Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tarini Bhamburkar, Research Affiliate, University of Bristol

Much of England has been celebrating the Lionesses’ historic win at the Uefa European Women’s Championship – the first time a senior England football team has won a major championship abroad and retained a major trophy. However, not everyone was pleased.

Former footballer and manager Joey Barton took to X to express his underwhelm, writing: “Well done to the Lioness winning the Nonsense Pottery Trophy. Those penalties were borderline embarrassing again. Don’t ever ask for equal pay again. Youse are miles off it. 🐕💨”

Barton has faced a backlash for his outdated response to the historic win, with many pointing out that the Lionesses have won more cups for England than Barton – who has won zero with the senior team, having played only 17 minutes as a substitute for them.

Sadly, Barton is just one in a long line of men who have attacked sportswomen, while refusing to recognise that women have been excelling at sport for over a century. At the same time, there is a long line of women players and fans who have repeatedly called out such misogyny.

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

I have spent the last year-and-a-half digging into newspaper archives where the stories of some of these women can be found. In their own words, these sportswomen and their fans detail their experiences as pioneers – and the attacks they faced along the way.

The earliest accounts of women engaging in sport in Britain show them playing tennis or croquet, or being adept at horse riding, in the 19th century. These were seen as permissible recreational activities for the “fairer sex”, but only if the practice of them remained noncompetitive.

But in the late Victorian age this changed, as women started playing many more sports – in some cases professionally. Women’s participation in athletics and competitive sports such as cricket was furiously debated – predominantly by men, who saw it as defying traditional gender roles. At the time, a woman wanting to be a professional sportswoman was widely seen as questionable and ungraceful.

There were, however, many female sports people and fans who were arguing against such ideas. I was particularly struck by one interview from 1890 with the remarkable Miss Daisy Stanley, captain of the Blue Eleven women’s cricket team.

The Original English Lady Cricketers are one of the earliest examples of paid, professional sportswomen who toured nationally between 1890 and 1892. They comprised 30 women divided into two teams: the Red XI and Blue XI.

Stanley’s interview was published on the front page of the weekly woman-edited newspaper, Women’s Penny Paper. As a progressive women’s newspaper, it was keen to profile a professional female player and inspire its women readers.

Throughout the interview, the unnamed lady journalist refers to her interviewee as “Captain Stanley” (rarely using any other term for her), asking significant questions about herself, her team and her ambitions. The article notes the enthusiasm for these women cricketers after their first public match in Liverpool against a local men’s side, where “visitors assembled in thousands”.

But the journalist laments the unserious treatment of the players at the hands of the “gentlemen” players, noting: “Whenever the game has been between ladies and gentlemen, the latter have … assumed broomsticks and treated their adversaries as weaker vessels.”

You can trace the thread from the attitudes to this pioneering cricket match in 1890 right up to Barton’s comments about the Lionesses in 2025.

Undaunted, the “tall and well-built” Captain Stanley, who looked “capable of much execution in the way of play”, rose through these afflictions. Before becoming a professional cricket player and playing regularly, she had considered the game impossible for girls to excel in – a view she reveals in the interview to have been “materially altered” by her experience of playing the game professionally.

Stanley is full of praise for ladies’ participation in sports, deeming that “there is not a more healthy … or beneficial game than cricket for our sex”.

In the wider society of the time, though, the possibilities – and benefits – of sports for women were being puzzled out socially and publicly through articles in periodicals. An article titled “Athletics for Ladies” in Cassell’s Family Magazine in 1896 lauded the benefits of women’s cautious “physical or muscular progress”, for example, but saw “football as a man’s game”.

The idea of women playing sports, let alone playing competitively, was both mocked and rebuked by swathes of the British media and public. But despite the ubiquitous pushback around them, women like Captain Stanley remained undeterred. In the interview in the Women’s Penny Paper, she mentions her thorough knowledge of the game, gives a shout-out to worthy team members and their skills, and celebrates her love of the sport.

