate-deal-record-4-million-2021-11 Mileva, G. (2023, November 6). 48 Metaverse Statistics | Market Size & Growth (2023). Influencer Marketing Hub. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://influencermarketinghub.com/metaverse-stats/ Oculus: VR Company's History, Starting From Founding, Device Creation. (2023, October 27). Business Insider. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-oculus Roblox (RBLX) Market Cap & Net Worth. (n.d.). Stock Analysis. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/rblx/market-cap/ Shewale, R. (n.d.). Roblox Statistics For 2024 (Active Players, Revenue & Usage). DemandSage. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.demandsage.com/how-many-people-play-roblox/ Virtual Reality (VR) in Retail: Guide With Examples. (2023, August 3). Fit Small Business. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://fitsmallbusiness.com/virtual-reality-in-retail/ Vlastelica, R. (2024, January 19). Meta Stock Closes at First Record High in Over Two Years. Bloomberg. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-19/meta-snaps-out-of-historic-slump-with-first-record-high-in-years What is the Metaverse? (n.d.). Meta. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from https://about.meta.com/what-is-the-metaverse/ Who's Really Using VR these days? Six Data-Driven insights into today's VR User Demographic. (2023, October 11). Medium. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://medium.com/@annabell_37704/whos-really-using-vr-these-days-six-data-driven-insights-into-today-s-vr-user-demographic-422372a75c8c Williams, A. (2022, May 26). Nike Sold an NFT Sneaker for $134,000. The New York Times. Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/style/nike-nft-sneaker.html Semmence, C. (2023, January 19). 8 forward-thinking brands in the metaverse. Underwaterpistol. Retrieved May 7, 2024, from https://www.underwaterpistol.com/blogs/ecommerce/brands-in-the-metaverse

© Boy Dominguez Trump, Orbán, Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Meloni. One thing these politicians have in common is that they are commonly considered populists. Their polemic rhetoric, right-wing sentiments, and simple-sounding solutions to complex political problems seem to appeal to a large mass of people, providing populist leaders with previously unimaginable popularity and political success. Coined “the most important European political development of the 21st century” by American author William A. Galston, populism has become an increasingly used term to describe various new political movements in liberal democracies around the globe. Yet, despite the growing prevalence of the term “populism,” - with the Cambridge Dictionary crowning it the Word of the Year in 2017 - most people would have a hard time defining it. And rightfully so. From a self-designation to an insult, a historical cause to a political ideology, populism has many different definitions, depending on who you ask. In 2018, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen called to retire the label of “populism” to describe political movements due to its overuse and lack of precision. Indeed, in popular discourse, populism has oftentimes been conflated with other ideas, like demagogy or authoritarian cults of personality. Although many of today’s populist movements are characterized by polemic rhetoric and uncontested leaders (think Trump in today’s Republican Party), neither demagogy nor authoritarian rulers are necessary features of populism. Contrary to the term “populism,” “demagogy” is an ancient concept from Classical Athens, which is used to describe someone who manipulates the people by appealing to their emotions, desires, and prejudices in order to personally gain political power. What’s important to note is that not every populist is a demagogue, or vice versa. Moreover, not every populist movement has one charismatic leader everything is built around. Consider the Brexit campaign in the UK as a real-world example to illustrate this fact. While many proponents of Brexit stoked fears and emotions to sway public opinion, not all of them resorted to such demagogic tactics, relying much more on economic arguments instead. At the same time, although Vote Leave was clearly a populist cause, it did not have one definitive leader, but rather two (more or less) charismatic men - Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson - at its helm. In any case, the Brexit movement was not centered around a particular person but was much more concerned with the cause of getting the UK to leave the EU. So, if populism is not always demagogic and doesn’t require one charismatic leader at the top everything is orchestrated around, what is it? Let’s start with the history of the word “populism.” Where Does the Term  “Populism” Come From? As mentioned before, “populism” as a term is much more of a modern invention than concepts like demagogy or democracy. American historian William Chafe pinpoints the roots of the English usage of the term ‘populism’ in a conflict between disenfranchised tenant farmers and plantation owners in the 1880s. This conflict culminated in the foundation of the People’s Party (1892-1909), also known as the Populist Party, - a working-class movement of poor people that aimed to address economic inequalities and advocate for the rights of farmers against oppressive plantation owners. It was a “grass-roots movement of rural education” which focused on closing the gap between rural poverty and urban prosperity by educating farmers about political economy. Remarkably, an unprecedented number of women joined the populist cause because they saw it as a platform to advocate for voting rights, education, and economic independence, contributing to the broader struggle for gender equality and societal progress. At the peak of its success, the 1892 US elections, the Populist Party came in a distant third place behind the Democratic and Republican Parties, managing to secure 22 out of 444 electoral votes and 8.5% of the popular vote. Ultimately, the Populist movement faded away when the Democratic and Republican Parties started to adopt and absorb parts of the Populist Party’s program. As many of the Populist Party’s supporters were people of color, the implementation of racist laws, such as literacy tests and racial segregation at schools and public facilities, dealt a heavy blow to the movement. What survived to this day is the term “populist,” in reference to a movement that is there for the people. Interestingly, the US Populist Party was not the only relevant political cause that called itself populist in the late 19th century. Between 1861 and 1890, the Russian Empire saw a very similar movement called the Narodniki (from narod = the people), commonly translated to English as the Russian Populists. The Narodniki were an early socialist movement that advocated for a form of agrarian communism that was supposed to be achieved through the education of the peasantry. As 80% of the Russian population were generally illiterate and uneducated farmers, the Narodniki believed that they could achieve a form of agrarian socialism if only they managed to educate farmers about politics. However, when the Narodniki had a hard time convincing peasants of their great plan and government prosecution became increasingly harsh, the populist movement split into several terrorist groups and, over time, lost all their relevance. Until the 1950s, most scholars of populism were concerned with investigating the history of one or the other political movement. In 1954, however, the sociologist Edward Shils reinterpreted the term “populism” to refer to various kinds of anti-establishment sentiment. And while contemporary populist movements retain some similarities to the causes of the 19th century, nowadays, the meaning of “populism” has expanded. Overall, it’s clear that 21st-century political science has a much more sophisticated understanding of the concept of populism. Populism in the 21st Century The most common definition of populism in political science today is that of Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde, who famously defined populism as an ideology that society is split into two homogenous and diametrically opposed groups: the people, who are viewed as pure and good, and the elites, who are understood as corrupt and inauthentic. This so-called ideational approach to populism reflects the common populist notion of “us” vs. “them” and calls for a moral judgment of the “them.” Elites in this context can be the political establishment, the richest 1% of the economy, Jews, “evil reptiles,” or anyone else who is framed as powerful and scheming. Following this definition, populism and demagogy can’t be the same thing because the former is an ideology while the latter is only a rhetorical tool. Populism as an ideology can be easily tied back to the class struggle of the American Populist Party and the Russian Narodniki movement. What is different now is that populism has become more of a derogative than a self-designation (although more and more populist leaders are proud to exclaim that they are populists, as in for the people). Yet, although it might seem like today’s right-wing populists - think Trump, Le Pen, Milei, etc. - have largely replaced the socialist populists of the 19th century, there are still many notable left-wing successful populist causes, such as Occupy Wall Street, Podemos in Spain, or the Austrian Communist Party (KPÖ). Populism, therefore, is an ideology that transcends the traditional left-right distinction. When describing 21st-century populism, however, one must also mention how populism in Western democracies is being influenced and nurtured by foreign forces, in particular the Russian government. Today, there’s more than enough evidence to prove that the Kremlin has spent millions of dollars to interfere in various elections and sponsor populist movements, with the goal of sowing discord and undermining democratic institutions. Increasing pessimism about the future, combined with growing economic insecurity and inequality, provides a breeding ground for populist agendas and an easy target for autocratic political interference. All of this demonstrates how populism is much more than “the politics of rage instead of reason, of the gut instead of the head” - it’s a complex and multifaceted phenomenon deeply intertwined with historical, social, and economic factors. From its origins in agrarian movements advocating for economic justice, populism has evolved. Today, it manifests as an ideology appealed to by politicians across the left-right spectrum, continuing to shape the political landscape. With more than half of the world’s population heading to the polls in 2024 - including the US - a thorough understanding of populism can help to make sense of election results and their impact on the future of democracy.

