Latest news with #thinktanks
South China Morning Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Forget the West – China think tanks must be ‘self-centred' to project soft power: expert
China's think-tanks should pay more attention to the nation's actual conditions and rely less on Western knowledge, according to a leading Chinese scholar, who said policy advisers could better reflect and project the country's soft power by incorporating 'Chinese characteristics'. Professor Zheng Yongnian, a political economist with the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, who is also a Beijing policy adviser, said that to better explain Chinese practices to the world and anticipate the country's future, such organisations should be based on an 'indigenous knowledge system'. The root and power of a country's rise was the 'rise of ideas', and think tanks were the core and soul of a country's ' soft power ', Zheng said in an interview in Tuesday's issue of Chinese Social Sciences Today, a newspaper published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Zheng Yongnian, an adviser to Beijing's policymakers, at a seminar last September. Photo: CUHK-Shenzhen Chinese think tanks, Zheng said, focused more on practicality compared with the research and analysis conducted in universities. 'Some universities' 'academism' in social science research is still stuck in Western textbooks. Their policy analysis also tends to be more of a post-analysis function,' he said. 'Think tanks, on the other hand, focus more on public policies in Chinese practice from the perspective of empirical research, exploring their formation, evolution and future development direction, as well as how decisions are made, implemented and supervised by the government and provide feedback,' Zheng told the newspaper. 'Only by truly building an indigenous knowledge system based on China's practical experience and realising 'self-centredness' can we truly explain China's practices and predict China's future,' he added.
Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Times
Times letters: Fixing the amateur way Britain is governed
Write to letters@ Sir, Munira Mirza's assessment of where we are going wrong appears spot on, and her scathing criticism of our politicians also rings true ('Here's how we can fix the way Britain is run', Jun 26). One hopes that the efforts of her Fix Britain group will bear fruit. However, given that, as she says, there is no shortage of sound input from think tanks, the issue would seem to have less to do with lack of sound advice than an unwillingness to act on it by those who govern us. As to her closing statement about people's reluctance to vote for a political party unless it can tell them exactly how it will fix Britain, the electorate appears to be showing no reluctance whatsoever. If opinion polls are to be believed, Reform is surging ahead — with only the merest nod to the 'how' and no nod at all as to the means by which Britain might be BrowneDatchet, Berks Sir, Munira Mirza is unsparing in her critique of career politicians, whom she characterises as ignorant of their subject and the machinery of government, and as rabbits caught in headlights or consummate bluffers, seeking celebrity but lacking competence. Her proposition, however, is another think tank, a sector with which, as she points out, we are richly blessed. But the difficulty with think tanks is that the thinkers in them have no responsibility for the ideas they propose. They too seek celebrity, their job titles often being 'fellow' or some other quasi-academic handle. Perhaps she could instead found a school for politicians to teach them the machinery of government, and she and the other nine members of Fix Britain's advisory board could take their expertise properly into politics by standing for election as BrockFowlmere, Cambs Sir, Many of us would endorse Munira Mirza's observation that 'something is fundamentally broken about Britain and the way we are run', and applaud the ambition of Fix Britain to 'prepare a prospectus for government' by putting 'the right plan' in place. But the right plan will make little difference if our political system itself remains unreformed, for it is within that system that the fundamental weaknesses of government in the UK exist. These include the lack of professional competence; the inability to create, take and implement strategic decisions in a timely manner; the excessively confrontational nature of party politics; the lack of a genuinely democratic mandate; and the pandering of political parties to the whims of today's voters rather than the needs of future generations. Without profound and coherent reform of our political system I fear that any plans made by Fix Britain will fall on stony General APN CurrieWinchester Sir, Munira Mirza says the measure of success for her Fix Britain group will be 'a future in which no party stands for election without publishing a detailed and credible programme for government'. Yet within a short time of coming to power, any government will face issues entirely unforeseen during the programme-planning stage — Covid-19, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, Israel-Gaza etc — that will render its detailed and credible programme obsolete. As Mike Tyson said: 'Everyone has a plan until I punch them in the mouth.'Lucian CampLondon