Reflecting on having watched the paid professional Victorian women playing their cricket match so well, the impressed interviewer notes something that we would do well to remember today: “That here, as elsewhere, when women really take a thing in hand, they can and will carry it out thoroughly.”

The Lionesses have certainly done that, and we have the facts to back it up. After all, Chloe Kelly’s winning penalty kick on Sunday was reportedly faster than any shots on goal by the men this Premier League season. Try arguing with that.

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

Tarini Bhamburkar has received funding from the Royal Historical Society.

– ref. The Victorian sportswomen who had to fight misogynistic abuse, just like the Lionesses – https://theconversation.com/the-victorian-sportswomen-who-had-to-fight-misogynistic-abuse-just-like-the-lionesses-261798

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emma Newport, Associate Professor in English Literature, University of Sussex

This year marks the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. An Austen enthusiast might attend the birthday ball at the Alton Assembly Rooms in Hampshire or take an Austen-themed walking tour. They might dance at the Pump Rooms in Bath, a city with strong Austen connections, or in Utah, which has none.

These kinds of immersive events tend to surge in times of social and economic fragility. In part, this may be due to a particular form of nostalgia that psychologists have noted helps to mitigate loneliness and forge social connection.

During the pandemic, the Netflix show Bridgerton marked a revival of Austen-adjacent worlds. Fandoms that invite participation function like virtual realities, offering the kind of immersion we might expect from a headset and game console. But is this merely escapism, or do such immersible worlds offer ways of experiencing the present differently and more reflectively?

My first encounter with the immersive potential of Austen came through science fiction. In series seven of Red Dwarf (1997), characters are dispatched into the fictional Pride and Prejudice Land. It’s part of the newly arrived crew member Kristine Kochanski’s (Chloë Annett) favourite game, Jane Austen World – a virtual reality simulation she uses to civilise the other characters.

This article is part of a series commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jane Austen’s birth. Despite having published only six books, she is one of the best-known authors in history. These articles explore the legacy and life of this incredible writer.

Kryten, the service droid, breaks into this Regency idyll aboard a second world war tank and detonates a tea party, roaring “Dinner is served!” The absurdity left a strong impression on my younger self about Austen’s perceived delicacy, and the chaotic energies that surround her cultural afterlives.

Written by Robert Llewellyn (who also plays Kryten), the episode leans hard into domestic satire. Kryten’s female-coded role as cook, cleaner, carer and emotional manager puts him at odds with the interloper Kochanski, a middle-class, degree-educated white woman determined to instil gentility into the racially diverse group who occupy the lowest rung of the ship’s hierarchy.

Kryten’s unvoiced rage culminates in literal explosion, his head detonating when his labour goes unacknowledged. The episode becomes unexpectedly dense: an examination of gender, class, race and post-human servitude. Beneath the explosive humour is a serious comment on immersion and gendered emotional labour.

Austen’s world of tea tables and letter writing, here rendered virtual, is shown to be both seductive and suffocating. It is a place where emotion is both cultivated and dangerously suppressed.

Austen’s claustrophobic worlds

Returning to Austen’s writing at university, I carried my own Dwarf-inspired desire to explode Austen – and to join Mark Twain in a desire to “dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone” when I had to read Pride and Prejudice (1813).

I mistakenly believed Austen’s novels offered an obsessive focus on narrow domesticity while ignoring war, revolution, poverty and the illiberal qualities of a supposedly enlightened age. However, in later life I came to realise that, like the confines of a mining ship in deep space, what Austen describes is less small than it is dense and claustrophobic.

Austen’s writing is sharply attentive to the relationship between imaginative freedom and physical constraint, especially for women. Her characters frequently reflect on travel and distance. In Persuasion (1817), Anne Elliot remarks that men “live in the world” while women like herself “live in it only by hearing of it”. In Mansfield Park
(1814), Edmund Bertram jokes that his cousin Fanny Price will “be taking a trip into China” through her reading.

