Analysis – Page 691 – MIL Submissions Engine

October 17, 2025

AI ‘workslop’ is creating unnecessary extra work. Here’s how we can stop it

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steven Lockey, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Melbourne Business School

Have you ever used artificial intelligence (AI) in your job without double-checking the quality or accuracy of its output? If so, you wouldn’t be the only one.

Our global research shows a staggering two-thirds (66%) of employees who use AI at work have relied on AI output without evaluating it.

This can create a lot of extra work for others in identifying and correcting errors, not to mention reputational hits. Just this week, consulting firm Deloitte Australia formally apologised after a A$440,000 report prepared for the federal government had been found to contain multiple AI-generated errors.

Against this backdrop, the term “workslop” has entered the conversation. Popularised in a recent Harvard Business Review article, it refers to AI-generated content that looks good but “lacks the substance to meaningfully advance a given task”.

Beyond wasting time, workslop also corrodes collaboration and trust. But AI use doesn’t have to be this way. When applied to the right tasks, with appropriate human collaboration and oversight, AI can enhance performance. We all have a role to play in getting this right.

The rise of AI-generated ‘workslop’

According to a recent survey reported in the Harvard Business Review article, 40% of US workers have received workslop from their peers in the past month.

The survey’s research team from BetterUp Labs and Stanford Social Media Lab found on average, each instance took recipients almost two hours to resolve, which they estimated would result in US$9 million (about A$13.8 million) per year in lost productivity for a 10,000-person firm.

Those who had received workslop reported annoyance and confusion, with many perceiving the person who had sent it to them as less reliable, creative, and trustworthy. This mirrors prior findings that there can be trust penalties to using AI.

Invisible AI, visible costs

These findings align with our own recent research on AI use at work. In a representative survey of 32,352 workers across 47 countries, we found complacent over-reliance on AI and covert use of the technology are common.

While many employees in our study reported improvements in efficiency or innovation, more than a quarter said AI had increased workload, pressure, and time on mundane tasks. Half said they use AI instead of collaborating with colleagues, raising concerns that collaboration will suffer.

Making matters worse, many employees hide their AI use; 61% avoided revealing when they had used AI and 55% passed off AI-generated material as their own. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to identify and correct AI-driven errors.

What you can do to reduce workslop

Without guidance, AI can generate low-value, error-prone work that creates busywork for others. So, how can we curb workslop to better realise AI’s benefits?

If you’re an employee, three simple steps can help.

start by asking, “Is AI the best way to do this task?”. Our research suggests this is a question many users skip. If you can’t explain or defend the output, don’t use it
if you proceed, verify and work with AI output like an editor; check facts, test code, and tailor output to the context and audience
when the stakes are high, be transparent about how you used AI and what you checked to signal rigour and avoid being perceived as incompetent or untrustworthy.

man using ChatGPT AI on a laptop — Before using AI for a work task, ask yourself whether you actually need to.
Matheus Bertelli/Pexels

What employers can do

For employers, investing in governance, AI literacy, and human-AI collaboration skills is key.

Employers need to provide employees with clear guidelines and guardrails on effective use, spelling out when AI is and is not appropriate.

That means forming an AI strategy, identifying where AI will have the highest value, being clear about who is responsible for what, and tracking outcomes. Done well, this reduces risk and downstream rework from workslop.

Because workslop comes from how people use AI – not as an inevitable consequence of the tools themselves – governance only works when it shapes everyday behaviours. That requires organisations to build AI literacy alongside policies and controls.

Organisations must work to close the AI literacy gap. Our research shows that AI literacy and training are associated with more critical AI engagement and fewer errors, yet less than half of employees report receiving any training or policy guidance.

Employees need the skills to use AI selectively, accountably and collaboratively. Teaching them when to use AI, how to do so effectively and responsibly, and how to verify AI output before circulating it can reduce workslop.

Steven Lockey’s position is funded by the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

Nicole Gillespie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Chair in Trust research partnership between the University of Melbourne and KPMG Australia.

– ref. AI ‘workslop’ is creating unnecessary extra work. Here’s how we can stop it – https://theconversation.com/ai-workslop-is-creating-unnecessary-extra-work-heres-how-we-can-stop-it-267110

October 16, 2025

New Pentagon policy is an unprecedented attempt to undermine press freedom

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amy Kristin Sanders, John and Ann Curley Professor of First Amendment Studies, Penn State

An American flag is unfurled on the side of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2025, in Arlington, Va. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Throughout modern American history, reporters who cover the Pentagon have played an invaluable role shining a light on military actions when the government has not been forthright with the public.

For instance, reporters covering the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2021 revealed the chaos that ensued and repudiated official statements claiming the pullout was smooth. That included reporting on a drone strike that killed 10 civilians, not ISIS militants, as the government initially claimed.

But free press advocates warn that recent changes in a Pentagon policy threaten journalists’ ability to cover the Department of Defense. That’s because it could curb their rights to report information not authorized by the government for release.

An initial policy change announced on Sept. 20, 2025 – and later revised – forbade journalists from publishing anything that hadn’t been approved by government officials. It gave journalists 10 days to sign and agree to the restrictions. A refusal to sign could have resulted in a cancellation of their press credentials to enter the Pentagon.

As a First Amendment expert, I believe the Pentagon policy change represents an unprecedented development in the Trump administration’s offensive against the press and a historic departure from previous administrations’ policies.

Attacks on journalism, said once-imprisoned journalist Peter Greste, “are a national security issue, and we have to protect press freedom.” Greste spoke in early October 2025 at the Global Free Speech Summit in Nashville, Tennessee, adding that “anything that undermines press freedom undermines national security.”

Greste was jailed for more than a year in Egypt while working for Al Jazeera in 2013. In Nashville, he drew a direct connection between the public’s access to information under a free press and the stability and freedom that democracies enjoy.

Even President Donald Trump seemed critical of the policy initially, telling a reporter in September 2025 he didn’t think the Pentagon should be in charge of deciding what reporters can cover.

An attempt to control critical coverage

Under the initial Pentagon policy change, journalists covering the Defense Department were required to sign a contract saying that department information must be “approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Fox News on Oct. 5, “The Pentagon press corps can squeal all they want, we’re taking these things seriously. They can report, they just need to make sure they’re following rules.”

Media outlets decided they could not accept the policy change. They also mulled legal action.

The Pentagon revised its initial policy change on Oct. 6 and set an Oct. 14 deadline for journalists to comply. The revised policy says prior approval would not be required to report on the Defense Department, but it suggests that soliciting information from Pentagon sources “would not be considered protected activity under the 1st Amendment.” But journalists who don’t sign and follow the revised policy could be deemed “security risks” and lose their credentials to access the Pentagon.

As the Oct. 14 deadline approached, dozens of media outlets said they would not sign the revised policy. Fox, Newsmax and the Daily Caller – all conservative news organizations – have also rejected the policy. The following day, journalists from dozens of news outlets turned in their press passes rather than agree to the new policy.