NW1 Sir, Emily Fabricius says that 'grateful patients' are surely the biggest reward for doctors (letter, Jun 26). As a consultant diagnostic histopathologist in NHS labs for 39 years, diagnosing 5,000 patients' diseases/pathology each year, I received a total of two letters from grateful patients. Both were consultant colleagues. My motivation was nevertheless for patient welfare, even though their gratitude may not have been explicit. Diagnosticians are the hidden and unrecognised back-room doctors but are nevertheless John McCarthyRet'd consultant pathologist, Newcastle upon Tyne Sir, I couldn't agree more with Phillip Alderman about the importance of continuity of care (letter, Jun 25). Training to be a doctor, of whichever chosen speciality, is an apprenticeship — one in which the value of watching, absorbing, asking questions and being supervised by senior members of the 'team' should not be underestimated. The sense of belonging this brings, together with ownership of the patient and their journey, has been lost in the change to a shift pattern with reduced working hours and therefore the exposure to pearls of wisdom that you cannot glean from a book. The issue of continuous 'handovers' occurs not only in a hospital setting but also in GP practice, where almost exclusive part-time working contributes to loss of information and the inevitable Siobhan CarrollConsultant anaesthetist, Guildford Sir, Phillip Alderman correctly links continuity of medical care with patient safety. Two systematic reviews have found that continuity is associated with lower patient mortality. Given the usual emphasis on patient safety, the policy blindspot on continuity is Sir Denis Pereira GrayFormer chairman, Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; Exeter Sir, As a relative, friend and former nurse I have had the great privilege of sitting with people of many ages who are dying. Just being able to alleviate some of their distress and discomfort; holding their hand, moistening their lips and wiping their forehead. Praying, if it helps them, reading and softly playing their favourite music, remembering that hearing is the last sensation before consciousness is lost. And frequently reminding them how loved they are by everyone. That is my interpretation of assisted dying. Of course, this scenario is not always possible but I believe that, above all, love must be the dominant factor when you are comforting someone who is WickhamDorking, Surrey Sir, Dr MWM Upton speaks of the palliative doses of morphine that are given when a patient is in great distress towards the end of their life (letter, Jun 24). My mother and father, and recently my husband, were allowed to die in this way. The kindness and mercy of such a palliation were profoundly helpful to them, and to me, as I sat with them at the end of their CoshBournemouth Sir, Wes Streeting says there is no 'budget' for setting up an assisted dying service in a constricted NHS (news, Jun 26). He should surely balance against this cost the savings gained in not having to treat those patients who opt for assisted dying during the final six months of a terminal GrayIffley, Oxon Sir, I agree with all of Alice Thomson's excellent article (Jun 25; letters, Jun 26) save for its headline 'Too many women see childbirth as traumatic'. This should have read: 'Childbirth is too traumatic for too many women.' The young women of my daughter's cohort were all traumatised by their birthing experiences, none being straightforward or without significant, unplanned interventions. Several have cited it as their reason for adopting a 'one-child' policy — devastating for an already declining birthrate and an indictment of our maternity services. Wes Streeting should roll his sleeves up and sort this SlaterStowmarket, Suffolk Sir, Edward Lucas is right to highlight the cowardice of Nato ('Nato's Potemkin summit sends lethal signals', Jun 26). At a time when Ukraine needs to feel the support of Nato, the Nato summit was an appeasement of a maverick and unpredictable US president. It should have been a summit in which European nations reassured Ukraine of their commitment. At a time when civilian targets are being increasingly attacked in Ukraine, air support is essential. The attack on Dnipro train station on Tuesday was only a success because local units had run out of air defence missiles. Talk of increased Nato defence spending in the future is of no comfort here. I hope we don't live to regret Nato's EdwardsZhytomyr, Ukraine Sir, I beg to differ with Georgi Holley about Glastonbury festival (letter, Jun 24). I live within a short walk of Worthy Farm and find the disruption minimal. Yes, we have a proliferation of pop-up camping sites but only for two weeks before the festival. Our lanes 'designed for horses and traps' are regularly visited by overlarge lorries, so no change there. Most of the festival is on-site and provides a gloriously memorable week for those who attend. The atmosphere is one to treasure and it is a safe environment for young people to celebrate the end of their exams. My husband and I have volunteered there and regularly benefit from the free Sunday ticket given to locals. My children and grandchildren (ranging in age from 3 to 50) will join us this year and there will be something for all of us. I feel privileged to live in this glorious area and