The week-old news of flooding in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has taken everyone around the world by shock. In just around 24 hours, the cities of Dubai, Al Ain, and Abu Dhabi were all clogged with water levels of up to half a foot (16 cm), double that of which the country receives in one single year. Such extreme climate conditions have been partially attributed by experts to climate change while they embark on investigating the human and natural factors that may have had a hand. However, public opinions differ, as the debate online points towards the true cause of the extreme downpour being the up-and-coming increased usage of ‘cloud seeding’ technology by the nation’s government. This method of inducing rainfall has been in development for decades now, with the number of missions being carried out increasing every year. However, what has been brought to light here goes beyond as the roots of the problem lie deeper beneath the surface. Water (in)security in the Middle East. Water security has been a national-level security issue for almost all countries in the Middle East and North Africa for over five decades now, with 83% of the region’s population being exposed to extremely high levels of water stress. The water stress index refers to the ratio of clean and freshwater reserves available for usage in proportion to renewable freshwater sources within the nation. Thus, being under high water stress means that the annual water withdrawal and usage are much higher than what can be supplied at a sustainable rate. In seven out of the top ten most water-stressed nations, all of which are in the Middle East and North Africa, the annual rate of water withdrawal is about eight times higher than the supply available to them from their renewable resources. Figure 1: wri.org/aqueduct This graph by the World Resources Institute illustrates the intensity of water stress experienced by nations across the world in 2023. The graph shows a high concentration of regions in the central equatorial belt facing extremely high water stress. Drastic weather and climate changes have led to a scarcity of freshwater in the Gulf area, with natural factors such as rainfall and high temperatures appearing to be at the core of the issue. Nonetheless, human activities such as overexploitation of natural resources (i.e. groundwater) and inefficient irrigation practices also significantly contribute to the issue. Over the last decade alone, the population of the UAE has doubled, making it one of the world’s fastest-growing populations. As a result, the average demand for water in the nation is also at the top of the list globally - with the current consumption rate being 550 litres per capita, expected to double by 2030. Although this high demand level does stem solely from personal consumption, it is proving to be pernicious as time passes. Since the 1970s, desalination plants have been a reliable source of 42% of the nation’s freshwater production. However, this choice of technology is not foolproof as these plants are run on energy generated by burning fossil fuels, so the need for one resource is being satiated at the expense of bringing detriment to another - our environment. The latter of the two is a thousand times as arduous to recover. Cloud seeding as the next step As a result, the alternative being taken up is cloud seeding, a remarkable creation through which rainfall can be artificially induced by sprinkling salting agents at an updraft angle into clouds, which then experience an increase in their precipitation rate leading to rainfall. Despite chemtrail conspiracy theorists believing that the government uses it to carry out psychological manipulation or human population control, cloud seeding is just the newfound tool of the Emirates in mitigating their perpetual struggle with water security. This technology has been shown to increase the possibility of rain by 30% and has virtually no residual wastage. Thus, the only energy going into powering these missions is the aircraft fuel burnt. Source: Polypipe (2020) Within the UAE, cloud seeding is used primarily for agricultural purposes and to deal with rising heat conditions. During peak summer, temperatures can reach as high as 50 degrees Celsius, making it extremely tough to survive the dry desert climate without sufficient hydration sources. Thus, each year, the country has been increasing the number of cloud-seeding missions it carries out; the current average is 300 missions. Just in February this year, within five days, 27 missions were carried out. Implications to keep in mind However, as with most technological advancements, cloud seeding has potential downsides. Even though psychological manipulation may not be one of these outcomes, terrestrial and aquatic life are likely to feel the ecological impact of the salting agents used. The threat of iodism, a condition caused by the most commonly used salt silver iodide, also extends to humans, with potential symptoms including skin rashes, headaches, and anaemia, among others. Those uninvolved in these projects may have to bear the cost of these unintended effects, thus introducing an ethical dimension to this practice. In addition, the scope of these missions often goes past the borders and environment of the country that carries them out. As a result, social outcomes such as geopolitical issues become a part of the conversation as well. Internationally binding treaties such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses have been introduced as regulatory frameworks that aim to ensure that nations do not overstep their bounds when employing cloud seeding. This gives the practice legal depth as well. Digging deeper into the underlying issue However, as previously pointed out, these missions were not the cause of the flooding that took place on the 16th of April, as made clear by a statement from the UAE National Centre of Meteorology. It is due to their nature (both literally and otherwise) that desert cities are not well suited to handle extreme rainfall. The geology of the Emirates is not geared to have water percolate into its ground, thus leading to flash flooding in cases of extreme and continuous rainfall, as just seen. But, the extent of the issue stretches further. Being the fastest-growing population globally, the UAE has transformed its cities at an astonishing rate. Yet, with increased urbanisation, the risk of frequent and severe flooding has also gone up as water remains landlocked due to the lack of proper drainage systems –which ironically is due to the infrequent and scarce amount of rainfall in the region. Now, measures such as pumping trucks are relied on to drain clogged water out of the streets, while nationwide weather alerts are sent out whenever unexpected showers come. Given that building and installing stormwater drainage systems at this stage is very tough, as the infrastructure of these cities has already been constructed, the danger of flooding still looms over the country's people. The harm it brings is terrifying, as the recent flooding has shown how the lack of proper drainage systems can be life-threatening, with four people having lost their lives in a week. Locals are either trapped in their homes or forced to take shelter wherever possible; three of the deaths were caused due to the individuals suffocating in their cars. What comes next? What is currently important is how the country plans to continue dealing with the threat of water insecurity, which is worsening by the day due to climate change. The UAE Water Security Strategy 2036, launched in 2017, outlines sustainable goals composed to reduce the nation’s overall water demand by 21% and increase freshwater storage capacity for emergencies. This aims to be a step closer to having a future where there is sustainable and continuous access to water. Additionally, in June of last year, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum of Dubai signed onto a massive billion-dollar sewage system plan for the city. With the recent disaster, hope is that more such undertakings will soon be on their way. The danger of global warming has been made clear, and with it, a need to work on developing measures to prepare in case of such flash flooding. Thus, research on alternative forms of risk-mitigating measures is being taken up while urgent studies are being conducted on the recent incident. Knowing the resilient composure of the sheikhs, their capacity to deal with extreme natural conditions is time-tested and evident to us all today – leaving us to simply watch how they continue ameliorating their surroundings and learning from their mistakes.

In an age where swipes replace first glances and fate may be merely algorithmic, the modern dating culture has changed dramatically. Recent research showed that by 2017, 39% of new heterosexual couples and 65% of same-sex couples met online, making it the most prevalent and growing medium for meeting new partners in this generation. This trend is said to originate from the widespread availability of smartphones and the emergence of dating apps. Source: Rosenfeld et al., 2019 There is some irony in this whole scene. Love: a romanticized concept of being swept off your feet when you least expect it, being controlled by calculated data points and mathematical models, adapted, and refined the more you click, and the more you swipe. With this in mind, does that mean that dating apps will remain (and grow) to be the main catalyst of relationships? How effective are dating app algorithms at matchmaking and how do they integrate with changing societal norms? The development of the love algorithm Today’s established dating apps, such as Tinder, Hinge, or Bumble, couldn’t exist without their simplistic predecessors. Understanding the integration of dating apps into people’s love lives starts with recognizing how these platforms progressively incorporated more facets of our daily experiences into their algorithms. It started off simple,  Plenty of Fish (POF), a dating website founded in 2003, featured a simplistic yet revolutionary basic matching algorithm. POF users were connected based on geographical proximity, demographic information, and basic preferences provided in profiles. Being a direct and straightforward approach to matching is what popularized this website. Its 3 million active users and pool of digitally active singles is what prompted Match Group, the subsidiary of Tinder and OkCupid, to acquire it in 2015. Which brings us to the next algorithm: the recommender system. The powerhouse of dating algorithms: the recommender system represents the core of today’s dating apps. It acts as a machine learning algorithm that uses Big Data to recommend additional users. In dating apps, two types of recommender systems are employed to matchmake: content filtering and collaborative filtering. “We swiped on the same people and we’re similar, so I might like the people you matched with too!”, That’s the centerpiece behind collaborative filtering, used by dating apps like Tinder and Hinge. It is assumed that users with similar preferences will have similar patterns of behaviour on the app, so the algorithm leverages choices of similar users to make recommendations to other users. Essentially, it recommends users who people similar to you matched with, and is the recommender system most commonly used in today’s apps. “You’ve matched with people who like hiking, so I’ll show you more profiles of people who like hiking!”. Content based filtering analyses attributes and keywords associated in a database, tailoring the recommendations by focusing on those individual preferences (such as hiking) and aligning options accordingly. It has been less widely used nowadays but is employed in Match.com and OkCupid. Looking at this scenario mathematically, the goal of dating app algorithms can be framed as maximizing the likelihood of successful matches based on predefined criteria and preferences, and optimizing the likelihood by leveraging recommendations from similar users. This involves minimizing the discrepancy between users' stated preferences and the characteristics of their matches, ultimately aiming to increase the probability of mutual interest and compatibility between individuals. However, if the final goal is a relationship, mutual interest doesn’t guarantee longevity, as much as initial chemistry which may be prolonged. “Get people clicking and they’ll take it from there” seems to be the slogan behind the dating apps. But is the quick “swiping” led by superficial factors enough to guarantee that spark? Why do we flock to dating apps? Apart from the obvious impact of widespread technology, which has led to a more digitized social experience, there are generational shifts (and gaps) between age groups and evolving social norms that explain why online dating is increasingly popular, yet slightly problematic. User behavior Regardless of its medium, social validation remains sought after. When joining dating platforms, the desire to be validated increases exponentially. A study shows that dating app users are said to be grouped into four groups which prompt different user behavior: The Relationship Readies, the Swipeaholics, the Faithless, and Eligible Optimists. I would like to focus on the Swipeaholics. The Swipeaholics use dating apps for entertainment, to pass time and to see who’s there. This behavior is mainly featured in 16–25-year-olds and is most common for Gen-Z (our generation). This excessive swiping may lead to psychological consequences. The prolonged swiping results in eventual matches, which end up being perceived as rewards of mutual acceptances. As a youth, it can be difficult to self-regulate and disengage from these rewards. Therefore, the average user will access Tinder 11 times a day! The algorithm also effectively encourages Swipeaholics, as non-communicative sources perfectly suit Gen-Z, who already swipe through social media profiles… this was just taking it to the next level. Safe to say, these bunch aren’t necessarily looking for commitment as of now, but this behavior may affect them when they do. The swiping can foster cynicism in users. On dating apps, one can be sure of minimal attraction as two people wouldn’t match otherwise, it results in comfort and risk-free dating. This causes dating app users to be overly cautious when approaching someone in real-life, authentically. Suddenly it’s not risk-free, and there’s a possibility you may look “stupid” off the screen. That can result in being so out of touch from real-life social interactions that any development in friendships or relationships is dramatic and anxiety-inducing. Stepping away and “ghosting” or blocking instead of dealing with matters at hand. After all, we have the privilege to do so with a digitized presence. This risk-averse behavior extends to forming relationships. One may attempt to label for comfort: talking stage, situationship, exclusivity. This also results in over-sensitivity in dating lives, especially with dating apps making meeting people as accessible as can be. A small “ick” over text may burn a potential connection, generational pickiness due to statistical chances of finding more. Profile creation and self-idealization To survive the priorly mentioned generational pickiness, users tend to over-glamorize their identities. However, this self-idealization isn’t just a product of dating apps, but of a pervasive online presence ingrained from a young age, something unheard of for generations before us. This prolonged exposure has instilled in us a habit of constantly defining and categorizing ourselves. It goes beyond just basic demographics; we also meticulously curate our online presence, showcasing our fashion sense, musical tastes, and overall artificial “vibe” to anyone who stumbles upon our profiles. On one hand, that is exactly why dating apps are increasingly popular in our generation, we translate our social media presence from one platform to another. The constant self-presentation has become second nature and may occur more naturally on dating apps than many would care to admit. However, the problem is that we're not one-dimensional beings, and social media profiles nurture a misleading self-idealization. We're complex individuals with layers that can't all be neatly packaged into an online profile. A survey conducted in 2019 showcased that a growing number of over 50% of online daters lie about factors of all sorts, from body figures to jobs. So, when online personas clash with real-life identities, it may set up offline encounters for failure. Will we be swiping for an eternity? Regardless of any judgement, one may have about the way dating apps impact society, they successfully fit into our norms as a generation. A lot of people wonder, do they “work”, without considering that the success criteria differs per person. Some want higher self-esteem, some want to casually date, some want casual sex, and some want a relationship. Different apps may attain all of those goals in different frequencies that differ per person. However, when discussing matchmaking, couples, and relationships, statistics enlighten. Source: Medium, 2021 42% of U.S. adults believe online dating facilitates the search for a long-term partner, even though it is estimated that about 10% of people in committed relationships met their partner on dating apps. Therefore, dating apps remain the preferred method to find dates (as 45% declare), which is followed by friend connections (33%). So are they here to stay? Most probably. Especially as the reliance on social media for socialization persists. Do they work? Not as much as for casual relationships. I believe as a generation, that our dating experiences are shaped more by our mindset than by finding the perfect person due to the previously discussed risk-averse nature. It's only when we feel emotionally stable and ready for a relationship that we allow ourselves to pursue one, which may mean that dating apps become more effective as we get older and confident in our identities. However, if we resonate with the mindset of never feeling completely ready, it shouldn’t mean we're undeserving of love along the way. Taking risks and embracing vulnerability can lead to beautiful connections, even if there's a chance of getting hurt. Ultimately, we have the freedom to choose how we navigate our love lives, and dating apps may offer a powerful tool for doing so. As long as Cupid’s aim is sharpened, who cares about how he does so?