The Pentagon Press Association, which represents journalists covering the Defense Department, says the revised policy is “asking us to affirm in writing our ‘understanding’ of policies that appear designed to stifle a free press and potentially expose us to prosecution for simply doing our jobs.”

Conservative commentators have also criticized the policy. Law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News: “What they’re basically saying is if you publish anything that’s not in the press release, is not the official statement of the Pentagon, you could be held responsible under this policy. That is going to create a stranglehold on the free press, and the cost is too great.”

This isn’t the first time Hegseth has sought to limit media coverage of the Pentagon. In May 2025 he restricted journalists’ access to large portions of the Pentagon where they’d previously been allowed to go unescorted.

Freedom from government control

It is not unusual for the government to view the press as an adversary. But such direct attempts to control media outlets have been rare in the U.S.

The federal government has rarely been successful in its efforts to censor the media. In the 1930s, the Supreme Court set a high bar for the government to overcome if it wanted to stop the presses.

As Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote in 1930 in Near v. Minnesota: “The fact that, for approximately one hundred and fifty years, there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right.”

A man in a suit and tie speaks in front of a lecturn. — U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks during a news conference at the Pentagon on June 22, 2025, in Arlington, Va.
Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

In the years since, the high court has reiterated its belief that an adversarial press is essential to democracy. At the height of the Vietnam War, the court ruled the government could not prevent The New York Times from publishing leaked documents detailing U.S involvement in the conflict, despite the sensitive nature of the documents.

President Richard Nixon’s own nominee, Chief Justice Warren Burger, recognized the danger of allowing the government to restrict freedom of the press. “The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. … The damage can be particularly great when the prior restraint falls upon the communication of news and commentary on current events,” Burger wrote.

Burger acknowledged the role the press plays as a watchdog against the government’s abuse of power in 1976 in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. “The press … guards against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting the (legal system) to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.”

Whether the Supreme Court’s commitment to these long-standing precedents remains steadfast is anyone’s guess.

Law scholars RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja West have documented a marked decline in references by the high court to press freedom over the past two decades. They have also noted a dramatic change in the justices’ tone when discussing the press:

“(A)ny assumption that the Court is poised to be the branch to defend the press against disparagement is misplaced … When members of the press turn to the Court in their legal battles, they will no longer find an institution that consistently values their role in our democracy,” Andersen Jones and West write.

Yet even Burger was aware that muzzling the press posed serious consequences for a democratic society: “(I)t is nonetheless clear that the barriers to prior restraint remain high unless we are to abandon what the Court has said for nearly a quarter of our national existence and implied throughout all of it. The history of even wartime suspension of categorical guarantees, such as habeas corpus or the right to trial by civilian courts cautions against suspending explicit guarantees,” Burger wrote in his opinion in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart in 1976.

The new Pentagon policy, however, does just that by threatening reporters who write critical stories with the loss of their press credentials.

Amy Kristin Sanders has served as an expert witness for Fox News. She previously served on the Board of Directors for the Student Press Law Center and was a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.

– ref. New Pentagon policy is an unprecedented attempt to undermine press freedom – https://theconversation.com/new-pentagon-policy-is-an-unprecedented-attempt-to-undermine-press-freedom-266129

October 16, 2025

Marriage is hard, but it’s even harder when you immigrate together

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jingyi Zhang, Doctoral Student, Psychology, University of Alberta

Canadian immigration policy has long emphasized family reunification. In fact, most of Canada’s 200,000 yearly newcomers migrate as a couple or a family unit.

For these families, migration means more than just starting over — it means that each family member, and the unit, must adapt to the new culture while finding ways to maintain a connection with their original culture.

This dual transition, known as family acculturation, can be a source of both growth and stress. The complexity of this process is well illustrated by examining the smallest-sized family unit: the immigrant couple.

Language barriers, social isolation and new parenting challenges often add to the everyday pressures of marriage. When partners adapt to Canadian culture at different rates and levels, these acculturation gaps can strain communication, shift power dynamics and challenge a couple’s sense of connection and harmony.

What are acculturation gaps?

Acculturation refers to how individuals balance maintaining their heritage culture while adopting aspects of a new one. Within families, not everyone does that in the same way or at the same pace. One spouse might quickly learn English, find employment and follow social norms, while the other may hold more strongly to traditional values or struggle with integration.

They may also adapt differently across domains such as child-rearing practices. These differences, known as acculturation gaps, can affect not only individual well-being but also the quality of a couple’s relationship and overall family functioning.

Research on family acculturation has largely focused on parent–child relationships, showing how differences in cultural adaptation can cause tension and misunderstanding. Yet spousal acculturation gaps — though less studied — may be equally influential.

Couples, after all, are the foundation of most immigrant families, and large acculturation gaps between spouses may erode feelings of connectedness, negatively impacting both individual and relational well-being. These gaps may also spill over into parenting and other aspects of family functioning.

The acculturation gap–distress model explains how differing levels of adaptation within a family can lead to conflict. When partners adopt new languages, norms or values at different speeds, they may develop mismatched expectations about family roles, parenting and daily decisions.

This mismatch can erode intimacy and communication, increasing marital stress and dissatisfaction. Studies have found that couples with greater acculturation gaps tend to experience more marital distress, higher rates of conflict and separation and lower relationship quality over time.

Power dynamics within the family can also shift. The partner who adapts more easily — perhaps gaining stronger language skills or financial independence — may take on more decision-making authority. This can challenge traditional gender roles, especially for families migrating from patriarchal societies to more egalitarian environments.

As a result, couples may find themselves renegotiating not only household responsibilities but also their identities as partners, sometimes leading to tension or resentment.

Parenting adds another layer of complexity and pressure. Parents’ beliefs and practices are deeply shaped by their cultural backgrounds. When mothers and fathers acculturate differently, their child-rearing ideologies and approaches may diverge. For instance, one parent might encourage independence in line with Canadian norms, while the other emphasizes collectivist values. These inconsistencies can lead to co-parenting stress, spousal conflict and confusion for children.

When resilience meets policy

Not all acculturation gaps lead to conflict. The vulnerability–stress–adaptation (VSA) model suggests that couples’ ability to adapt determines whether stressors such as language gaps strengthen or weaken the relationship.

While acculturation gaps can create vulnerabilities, partners who communicate openly, show empathy and support each other often turn these challenges into opportunities for deeper connection. Couples’ resilience and adaptive coping can mediate the negative effects of acculturation gaps on their well-being, enhancing long-term satisfaction and stability.

Unfortunately, recent immigration policies have added another strain on immigrant families. Canada’s indefinite suspension of new permanent residency sponsorships for parents and grandparents removes an important support system for many newcomers. Grandparents often provide child care, transmit cultural values and offer emotional support — resources that buffer acculturative stress and promote family cohesion.

Under the VSA model, the removal of extended-family support functions as an external stressor that intensifies couples’ existing vulnerabilities. With fewer adaptive resources to manage daily stress, immigrant couples may find it harder to maintain resilience, marital quality and family well-being.