His remark is inflected by Austen including reference to British author Samuel Johnson and his collection The Idler (1760), which Edmund lists among the books he imagines Fanny to be transported by. In an essay from The Idler, Johnson dismisses travel writing as disappointing, failing in immersing the reader for it so often only describes “the face of the country”.

Edmund and Fanny’s conversation takes place in the country house’s East Room, which Austen researchers have described as the most prominent metaphor for Fanny’s “spiritual distance” from the rest of the household. The room is filled with castoffs: faded embroidery, unwanted books, bad portraits. Fanny, too, is a penniless castoff, taken in by wealthier relations but frequently overlooked.

When her uncle sends her back to her lower-class family for refusing a lucrative match, Fanny is punished for her autonomy. She cannot leave Mansfield Park at will, and her imagined departures, whether into books, ideas or “China” – where she might enter a form of narrative virtual reality – offer no protection from real-life threats. Fanny’s reading in the East Room is abruptly curtailed by Edmund’s needs and the encroaching domestic chaos of an amateur theatrical production.

Yet this constraint is part of Austen’s point. The grand estate of Mansfield Park is funded by a shadowy West Indian plantation and enslaved labour, an economic foundation that goes unspoken and unseen. Those who travel there do so off the page.

When Fanny raises the question of the plantation’s ethics, she is met with silence. Who and what is not seen – Fanny, the plantation and its workers, the real costs of luxury – become as significant as what is. Fanny’s room, stripped of wealth, stands in quiet opposition to the brutal source of Mansfield Park’s comforts.

Immersible worlds – whether a Regency ball in Bath, a role in a household play, or a journey into “China” – can be a form of forgetting as much as imagining. The cast at Mansfield throw themselves into Elizabeth Inchbald’s Lovers’ Vows (1798), a sexually suggestive play, with little reflection on how their roles might influence or be influenced by their desires. Fanny, unwilling to participate, sees these risks more clearly, as she does with the larger social problems to which her cousins remain wilfully unseeing.

In Austen’s novels, the immersive imagination is double-edged: it contains the risk of abstraction and of losing touch with the present, even as it offers solace and self-making. What Austen reminds us, then, is to interrogate our relationship with immersible worlds.

As technology brings us ever closer to the virtual realities experienced by the boys from the Dwarf – and as our lived reality is growing more precarious, impoverished and violent – immersible worlds await the careworn. Yet we must beware simply rehearsing the silences which Austen so carefully wrote around.

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

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

– ref. Enjoyed together, Red Dwarf and Jane Austen offer a lesson in immersive world building – https://theconversation.com/enjoyed-together-red-dwarf-and-jane-austen-offer-a-lesson-in-immersive-world-building-259612

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amin Al-Habaibeh, Professor of Intelligent Engineering Systems, Nottingham Trent University

Technology firms have apparently suggested placing tracking devices or a microchip under the skin of convicted criminals to monitor them in prison or when they come out, according to a recent report in the Guardian. Though the idea raises questions about human rights, the technology is certainly developing that could make such an initiative possible.

Electronic ankle bracelets are already widely used forms of this technology. They normally use a radio frequency connected to a base station, similar to your home WiFi, to ensure the device is within a specific range in or around the house. Others use GPS to monitor the location of the person. Such devices require regular charging, however.

Anyone can use commercial technology such as AirTags from Apple or the Samsung SmartTag that allow people or items to be tracked. The monitoring technology is integrated with mobile phone applications. This includes the use of other people’s phones in an encrypted network of communications.

In the UK, there are different types of technologies available that utilise GPS and other wireless systems to monitor individuals who are subject to movement restrictions because of a court order.