From Adoption to Integration: The Eurozone's Influence on European Markets No matter if you want to grab some ice cream on a sunny day, run to the supermarket to grab a drink, or have lunch with your friends, chances are you use the Euro. This is, of course, if you are within the European Union, more specifically, the Eurozone. This “zone” spans 20 EU countries and forms the EU’s monetary union. Often overlooked by many, it allows you to enjoy life without much hassle and the need to convert to any other currency if you are traveling. Your day-to-day tasks, services, food and drinks, and more are all paid for in euros within the Eurozone. The Eurozone celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, and the euro is continually developing as one of the largest currencies in the world. Originally, even before the effective circulation of the Euro as a currency, it was legally set in stone within the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 whereby all EU countries were obliged to adopt the Euro as their universal currency in due time, once compliant with all fiscal and monetary benchmarks set out in the Convergence Criteria. Fast forward some 25 years, the  Eurozone seems to hold the confidence of its users and the foreign exchange market. Even IMF data shows that of the global currency reserves held cumulatively by all countries, the Euro holds a 20% stake, putting it in second place right behind the US Dollar. However, not all EU states have adopted the Euro yet. Most recently, Croatia joined the Eurozone in 2023, marking the 20th EU Member State to have joined. This implies that 7 of them have not yet adopted the Euro. The reasons vary, from political unwillingness to fiscal criteria remaining unfulfilled. With global geopolitics becoming unstable and other threats like pandemics on the horizon, the stability of currencies is put into question. Whether or not it is economically viable for potential Eurozone members to join remains up for debate. This leads to several key questions, mainly: how can EU members ensure their participation leads to a bright future with higher welfare for all citizens of the European Union? The Euro has been widely successful in its growth and circulation for several key monetary reasons. Consisting of members including Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain, it has managed to attain the wide use of the populations of those countries making the effective daily user figure an astounding 341 million. This daily use inspires further confidence in the currency and its potential, as people and companies can maintain their connection and minimize foreign exchange fees, ultimately presenting a positive effect on the volume and flow of economic transactions taking place within the EU. Petroulas (2007) finds that there was an increase in inward foreign direct investment (FDI) of 16% in the Eurozone area following the introduction of the Euro. One added benefit of joining the Eurozone is the Euro Privilege. This refers to the statistically significant tendency of credit rating agencies such as Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch which would upgrade the country’s rating in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 notches before the financial crisis of 2008 and even 1 to 1.5 after it. This points to a significant positive credit rating as a result of joining the Eurozone. It is visible that Euro adoption was a common strategy and a very beneficial one for all involved. Despite the mass success the Eurozone has had, several EU states remain outside the Eurozone. These states include Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Sweden. One additional state not yet in the monetary union is Denmark whose membership in the Eurozone is not obligatory due to them negotiating an opt-out. What most of these states have in common is their political unwillingness to adopt the currency, mainly due to the issue of losing the monetary policy and control mechanisms usually at the disposal of every individual state’s government. This theoretically allows them to adapt to crises and state-specific fiscal issues such as inflation. Furthermore, it allows for a stable and planned approach of governments in line with their specific national strategies for growth and development. De Grauwe (2011) argues that the danger comes from the inability of countries to issue sovereign bonds to guarantee they will have the necessary liquidity to pay off the bonds at maturity, as this is outside their scope of control. This, indeed, pushes towards a self-fulfilling liquidity crisis, potentially forcing the state to default. Under the monetary system of states with their national currencies, investors need not worry as the central banks are always there to introduce a monetary inflow in times of need. The peculiar thing, according to De Grauwe and Ji (2022), is that in the years leading to the financial crisis of 2008, the bond yields of Eurozone countries all had a near-perfect strong positive correlation with each other. This meant investors’ perception of the riskiness of bonds was equal for all Eurozone members despite the intricacies of each country's fiscal policies and state of affairs. It seemed as if the Euro by its existence and implementation, created unprecedented confidence. However, leading up to the financial crisis, a sudden change was to be noticed where investors questioned their risk exposure, thus opting to funnel their capital from weaker economies, such as Greece’s, to more stable ones, such as the Netherlands’ and Germany’s perceived as safer. This meant the bond yields of developed Eurozone members decreased while Greece’s sharply increased, to account for more risk exposure (See Figure 1). This led to their financial instability ultimately warranting the involvement of the International Monetary Fund and foundational capital restructuring to sustain the operation of the country. One of the positives of this unfortunate turn of events was a shift in European Central Bank governance principles. The ECB continuously introduced bailout fail-safes which further strengthened the Eurozone members. Furthermore, it reassured investors their capital was reasonably safe and promoted further investments. Confidence in the stability and relative lower riskiness of bonds was gradually restored. Figure 1: Bond yields for EU states 1999 - 2021 Poland is one of the few relatively larger economies that still fails to adopt the Euro on account of its own currency’s flexibility. This means they consider their national currency, the Polish Złoty, to be a monetary tool open for use by their government. This can be used to curb inflation, adjust a budget deficit, or respond to a dire need. An overarching goal is to increase GDP, which is expected to be more easily achieved exactly by maintaining its national currency. In particular, Karnowski and Rzońca (2023) argue the adoption of the Euro may trigger a so-called boom-bust cycle, which is excessive borrowing due to lower interest rates. They further state that keeping the Polish Zloty maintains more robust control over economic policy alignment with more developed EU states instead of the pressure and strain that adoption would imply. Sweden also applies similar principles and considers data points suggesting a potential negative GDP per capita impact of 6.5% had it joined the Eurozone in the period 1999 to 2013. Furthermore, projections showed there would be limited economic benefits from joining the Eurozone, as Sweden already has well-established economic ties and trade. Similar principles apply to Denmark, which has negotiated an opt-out, meaning it is not legally obliged to join the Eurozone. Figure 2: Central Bank Interest Rates PL, BG, RO, EU, SE On the other hand, Hungary and the Czech Republic, while maintaining their position as key transit countries between EU states for trade and economic activities, still maintain a strong hold on their national currencies. Overall, the adoption of the Euro for these countries would have a comparatively greater positive effect than that of Sweden and Denmark. While whether they will join the Eurozone is not a question as it is a key step in EU integration, political willingness is necessary in the long term. The Euro is projected to have marginal effects on more developed countries and moderate to high effects on relatively less developed countries of Central Europe. Figure 3: Eurostat GDP per capita for EU states On the other hand, Bulgaria and Romania, as countries on the lower side of EU GDP rankings, are seeking to strengthen their position as well. This means they politically and operationally remain on track to join the Eurozone soon. While Bulgaria has already entered into the further stage of adoption, ERM II of the adoption process, Romania remains behind. It is predicted there will be an increase of 15% of GDP over a 20-year horizon​ once Bulgaria adopts the Euro. Reasons behind this include the increased influx of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and the reduced cost of capital that is likely to result from it (Ganev, 2009). For Romania, which has one of the largest seaports – Constanta – enabling large volumes of trade to the rest of Europe, will most certainly benefit from the decrease in the costs of currency conversions (deadweight loss) and a more direct effect on streamlining the further increase in transit and trade volume. Some of the added benefits that have the potential to accelerate Romania’s industrial development are the cheaper credit sources compared to those currently available in Romanian Leu and national commercial banking institutions. Romania has set 2024 as its goal to join the Eurozone; however, it seems this will be delayed as it has yet to progress to the second stage of Euro adoption, which involves foundational monetary changes. Moreover, it is recommended Romania strengthen its approach to economic reforms and a stronger judiciary to enforce those reforms (Spendzharova, 2003). Despite obstacles on their way, Romania and Bulgaria are well underway to join the Eurozone and this will ultimately have an expansionary effect on their economies. While the Eurozone is conceptually and legally set to expand in the future, the economic effects of that process are uncertain. More developed EU Member States, such as Sweden and Denmark, do not seem to have much of a tangible need for such a step. On the other hand, developing countries such as Romania and Bulgaria and some moderately-developed countries such as Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland all have a foundational macroeconomic argumentation to continue with the process. This is particularly pronounced for the Balkan region, where GDP is generally the lowest in the EU. Losing sovereign monetary policy mechanisms makes more sense for those countries, namely Bulgaria and Romania, as the benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. However, it seems pertinent for the European Central Bank to impose stricter control mechanisms to ensure that crises such as that of Greece in 2010 can be assuredly avoided. With careful planning and governance systems, the ECB can ensure the Euro continues to grow and dominate the world as one of the most reliable and stable currencies. Further reading: Campos, N. F., F., Coricelli, F., Moretti, L., & Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. (2016). Sweden and the Euro: The neglected role of EU membership. European Policy Analysis, https://www.sieps.se/publikationer/2016/sweden-and-the-euro-the-neglected-role-of-eu-membership-201615epa/sieps_2016_15epa.pdf European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Erhart, S. (2021). The impact of euro adaption on sovereign credit ratings and long-term rates, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/59588