The story of couple acculturation is one of commitment and adaptation under stress. The success of this journey depends not only on language skills or employment but also on mutual understanding and support.

Immigration policies influence the ecology of resilience in immigrant families, yet within this context, couples must continuously negotiate acculturative stressors and gaps.

Well-adjusted couples are the foundation of thriving immigrant families and communities, and understanding couple acculturation gaps is a crucial step toward supporting them.

Jingyi Zhang received funding from the China Institute at the University of Alberta

Kimberly A. Noels received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada through an Insight Grant #435-2024-1437.

– ref. Marriage is hard, but it’s even harder when you immigrate together – https://theconversation.com/marriage-is-hard-but-its-even-harder-when-you-immigrate-together-266216

October 16, 2025

Putin’s forever war against the west

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This newsletter was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

There’s an organisation in Russia called the Valdai Discussion Club, a group of public intellectuals that has met since 2004 to discuss the country’s place in the world. It has strong links with government and each year hosts the president, Vladimir Putin, for a day of discussion. This year’s talkfest focused, as Putin put it, on “what is happening in the world, the role of our country in it, and how we see its development prospects”.

And that’s very interesting when you consider the title of the thinktank’s annual report this year, which will particularly appeal to any fans of Dr Strangelove – Dr Chaos or: How to Stop Worrying and Love the Disorder. The report’s basic thesis is that because the west is attempting to inflict, in Putin’s words “a strategic defeat on Russia”, Russia, in turn, must rise to the threat.

One of the ways it can do that, the Valdai Club’s report says, is by recognising that the purpose of conflict is changing and that the “contemporary objective may no longer lie in victories – wherein one party achieves all its goals – but rather in maintaining a balance necessary for a period of relative peaceful development”.

This, writes Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, would go a long way towards explaining the low-level but constant hybrid warfare that Russia has been waging against the west for more than a decade now, and which blew up in 2022 into an all-out armed conflict in Ukraine.

This so-called “grey-zone warfare” seems to have become ever-present in Europe in recent months. Interference in elections, Russian warplanes flying into other countries’ airspace, drone incursions forcing airports to close, regular cyber attacks – they all test the resilience and preparedness of Nato, Wolff believes.

In his analysis, winning the war in Ukraine will involve Russia being able to weaken western resolve and unity. And winning the war will demonstrate that it is capable of doing just that. “In this sense,” Wolff writes, “the intensification of the Kremlin’s hybrid war against Kyiv’s European allies is a tool Moscow uses as part of its broader war effort.”

Wolff’s thesis is echoed by Christo Atanasov Kostov, an international relations expert with particular focus on Russia at Schiller International University in Madrid. Kostov analyses Russia’s grey-zone “toolkit”, and concludes: “The Kremlin’s strategy increasingly favours hybrid means – drones, cyberattacks, disinformation, and energy blackmail – over warfare. These are not random provocations, but a coherent campaign of testing.”

Kostov believes that Russia has set out to exhaust the west, not to conquer it. He draws several conclusions as to where this is likely to lead, concluding that an all-out war with Nato is unlikely, “but not unthinkable”. More likely is an escalation into a new cold war across Europe, meaning permanently increased defence budgets and requiring a stronger focus on coordination across Nato, but also stronger European autonomy to compensate for America’s intention to dial down its involvement in the continent’s security.

Europe, writes Kostov, “has to resist the fatigue of endless crisis and demonstrate that resilience, not fear, defines the continent’s future”.

Donald Trump, peacemaker

Vladmir Putin wasn’t among the dignitaries who gathered in Sharm el-Sheikh to sign the “Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity”. This, you’ll remember, is the rather grandiosely titled 642-word statement signed by the US president, Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (the meeting’s host) and a supporting cast of world leaders including UK prime minister Keir Starmer, French president Emmanuel Macron and Canadian prime minister Mark Carney.

The declaration itself was insubstantial. It welcomed the “historic commitment” by all parties to the Trump peace agreement (also known as the Gaza ceasefire deal) and made a joint commitment to “a comprehensive vision of peace, security, and shared prosperity in the region, grounded in the principles of mutual respect and shared destiny”.

Trump had flown to Egypt hot from his appearance at Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, where he took applause from all sides for his achievement in getting Israel and Hamas to agree a ceasefire. The US president was understandably enthusiastic, referring to the “the historic dawn of a new Middle East”.

But is it really? asks David Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham. Dunn felt that the day was more of a performance than anything else. But this in itself might serve a useful purpose. Besides playing to the US president’s well-known love for adulation, as Dunn puts it: “For the US to be openly and obviously committed to the peace process makes it more difficult for the opposing parties to reopen hostilities without the risk of incurring US displeasure for ruining their achievement.”

And for Starmer, Macron, Carney and the rest, who risk being mocked in their own countries as also-rans in the scheme of things, Dunn believes that there’s a purpose to that as well. The more they encourage Trump to see himself in the role of peacemaker and the more he gets to bask in a praise he has rightly earned for the Gaza ceasefire, the greater the chance that he might redouble his efforts to get Russia to see sense over Ukraine.

As he concludes: “If flattering his [Trump’s] ego into directing his energies towards this end achieves this goal, then their part in this iteration of the Trump Show should probably be judged by history as worthwhile.”

As to how long the ceasefire will stick, at the moment that’s changing day by day. We’ll continue to monitor events in Gaza as they unfold. The other big question is whether the Israeli prime minister can survive the peace.

John Strawson, who researches Israeli politics at the University of East London, believes that he’ll be under pressure ahead of an election which must – if peace holds – be held within a year. Some say the ceasefire is bad news for him. He sold the war on the basis it would achieve total victory and annihilate Hamas. And he may struggle to retain the support of his far-right colleagues who wanted Israel to do just that.

But Strawson believes it would be a mistake to underestimate Netanyahu. He’s a wily campaigner who “has made a career out of turning obstacles into opportunities”.

Ibuprofen: how an everyday drug might offer protection against cancer

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

Ibuprofen is a household name – the go-to remedy for everything from headaches to period pain. But recent research suggests this everyday drug might be doing more than easing discomfort. It could also have anti-cancer properties.

As scientists uncover more about the links between inflammation and cancer, ibuprofen’s role is coming under the spotlight – raising intriguing questions about how something so familiar might offer unexpected protection.

Ibuprofen belongs to the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) family. The connection between NSAIDs and cancer prevention isn’t new: as far back as 1983, clinical evidence linked sulindac – an older prescription NSAID similar to ibuprofen – to a reduced incidence of colon cancer in certain patients. Since then, researchers have been investigating whether these drugs could help prevent or slow other cancers too.

NSAIDs work by blocking enzymes called cyclooxygenases (COX). There are two main types. COX-1 helps protect the stomach lining, maintains kidney function, and plays a role in blood clotting. COX-2, on the other hand, drives inflammation.

Most NSAIDs, including ibuprofen, inhibit both, which is why doctors recommend taking them with food rather than on an empty stomach.