The technology was first introduced in the UK in 1999 and it is normally used as an alternative to custody or imprisonment. According to a UK government website, there are three types of tagging: curfew tags, location tags and alcohol tags. A curfew tag checks the location of the tagged person from a base unit (such as their home) within a specific time period.

If the base unit cannot communicate with the tagged person, it will send an alert to the related monitoring centre. Location tags have more flexibility as they monitor the location and provide information about areas that the person should not access or should visit such as rehabilitation appointments.

The third most common type are alcohol tags where the alcohol level is measured from the sweat of a person. The aim is to reduce violence or crimes related to intoxication of alcohol. In 2022, the UK government reported that approximately 97% of offenders’ with these tags stayed off alcohol.

In general, greater use of electronic tagging could lead to more prisoners being released early and so help reduce the pressure on prison facilities. This could have other social benefits such as avoiding any disruption of employment or family commitments.

However, limitations such as problems with the device signal or false alarms for breaching court orders have been observed in several studies. A 2019, study by the Scottish Government highlighted some of the strengths and weaknesses of these technologies. However, with the continuous development of monitoring technologies, such limitations are expected to be addressed with more effective applications in the future.

Technology that involves implanting tags under the skin has been explored in in the past for applications such as proof of identity, contactless payment systems and the opening of secure doors.

One type of implant uses a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag and is about the size of a grain of rice. In theory, similar technology could be used with a base unit or distributed monitoring network to develop a tracking system to locate a person.

RFID tagging is used routinely in supermarkets to prevent theft. The tags are often attached to expensive items to prevent them from being taken from the store without payment.

However, human rights campaigners have called the proposals from the tech companies for microchip trackers and other devices “dystopian”. Forcing people to undergo invasive surgery to enable technology firms to gather what could become highly sensitive and personal data about them takes punishment a step beyond the temporary restriction of people’s freedom of movement.

Electronic monitoring technologies, with AI support, are advancing at rapid pace. In the future and globally, the technology is expected to play a vital role in enhancing public safety, supporting rehabilitation and minimising the cost to public funding. But questions also have to be answered about what role we want this kind of technology to play in our society.

Amin Al-Habaibeh receives funding from Innovate UK, The British Council, The Royal academy of Engineering, EPSRC, AHRC, and the European Commission.

– ref. Technology could open up new ways to track prisoners – https://theconversation.com/technology-could-open-up-new-ways-to-track-prisoners-261625

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aoife Bowman Grangel, PhD Candidate in Health Psychology, University of Limerick

In developed countries, around 12% of young people provide regular, unpaid care for a family member. It’s work that’s essential, often invisible – and potentially devastating to their mental health. As more families rely on these young carers, many are left without legal protections, recognition, or the support they urgently need.

Across Europe, informal carers now provide up to 80% of all long-term care. This figure is rising sharply due to ageing populations, an increase in chronic illness, and advances in medical technology. Between 2000 and 2050, the demand for unpaid care is expected to grow by 50% in Europe alone, with similar trends emerging in the US and Australia.

As adult carers struggle to meet rising demand, children, teenagers and young adults are stepping into the breach. These young carers often take on domestic, emotional, practical and personal care tasks that would challenge any adult. While some report growing resilience, maturity and empathy, the long-term toll on education, mental health and physical wellbeing is increasingly hard to ignore.

Lost opportunities, lasting consequences

Globally, young carers face significant restrictions on their education and career prospects. In both the UK and Germany, research shows that young adult carers are less likely to complete university, less likely to secure employment and more likely to experience long-term unemployment than their peers. These disadvantages aren’t just financial – they’re linked to increased rates of depression and anxiety later in life.

The social cost is high, too. Young carers are more likely to face bullying, isolation and limited opportunities for friendship or leisure. Chronic illness in the household can increase stress, leading to economic hardship, family breakdown and domestic conflict. Mental health is caught in the crossfire: many young carers experience psychological distress, depression and even self-harm.