am glad to share it with others. Within a fortnight, all vestiges will have disappeared and we can return to our 'normally sleepy hollows'.Linda DaviesNorth Wootton, Somerset Sir, I take issue with Alan Ward's suggestion that 'there are many more for whom a life on benefits is always going to be preferable to getting out of bed every morning to go to a job that is likely to be thankless, tedious and not even financially beneficial' (letter, Jun 26). In my experience of being forced on to benefits because work was not available — or because men aged over 50 were not wanted — I found few who enjoyed the experience. Benefits are too low to 'live on', and those seeking work (whether fit or otherwise) wish for routine, company and the sense of worth that work gives, even when it is badly paid. It is just not possible to live on benefits. Many of us now struggle to survive on a pension, so how can anyone survive on benefits, which pay much less? If Mr Ward knows those who can do it there are many who would like to learn from HerriottBraintree, Essex Sir, Further to the letters on weight-loss drugs (Jun 26), I was in a school class with 32 other boys and I never knew anyone who was overweight. Of course, we had the perfect stimulus to avoid being overweight: it was called rationing. It worked, and as far as I know no one died from it. Maybe the government should start issuing ration books SharpScarborough, N Yorks Sir, My Oxford interviewers asked me to define a gentleman (letters, Jun 23 to 26). Frantically I cited Chaucer's Knight ('a verray, parfit gentil knyght') and stepping out of a lift to expel wind. It proved insufficiently intellectual for a scholarship but did sneak me in as a BrooksSutton Coldfield, W Midlands Sir, My late father, a dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshireman, once stated that a gentleman would always hold the door open for his wife when she brought the coal JordanTimperley, Cheshire Write to letters@
ABC News
22-06-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Treasurer Jim Chalmers says Albanese government ready to overhaul the tax system
After months of acting coy and playing down expectations of what it might do to shake things up, the Albanese government has officially opened the door to big, beautiful, and maybe even brave tax reform. Big? We don't quite know that yet. Beautiful? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so the jury is out there. Brave? They will have to be brave because the backlash is coming, and it could get ugly. The word reform is so overused as to be meaningless, but if it is to be meaningful, it will have to involve some losers. That's where the ugliness lies. Treasurer Jim Chalmers declared last week that limiting the narrative to "ruling things in or ruling things out" has had a "corrosive impact" on policy debate. On that, he is dead right. Journalists (yes, I'm putting my hand up here) must also take responsibility for sometimes seeking to box in politicians and, as a consequence, short-change the country by limiting the scope of our debate. But the biggest perpetrators of boxing in are politicians themselves — so afraid of their shadows, they have shut down debates as soon as they start. You get the sense watching the treasurer that he has played his cards not only carefully, but expertly. For some time, he has let the temperature and pressure rise and the debate rage outside of the government, letting others build a case for structural change to the way we tax. By letting others do the heavy lifting — making the case for change — from think-tanks, to independent politicians, to millennials on a tear about boomers and their elaborate holidays — he has walked into a political climate that is open to change. It is no longer 2019, when in the wake of Bill Shorten's loss, Labor went into the fetal position. Labor's timidity may finally be evaporating. The demographic shifts among Australia's voting base also help Labor. With Gen Y and Z now the biggest voting blocs, the losers are outnumbered. The preconditions are there for change. This week, the treasurer was pressed on his one existing proposal that changes the tax treatment of superannuation. Chalmers refused to budge on his contentious plan to raise taxes on people with more than $3 million in superannuation, as he signalled he was open to cutting income taxes as part of wider tax reform. The reform has a chorus of critics — some making reasonable points about the design of the tax — but the treasurer is on steady and solid ground on the politics, and he knows it. New polling conducted by pollsters Talbot Mills Research — a polling company used by Labor in the last campaign — polled over a thousand people in early June with the following question: "The federal government plans to raise around $2 billion a year by reducing tax breaks for people with over $3 million in super. How strongly do you approve or disapprove of these proposed changes?" The results speak volumes about why Chalmers doesn't seem like he is in the mood to water down his proposal. Twenty-six per cent strongly approve, 37 per cent said they somewhat approve, 14 per cent somewhat disapprove, and only 11 per cent strongly disapprove. Twelve per cent were unsure. Chalmers is now saying Labor is willing to overhaul the tax system to reduce its growing reliance on income tax while