It is hard to understate the overwhelming growth of globalisation over the past 50 years. Owning appliances labelled with "Made in China," t-shirts tagged with "Made in Bangladesh," shoes stamped with "Made in Vietnam," and eating pears freshly packed from halfway across the world has become just another part of our mundane, ordinary consumption habits. The world's shipping facilities and connections functioned seemingly well until the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, news of shipping delays, increased costs, and bottlenecks seem unending. First lockdowns, then travel restrictions, then a ship stuck on the Suez Canal, then Russia's invasion of Ukraine, then low water levels in the Panama Canal, and, most recently, attacks on ships in the Gulf of Aden; the shipping industry has been through rough seas. Simultaneously, policymakers and managers signal a pivot towards more resilient, albeit costlier, supply chains. With the foundations of the shipping industry shaken to their core, the future is uncertain. How will shipping adapt to the coming decade? Is the era of cheap products from overseas over? How Did We Get Here? Maritime travel is (and historically always was) the cheapest and often quickest form of transport. However, today's level of international connectedness has never been the norm: worldwide shipping is a truly modern phenomenon. Geopolitical, economic, and technological conditions of the late 20th century made ideal conditions for the exponential growth of trade. This can be best understood through an application of the traditional Ricardian model, showing ocean trade's role in facilitating economies' gains from trading . According to David Ricardo's theory, countries specialise in sectors where they hold a comparative advantage (lower relative opportunity costs of production). The mid-20th century saw immense technological advancements facilitating oceanic trade. The development of a standard, easy-to-use container type for the whole world, along with advancements in GPS tracking, communications, shipbuilding, and, most recently, automation, have streamlined and cheapened oceanic transport. That is, the technology and standardisation of shipping have created an industry with massive economies of scale and, thus, very low unit costs. A pair of shoes, for instance, can be shipped from Shanghai to Los Angeles for less than USD 0.40. For a product that may retail at USD 40, maritime transport becomes essentially a non-cost. These low average costs have allowed countries to leverage the sectors where they hold a comparative advantage and supersize their trade output. The shipping industry also rode the wave of international geopolitical stability to expand its web of shipping lanes. Since World War II, the United States has been willing to protect the trade of allied (or at least subservient) nations in exchange for the continued supremacy of the USA and the Dollar. With its powerful navy, capable of projecting power worldwide, the USA provided growing export economies with the security they needed to invest heavily in their productive capacities,and, hence, expand their comparative advantage). The late 20th century witnessed a desire of Western corporations to outsource manufacturing to cheaper locations. This rise in demand for cheaper manufacturing was met with increasing supply of cheaper industrial output in other regions of the globe. Several Asian economies, exemplified by China, propelled their growth by propitiating the latter. The simultaneous rise in supply and demand for trade placed the shipping industry in the perfect position to maximise countries' gains from their comparative advantage. This arrangement benefited all parties: Western populations now had access to more and cheaper consumer goods, Asian countries saw unprecedented growth, and shipping companies saw a steadily rising bottom line. The oceanic shipping industry generates value by minimising the 'transaction costs' of trading. Whereas in the past, foreign-made garments and objects were signs of wealth, they are now commoditized necessities of the public. Through a never-ending quest for economies of scale, the shipping industry has facilitated the optimization of the terms of trade throughout the world. However, the thin margins and predictability on which oceanic trade rests have been continuously challenged in this new decade. Rough Seas Since Corona The 2020s have supplied a constant flow of instability and crises in all shapes and sizes. Starting with COVID-19, followed by the war in Ukraine, a growing not-China sentiment, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, and strained geographical bottlenecks, the shipping industry has been in the news more than normal (and more than it would like). The shipping market is derived from the structure and demands placed by global supply chains. As the latter starts to change, the former will need to adapt. The COVID-19 pandemic brought the combined issues of increased demand and shut-off supply chains to rock the container transport industry. People, forced to stay at home, ordered more consumer goods than ever before (especially since 2021). Coupled with expansionary monetary policy and ample fiscal stimuli, demand for shipping was at an all-time high. Widespread travel restrictions and China's prolonged and recurring lockdowns increased producers' and oceanic transporters' unit costs. The Russian invasion of Ukraine disrupted food and energy supply chains, thus also disrupting shipping flows between producers and consumers of food and energy. Most notably, European countries' (over)reliance on Russian energy was exposed. More broadly, developed economies quickly realised the danger of relying on single suppliers, especially those from erratic autocracies with large geopolitical ambitions. The shocks to food and energy flows exacerbated capacity limitations and greatly increased shipping costs. As such, 2022 was, for most, a year of soaring inflation and unreliable foreign shipments. Late 2023 saw another conflict-related shipping disruption: Houthi attacks on ships traversing the Bab-el Mandeb on their way to the Suez Canal. The attacks skyrocketed prices of maritime insurance and shipping rates between Asia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf to Europe and North America. Consequently, many ships have since taken to the much longer route around Africa, avoiding missile strikes but returning to nearly forgotten 19th-century trade routes. The 2020s have also seen additional strain on other geographical shipping bottlenecks. The Panama Canal, which had been functioning at full capacity for many years, faced near-existential threats from decreasing rainfall reducing the supply of water for its locks. Since January, the canal has allowed only 24 ships to traverse it daily, down from 36 ships months earlier. The restriction has led to delays and increased shipping costs. Looking Ahead The shipping industry is not "creative"; its value comes from fulfilling the need for connection between productive and consuming locations. The oceanic shipping market is derived from the structure of the world's supply chains. As such, whatever the future holds for the world's shipping enterprises is inextricably linked to that of supply chains. Shipping companies respond to the direction of the world economy, not so much the other way around. The recent supply shocks and subsequent inflation have led companies and governments in consumer-driven developed economies to seriously consider "de-globalizing" their supply chains: choosing robustness over cheapness. Throughout Western governments, industrial policies focused on reaching more self-reliance (at least in key strategic sectors) have been popular since 2022. However, the infrastructure investments and pivoting of subsidy & tariff policies will likely take many years to effect major changes. Companies have similarly expressed intentions of pivoting their supply chains toward greater reliability. However, any changes so far have been slow and superficial. Despite a growing "not-China" rhetoric and its decreasing wage advantage over Southeast Asian manufacturers, it remains the powerhouse of the world's supply chains (and its robust shipping infrastructure only cements its position). Additionally, the added reliability publicised by Western multinationals has materialised as increasing inventory and simply finding an additional supplier (sourcing the product from two rather than one company). This could mean weaker economies of scale for importers and shipping companies as container flows become more dispersed. More broadly, manufacturing supply chains are shifting around in Asia, not, as is often romanticised, returning to Europe and North America. For the shipping industry, this means its global importance should continue. Shipping may not grow at the rapid pace of the 2000s, but it's also not going anywhere. Nonetheless, changing production regions in Asia could mean a (somewhat) costly adaptation period in the medium term. The tension between cheap versus reliable supply chains needs to not be a threat to the shipping industry, as exemplified by the strategies of the two largest container shipping companies: the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and Maersk. MSC has sought to outgun competitors with their capacity, keeping unit costs low at the expense of service quality. Maersk offers more expensive but better service with added flexibility and data-driven insights. The interplay between the two (and other shipping giants) is complex, however, the two firms could be well-positioned to each meet the future needs of exporters and importers. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was extremely disruptive to supply chains and, thus, oceanic transport. However, the outcome of the war (assuming no major escalation) is unlikely to change shipping flows any more than it has. In spite of thoroughly havoced maritime trade, the most significant disruptions are in the past. Russian relations and economic ties with Western countries are already (essentially) ruined and should not return to pre-2022 levels. Furthermore, Ukraine's productive capacities are not only aimed at the war effort but also severely impaired from the conflict for many years to come. Just as the industry seemed to be getting back on its feet, Houthi strikes on the Red Sea severely destabilised Asia-Europe shipping. However, since November 2023, the USA and EU militaries have formed military coalitions aimed at restoring security for maritime commerce (USA and allies: Operation Prosperity Guardian, EU: Operation Aspides). It is unlikely Houthi strikes will survive continued foreign retaliation. Overall, market sentiment is that the worst of the crisis has passed, but it will take several months for a return to normalcy. Most likely, the current crisis will follow a trajectory similar to the Somali Pirate attacks of the 2010s, which were put down after international military action. The shipping industry is a slow-moving, asset-heavy, and thus conservative one. Currently, it plays a waiting game: looking for definitive long-term plans while also evading sequential short-term issues. Most likely, current short-term shocks will be resolved or worked around fully. Its long-term future will be determined by where production centres move to. This movement will not eliminate the need for oceanic trade, though its flows may change. Globalised trade is here to stay. Due to obvious geographic constraints, maritime trade will remain vulnerable to geopolitical instability, climate crises, and capacity constraints in the future. For the past 2-3 years, politicians and companies have expressed a desire for "robust," "resilient," "independent," and "efficient" supply chains, but when push comes to shove, cheap Shein clothes, year-round fresh peaches, product variety, and cheap EVs — everyone's bottom line — are winning out and here to stay.

Family environments in the first years of life are key to a child's development. Recent evidence in the field of behavioral economics suggests that the quality of the interactions between parents and children can be challenged by behavioral barriers that preclude a good bonding between the caregiver and the child, and ultimately affect child development. Which behavioral barriers may interfere in early environments? • Present bias or high discount rates. Parents may fail to internalize future benefits from their investment in parenting practices and make shortsighted investment decisions on their children. • Complexity of the parental role, lack of attention, and diversion of the cognitive resources necessary to carry out the parental tasks. For instance, the stress associated with financial problems and social isolation can reduce self-control and consume cognitive resources that prevent their allocation to good parenting. • Negative identities. When negative identities are prevalent, parents feel that they are not capable of positively influencing their children’s development and well-being. Parenting interventions, such as home visits, have been effective in improving parenting practices. These interventions, however, are too costly to be implemented at scale given that they need to be carried out by highly trained facilitators. The challenge is to design interventions that can be scaled up to broad fractions of the population. With a group of economists and psychologists, we designed Crianza Positiva, a low-cost intervention to support parents of children aged 0 to 2 in their parenting roles. The program leverages technology and consists of text and audio messages sent three times a week for six months. It is delivered after parents complete an 8-week parenting workshop. The messages aim to increase parental investment by activating several mechanisms.  First, they seek to highlight the benefits of good parenting practices, through reminders about the benefits of different parental behaviors. In this way, they attempt to mitigate present bias. On the other hand, messages seek to break down complex parenting tasks into simpler tasks with simple suggestions and concrete activities. Thus, they attempt to address inattention and cognitive fatigue. Third, the messages attempt to transform negative identities into positive ones, by stimulating self-care and the identification of existing parental resources. In Bloomfield et al. (2023) we evaluated the effects of the e-messaging program on parental investment through a randomized controlled trial. Participant families attended Uruguay’s ‘Children and Family Care Centers’ (CAIF) (publicly funded, privately managed early childhood centers). After attending the parenting workshop, families were randomly assigned into a treatment and control group. Families in both groups participated in the 8-week workshop, but only those in the treatment group received text and audio messages. Results were promising: we found incremental effects over the workshop on the quantity of parental investment, as measured by the frequency of parental involvement with the child, and the quality of parental investment, given by measures of parental outreach for social support and parental reflective capacity. Our work contributes to a growing literature exploiting the combination of e-messages and nudges to boost early childhood development at scale. Our results suggest the large potential of these very low-cost interventions, based on mobile technology and the understanding of behavioral biases, to enhance parental behaviors, competences and attitudes.