Along with colleagues, I published a study that underscored the urgency of this issue. Our research showed that young carers in high-income countries are significantly more likely than their peers to experience poor mental health, including anxiety, depression and severe emotional distress.

Not all care is equal – and neither are its effects. The intensity, type and duration of caregiving matter greatly. Young carers who provide personal care, dedicate more hours each week, or have cared for a longer period are at the greatest risk of mental health difficulties.

Girls and young women are particularly vulnerable. They are overrepresented among young carers and are more likely to take on intensive or prolonged responsibilities. These disparities don’t end in childhood. As young adults, female carers tend to experience lower educational attainment and less workforce participation than their male counterparts – disadvantages that have ripple effects on their long-term mental and economic wellbeing.

Invisible and unsupported

Despite their growing numbers, young carers are often invisible to schools, healthcare providers and policymakers. Most European countries provide no formal recognition, rights or protections. Even though the European parliament addressed the issue in 2018 and 2022, young carers remain absent from key EU frameworks.

The UK is a notable exception, with specific rights and national interventions for young carers. But gaps remain. A 2016 report found that nearly one in three young carers identified by local authorities received no support at all.

In the US, the situation is worse: a lack of national data means young carers are missing entirely from most political conversations and care agendas.

Yet support makes a difference. Studies show that recognition and perceived support, whether from teachers, friends, professionals or government policies, can protect young carers’ mental health and improve their long-term outcomes. Support can take many forms: respite care, school accommodations, financial assistance, mentoring, or even a simple acknowledgement that their role matters.

Without intervention, the personal and societal costs are substantial: deteriorating mental health, lost educational and career opportunities and increased economic dependency in adulthood.

If we fail to support young carers, we fail an entire generation of quiet caregivers – and risk undermining the sustainability of our health and care systems for decades to come.

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

Aoife Bowman Grangel receives funding from the Irish Research Council.

– ref. Young carers face higher risks of depression, anxiety and lost futures – and most receive no support – https://theconversation.com/young-carers-face-higher-risks-of-depression-anxiety-and-lost-futures-and-most-receive-no-support-260654

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Lezak, Programme Manager at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

During the cold war, the US and Soviet Union were locked in a desperate race to develop cutting‑edge technologies like long-range missiles and satellites. Fast forward to today and the frontiers of global technology have pivoted to AI and next‑generation energy.

In one domain, AI, the US has far outpaced any other nation – though China looks to be closing the gap. In the other, energy, it has just tied its shoelaces together. The reason isn’t technology, economics or, despite the government’s official line, even national security. Rather, it is politics.

Since returning to the White House in January, Donald Trump has handed out huge wins to the coal and oil and gas industries. This is no great surprise. Trump has long been supportive of the US fossil fuel industry and, since his reelection, has appointed several former industry lobbyists to top political positions.

According to the Trump administration, national security requires gutting support for renewable energy while performing political CPR on the dying coal industry.

The reality is that, since 2019, the US has produced more oil, gas and coal annually than Americans want to use, with the rest exported and sold overseas. It is currently one of the most prolific exporters of fossil fuels in the world.

In short, the US does not have an energy security problem. It does, however, have an energy cost problem combined with a growing climate change crisis. These issues will only be made worse by Trump’s enthusiasm for fossil fuels.

Over the past six months, the Trump administration has upended half a decade of green industrial policy. It has clawed back billions of US dollars in tax credits and grants that were supercharging American energy innovation.

Meanwhile, China has roared forward. Beijing has doubled down on wind, solar and next‑generation batteries, installing more wind and solar power in 2024 than the rest of the world combined. To China’s delight, the US has simply stopped competing to be the world’s clean energy powerhouse.

Roughly one-in-five lithium‑ion batteries, a key component in clean energy products, are made in China. Many of the newest high‑tech batteries are also being developed and patented there. While Trump repeats the tired mantra of “drill, baby, drill”, China is building factories, cornering the market for critical minerals such as lithium and nickel, and locking in export partners.