ensuring the government can raise enough money to deal with the structural deficit. Independent MP Allegra Spender has been pushing for sweeping tax reform, calling for lower income and business taxes, fewer concessions for property investors, and a reduction in compliance costs. The member for Wentworth has used her parliamentary platform to argue that the tax system is a barrier to home ownership and is burdening young Australians, something that is getting harder because of bracket creep and an aging Australian population. She said it was a "really positive sign that the treasurer has recognised the importance of tax reform". But she said even achieving revenue neutrality right now was difficult within our tax system because things like fuel excise was dropping, tobacco excise was dropping, GST as a proportion of our tax system was dropping, and we have fewer working-aged people as a proportion of people in the system. Asked how to get voters to embrace a tax change that would slow intergenerational unfairness, Spender said: "When I talk to people in my community, people really worry their kids and grandkids are not going to be able to meet the same milestones as previous generations, and that is really motivating." But even with a whopping majority and a community pushing for change, landing the reforms will still be hard. One tweet from broadcaster Neil Mitchell tells that story. He warned: "Boomers beware. Jim Chalmers is taking [sic] about 'intergenerational justice' in tax. That means a tax on boomers, who actually did a bit to build this country." Subtle? Not so much. The idea that boomers uniquely built this country is indeed a strange idea. All generations contribute during their working age. Tell that to the Gen Xers and Millennials currently slogging it to keep their heads above water. Chief executive of the Grattan Institute, Dr Aruna Sathanapally, who has been pushing for big reform, said the treasurer had now said the quiet bit out loud. And she's relieved. "Chalmers has said the important bit out loud — it's the government's job not just to deliver its election commitments but to lead us through the times we live in, including making the trade-offs that we need to preserve our living standards in the years ahead," she said. "It's great to see tax reform on the table. It has to be on the table: our tax system is simply not fit for our aging society, the global context, or tackling climate change." Sathanapally said she would like to see the government grapple with "the fact that paying for our existing expectations on healthcare, aged care, defence and pensions is going to cost more." "It is unfair to place that burden on today's children, rather than those who have benefited from a tremendous growth in asset prices," she said. "What I want to see is not just the government but each of Australia's sector leaders strive for a system that works for and not against younger Australians. "Intergenerational equity is not a zero-sum game: a system that supports education, innovation, paid work, and care for each other will support a better economy and quality of life overall". The way the Coalition plays this will be fascinating. The politics of opposing contentious changes are delicious and easy, but the demographic time bombs will hit future budgets too if they fail to get behind substantive change. The opposition is already mounting the case that this is Labor on a tax grab. But what they fail to grapple with is that the community's expectations around spending have grown. Unless they can win the argument with voters that substantial spending cuts are necessary, they will have to consider the changes outlined by Labor. Opposition finance spokesman James Paterson said this week that the Coalition was up for a conversation with the government. He said his party was open to working constructively with government to make the tax system more efficient, to collect revenues in less distortional ways, "but we are not going to give them a blank cheque to increase taxes on Australians at the worst possible time for our economy." But if the coalition is going to argue that defence spending should rise to 3 per cent of GDP, they will have to explain how they will pay for it. Endless demands for more spending on key areas of national significance are meaningless without an answer for where the money will come from. Patricia Karvelas is host of ABC News Afternoon Briefing at 4pm weekdays on ABC News Channel, co-host of the weekly Party Room podcast with Fran Kelly and host of politics and news podcast Politics Now.
Washington Post
15-06-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
U.S. could lose more immigrants than it gains for first time in 50 years
For the first time in at least half a century, more people may leave the United States than arrive this year, an abrupt shift in immigration patterns with potentially significant implications for the U.S. economy. Economists at two Washington think tanks expect President Donald Trump's immigration policies to drive this reversal: from the near-total shutdown of the southern border to threats to international students and the loss of legal status for many new arrivals, according to a forthcoming paper. A rise in deportations — the aim of recent workplace raids that triggered protests in Los Angeles and other cities — also plays a role.