Ibuprofen and endometrial cancer

A 2025 study found that ibuprofen may lower the risk of endometrial cancer, the most common type of womb cancer, which starts in the lining of the uterus (the endometrium) and mainly affects women after menopause.

One of the biggest preventable risk factors for endometrial cancer is being overweight or obese, since excess body fat increases levels of oestrogen – a hormone that can stimulate cancer cell growth.

Other risk factors include older age, hormone replacement therapy (particularly oestrogen-only HRT), diabetes, and polycystic ovary syndrome. Early onset of menstruation, late menopause, or not having children also increase risk. Symptoms can include abnormal vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain, and discomfort during sex.

In the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) study, data from more than 42,000 women aged 55–74 was analysed over 12 years. Those who reported taking at least 30 ibuprofen tablets per month had a 25% lower risk of developing endometrial cancer than those taking fewer than four tablets monthly. The protective effect appeared strongest among women with heart disease.

Interestingly, aspirin – another common NSAID – did not show the same association with reduced risk in this or other studies. That said, aspirin may help prevent bowel cancer returning.

Other NSAIDs, such as naproxen, have been studied for preventing colon, bladder, and breast cancers. The effectiveness of these drugs seems to depend on cancer type, genetics, and underlying health conditions.

Ibuprofen’s broader potential

Ibuprofen’s possible cancer-protective effects extend beyond endometrial cancer. Studies suggest it may also reduce risk of bowel, breast, lung, and prostate cancers.

For example, people who previously had bowel cancer and took ibuprofen were less likely to experience recurrence. It has also been shown to inhibit colon cancer growth and survival, and some evidence even suggests a protective effect against lung cancer in smokers.

Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer and ibuprofen is, at its core, anti-inflammatory. By blocking COX-2 enzyme activity, the drug reduces production of prostaglandins, chemical messengers that drive inflammation and cell growth – including cancer cell growth. Lower prostaglandin levels may slow or stop tumour development.

But that’s only part of the story. Ibuprofen also appears to influence cancer-related genes such as HIF-1α, NFκB, and STAT3, which help tumour cells survive in low-oxygen conditions and resist treatment.

Ibuprofen seems to reduce the activity of these genes, making cancer cells more vulnerable. It can also alter how DNA is packaged within cells, potentially making cancer cells more sensitive to chemotherapy.

A word of caution

But not all research points in the same direction. A study involving 7,751 patients found that taking aspirin after an endometrial cancer diagnosis was linked to higher mortality, particularly among those who had used aspirin before diagnosis. Other NSAIDs also appeared to increase cancer-related death risk.

Conversely, a recent review found that NSAIDs, especially aspirin, may reduce the risk of several cancers – though regular use of other NSAIDs could raise the risk of kidney cancer. These conflicting results show how complex the interaction between inflammation, immunity, and cancer really is.

Despite the promise, experts warn against self-medicating with ibuprofen for cancer prevention. Long-term or high-dose NSAID use can cause serious side effects such as stomach ulcers, gut bleeding, and kidney damage.

Less commonly, they may trigger heart problems like heart attacks or strokes. NSAIDs also interact with several medications, including warfarin and certain antidepressants, increasing the risk of bleeding and other complications.

The idea that a humble painkiller could help prevent cancer is both exciting and provocative. If future studies confirm these findings, ibuprofen might one day form part of a broader strategy for reducing cancer risk, especially in high-risk groups.

For now, experts agree it’s wiser to focus on lifestyle-based prevention: eating anti-inflammatory foods, maintaining a healthy weight and staying physically active.

Everyday medicines may yet hold surprising promise, but until the science is settled, the safest prescription for cancer prevention remains the oldest one: eat well, move often, and listen to your doctor before reaching for the pill bottle.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Ibuprofen: how an everyday drug might offer protection against cancer – https://theconversation.com/ibuprofen-how-an-everyday-drug-might-offer-protection-against-cancer-266645

October 16, 2025

Diversidad e inclusión: una estrategia para aumentar la rentabilidad

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Deniz Torcu, Adjunct Professor of Globalization, Business and Media, IE University

Si uno solo leyera los titulares de la guerra cultural contra las políticas de diversidad e inclusión pensaría que su aplicación en las empresas es puro postureo. Según los detractores, contratar con criterios de diversidad baja el listón, los programas de inclusión son caros y prescindibles, o solo sirven en sectores “blandos” como el marketing o las ONG.

La pregunta de fondo es: ¿los equipos directivos más diversos ayudan a que las empresas funcionen mejor? En los últimos cinco años, la evidencia se ha vuelto cada vez más clara, y más incómoda para quienes sostienen lo contrario.

Más diversidad, más rentabilidad

En 2023, la consultora estratégica McKinsey & Company analizó 1 265 empresas en 23 países. El informe resultante, Diversity Matters Even More, señala que las compañías con mayor diversidad de género en sus equipos ejecutivos tienen un 39 % más de probabilidades de superar financieramente a sus pares. La cifra también es del 39 % en diversidad étnica y cultural.

Ya en 2020, en plena pandemia y con más empresas analizadas, las cifras eran de 25 % y 36 % respectivamente. Es decir, la mejora en los datos era consistente pese a las condiciones adversas.

¿Por qué mejoran los datos?

Un liderazgo diverso cambia cómo se toman las decisiones: se reducen los puntos ciegos, se cuestionan supuestos, se anticipan riesgos y se diseñan productos más ajustados a una base de clientes cada vez más heterogénea.

Además, esa base está cambiando rápidamente: los análisis demográficos del think tank estadounidense Brookings Institution muestran que en Estados Unidos –y, de manera similar, en Europa– los jóvenes son ya mucho más diversos que las generaciones anteriores. Ignorar esa realidad equivale a diseñar para un consumidor que ya no existe.

La macroeconomía también lo respalda

El Banco Mundial, en su informe Women, Business and the Law 2024, muestra que las mujeres disfrutan en promedio de solo el 64 % de igualdad formal frente a los hombres (esto es que, en el papel, hombres y mujeres deben recibir el mismo trato y tener los mismos derechos pero en el mundo real esta igualdad no se cumple), y que la brecha entre lo que dice la ley y lo que se aplica en la práctica es aún mayor.

Estudios complementarios de la misma institución –como el Gender Employment Gap Index (GEGI)– estiman que si se cerraran las brechas de empleo entre hombres y mujeres, el PIB per cápita de los países podría aumentar en torno a un 19 % en promedio, llegando incluso a más del 40 % en economías con desigualdades mayores. Además, la nueva metodología del informe no se limita a medir las normas escritas sino también su implementación efectiva, subrayando que la inclusión depende de sistemas que funcionen, no solo de leyes bien intencionadas.

La OCDE calculó en 2023 a partir de datos de nueve economías, que si las empresas con menor representación femenina en la alta dirección alcanzaran al menos el promedio de la muestra (20 %), la productividad agregada aumentaría en 0,6 %. Puede parecer un porcentaje modesto, pero, en términos macroeconómicos, es un empujón notable y constante.