At the same time, household energy spending in the US is expected to increase by US$170 (£126) each year between now and 2035 as a result of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill, which includes sweeping changes to taxes, social security and more, will raise energy costs mainly because it strips away support for cheap and abundant renewables like wind and solar.

Household energy costs could go up even more as Trump threatens to make large‑scale clean energy development much more onerous by putting up bureaucratic hurdles. The administration recently issued a directive requiring the secretary of the interior to approve even routine activities for wind and solar projects connected to federal lands.

Meanwhile, climate change is hitting American communities harder with each passing year. As recent flooding in Texas and urban fires in California and Hawaii have shown, fewer Americans still have the luxury of ignoring climate change.

As the cost of these disasters mount – US$183 billion in 2024 – the grifting of the oil and gas industry will become an increasingly bitter pill for the nation to swallow.

China’s foresight

China, with its authoritarian government, is less susceptible to the petroleum-obsessed dogma fueling the Republican party. It does not have prominent leaders like US politician Marjorie Taylor Greene, who previously warned that Democrats are trying to “emasculate the way we drive” by advocating for electric vehicles. Rather, China’s leaders are seeing green – not in the environmental sense, but in a monetary one.

It is generally cheaper nowadays to build and operate renewable energy facilities than gas or coal power stations. According to a June 2025 report by Lazard, an asset management company, electricity from new large-scale solar farms costs up to US$78 per megawatt hour – and often much less. The same electricity from a newly built natural gas plants, by comparison, can cost as much as US$107 per megawatt hour.

Across the world, utilities are embracing clean energy, choosing lower costs for their customers while reducing pollution. China saw the writing on the wall decades ago, and its early investments are bearing a rich harvest. It now produces more than half of the world’s electric vehicles and the vast majority of its solar panels.

The US can still compete at the leading edge of the energy sector. American companies are developing innovative new approaches to geothermal, battery recycling and many other energy technologies.

But in the battle to become the world’s 21st-century energy manufacturing powerhouse, the US seems to have walked off the playing field.

In Trump’s telling, the US may have simply exited one race and reentered another. But the fossil fuel industry – financially, environmentally and ethically – is obviously a dead end.

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

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

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

– ref. Why the US is letting China win on energy innovation – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-is-letting-china-win-on-energy-innovation-261109

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Conor O’Kane, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Bournemouth University

The beginning of August marks the latest deadline for US president Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariff policy. This era of chaos and uncertainty began on April 2 and the situation remaims fluid. With the deadline for partners to secure a deal with Washington now passed, it’s a good time to take a broader view and consider if Trump’s trade gamble is paying off.

The objectives of the tariff policy include raising tax revenues, delivering lower prices for American consumers, and boosting American industry while creating manufacturing jobs. The president has also vowed to get better trade deals for the US to reduce its trade deficit and to face down China’s growing influence on the world stage.

But recently the US Federal Reserve voted to keep interest rates unchanged at 4.25% to 4.5%, despite pressure from Trump to lower them. In his monthly press briefing, Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, said they were still in the early stages of understanding how the tariff policy would affect inflation, jobs and economic growth.

On tariffs, Powell did say that revenues had increased substantially to US$30 billion (£22.9 billion) a month. However, only a small portion of the tariffs are being absorbed by overseas exporters, with most of the cost being borne by US import companies. In comments that will concern the Trump administration, the Fed said the cost of the tariffs was beginning to show up in consumer prices.

The Fed expects inflation to increase to 3% by the end of the year, above its 2% target. US unemployment remains low, with Powell saying the economy is at or very close to full employment.

While Powell’s decision to hold interest rates probably irritated Trump, economic theory suggests that lowering them with the US economic cycle at full employment would be likely to increase inflation and the cost of living for US consumers. A survey by Bloomberg economists suggests that US GDP growth forecasts are lower since April 2025, specifically because of its tariff policy.