An interview with Professor Arnoud Boot It is 2 pm—the first sunny Monday of the year in Amsterdam. As I climb up the almost never-ending stairs of the ABS building, I review my notes—the order of questions I plan to ask and the article structure that can arise from them. Forty minutes later, I leave Professor Arnoud Boot's office with my head buzzing from the information I gained about corporate taxation. What follows is the result of my intellectual adventures at the office of the esteemed professor of Corporate Finance and Financial Markets. With the elections in the US coming up this autumn, the discourse about corporate taxation is heating up again after four years. Economists and business leaders await expectantly and are left considering what the results of this presidential election will mean for their own businesses and the economy. In 2017, Donald Trump introduced a new corporate tax rate of 21%, which marked the most significant cut in three decades. These changes are scheduled to be revised in 2025, and, if victorious in the upcoming elections, Joe Biden is seeking to propose an increase in the tax amount that corporations will have to provide. This brings up various questions: Which is the correct rate? What is the most efficient mix of taxation, and is the current system even sustainable? In this interview, I will use one of Professor Boot's many publications, Corporate Tax Reform, from the Statement of the Financial Economists Roundtable, as a source. In the paper, the authors describe the current corporate tax system in the United States and explore its efficiency. It is an insightful read; I would recommend it to anyone who is looking to improve their knowledge on the topic. Let us begin the interview. In your article, you mentioned that the US is at a relative disadvantage compared to countries with other tax systems. Can you explain why this might be the case and which factors play a role in this situation? A disadvantage is a somewhat negative expression. Yes, on the one hand, the US, with its relatively high corporate tax and low VAT, might hurt the economy's competitiveness, but on the other hand, the country can afford to do so. It is so powerful that this disadvantage can be called a mere nuance. Your paper distinguishes between two types of systems: the worldwide tax system and the territorial system. What are the main differences between the two? The US uses a worldwide system; this signifies that corporations are taxed on all business activities, including those carried out in foreign countries. This works through companies paying a top-up rate, which is equal to the difference between the tax rate of the foreign country and the US. However, the extra percentage is only due for payment if the money is repatriated back to the US. This aspect encourages corporations to have large amounts of foreign cash holdings. On the contrary, a territorial rate means that corporations are only taxed for their activities inside the country's borders. Which of the systems would you say is most efficient? It is difficult to evaluate the net costs and benefits of each system. The US historically uses one worldwide rate, which sounds good and seems reasonable in principle, but being able to hoard money abroad creates problems. In the territorial system, transfer pricing issues are very complicated. In an ideal world (which is most certainly not this one), using the worldwide tax system by all countries involved would seem to be the most logical, considering the transfer pricing effect of a territorial system. Now, we focus on the size of tax rates. Would high corporate taxation drive companies with headquarters in the country out of the US? In theory, a higher US tax rate can lead to tax inversion, the process of companies leaving the country to seek lower obligations; however, in the case of the US, this is not a danger. The government has so many benefits to offer companies that a high tax rate would not drive them out. Having to pay higher tariffs or risk losing American customers for political reasons is much more dangerous for companies than a couple of percent increase in tax bills. I'm slightly turning away from the US and focusing on the general aspects of taxing. What are some other issues you would mention? Well, firstly, it is important to mention competition across countries. Large multinationals find themselves in an advantageous position with respect to tax attributes compared to domestic companies. This arises from their ability to take advantage of different tax amounts. Shifting profits from one country to the other can significantly decrease a firm's tax bill. Furthermore, multinationals can enjoy the benefits of tax havens, while smaller domestic companies cannot. Moreover, it is essential to mention that all kinds of taxes cause distortions. For example, taxing income may reduce people's willingness to consume, or taxing corporation activities may reduce people's sense of investing. What would be the most efficient tax if not income and corporations? Morbidly, taxing the dead is almost the cheapest. Inheritance taxation, for instance, does not significantly increase distortions. While it is no longer in place in the US, it is in Europe. Moreover, taxing real estate is also a better way to limit distortion. VAT is somewhere in between. While it does not put pressure on income and only slightly affects consumption, it can hurt lower-income citizens, which means there is a clear order of efficiency in taxing, starting from the dead and real estate and ending at corporations and income. Now heading towards politics. As mentioned earlier, the two candidates' opinions on corporate taxation differ in the upcoming elections. What would be the impact of a Trump victory on the field? While it is true that, in theory, there is a disagreement between the two presidents, in reality, Donald Trump's actions MAY not change corporate decisions significantly. He emphasizes that cutting the taxes on corporations would increase the willingness to invest, thus resulting in economic growth; however, the reality might be different. The situation is more likely that Trump would like to give benefits to the rich, which he can achieve with a decrease in taxes. His story does not make sense, as he wants to decrease corporate taxation while not increasing other forms of government revenues. If not taxation, what would you say is the most significant difference between the presidential candidates? It is all about market power. While Donald Trump is a fan of large, dominating corporations, Joe Biden is not and emphasizes the need for competition more. Circling back to taxing, this aspect can also mean a flaw in the Republican president's logic. Reducing corporate taxes only impacts investments by firms with low market power, meaning that a tax reduction would be more efficient in Joe Biden's system. What really matters is the mix, not only corporate taxation. How do you see the upcoming elections? The decisive factor of the upcoming elections will not come down to economic policies enacted during Biden's term. The current president cannot be blamed for his implications, as the US economy has been excellent during his term. Rather, social and cultural issues will be of great significance. As we slowly approach the end of our interview, I would like to ask you about the effects of the US on European policymaking. Given the country's trend-setting aspect, how does the largest economy in the world impact the European continent and the EU with respect to corporate taxation? Overall, the US has positively affected European decision-making on tax. In a sense, the country motivated Brussels to go after tax-avoiding corporations and so-called tax havens. However, with respect to taxing policies in general, nothing conclusive can be argued. Undoubtedly, the US has a huge amount of soft power, but given the vast differences along many decisions, it is not really significant in the sense of corporate taxation. Having mentioned positive effects, can you mention any adverse impacts of the US concerning corporations? Most certainly. It is always worth mentioning market power. The European Union needs help fighting giant US corporations in big tech. These companies have excessive market dominance, from which concerns of abusing power arise. The EU is trying to decrease the power of these companies with partial success. Furthermore, it is essential to mention the earlier agreed corporate compliance policies, like SOX (Sarbanes Oxley Act), back in 2022 and, more recently, the public company accounting oversight board (PCAOB). These actions are adjustments in the US legal system to contain corporate misbehavior; European corporations were also brought into the topic. For example, by having to meet US reporting rules, the country has effectively an extraterritorial impact on European companies. We are closing our interview with politics. What impact would a possible change of US presidential administrations have on Europe? Donald Trump views the US trade deficit as a disadvantage and a sign of weakness. While it is debatable, he blames the European surplus for his country's alleged disadvantage. In my opinion, this needs to be corrected. The US can afford a trade deficit, and blaming Europe or its tax system for it is simply wrong. To sum up, the knowledge acquired from speaking with Professor Arnoud Boot highlighted the complicated subject of corporate taxation and its consequences for the US and Europe. Political leaders' decisions have an important effect on the business community and society as a whole as we navigate the complicated landscape of tax laws. The upcoming US presidential elections cast a shadow of uncertainty over the future trajectory of corporate taxation. While the debate between worldwide and territorial tax systems persists, the potential impact of tax rate changes also remains a subject of contention. As Professor Boot aptly notes, the efficacy of taxation systems cannot be examined in isolation; instead, a nuanced understanding of market dynamics, government policies, and global economic forces is imperative. Essentially, Professor Boot's conversation highlights how interconnected the world's economic systems are and how intimately politics, taxation, and market forces interact. The knowledge gained from these conversations is vital in helping us form policies and promote cross-border communication as we set on the path toward economic recovery and sustainable growth.

Earlier this year, the Financial Times published an article claiming that recent years have shown a widening ideological gap between young men and women. Historic patterns suggest that because of their shared formative experiences, members of the same generation tend to share similar beliefs and move as one on the political spectrum, regardless of gender. However, recent data indicates that this assumption does not hold true for our generation, with young women becoming increasingly progressive while young men remain more conservative. Given the remarkable progress towards women’s equality of the last decades and the impact of the #MeToo campaign that started in 2017, the fact that young women tend to lean towards the left is hardly surprising. In the meantime, the fact that young men increasingly shift towards the right or even the far-right is a rather striking and concerning pattern. But what are the causes of this emerging gender divide, why is it almost exclusive to Gen-Z, and what does it have to do with Andrew Tate and the Barbie movie? First, let’s look at the data! Source: Financial Times, 2024 The graphs presented by John Burn-Murdoch in the Financial Times shows the political ideology of 18–29-year-olds over time in South Korea, the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom. While there are some discrepancies amongst the countries, we can clearly see that in all these cases there is an emerging gap between women and men based on their alignment along the liberal-conservative binary amongst 18–30-year-olds. One thing I found interesting is that in all of these countries, the existence of the divide in which women tend to be more liberal than men is fairly new. Actually, for much of history, the exact opposite was the case, as traditionally, women were found to be more right-leaning. However, as the diagrams show, from around the 1990s, this ‘ideological gender gap’ has reversed, which could be attributed to structural changes that have fundamentally altered women’s role and position in society. These include variables such as increased participation of women in the labour market, greater economic independence and improved educational opportunities. As women became more integrated into the workforce and more educated, their ideological alignment also started to skew more towards the left, eventually surpassing that of men. This pattern was further accelerated by the outburst of the #MeToo campaign in 2017, which was especially impactful amongst younger women. Source: Ruth Dassonneville, 2021 During the same timeframe, the political leanings of young men remained relatively stable, experiencing less drastic shifts than their female counterparts. However, since 2017, there has been a notable departure from this trend, with young men actively gravitating towards more right-wing ideologies, further widening the ideological gap. This trend is the most pronounced in South Korea, where the values of young men have undergone a significant transformation, with a nearly 40 percentage point difference observed in just the past six years. Although less drastic, similar trends are present in Europe and the United States as well. This is evident in the increasing support among young men for far-right political parties such as Germany's AFD, Poland's Confederation party, Hungary's Mi Hazánk, and even the political camp of Donald Trump in the US. So then, the data reveals an emerging trend since the 2010s which is characterised by dual shifts. On the one hand, the #MeToo movement catalysed a growing liberal stance among young women, which is not entirely surprising. More intriguing, it also triggered a substantial number of young men to be more right-leaning, marking an unexpected counterbalance. Furthermore, as data by Change Research shows, it seems that the emerging polarisation of women and men is either exclusive to or far more pronounced in younger generations than older ones. So then why is it that young people are more divided than ever? What really drives this gendered polarisation of our generation, and why are other age groups less affected by it? I believe that the ‘Great Gender Divide’ boils down to two important factors: economics and technology. Let’s break it down! The Economic Factor To put it lightly, Gen-Z has a rather pessimistic economic outlook compared to other generations. In light of the 2008 economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, this is hardly surprising as both of these events resulted in economic stagnation. Combine that with inflation, soaring living costs, unaffordable housing, political turmoil, and the looming threat of climate change, and the dream of a secure future feels like wishful thinking. Many young people worry that they’ll never be able to own a home, retire comfortably, or break free from the cycle of living paycheck to paycheck. But why is Gen-Z more negative about the future than other age groups? Research shows that those who experienced economic growth in their youth are more likely to believe in the possibility of shared prosperity. So, while the effects of economic stagnation are felt across all age groups, people who have lived in the ‘good times’ are less anxious about economics and tend to be more hopeful about the future. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that other generations had it any easier in their youth than us; growing up wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows for them either. In fact, many of the challenges that we face now are quite similar to what our parents and grandparents had to overcome. However, what is rather different is how we perceive our future. Generation X, for instance, witnessed significant transformations with the regime change, yet they held onto a sense of hopefulness amidst these shifts. Millennials, on the other hand, were sold the dream of prosperity and were only confronted with harsh realities later on. And as for Gen-Z? Well, we’ve grown up in a world where economic disillusionment is the norm rather than the exception. Our generation has no illusions about the challenges ahead, facing economic uncertainty head-on from the start. This sense of economic insecurity and hopelessness for the future breeds feelings of resentment and frustration amongst our generation, which provides fertile ground for radicalisation. Additionally, amid globally rising income-inequalities, economic frustrations are further amplified by zero-sum mindsets, where one’s success is inadvertently seen as another’s loss.  This perception is reinforced during periods of economic stagnation, as limited resources enhance the underlying assumption that societal output is limited,  and that efforts and exchanges  merely redistribute rather than create value. What’s the link between gender and this kind of all-or-nothing mentality? Zero-sum mentality can foster support towards both the left and the right. On the one hand, it is associated with support for social welfare policies, income redistribution and awareness of racial and gender discrimination. But this all-or-nothing mentality also fosters xenophobia and sexist resentment. The latter particularly stands true amongst men who may perceive themselves as being disadvantaged or left behind in a rapidly changing economic landscape. In a society where men's traditional role as providers is challenged more and more, some men may react by clinging to traditional gender norms and resenting women's advancements in education and the workforce. It’s a vicious cycle – when men struggle to get ahead and perceive unfair treatment, they're more likely to resent the gains made by women. This modern form of sexism is often strongest among men who perceive state institutions as unfair and live in regions with rising unemployment, because these factors hinder them from getting ahead and securing their patriarchal role. Simply put: guys who became rich and successful through their own efforts tend to perceive the system as fair and are less likely to think that they have anything to lose by women’s success. Conversely, those facing economic adversity might argue that the advancement of women’s and girls’ rights has gone too far because it threatens their opportunities. In fact, arguments like this are especially widespread in the Korean ‘manosphere’, where 80% of men in their twenties believe that they are discriminated against because of their gender. A pattern is evident: while women advocate for gender equality and increasingly adopt progressive stances, some men, under internal and societal pressures to succeed, find themselves at odds with these changes. Under a ‘zero-sum’ mentality, resentful hostility makes sense. Economic stagnation and intense competition foster jealousy, which drives right-wing support, especially among young men. Source: Financial Times, 2020 The Role of Social Media So then, economic frustrations have clearly fuelled status insecurity and resentment, but it can only explain so much. The other big cultural shift that coincides with the growing gender divide is technology and the rise of social media, which offers further insights into why the trend is most prominent in younger generations. This correlation comes as no surprise. I think it’s fair to say that by now most people have heard of the myriad of research on the effects of social media on self-esteem and mental health. The algorithms powering social media platforms are meticulously crafted to engage users, creating echo chambers known as filter bubbles. These bubbles reinforce righteous resistance and groupthink, as individuals are exposed to content that aligns with their existing beliefs. This contributes to polarised media consumption and fuels distorted misperceptions. Essentially, what it all boils down to is this: people who are only exposed to stories that appeal to their own frustrations and reinforce their beliefs fuel resentment towards those who think differently, creating a distorted view of what the other side really stands for. Young women who only see content about tearing down the patriarchy might themselves start to believe that all men are inherently toxic. In the meantime, men who are exposed to sites preaching the ‘alpha-male’ mindset and patriarchal values will themselves start to resent progressive women. Thus, by creating these filter bubbles, algorithms invertedly exacerbate polarisation amongst users, promoting a self-sustaining cycle and thus widening the ideological gender gap of young people by the minute. These examples show that filter bubbles themselves don’t adhere to a pre-ordained ideology. They can be both left- or right-leaning. Rather, they serve as fertile ground for various cultural entrepreneurs and content creators who utilise social media to capitalise on the existing economic frustrations and hopelessness of Gen-Z. Even though none of us are exempt from falling into the biased traps that algorithms create, young people are especially impressionable to them. While posts and stories targeted to girls and young women – at least in my experience – are often about empowerment and self-acceptance, a lot of the ‘alpha-male’ content tailored for guys tends to emphasise the significance of patriarchal expectations of success and status. Sure, through unrealistic beauty standards, social media puts a lot of pressure on girls as well, but even the Kardashians brand themselves as successful businesswomen who fight against the patriarchy, thus embodying the epitome of strong independent women. On the other hand, influencers like Andrew Tate preach misogyny and the superiority of men, putting immense pressure on their followers. As a millionaire, Tate, the ‘king of toxic-masculinity’, embodies many men’s idea of success of endless private-jet flights and women falling to their knees. However, the standards of ‘manliness’ and ‘masculinity’ that Tate and all the other ‘alpha-bros’ embody are virtually impossible to fulfil, thus putting even more pressure on young men to achieve status that is inevitably met with disappointment. Upon failure to meet the external and internalised pressures of the ‘manosphere,’  young men then become even more frustrated with their own situation, thus falling deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole and further widening the gender divide. Looking into the future: Is there a way to reverse the polarisation? To briefly conclude, I argue that the political gender gap among Gen-Z stems primarily from economic uncertainty and technological factors. Economic stagnation breeds resentment and a zero-sum mentality, while social media algorithms exacerbate polarisation, which widens the ideological divergence of young men and women. The consequences of this divide are multifaceted and warrant careful consideration, especially in light of the upcoming elections in the US and in the EU, as polarisation between genders presents significant implications for Western democracies. So, what steps can we take to address this issue? While there is no easy answer, I believe that it is important that we try to foster mixed-gendered socialisation and friendships as they can help break down barriers and promote understanding. This is especially the case when such interactions occur offline, as they tend to be more balanced since the veil of anonymity provided by online platforms is no longer present. While I don’t have all the solutions to the issue,  I would argue that perhaps even watching the Barbie movie could prove to be a great start to bridging the gender divide. Sure, as entertaining as it is, it might not be the most profound cinematic experience and its portrayal of feminism could certainly be more nuanced. Still, quite paradoxically, I think that the movie offers a lot to learn especially to those men who are the most vocal of their dislike towards the film. I think that this is because of the way Ken is portrayed in the movie, who goes through similar challenges and frustrations as many young men face nowadays. While for a swift moment, the doll also embraces sexism and the patriarchy, he realises that by doing so, he just puts extra expectations on himself that fuel his resentment and dissatisfaction. Ultimately, I think that the answer to reversing the gender divide boils down to the message of the song “I’m Just Ken”. Rather than clinging on to outdated ideas of masculinity and status, it would be so much easier for everyone to just let go of these internalised expectations and embrace the idea that perhaps life is not a zero-sum game and we could all thrive together by embracing our differences.

I believe that we do not have free will. Yet, I believe that this is both completely neutral and actively bad. This article explain this somewhat paradoxical position. To offer a hint: the term determinism describes not one but several concepts, that all have very different implications for how we should lead our lives. The goal of this piece is to disentangle two of these concepts, namely that of causal and that of structural determinism. I will show why I believe both of them to be true, compare their implications, and describe how to adequately respond to these very implications. A couple definitions, so you know where we’re starting from: Free will has many different definitions, of which I chose one: “An entity has free will if they could have chosen differently”. This condition is not already satisfied through having multiple options but necessitates a theoretical possibility of choosing something else. My definition is far from perfect, but I believe it suffices for the purposes of this essay. Causal determinism has been defined as “the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature” (see here). This view has gained increasing popularity in recent years, as our modern, rational world leaves arguably little room for something like free will. Structural determinism can be defined as the thought that society is fundamentally structured by systems of power that influence different groups differently and to some extent determine the range of possible outcomes in their lives. Unlike the individual focus of causal determinism, structural determinism adopts a macro-level stance, implying that for entire groups of people their life outcomes are determined. To sum it up shortly: According to causal determinism you are reading this article because the exact conditions of the big bang led you hear through an inescapable causal chain. According to structural determinism you are an engaged university student with a certain interest in philosophy and thus were very likely to read this article. What Concepts Do These Determinisms Describe? Why Believe In Them? Causal Determinism Causal determinism posits that every event, including human actions, is the inevitable result of preceding events and natural laws, creating a continuous chain of cause and effect. This perspective is deeply rooted in the empirical successes of the physical sciences. For instance, classical mechanics presents a universe governed by predictable laws, where objects follow specific paths determined by initial conditions. This scientific materialist lens which many people understand the world through, necessarily is a deterministic one. One may illustrate this type of deterministic view by the hypothetical scenario of rewinding time: if we were to turn back the clock to the universe’s inception, the idea is, the same set of laws and initial conditions would lead to an identical unfolding of events. Everything would have to be the exact same – else, at some point, we would find the causal chain broken. This thought experiment underscores what is meant by the belief that the laws of nature govern all phenomena, and why this leaves no room for events to occur differently. One common objection to determinism is the feeling of personal agency – “but I can do whatever I want.” Determinism contradicts this claim instead positing that this feeling is just an illusion because while one may act according to one’s desires, these desires are themselves shaped by a prior sequence of causes, i.e., “one can do what one wants, but not want what one wants”, to paraphrase Schopenhauer (quoted from here). I will illustrate this more at a later point. Should the reader take these arguments to be convincing, they must concede that the notion of free will is at least substantially undermined, if not an impossibility all together. Structural Determinism At the heart of structural determinism is the recognition of complex, often deeply ingrained systems of power and hierarchy that operate within societies. These systems – be they economic, legal, political, or cultural – create a framework within which individuals and groups interact. The nature of these interactions and the distribution of power and resources within these structures can profoundly influence life trajectories, shaping everything from educational opportunities to professional success, social mobility, and even health outcomes. One of the arguably most fundamental structures of our modern society is capitalism. It will partly be the angle of analysis in this essay. Capitalism, as an economic system, not only structures the distribution of resources and opportunities but also cultivates a specific culture that emphasises values such as competition, efficiency, and productivity. Yet capitalism does not maintain its influence solely through material and institutional control but also wields significant influence on the cultural and ideological levels, as argued by Antonio Gramsci. This process of “intellectual and moral leadership” is what he calls cultural hegemony (source). This influence manifests in the collective consciousness, subtly embedding the capitalist ethos as the natural order of things. The result is a societal landscape where values aligned with capitalist interests – such as relentless productivity, competition, and material success – are not only normalised but admired. The capitalist influence on culture transcends the boundaries of work, permeating various aspects of life and shaping the societal narrative about what is desirable, attainable, and worthwhile. It is this cultural aspect that I will focus on most. Structural determinism suggests that while individuals may make technically free choices, the context in which these choices are made is heavily influenced by overarching societal constructs. This does not imply that individual agency is non-existent, but rather that the agency is exercised within a set of possibilities that are pre-structured and often limited by these larger forces, including the pervasive cultural norms shaped by dominant economic systems like capitalism. For further reading on this, I would suggest looking up Foucault’s panopticon (I unfortunately have neither the space nor the expertise to go in-depth here). A simple analogy to make matters clear: Suppose you decide to save money in a bank account. Did you ever choose to want to save that money? A structural determinist might argue that one’s cultural and socio-economic background create such behaviours. Causal determinists would go further. After all, could you, if you so pleased, choose to want to waste it? And even if you could choose to want to waste it, you would have to want to want to do that. All choices, though felt as free, are ultimately the end product of a long causal chain of preceding events. Every effect