El FMI, por su parte, lanzó en 2022 una estrategia para integrar la igualdad de género en todas sus políticas. La conclusión central: cerrar las brechas de género no solo impulsa el crecimiento, también refuerza la estabilidad macroeconómica.

Y en el terreno del comercio, un informe conjunto OMC–Banco Mundial (2020) documenta cómo las mujeres ganan con la apertura comercial y cómo las políticas inclusivas de género amplían las oportunidades de las economías enteras.

Más digitalización y educación

Finalmente, la ONU, en su informe Gender Snapshot 2024, advierte que la brecha digital de género tiene un coste económico directo: la menor participación de las mujeres en el uso de internet podría suponer una pérdida estimada de 500 000 millones de dólares en países de ingresos bajos y medios durante los próximos cinco años.

El informe también recuerda que el 65 % de las mujeres usó internet en 2023 frente al 70 % de los hombres, y que las mujeres siguen teniendo un 8 % menos de probabilidades de poseer un teléfono móvil.

En cuanto a escolarización, un dato esperanzador: si en 2015 el 46 % de las jóvenes no acaban la enseñanza secundaria diez años después ese porcentaje ha caído hasta el 39 %.

Según estimaciones del Banco Mundial de 2018 sobre [los costes de la falta de escolarización] de las niñas, si las mujeres con educación primaria solo ganan entre un 14 y un 19 % más que las mujeres sin educación, las que han completado la educación secundaria ganan casi el doble que las mujeres que han completado la primaria.

Así pues, la desigualdad de género no solo es una injusticia sino también una enorme ineficiencia económica.

Evidencia europea: gobernanza y riesgo

El Banco Central Europeo ha publicado estudios que vinculan directamente diversidad con desempeño. Un documento de trabajo de 2022 muestra que los bancos con consejos más diversos en género conceden menos crédito a empresas altamente contaminantes. Esto significa mejor filtrado de riesgo climático en un mundo donde la transición energética ya es un riesgo financiero.

En 2025, otro informe del BCE analizó cómo el perfil de los consejeros –incluida la diversidad de género– se relacionaba con el desempeño bancario. Según el informe, la incorporación de mujeres consejeras se asocia con una mejora (aunque modesta) en la rentabilidad. En suma, la diversidad en los consejos se vincula con un gobierno corporativo más sólido.

Estos hallazgos no provienen de activistas sino de supervisores financieros: la diversidad en la gobernanza es un factor de estabilidad.

¿Por qué persisten los mitos?

El mito sobrevive por dos razones:

Porque la homogeneidad se siente cómoda: menos discusiones, decisiones más rápidas. Pero fluidez no equivale a calidad. Los equipos diversos generan más fricción, pero esa fricción produce análisis más sólidos y decisiones más robustas.
Porque los beneficios no son inmediatos. Contratar perfiles diversos sin crear un entorno inclusivo lleva a la frustración de las personas y a una mayor rotación.

Qué deben hacer los líderes

Hemos visto cómo la inclusión es el multiplicador que convierte la diversidad en rendimiento. Tomando en cuenta la evidencia, las empresas deben incorporar la diversidad y la inclusión (D&I) en su estrategia de negocio:

Dejando de tratar la D&I como un gasto prescindible. Los datos son más contundentes en 2023 que en 2020.
Cerrar la brecha entre discurso y práctica. La nueva metodología del Banco Mundial es un buen modelo: medir la brecha entre lo que se dice y cómo se implementa para corregirla.
Integrar la diversidad en la gestión de riesgos. Si el BCE encuentra correlaciones entre la diversidad en los consejos y el desempeño bancario cualquier comité de riesgos debería tomar nota de esto.
Pensar en productividad y mercado. La OCDE ya lo midió: incluso pequeños aumentos en representación femenina generan ganancias agregadas.

No es un gesto sino una ventaja

La diversidad en las organizaciones no es un accesorio ideológico ni un gesto reputacional. Es una ventaja operativa y financiera.

Las organizaciones que lo han entendido ya reasignan capital, mejoran su gobernanza y ejecutan con más éxito. Las que no, siguen discutiendo consignas mientras el mercado avanza.

En un mundo volátil, ignorar la diversidad no es neutral: es autodestructivo.

La versión original de este artículo ha sido publicada en la Revista Telos, de Fundación Telefónica.

Deniz Torcu no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Diversidad e inclusión: una estrategia para aumentar la rentabilidad – https://theconversation.com/diversidad-e-inclusion-una-estrategia-para-aumentar-la-rentabilidad-265824

October 16, 2025

El carisma del mal: cómo los rasgos psicopáticos se han normalizado en la cultura del éxito

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Dolores Fernández Pérez, Profesora Ayudante Doctora. Departamento de Psicología, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha

Kevin Spacey encarnó al turbio y despiadado Frank Underwood, vicepresidente de Estados Unidos, en la serie _House of Cards_. Melinda Sue Gordon / Knight Takes King Prod.

Vivimos en una sociedad que premia la audacia y la frialdad. Lo vemos en series como House of Cards, donde Frank Underwood asciende pisando a quien haga falta. En Succession, Logan Roy domina su imperio familiar a base de miedo y control. Incluso en El lobo de Wall Street el exceso se celebra como si fuera genialidad.

Estas historias no han inventado nada: reflejan una idea extendida, que “el fin justifica los medios”. Y ese mismo modo de actuar también aparece, a veces, en la vida real.

La psicopatía se ha estudiado durante décadas. En los años cuarenta se describió como encanto superficial, ausencia de culpa, frialdad emocional y conducta impulsiva. Más tarde, se crearon herramientas para medirla y se demostró que estos rasgos no solo aparecen en criminales. También están presentes, en menor grado, en personas aparentemente normales y exitosas. Algunas funcionan bien en la sociedad e incluso son capaces de alcanzar el poder.

Perfiles difíciles de detectar

No obstante, este tipo de perfiles oscuros son difíciles de detectar. Suelen convivir con buenas habilidades sociales. De manera que su encanto inicial puede ocultar sus fallos y su comportamiento dañino y peligroso. A corto plazo pueden parecer líderes ideales, pero a largo plazo dejan conflictos, miedo y desgaste.

En las empresas, sobre todo en la cúpula, el carisma frío, el gusto por el riesgo y la manipulación pueden vender un buen liderazgo. Muchas compañías persiguen resultados inmediatos, seguridad aparente, gestos firmes, decisiones rápidas. La empatía, en cambio, se ve como una debilidad. Incluso en las entrevistas se valora más el aplomo que la ética de la persona.

Así se cuelan máscaras bien pulidas, una apariencia de control que puede deslumbrar y ocultar señales de abuso o incompetencia. Después, esa frialdad y la ambición impulsan el ascenso, aunque a menudo acaban debilitando el entorno que los sostiene.