In terms of boosting US employment, the US administration can point to significant wins in the pharmaceutical sector. In July, British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZenica announced plans to spend US$50 billion expanding its US research and manufacturing facilities by 2030. The announcement follows a similar pledge from Swiss pharmaceuticals firm Roche in April to invest US$50 billion in the US over the next five years.

Tougher times for US manufacturing

The impact of tariffs on traditional US manufacturing industries is less positive. The Ford Motor Company has warned that its profits will see a sharp drop. This is largely down to a net tariff impact that the firm says will cost it US$2 billion this financial year. This is despite the company making nearly all of its vehicles in the US.

Firms such as Ford are seeing an increase in tariff-related costs for imports. This dents their profits as well as dividends to shareholders.

In recent months the US has announced major new trade agreements, including with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the EU. Talks on a trade deal with China continue. But rather than trade deals, these announcements should be thought of as frameworks for trade deals. No legally binding documents have been signed to date.

Read more:
European gloom over the Trump deal is misplaced. It’s probably the best the EU could have achieved

It will take many months before a clear picture emerges of how these bilateral deals will affect the US trade deficit overall. Meanwhile, in Washington, a federal appeals court will hear a case from two companies that are suing Trump over the use of his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

VOS Selections Inc, a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are arguing that the president has “no authority to issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval”.

With so much in play, it is difficult to judge whether Trump’s tariff policy can be viewed as a success. Higher tariff revenues from imports as well as significant investments from the pharmaceutical industry can be seen as clear wins.

But increasing consumer costs through rising inflation, as well as tariff costs hurting US manufacturers, are clear negatives. While several framework trade deals have been announced, the real devil will of course be in the detail.

Perhaps the greatest impact of the tariff policy has been the uncertainty of this new approach to trade and diplomacy. The Trump administration views trade as a zero-sum game. If one side is winning, the other side must be losing.

This view of international trade harks back to mercantilism, an economic system that predates capitalism. Adam Smith and David Riccardo, the founders of capitalist theory, advocated for free trade. They argued that if countries focused on what they were good at making, then both sides could benefit – a so called positive-sum game.

This approach has dominated global trade since the post-war period. Since then, the US has become the largest and wealthiest economy in the world. By creating and the institutions of global trade (the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization), the US has advanced its interests – and American-based multinationals dominate, especially in areas such as technology.

But China and others now threaten this US domination, and Trump is tearing up the economic rulebook. But economic theory clearly positions tariffs as the wrong policy path for the US to assert and further its economic interests in the medium to long term. That’s why Trump’s course of action remains such a gamble.

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

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

– ref. Trump’s new tariff regime has begun after months of chaos and uncertainty. But is his approach working? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-new-tariff-regime-has-begun-after-months-of-chaos-and-uncertainty-but-is-his-approach-working-262448

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ming Gao, Research Fellow of East Asia Studies, Lund University

China’s central government introduced a childcare subsidy on July 28 that will provide families with 3,000 yuan (around £312) a year for each child under the age of three. The announcement came days after plans were unveiled to roll out free preschool education across the country.

These developments mark a shift from previous years, when the government largely left the issue of addressing China’s declining birth rate to local authorities. Many of those efforts, which range from cash incentives to housing subsidies, have made little difference. By stepping in directly, Beijing has signalled that it sees the situation as urgent.

Fewer Chinese women are choosing to have children, and more young people are delaying or opting out of marriage. This has contributed to a situation where China’s population shrank for a third consecutive year in 2024. An ageing population and shrinking workforce pose long-term challenges for China’s economic growth, as well as its healthcare and pension systems.

Before the central government’s recent roll-out, regions in China had already been experimenting with policies to increase birth rates. These include one-time payouts for second or third children, monthly allowances and housing and job training subsidies.