must originate from a preceding cause – following the principle of causality*. This idea is crucial to the causal determinist position. *... if there was somehow no preceding cause, as some advocates for free will might assume, how could one then ever affect anything? What Does That Mean for Us? Causal determinism is neutral and removes agency. In the contemplation of determinism’s impact on our lives, it becomes essential to discern how these underlying forces shape our existence and the scope of our freedom. Causal determinism, by its nature, presents a neutral force in the universe. Being neutral means that causal determinism does not inherently guide human actions towards any particular end or value; it simply posits that every event is the result of preceding events in accordance with the laws of nature. This framework suggests that while our actions are determined, they are not predetermined by any teleological, purposeful force. This understanding allows for the pursuit of happiness within the deterministic framework. The previously introduced notion that one can still “do what one wants to” remains valid under causal determinism. This is because the perception of choice and the pursuit of desires are not negated by the deterministic nature of the universe; they are simply understood to be the result of prior causes. We can of course not save human agency and omit the already mentioned and quite impactful subclause attached to it (“... but not want what one wants”). Importantly, the introduction of determinism only challenges the notion of meaning if one presupposes that meaning is derived exclusively from unfettered agency. This notion is, however, quite an unusual one – most people would likely rather say the derive meaning from the pursuit of happiness. However, even if agency is deemed essential for meaning, the subjective experience of making choices and pursuing desires – the feeling of agency – remains intact; we still very much feel like we have control over what we are doing in life. So while causal determinism does take away agency, this does not have to inherently be a problem for us. Indeed, this control that the laws of nature have about us are not directed towards any direction. They are neither inherently harmful nor beneficial paths; rather, it presents life as an amazingly engaging movie, that makes us experience it as if we are active participants. This perception does not diminish the quality of our lives but is instead a neutral force. Structural determinism is not neutral (right now even harmful) but allows some agency. Contrastingly, structural determinism operates on a different plane, embodying a directional force that significantly influences our collective and individual lives. Unlike causal determinism, structural determinism does not strip away our agency in the straightforward manner of causal determinism. Instead, it channels our decisions and actions within a pre-defined framework of societal and systemic constraints. This structure is not neutral; it is imbued with the values, inequalities, and power dynamics of the systems that constitute it, such as capitalism. Let us examine this in detail. In structural determinism, individual agency remains intact, but it is exercised within a constrained set of possibilities. Thereby its main influence on agency happens on a macro level, shaping the actions of the collective and over a long period of time. While we might be initially relieved to hear that we can keep our individual agency, reality is much harsher. In contrast to the strong controlling grip of causal determinism, structural determinism has softer touch but indeed pushes us persistently toward direction. I believe this direction of structural determinism is currently a harmful one, especially within the capitalist framework. Capitalism, by design, encourages certain behaviours and lifestyles, pushing individuals towards relentless productivity and overwork (I wrote an article about this some time ago!). The system values economic success and material accumulation above all, often at the expense of personal well-being, societal health and community. Thus, the capitalist imperative drives us as a society toward a direction that is actively harmful to us. How Should We Deal With This? In navigating the complexities of determinism, our responses to causal and structural determinism must diverge to address the distinct challenges each presents. Acceptance and action become the dual paths forward, each tailored to the nature of the determinism we confront. Accepting Causal Determinism Causal determinism, rooted in the immutable laws of nature, dictates a course of acceptance. The inexorable chain of cause and effect that governs the universe leaves us with little choice but to acknowledge our position within it. This acceptance does not imply passivity or resignation but rather an acknowledgment of the reality that shapes our existence. As we “navigate” life’s complexities, understanding that our desires, choices, and actions are part of a larger causal chain may bring a form of peace. Thereby, it can make us feel freed from the burden of trying to assert an impossible autonomy against the fundamental laws of nature. This perspective aligns with Albert Camus’ exploration of absurdity in “The Myth of Sisyphus”. Camus argues that recognising the absurdity of seeking meaning in a meaningless world does not lead to despair, but rather to a liberated state of mind. In accepting causal determinism, we encounter a similar form of liberation. The absurdity here lies in mankind’s refusal to accept the all-encompassing natural order that surrounds us. Embracing the absurd, then, means accepting our place within this deterministic framework and finding meaning within the limitations it presents, much like Sisyphus finds resolve in his eternal task. Revolting Against the Current Structural Determinism Conversely, structural determinism presents a scenario where acceptance morphs into complacency, and action becomes necessary. The harmful effect of the capitalist system is not an inevitable outcome of human nature but a consequence of specific societal structures of governance; however, unlike the laws of nature that dictate our lives elsewhere, the structures that define our societies are mutable. They are the result of human actions, decisions, and they can be restructured to prioritise different values and outcomes. It follows that revolt is our duty. What is needed for that is a collective will to reimagine and reconstruct the societal frameworks that bind us. It is not just about resisting or reforming certain aspects of the system; it is about envisioning and working towards a fundamentally different society that prioritises human welfare and nature over economic gain. How exactly such a society would look like and whether it can forcefully be acquired or must be the result of a process of evolution (or indeed is unattainable at all) these are questions part of a different debate. It rests with me to solely emphasises our collective ability of evoking change. For the individual structural revolt is not the only hope. As agency, as earlier explained, stays intact on the individual level, we can aim to free us from the structural influence of capitalism, at least to the extent that this is theoretically possible. Capitalisms influence is manifold. For one, it affects the economic opportunities of different groups to flourish in life. This is to some extent “a hard fact” which individual from such a group cannot feasibly escape from. Other effects are more cultural though. They shape the choices we make, the types of desires we have, and thereby also the lives we live. These cultural binds of capitalism are not less powerful than the economic ones, but they are more within our realm of influence. We can do so by first questioning the origins of our desires and then evaluating which are healthy and which are not. Of course, causal determinism restricts who will ever truly want to (want to, want to, ...) free themselves from these binds, yet a reader of this essay might have relatively decent chances to be on the right path. Conclusion It would be ironic, were I to end this piece with a call to action; a call about “freeing yourself from the capitalist chains that bind you”. Though it may be epic, it would also no doubt be foolish. Of course, in a very real sense this text (like any other entity, be it even the most insignificant) will necessarily shape the world. One might think that, therefore, I would very well be in the right, was I to attempt and persuade the reader. After all, even if our actions (including the writing of this text) are predetermined, a text that was predetermined to be very persuasive would indeed still be very persuasive, even if the reader never choses to be persuaded. Having now almost finished writing it, I hope this rather abstract and unusual conclusion is indeed a persuasive one. If only one reader were to believe my argument, critically examine their life, and alter this life’s path to its always predestined path (on the way, maybe even tell another person about it) – if only one reader were to do so – then this might indeed result in collective action that changes the world. “Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.” (Oscar Wilde in "The Soul of Man")

How the requirements of profit shaped 2023 for the film industry. Hollywood Sign; Source: Pexels The multi-billion dollar film industry encompasses a wide range of services, genres and firms. From indie horror to blockbuster action, audiences flock to the big screen to experience the magic. Unfortunately, malcontent seems to be brewing amongst the masses, and Disney’s unsuccessful 2023 releases stand as a prime example (i.e. The Marvels, Wish, Ant Man: Quantumania). But, 2023 also witnessed Barbie and Oppenheimer jointly destroy box office records and Everything Everywhere All At Once sweep the Academy Awards. Amid worker strikes and streaming wars, major Hollywood studios have forgotten the core values of cinema: creativity, innovation and boldness. While independent production studios akin to A24 meteorically step into the limelight, corporations envision movies as products instead of art. Film, as an art form, sits deeply within the roots of modern culture. Actors and directors garner fame and attention, enormous crowds converge to Hollywood amusement parks, millions of toys sell yearly, and catchy quotes become ingrained in topical memes. The over $100b global industry today presents multifaceted categories and subgenres, ranging from teen comedies and superhero flicks to Japanese animation and Korean dramas. With limitless imaginative potential, movies possess the power to stimulate any emotion. Unfortunately, corporate cinema currently prioritizes generic profit-making crowd-pleasers over projects with a unique and innovative vision. While the ‘90s saw the rise of independent auteur cinema (such as Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction or the Coen brothers’ Fargo), and the 2000s witnessed the reach of Hollywood A-list stars (i.e. Will Smith and Tom Cruise), corporate big budgets dominated the 2010s. Movie franchises, meticulously planned to tell an interconnected story, drew large audiences to the theaters and became a cultural macro-phenomenon. Major film studios such as Warner Brothers and Sony earned great profits as they released sequels, prequels and spin-offs. And at the top of the hierarchy stood Disney. Namely, in 2019, the company released seven movies that grossed over $1b at the box office. However, audiences’ taste is mutating and Hollywood has yet to take notice. Disney’s 2019 Releases; Source: Box Office Mojo In fact, while Disney celebrated 100 years since its inception, 2023 saw seven of the company’s theatrical releases significantly underperform at the box office. Whether it was the latest Marvel release, the unnecessary Indiana Jones sequel or an unwanted live-action remake of The Little Mermaid, Disney’s releases struggled to capture large audiences. Moreover, other Hollywood studios also experienced underwhelming box office performances: The Flash and Blue Beetle from Warner Brothers and Paramount’s Mission Impossible 7 all fell short of initial projections. Entertainment corporations have lost their Midas touch. As corporate cinema grows increasingly formulaic and unimaginative, today’s fatigued audiences select movies with greater skepticism and cautiousness. Streaming platforms, social media and rising ticket prices have greatly impacted the infrastructure of the film industry. The current landscape of cinema presents large corporations with endless obstacles (i.e. social media reception, streaming alternatives, inflated budgets), whilst offering great upside potential to smaller projects. During 2023, the film industry underwent magnificent highs and disastrous lows. A wacky independent action comedy about taxes and parallel universes swept the Academy Awards. WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes lasted for months whilst negotiations with major Hollywood studios occurred. Two movies at complete ends of the cinematic spectrum shared the spotlight, dominating the media cycle. Disney celebrated a bitter centenary. By analyzing last year’s salient movies, a clear picture of the current state of cinema emerges. Creative dynamics within Hollywood are shifting. How can Disney and other major Hollywood studios adapt to changing standards and reclaim cultural importance? The Fallen Titan The Walt Disney Company holds both timeless classics and modern favorites amongst its catalog of intellectual properties. For decades, the industry titan has dominated popular culture with acclaimed masterpieces such as The Lion King and Tarzan, and beloved blockbusters, including Pirates of the Caribbean and Avengers. Furthermore, a history of smart acquisitions allowed the company to remain relevant through continuous renewal (Pixar, Lucasfilm, Hulu, Fox, Marvel). Sadly, in 2023, the tide has turned: Disney relinquished its crown on global box office market share for the first time since 2016, failed to release a $1b movie for the first time since 2014, closed its state-of-the-art $250 million Star Wars Hotel, and lost 7% of total Disney+ subscribers. Goliath has become David due to extravagant spending, mistaking audience demands, and a myopic release policy. Amongst last year’s failures, none shine brighter than Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. Disney’s latest Indiana Jones sequel starkly contrasts the glory of the original 80s trilogy, aptly illustrating the media giant’s current hardships. The Indiana Jones franchise holds great significance in Hollywood history. Raiders of the Lost Ark, an exciting entry in the early wave of 70s and 80s blockbusters, became the highest-grossing film of 1981. With the legendary Steven Spielberg directing and the visionary George Lucas writing and producing, the movie captured audiences and convinced critics. Such success spurred the development of a trilogy, which expanded on the accomplishments of the first installment, garnering fame and praise. The exciting action setpieces, charismatic performances, globetrotting stories and beautiful score cemented the trilogy as beloved classics. Indiana Jones 5 Promotional Image; Source: The Walt Disney Company Today, the franchise includes two further entries, but much has changed. Before the 2012 Disney-Lucasfilm acquisition, a 2008 reboot failed to depart. Additionally, Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, the latest release, greatly underperformed at the box office ($380 million gross on a budget of roughly $400 million) and left fans dissatisfied. Without the Spielberg-Lucas duo leading the project, the movie stands out as uninspired and unnecessary. Lead actor Harrison Ford appears tired and disinterested. New cast members (and therefore characters), such as Fleabag’s