Telegraph
05-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
So now it's official. The ‘graduate premium' is a myth
Have you ever thought about the main reason why school leavers keep choosing to go to university and higher education (HE) participation rates continue rising? Of course there are many reasons; a chance for young adults to get away from their parents, ease of application and acceptance, it looks more fun than going to work, an interest in the subject… But what is the main driver that underpins society's messaging and ends up channelling 18-year-olds into university rather than the workforce? Well, it's the perception that there is a 'graduate premium'; and put simply, the narrative goes like this – 'Don't worry about the debt, you're going to get paid more to make up for it'. And the HE sector well knows the importance of maintaining the societal belief in the graduate premium to drive up their customer numbers. They are relentless in their efforts, issuing constant public comments, articles and self-commissioned reports, often via sympathetic think-tanks, claiming the limitless powers of HE to deliver a graduate premium to all who enrol. But this positive advertising is starting to contrast starkly with increasing evidence, now in plain sight, of graduates' difficulties getting jobs as well as the low pay on offer of not much above minimum wage. There is a growing realisation that we are burdening too many of our young adults with morale-sapping student debt for their whole working life, with little or no corresponding improvement in their career prospects. There are also concerns that we are building up a dangerous stockpile of student loans that won't be repaid, only for the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Meanwhile, money is flowing freely into the bloated HE sector via unwitting students being used as pawns. The Government has announced a White Paper due out this summer regarding Post-16 Education. So given the importance of the notion of a graduate premium, you would assume that the Government has ensured there is robust informative data to inform policy-making. Well, sadly not. There is only one Government report, the annual Graduate Labour Market Statistics, which attempts to quantify the graduate premium; and my research shows that it is fundamentally flawed. Some will say that the IFS Graduate Lifetime Earnings report from 2020 also 'proves' a graduate premium, but my research argues that it is just as flawed. My findings are already supported by the Royal Statistical Society, and the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) has also found a case in my favour and agreed that there is a problem with graduate premium data. The OSR has intervened and forced the hand of the Department for Education (DfE), who admitted in their release today that their figures are misleading – and to such an extent that even though this has been a mainstay of graduate outcome reporting since 2007, they have decided to cease publication. The DfE have agreed that a report demonstrating the difference between the career pay outcomes of those with equivalent A-level results is necessary, and they intend to produce it as part of their LEO data e.g. comparing school leavers with three Cs who attended university and those that did not. But the inadequacy of the data doesn't stop there. Using mathematical modelling, I've found that since we surpassed 30 per cent HE participation as long as 20 years ago, the marginal graduates added – increasingly being drawn from school leavers with relatively lower prior academic attainment – haven't earnt any graduate premium at all on average. Yet this phenomenon isn't explored in official Government statistics. When graduates do earn a premium, there is still the age-old statistical issue that correlation does not prove causation. For the majority of graduates, the job they end up doing will have no meaningful connection to the degree subject itself. So you must question why the official Government statistics keep churning out data that implies that studying for a degree was the main causation reason for the higher earnings, whereas in fact it is more likely their pre-existing attributes such as academic ability and ambition. Furthermore, when there is a link between the degree subject and the graduate's career, did they genuinely need to study academically for three whole years at great cost to themselves beforehand? Couldn't the course have been far shorter? And to what extent could it have been cheaper and more effective for them to start work at 18 and learn from colleagues, undergoing job-based formal and informal training in order to progress? You can often learn far more in three weeks of doing the job than you can in three years of theoretical study. The existing statistics don't explore this at all and by implication see their main role as demonstrating what degree is better than another. They act on the assumption that for non-manual work, everybody should get a 3-year degree before entering the workplace, rather than whether a degree is necessary at all. Until now, these inadequate statistics have allowed the sector to hijack the official figures and mislead the public and Government regarding the benefits of higher education, claiming that 'everybody' will be able to benefit from the supposed average premium. What is needed is root and branch reform of graduate statistics. I believe it would provide compelling evidence that surpassing around 25-30 per cent HE participation was a monumental mistake, and we certainly should never have let it reach the existing 50 per cent. The vicious spiral of never-ending increasing participation is condemning ever more of our young adults to pay huge amounts for unnecessary degrees. The Government's ideologically driven policies are led by a misguided false notion of 'opportunity for all'; but in the hands of a commercially-driven sector it has become a gross exercise in mass exploitation. The only way for this to end is for the Government to introduce a sensible, pragmatic cap on student numbers, calculated based on useful data – not the misleading data currently being produced. Paul Wiltshire is a parent campaigner against Mass HE and is the author of 'Why is the average Graduate Premium falling'