One of the most eye-catching local policies came from Hohhot, the capital city of Inner Mongolia province. In March 2025, the authorities there began offering families up to 100,000 yuan (£10,400) for having a second and third child, paid annually until the children turn ten.

The authorities in some other cities, including eastern China’s Hangzhou, have offered childcare vouchers or subsidies for daycare. Policies like these have seen the number of births increase slightly in a few regions. But uptake is generally low and none have managed to change the national picture.

There are several reasons why incentive-based policies have not moved the needle. First, the subsidies are generally small – often equivalent to just a few hundred US dollars. This barely makes a dent in the cost of raising a child in urban China.

China ranks among the most expensive countries in the world for child-rearing, surpassing the US and Japan. In fact, a 2024 report by the Beijing-based YuWa Population Research Institute found that the average cost of raising a child in China until the age of 18 is 538,000 yuan (£59,275). This is more than 6.3 times as high as China’s GDP per capita.

The burden is so widely felt that people in China jokingly refer to children as tunjinshou, which translates to “gold-devouring beasts”.

Second, the incentives largely don’t address deeper issues. These include expensive housing, intense education pressures, childcare shortages and some workplaces that penalise women for taking time off. Many Chinese women fear being pushed out of their jobs simply for having kids.

Some local authorities have attempted to tackle the structural realities that make having and raising children in China difficult, and have enjoyed some success. In Tianmen, for example, parents of a third child can claim US$16,500 (£12,500) off a new home.

However, these policies are confined to specific districts and villages or are limited to select groups. Support remains fragmented and insufficient, while the prospects of scaling these piecemeal initiatives nationwide are slim.

Third, gender inequality in China is still deeply entrenched. Women carry most of the childcare and housework burden, with parental leave policies reflecting that imbalance. While mothers are allowed between 128 to 158 days of maternity leave, fathers receive only a handful – varying slightly by province. Despite public calls for equal parental leave, major legal changes seem far off.

These factors have together given rise to a situation where, as in east Asia more broadly, many young people in China simply are not interested in marrying or having children.

According to one online survey from 2022, around 90% of respondents in China said they wouldn’t consider having more children even if they were offered an annual subsidy of 12,000 yuan (£1,250) – far more than the recently announced 3,000 yuan subsidy.

Is Beijing too late?

The new measures show that Beijing is taking China’s declining birth rate seriously. But it might be too late. Fertility decline is hard to reverse, with research showing that social norms are difficult to snap back once they shift away from having children.

South Korea has spent decades offering its citizens generous subsidies, housing support and extended parental leave. Yet, despite a recent uptick, its birth rate has remained among the lowest in the world.

Projections by the UN paint a stark picture. China’s population is expected to drop by 204 million people between 2024 and 2054. It could lose 786 million people by the end of the century, returning its population to levels last seen in the 1950s.

Still, the recent announcements are significant. They are the first time the central government has directly used fiscal tools to encourage births, and reflect a consensus that lowering the cost of preschool education can help boost fertility. This sets a precedent and, if urgency keeps rising, the size and scope of support may increase as well.

However, if China hopes to turn things around, it will need more than cash. Parenting must be made truly viable and even desirable. Alongside financial aid and free preschool, families need time and labour support.

This also means confronting cultural expectations. Raising a child shouldn’t be seen as a woman’s job alone. A real cultural shift is needed – one that treats parenting as a shared responsibility.

My generation, which was born under the one-child policy, grew up in a time where siblings were heavily fined. I was one of them. But, just as fines didn’t stop all of those who wanted more children, cash rewards will not easily convince the many who don’t.

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

Ming Gao receives funding from the Swedish Research Council. This research was produced with support from the Swedish Research Council grant “Moved Apart” (nr. 2022-01864). Ming Gao is a member of Lund University Profile Area: Human Rights.

– ref. What will it take for China to arrest its declining birth rate? – https://theconversation.com/what-will-it-take-for-china-to-arrest-its-declining-birth-rate-261717