Phoebe Waller Bridge, failed to appease audiences. Overall, Disney committed the same mistake Lucasfilm did 15 years prior: reopening the franchise without any basis other than profit. In an industry that increasingly views movies as products, corporations are recycling material instead of searching for the next great sensation. Fortunately, the oversaturated and played-out stories that have dominated the industry for the past decade are being rejected and abandoned now. The culture of remakes and reboots, of endlessly mining the same properties for more cash, seems to have finally hit creative bedrock. In fact, when major Hollywood studios bring fresh stories to light, mainstream audiences appreciate the novelty. Obviously, an original story must intersect with compelling screenwriting and breathtaking cinematography to pack theaters. The 2023 summer window had just that. Atomic Barbie The 21st of July 2023, lightning struck twice. Two colossal projects finally hit theaters globally. The tale of Barbie and Oppenheimer is one of similarities within differences. While diametrically opposite at first glance, beneath the surface lie the commonalities that defined their successes. Both helmed by visionary creatives, Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan, the two movies dominated the media cycle, critical reception and audiences. Where does Barbenheimer’s triumph originate? A feminist satirical comedy and an explosive historical biopic united to become the fourth-largest aggregate domestic box office weekend ever. How it happened: Universal and Warner Brothers offered talented creatives the opportunity and backing to craft art. Furthermore, the two corporations gave creative control to the individuals involved. Instead of interfering to obtain safe and canonical output, executives accepted risk and uncertainty. Given such resources, Greta Gerwig and Christopher Nolan produced masterful pictures unafraid to express engaging stories. Every individual involved, ranging from editors and producers to cinematographers and musicians, longed for a distinct art piece. Predictably, the care and passion that permeated both projects resonated with audiences. As Oppenheimer and Barbie gear up for the awards season red carpet, Hollywood must realize how special this duo really is. Barbenheimer Poster; Source: Sean Longmore Two lessons for Hollywood emerge from the spoils of Barbenheimer. Firstly, Barbie definitively proved that women will show up in massive numbers to movies actually marketed towards them. Instead of Hollywood’s standard approach of awkwardly retooling traditionally male franchises in a lazy attempt to appeal to both genders, stories made by women for women will pack theaters comfortably. The film industry has ignored such an extremely large and impactful demographic (women drive 70-80% of all consumer purchases in the United States) for too long. Secondly, the complexity of audiences’ taste and trends cannot be understood. Barbenheimer dominated popular culture for months before and after its release. The raw power of organic social media word of mouth vastly outmatches even the most aggressive marketing campaign. The competition between Barbie and Oppenheimer, dressing up for either, the double feature cinema day, the memes that permeated Instagram and TikTok, such simple pleasures remind us why cinema belongs to the audience. The Challenges Of Success The ideal trajectory for most successful directors consists of an inexpensive start, a bold mid-budget stretch, and, lastly, the prestige of high-priced production. The limitations of small budgets stimulate talent’s ingenuity, whilst the freedom of big budgets offer an endless stream of possibilities (and dangers). Extremely popular director-writers such as Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan or Greta Gerwig, having proven their ability to combine box office success with critical acclaim, need not worry about funding. Major Hollywood studios, having realized the upshot potential for projects with colossal backing (see also: Avatar, Avengers, Top Gun: Maverick), are frothing at the mouth for spending opportunities. But money does not guarantee success. Director-writers Ari Aster and Robert Eggers constitute two of the leading voices in horror dramas. The two rising stars spawned strong, albeit small, fanbases with their debuts: Aster’s Hereditary and Eggers’ The Witch established the creatives as distinct directors with strong vision. Both movies are terrifying and well written, entwined with brilliant performances. Subsequently, Aster’s and Eggers’ sophomore projects, Midsommar and The Lighthouse respectively, solidified the pair’s permanence and recognition. Naturally, after low-budget box office successes, greater finances awaited the pair. Robert Eggers teamed up with Focus Features, a division of NBCUniversal, for his latest project. This consisted of Eggers’ first experience working with a major studio, now finally working with a large production budget (estimated $70 million). The Northman, an epic historical thriller, depicts a viking prince’s quest to avenge the murder of his father. Unfortunately, despite a star-studded cast (which includes Willem Dafoe, Anya-Taylor Joy, Nicole Kidman and Ethan Hawke) and a strong marketing campaign, the film proved too offbeat for mainstream audiences. Barely reaching its breakeven point of $70 million, the release did not conform to studio expectations. Considering the project faced the tough reality of 2022’s slow post-COVID-19 ticket sales recovery, NBCUniversal will hopefully undertake similar productions in the future. The Northman Poster; Source: Focus Features Different was the fate of Ari Aster’s 2023 release, Beau Is Afraid. Working for the third time with A24, a rising independent production company, Aster received his biggest production budget to date. The surrealist tragicomedy horror film portrays Joaquin Phoenix, starring as the title character, on a weird journey to find his mother. Despite Aster’s prestigious reputation after Hereditary and Midsommar, the film failed to find its audience, grossing only $11 million on a $35 million budget. Poor marketing, an excessively freakish plot or the usual box office difficulties of the horror genre all contributed to the film’s hapless release. May Ari Aster bounce back with another gem. Beau Is Afraid; Source: A24 Although both directors failed to meet box office expectations when given their first large budget, Hollywood must remain trustful of ambitious directors with unusual styles. The films were financially unsuccessful, but the preceding decisions were sound. In a buyers market such as the film industry, not all releases can succeed at the box office. Big and small productions alike are vulnerable to Hollywood’s greatest mystery: audiences’ taste. The financial ruin of a box office flop has frightened major studios into risk avoidance. Safe and formulaic completely oppose the artmaking core of cinema. Sterilizing the artform to obtain profit will only alienate audiences further. The End When movies simply stand as products, major Hollywood studios will tend to streamline and standardize the film-making process. Disney has become a factory when it should be operating as an art gallery. Unfortunately, Hollywood remains a business, bound by the financial requirements of the industry. Profit is and always will be the end goal for major studios. Such an expensive artform must face the tough reality of ticket sales and streaming views. But it is the only way: how else can we experience the colossal productions of Dune: Part Two or Avatar: The Way Of Water? Nevertheless, quality and profit can marry when funds operate under passionate and dedicated leadership. Corporate cinema need not perform poorly, uninspired recycling is responsible for recent box office flops. Human ingenuity and creativity can conquer everything, may Hollywood offer them their deserved space.

As the world’s largest democracy celebrates the building of the much-awaited yet controversial Lord Ram temple, where once the Babri Masjid stood. The controversy sparked from the demolition of the mosque by a mob in 1992 stating that the mosque was built over the birthplace of Lord Ram. The prevailing Hindu nationalist government, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) looks forward to another election in the upcoming months that will shape the country’s future alongside their own. Most Indian citizens have been positively influenced by the government’s decision to inaugurate the decade-long pledged temple weeks before the general elections, given that 79.8% of India’s population identifies as Hindu. However, while the emotionally appealing ruling government expects to retain its power in the coming elections, it is imperative to address the elephant in the room: India’s Economic Dilemma. As the nation prepares to cast its vote, the state of the economy emerges as a critical factor that could influence the electoral outcome. The Economic Dilemma The economic dilemma that India faces is a fairly convoluted one with various factors at play. While the country has been the fastest-growing economy in the world, the citizens of India also grapple with high unemployment rates, rising levels of inflation and income inequality. In addition, the fiscal deficit of India, though lower than the set target of 5.9% in FY2023-24, continues to be a pressing issue. Moving forward, policymakers need to be careful in finding the correct balance between mediating these important issues and ensuring the continued growth of the economy. Unemployment Unemployment in India currently stands at 8.65%, as of December 2023, with a labour participation rate of merely 42.4%. Being the world’s most populous nation, an unemployment rate of 8.65% results in severe consequences. Not only does it negatively affect national consumer spending and decrease consumer purchasing power along with low-income levels, but it also propels crimes and social unrest. Moreover, India is a country with the highest youth population in the world and yet has a 17.9% rate of unemployment in people aged 15-24, illustrating an unbridled under-utilisation of resources. Besides youth, women’s participation in employment lies just under 33%, denoting a wide gender gap in the economy. Unemployment saw a steep incline due to the The COVID-19 Pandemic is not the sole cause of such high numbers. There have been major attempts at changes in government policy, including the demonetisation to tackle black money in 2016 and the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax to implement a centralised tax rate in 2017 that have significantly impacted the unemployment rate in India, both negatively and positively. These decisions of the ruling government in their first term shocked millions but still somehow managed to make a landslide victory in the general elections of 2019. The issue remains a criticism for the Modi government today as they are being blamed for not creating enough jobs. Income Inequality Income Inequality in India is another aspect of the country’s economic dilemma. The widening gap between the rich and the poor poses an issue of social instability and results in lower levels of happiness. While the country has seen significant economic growth and prosperity, the benefits have not been evenly distributed. The top 10% of the population holds a significant portion of the country’s wealth, while the bottom 40% struggles to make ends meet. India ranks 111th out of 125 countries in the Global Hunger Index with its progress against hunger nearly being halted since 2015. With a poverty rate of 21.90%, India struggles to lift a substantial portion of its population out of poverty. as they are trapped in a vicious cycle resulting from low incomes. In recent times, according to India’s consumer survey, the richest 20% of India’s population have seen a rise in their household incomes while the poorest 20% have seen a steeper fall in their incomes. This difficulty of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer continues to be stubborn. Fiscal Deficit The fiscal deficit refers to the amount by which a government’s spending exceeds its revenue as a proportion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While the ruling government not only managed to meet the target of 5.9% but also reduced it further to 5.8%, the deficit remains sufficiently higher than the prescribed 3% in the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act 2003. However, this value seems to be fairly difficult to achieve since it has only last been achieved in the 2007-8 period. It is also vital to acknowledge the pandemic which required substantial spending to boost economic growth. The most recent available data from the World Bank reveals that around 19.4% of the Indian Government’s expenses are paid in the form of interest. However, as the country is a rapidly developing economy, higher public debt is expected and interest payments are likely. In addition, the existence of significant income inequality makes maintaining a balance on the fiscal accounts more difficult, provided that less than 5% of India’s population pays income tax. The government is, on paper at least, working towards uplifting the rural areas and providing them with a source of income with increased skills. Managing the fiscal deficit is a delicate task for policymakers. Striking the right balance between economic growth, social welfare, and fiscal responsibility is essential for India’s long-term stability. Inflation The inflation rate in India, as the article is being written, has been easing for three months and was recorded at a value of 5.09% in January 2024. Considering the current government regime, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation has averaged 5.8%. While this figure is slightly higher than the 4% target set by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), reflects the delicate balance policymakers must strike between economic growth and price stability. Food prices in particular, however, have seen a persistent rise with a 9.5% hike nationally, exacerbating the difficulties faced by the average Indian citizen by eroding the value of money. This inflationary pressure on food prices is further aggravated by supply chain disruptions and climate change impacts which have led to crop failures and increased the cost of agricultural inputs. The government’s efforts to mitigate these effects through various policy measures such as increasing the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops and implementing food subsidy programs have had limited success due to implementation challenges and other fiscal constraints. The Road Ahead Despite these challenges, it is important to highlight the persistence of the country to move towards a developed nation. While the upcoming elections add a layer of complexity to the economic issue at large, it is also credible that the government did not take any populist measures to influence voters in the recently released interim budget. This might partly be a demonstration of their confidence to win the approaching polls. Moreover, the religious appeal of the ruling government adds to their popularity among certain sections of the demography. To conclude, the Indian economic dilemma is an intricate play of rapid economic growth and other instabilities relating to the improvement in the quality of life of the standard Indian household. The votes of only these households and individuals will not only ascertain the immediate economic path of India but also its course into the distant future. The correct push of a button will determine the prosperity of the world’s fastest-growing economy with the hope that the elected leaders will navigate through this economic dilemma and address the elephant in the room. The stakes are high and the world watches as Indians vote to carve out their economic destiny.