Dos grandes psicópatas

La historia reciente nos deja ejemplos claros. Bernie Madoff mantuvo durante años una imagen de respetabilidad mientras dirigía una enorme estafa piramidal que hizo perder 50 000 millones de dólares a miles de inversores. Madoff usaba el dinero que entraba de nuevos clientes para pagar a los antiguos y hacerles creer que estaban ganando rendimientos. En realidad, no había ninguna inversión detrás, solo movía dinero de unos a otros hasta que todo colapsó.

Kenneth Lay, de Enron, parecía un visionario mientras su empresa maquillaba cuentas y ocultaba deudas, hasta provocar una de las mayores quiebras de la historia y arruinar a miles de personas. Ambos mostraban carisma y sangre fría hasta que todo se derrumbó.

En política ocurren situaciones similares. Donald Trump ha construido su imagen en torno a la fuerza y la confrontación constante. Usa mensajes simples y combativos, domina el escenario y no muestra dudas. A muchos seguidores eso les inspira admiración, pese a su tono agresivo y a su escasa disposición al diálogo y el consenso.

Algo parecido pasa con líderes que impulsan guerras actuales. La invasión de Ucrania por Rusia o la ofensiva de Israel en Gaza, con decenas de miles de civiles muertos y desplazados y un caso por genocidio ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia, muestran cómo decisiones frías pueden destruir miles de vidas civiles. Quienes más sufren esas guerras rara vez son quienes las inician. Y, sin embargo, sus responsables suelen ser venerados como símbolos de fuerza.

La “tríada oscura” y el poder

Los psicólogos buscan entender por qué este tipo de personalidades prospera. Se habla de la “tríada oscura”: narcisismo, maquiavelismo y psicopatía. Combinadas, transmiten confianza, dominio y resistencia al estrés. Esto puede ayudar a alcanzar el poder, pero conlleva riesgos. Este metaanálisis muestra algo importante: tales rasgos ayudan a llegar arriba, pero no garantizan eficacia una vez allí. Algunos líderes logran resultados a corto plazo; otros hunden la moral de sus equipos y toman decisiones temerarias. Un poco de audacia ayuda en un momento de crisis. Pero un exceso de la misma rompe la confianza y la ética.

Hay rasgos que pueden frenar esos efectos. La responsabilidad, la amabilidad o la estabilidad emocional ayudan a regular la impulsividad. También favorecen decisiones justas. Sin ellos, la frialdad se convierte en temeridad. Además, los equipos con climas cooperativos y reglas claras resisten mejor a estos perfiles.

El problema es que, en entornos muy competitivos, esas cualidades suelen estar ausentes. Y cuando un líder frío asciende, tiende a rodearse de personas parecidas. Así se crean culturas que expulsan a quienes valoran la cooperación y el respeto.

La política debería aprender de esto. Un país no es una empresa, pero ambos comparten riesgos. El culto al líder erosiona los controles. La transparencia cede ante el relato heroico. La oposición se convierte en enemigo. Gobernar no es ganar siempre, es cuidar de todos.

Conviene matizar. No todos los líderes son psicópatas ni presentan rasgos de ese tipo. Tampoco todos los que muestran algunos de esos rasgos resultan dañinos.
La audacia, por ejemplo, puede ser valiosa en situaciones de emergencia. Sin embargo, la audacia sin empatía se convierte en temeridad. Por tanto, el problema surge cuando esos rasgos se combinan de forma desequilibrada.

Todo esto debería hacernos pensar: ¿qué estamos premiando cuando aplaudimos a un líder? ¿Su capacidad de imponerse o de cuidarnos? Cada vez que celebramos la frialdad, normalizamos que el poder pase por encima de las personas. Quizá sea hora de revisar nuestro ideal de éxito. El carisma del mal deslumbra, pero suele dejar tras de sí miedo, desgaste y daño colectivo.

Dolores Fernández Pérez no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. El carisma del mal: cómo los rasgos psicopáticos se han normalizado en la cultura del éxito – https://theconversation.com/el-carisma-del-mal-como-los-rasgos-psicopaticos-se-han-normalizado-en-la-cultura-del-exito-264655

October 16, 2025

Canada still lacks universal paid sick leave — and that’s a public health problem as we approach flu season

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Alyssa Grocutt, Postdoctoral Associate at Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

As Canadians head into another flu and COVID season, many workers still face an impossible choice if they fall ill: stay home and lose pay, or clock in sick and risk spreading illness. This is more than an individual dilemma; it’s a predictable public health failure — one the government already knows how to fix.

Paid sick leave is good for both health and business, reducing the spread of illness while supporting workforce productivity, promoting better health outcomes and increasing labour force participation.

So why don’t all workers in Canada have it?

A lesson we’ve failed to learn

The costs of sick people going to work were starkly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In 2021, Peel Region in Ontario became a hotspot for transmission. Research from Peel Public Health found that one in four employees went to work while showing symptoms of COVID-19, and about one per cent did so even after testing positive.

Mississauga Mayor Bonnie Crombie called these figures “evidence” that workers were being forced into a dangerous trade-off between “losing a paycheque and putting food on the table.”

And yet, Canada still lacks a comprehensive paid sick leave system. Access remains patchy, depending on the province, sector or employer. The Canada Labour Code mandates 10 days of paid sick leave, but only for federally regulated employees.

At the provincial level, only British Columbia (five days per year), Québec (two days) and Prince Edward Island (one to three days, depending on tenure), have permanent paid sick leave. Ontario briefly offered three days during the pandemic but ended the program in 2023.

Even where these programs exist, they don’t cover everyone. Independent contractors and gig workers are excluded, and many low-wage and part-time employees still lack coverage altogether.

Gig workers, in particular, fall through the cracks. They’re classified as self-employed and left without the basic protections that most employees take for granted.

Canadian unionized workers are more likely to have paid sick days negotiated into their contracts, but coverage remains uneven and far from universal. In sectors with low union density, such as hospitality and agriculture, workers are least likely to have access to any form of paid sick leave at all.

The case for paid sick leave

Every year, workers bring colds, flu and other contagious illnesses to work because they cannot afford to stay home. Presenteeism — working while ill — harms recovery, spreads infection and increases workplace outbreaks.

Research shows that high job demands and low resources drive presenteeism, which in turn reduces job satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. It’s a lose-lose equation: employees suffer, productivity drops and illness spreads faster.

The evidence shows that paid sick leave improves both public health and business outcomes. A 2023 review of 43 studies found that paid sick leave is linked with higher job satisfaction, better retention, fewer workplace injuries, reduced contagion and even lower mortality.

Other research shows that employees without paid sick leave experience greater psychological distress, while simply knowing that such policies exist improves attitudes and trust toward employers.

Although some studies note short-term costs for organizations, the previously mentioned 2023 review found these costs are outweighed by long-term gains, including stronger employee loyalty, lower turnover and improved public health outcomes.

Building on what works

To address this, Canada should integrate paid sick leave into systems similar to workers’ compensation for workplace injuries and fatalities.

Canada already has well-established mechanisms, such as provincial Workers’ Compensation Boards and the Federal Workers’ Compensation Service, that provide income replacement and rehabilitation support for employees with work-related illnesses and injuries.

Extending this logic to illness, especially when it spreads through communities, would prevent workers from being penalized for following public health guidance while helping organizations avoid widespread disruption.

Governments and employers could draw lessons from the successes and shortcomings of existing compensation systems to design a program that is fair, efficient and responsive to routine illness and public health emergencies.

For instance, the workers’ compensation programs have long provided reliable, no-fault coverage for physical injuries, but they also struggle with uneven access, complex claims procedures and limited recognition of mental health conditions.

Leadership is also crucial. Leaders who prioritize employee well-being and model prosocial safety behaviours can reduce presenteeism and strengthen safety culture. They are also crucial for setting examples and encouraging employees to use sick leave without fear.

When leaders communicate that taking time off while sick is responsible, not risky, they help rewrite the social norms that keep people working through illness and ensure paid sick leave policies translate into healthier workplaces.

Paid sick leave is a public health imperative

Policymakers, business leaders, unions and the public need to support the creation of a paid sick leave system that is robust, fair and capable of protecting all workers and workplaces. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the need for expanded sick leave policies, and it remains just as urgent today.

Paid sick leave is basic public health infrastructure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, paid sick leave enabled workers to stay home when they were exhibiting symptoms, which reduced transmissions, workplace outbreaks and worker absenteeism.

A universal sick leave system would help Canada better manage seasonal illnesses and future outbreaks, protect economic stability and prepare for emerging crises, from new pandemics to climate-related health shocks.

Lives depend on it. Organizational health rests on it. Society’s well-being requires it.

Alyssa Grocutt receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Julian Barling receives funding from the Borden Chair of Leadership and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

– ref. Canada still lacks universal paid sick leave — and that’s a public health problem as we approach flu season – https://theconversation.com/canada-still-lacks-universal-paid-sick-leave-and-thats-a-public-health-problem-as-we-approach-flu-season-266987

October 16, 2025

Raila Odinga: the man who changed Kenya without ever ruling it

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Justin Willis, Professor of History, Durham University

Raila Amollo Odinga, who has died at the age of 80, was something of a paradox in post-independence Kenyan politics.

A leader who repeatedly ran for president, he never won – in part due to the 2007 election being manipulated in favour of Mwai Kibaki. Despite this, Odinga will be remembered as a figure who profoundly shaped the country’s politics as much as any president.

The son of a famous anti-colonial leader, he was born into influence. Yet he became bitterly critical of Kenya’s enduring political and economic inequalities, speaking out on behalf of the county’s “have nots”, which earned him a place in the hearts of millions.

He was a fiercely nationalist politician who mobilised support across ethnic lines. But he was also the dominant leader of the Luo community – one of the country’s larger ethnic groups mainly based in Western Kenya – whose voters formed the core of his support.

Having self-identified as a revolutionary, Odinga later proved to be committed to institutional reform and democratisation. His greatest legacy is the 2010 constitution, which attempted to devolve power away from the “imperial presidency”, which he campaigned for over many years.

This was not the end of the contradictions. A leader who often spoke about economic development and deprivation, his agenda was typically more focused on political change. Odinga did so in part because he believed that rights and freedoms would anchor nation-building and development.

Perhaps most strikingly, although he scorned the elite power sharing deals that dominated Kenyan politics – he repeatedly made such agreements himself, often invoking the need for national stability.

Odinga embodied Kenya’s political contradictions, so the impact of his life and death will be debated. This article explores this contested legacy and what it means for Kenya’s future.

Early years

Born in western Kenya on 7 January 1945, Odinga – popularly known as Baba (father) – was the son of Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, the redoubtable community mobiliser who was a thorn in the side of the colonial state. Oginga famously insisted that he and other nationalists would make no deals with the British until Jomo Kenyatta was released.

When Kenyatta became prime minister in 1963, and later president in 1964, Oginga became Kenya’s first vice-president and minister of home affairs. However, he fell out with Kenyatta in 1966 over the government’s failure to overturn colonial inequalities. This meant that the Oginga family was excluded from the country’s powerful political elite. Oginga spent the following decades in and out of detention.

Raila Odinga spent his early years in Kenya before leaving in 1962 to study in East Germany. Returning in 1970, he became a university lecturer. Later, he joined the government standards agency – a job he lost abruptly in 1982 when he was linked to a failed coup against Daniel arap Moi. Charged with treason, he was detained until 1988, when he became active in the growing opposition to Moi’s rule. He was detained twice more during the turbulent years of protest that followed and fled briefly to Sweden.

Odinga returned before Kenya’s 1992 elections, the first multi-party polls since the 1960s, siding with his father when the opposition split. Aided by that division and state manipulation, Moi won, but Odinga’s role confirmed his status as a major political figure.

Blazing his own trail

When Oginga died in 1994, Odinga sought to take over his father’s party but, defeated, left to form his own. He ran for president in 1997, which Moi again won against a divided opposition.

When Moi did not seek re-election in 2002, it seemed Odinga’s moment had come. However, after briefly supporting Odinga as his successor Moi ultimately decided to back Uhuru Kenyatta, son of Jomo. In response, Odinga threw his weight behind Mwai Kibaki, a move which was critical to Kibaki’s victory in 2002.

Odinga’s support for Kibaki was conditional on major constitutional and political reforms. Yet where Odinga had expected widespread constitutional reforms to devolve power away from the executive, Kibaki offered limited changes. Refusing to simply prop up the administration, Odinga successfully campaigned against the government’s flawed draft constitution in the 2005 referendum.

Once again, Odinga seemed on the brink of power: he led a broad coalition into the 2007 elections on a promise of fundamental change. Early results put him ahead of Kibaki in the elections – but then Kibaki was declared the winner in a hasty process that raised widespread suspicions of malpractice and triggered Kenya’s greatest crisis, including ethnic clashes and state repression.

A power-sharing deal brought the violence to an end and made Odinga prime minister in a government of national unity. He focused his energy on political reform and constitutional changes, as well as other long standing concerns. In August 2010 a referendum approved a new constitution that devolved power to Kenya’s 47 counties. The constitution also reformed key institutions including the judiciary and electoral commission and expanded citizens’ rights.

A contested final act

The 2010 constitution remains Odinga’s signal achievement. Certainly, it created the potential for the country to forge a new and more democratic future.

Yet in its aftermath he struggled to find an equally compelling narrative. Constitutional reform had been a long-standing demand that allowed him to mobilise opposition around the promise of a new Kenya. Without this single over-arching “cause”, Odinga’s ability to sustain mass mobilisation became more fragile.

Furthermore, the progressive constitution did not prevent the continuation of older political logics. It proved no barrier against the rise to the presidency of Uhuru Kenyatta and his then deputy, William Ruto, who had faced charges of crimes against humanity at the International Criminal Court.

Odinga faced increasingly difficult choices, particularly after repeated presidential defeats in 2013, 2017 and 2022 amid allegations of electoral manipulation.

These losses convinced some that he would never win the presidency – and not only because of the use of state power to deny him. That recognition, coupled with advancing age and ill health, led Odinga to make compromises once unthinkable, revealing an increasingly pragmatic reasoning in his later years. This was starkly illustrated after the 2017 elections, when – having claimed he was rigged out and led mass protests – Odinga struck the “handshake” deal with Kenyatta in March 2018. This was framed as nation-building but viewed by some as a betrayal.

The handshake led Odinga to stand as Kenyatta’s preferred candidate in the 2022 elections. This backing proved doubly damaging, however. On the one hand, it undermined Odinga’s opposition credentials and lowered turnout in his Nyanza strongholds. On the other, it meant that his loss could not be blamed on a “deep state” conspiring against him.

The difficulties that followed were magnified when, after suggesting the 2022 results had been manipulated by those around Ruto, Odinga agreed to prop up Ruto’s struggling government in March 2025. The formation of what was billed as a “broad-based” administration was presented as nation-building, but critics saw it differently. Coming after mass youth-led protests – first against tax increases and later against corruption, state repression, and Ruto’s leadership – Odinga appeared to some to side with power against the people he once represented.

Not flawless, but consequential

These turns complicate how history, and Kenyans, will remember him – not as a flawless icon, but as a deeply consequential and sometimes contradictory figure. Yet those with longer memories will also understand what led Odinga there.

Imprisoned and tortured under Moi, sold out by Kibaki, and denied victory in 2007, Odinga endured more than a lifetime’s share of misfortune and betrayal. He made his own choices, but rarely under conditions of his own making, and arguably did more than any other Kenyan to make the country’s political system more responsive to its people.

His absence will generate a political vacuum that other leaders will struggle to fill. Ruto was banking on Odinga’s support to win the 2027 elections. He will now have to work harder to put together a winning coalition. Meanwhile those leaders who coalesced around Odinga – including those who depended on him for their positions – will need to decide how they can most effectively mobilise in his absence.

As they do so, Kenya’s leaders will all be operating in his shadow, and in a context in which the country’s marginalised people and communities will feel even less represented by those in power.

Justin Willis has previously received funding from the ESRC and the UK government for research on Kenyan politics

Gabrielle Lynch has previously received funding from the ESRC and the UK government for research on Kenyan politics.

Karuti Kanyinga has previously received funding from East Africa Research Fund on Kenyan politics and elections.

Nic Cheeseman has previously received funding from the ESRC and the UK government for research on Kenyan politics.

– ref. Raila Odinga: the man who changed Kenya without ever ruling it – https://theconversation.com/raila-odinga-the-man-who-changed-kenya-without-ever-ruling-it-267643

October 16, 2025

The real reason abolishing stamp duty won’t help first-time buyers

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nigel Gilbert, Professor of Sociology, University of Surrey

Scrapping stamp duty may sound like a quick fix to Britain’s housing crisis, but there’s reason to believe it would barely move the needle on affordability – while costing the Treasury billions.

At the Conservative party conference, leader Kemi Badenoch announced that a future Tory government would abolish stamp duty for people buying their main home. Badenoch called stamp duty “tax on aspiration” that traps families and holds back social mobility.

But research we conducted with colleagues casts doubt on this claim. We tested it using a detailed computer model of the English housing market. Our results told a different story.

Our simulation found that removing stamp duty, which the Tories themselves estimated would cost between £9 billion and £11 billion a year in lost revenue, would make almost no difference to house prices, rents or people’s ability to buy a home. It might be politically attractive, but the proposal would deliver little benefit to those most in need of help and would hand the biggest savings to wealthier buyers.

To understand why, it is helpful to examine what stamp duty actually does. Buyers in England and Northern Ireland pay the tax on property purchases above £125,000, with rates increasing for more expensive homes. (Scotland and Wales now have their own systems.)

The logic of abolishing it is simple enough: if you cut upfront costs, more people can afford to move. But our research shows this doesn’t translate into meaningful change.

We built an agent-based computer model that simulates the behaviour of thousands of virtual households across England. These digital households vary in income, family size, tenure and employment status. They make realistic decisions about saving, renting, buying and selling property over time. The model mirrors how the market behaves when conditions change, such as when interest rates rise or a tax is removed.

When we ran the model without stamp duty for main homes, very little changed. Buyers could save for a deposit slightly faster because they no longer needed to set aside money for the tax. But the overall patterns of prices and transactions remained almost identical to the current system.

In other words, removing stamp duty gave households a modest short-term boost without altering the deeper forces that shape the market.

Rising deposits

For most people, the real barrier to home ownership is the deposit, not the tax. The average first-time buyer now needs around £60,000 to put down a deposit, while abolishing stamp duty would save them only a few thousand pounds. It’s the difference between climbing a mountain and skipping the last step.

More importantly, the benefits of scrapping stamp duty wouldn’t be shared evenly. Buyers of high-value homes, who currently face rates as high as 12%, would gain the most.

First-time buyers and those buying modest properties would see only a small difference. That makes the policy regressive – it helps those already well-off far more than those struggling to get on the ladder.

Our model also highlights how tightly connected the housing system is. Changes in one part of the market ripple through others. If more affluent buyers rush to buy expensive homes, prices can rise further up the chain, offsetting any small gains made lower down. Renters, meanwhile, would see no direct benefit.

cover of the daily express showing conservative leader kemi badenoch and a headline about plans to abolish stamp duty — Conservatives knew the stamp duty pledge would grab headlines.
Steve Travelguide/Shutterstock

This complexity explains why policies that look straightforward, often disappoint in practice. Housing markets are shaped by multiple factors: interest rates, planning restrictions, the supply of new homes and people’s incomes. Tweaking a single tax rarely shifts the overall picture.

The findings underline a broader point about policymaking. Governments often announce headline-grabbing tax cuts or incentives without fully testing their effects. But simulation models like ours can provide a powerful way to forecast outcomes before they happen in the real world.

They allow researchers to explore how thousands of households, landlords and lenders interact, revealing unintended consequences that might otherwise be missed.

In this case, the message is clear: abolishing stamp duty might sound like a lifeline for aspiring homeowners, but it’s unlikely to change who can actually afford to buy. The real solutions lie elsewhere: in building more homes, addressing stagnant wages and improving access to affordable credit.

The housing crisis is one of the defining challenges of our time. Quick fixes make for good headlines, but data-driven evidence should guide decisions that affect millions of people. Before policymakers reach for the next easy answer, they would do well to test whether it’s genuinely likely to work.

Nigel Gilbert receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Corinna Elsenbroich receives funding from UKRI. She is a member of the Labour Party.

Yahya Gamal (Yahya Gamalaldin) receives funding from UKRI.

– ref. The real reason abolishing stamp duty won’t help first-time buyers – https://theconversation.com/the-real-reason-abolishing-stamp-duty-wont-help-first-time-buyers-267584