MIL-OSI – Page 1179 – MIL Submissions Engine

September 7, 2025

Military force isn’t the solution for Lake Chad Basin conflict: the key is rebuilding local economies

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Richard Atimniraye Nyelade, Lecturer, Sociological and Anthropological Studies, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

Fatima, a fisherwoman on Lake Chad, sets out at dawn not just to make a living from the shrinking waters, but to pay a “tax”. Before casting her net, she must hand over part of her meagre earnings to armed men claiming allegiance to Boko Haram. If she refuses, her catch, her boat, even her life, could be taken.

Boko Haram is an insurgent network that began in north-east Nigeria in 2002 and later fractured into two main factions: JAS (Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’awati wal-Jihad, the original Boko Haram faction) and ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province, the Islamic State affiliate in the region). Both operate across Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroon.

Economic shakedowns like this are happening every day throughout the Lake Chad Basin. This is a vast, drought-stricken region spanning the borderlands around Lake Chad in north-eastern Nigeria, south-eastern Niger, western Chad and northern Cameroon. It is home to more than 30 million people whose livelihoods depend on fishing, farming and herding.

I am a researcher of climate-related insecurity and conflict. In a recent paper, I looked at how environmental degradation, regional instability and external geopolitical interests are exacerbating the conflict in the region. The study drew on qualitative analysis of security reports and academic literature. These include the United Nations Development Programme’s 2022 conflict analysis of the Lake Chad Basin and the World Food Programme’s 2024 climate and food-security report.

The paper sets out how Boko Haram has come to operate like a parallel government, imposing taxes on trade, farming and fishing. It offers harsh order in exchange for revenue.

I conclude from my findings that war is no longer driven only by belief. It’s driven by a collapsing economy, ecological ruin and the absence of viable alternatives.

Understanding these factors is crucial for developing comprehensive security strategies. Based on the findings I recommend five interventions: investment in the ecological recovery of the region; the strengthening of cross-border intelligence to choke the illicit trade in fish, cattle, arms and people; transparency from foreign players about their motives; the rebuilding of local economies and support for displaced communities; and lastly the rebuilding of trust with local communities.

Environmental degradation

Lake Chad’s open-water area fell from about 25,000 km² in the early 1960s to lows of a few hundred km² in the 1980s, and has generally remained under one-tenth of its 1960s extent with strong variability. This is documented in satellite analyses by Nasa and the United States Geological Survey.

This isn’t just an ecological crisis. As water recedes and fertile land disappears, fishing, farming and herding collapse. The basin hosts about 30 million people across 10 subnational regions or states.

In 2024, Niger’s floods affected about 1.5 million people nationwide, with Diffa recording around 50,000 affected and authorities on alert along the Komadougou Yobe river. The Red Cross also flagged basin-wide flood emergencies that month.

The basin’s ecological collapse has turned Lake Chad into a recruitment ground. The World Food Programme shows how droughts and erratic rainfall have crushed agricultural yields. The UN Development Programme links these environmental shocks to rising displacement, hunger and extremism.

Across the shared basin, Boko Haram has built a brutal, extractive shadow economy. In Nigeria, the group at one point controlled up to half of the fish trade around Baga. Fishermen were taxed at every stage, from lake to market. Refusal brought violence.

In Cameroon, Chad, and Niger, Boko Haram factions have orchestrated cattle rustling that has decimated pastoralist communities. My research details how armed raids strip herders of their livelihoods overnight. The stolen animals are sold through cross-border smuggling networks, feeding the insurgency. The group also taxes livestock traders at makeshift checkpoints, turning rustling and market levies into steady revenue.

Across the basin, kidnapping has become an industry. The UN reports that kidnapping for ransom remains a key revenue source for Boko Haram/ISWAP, and that a “large ransom” was paid in the 2018 Dapchi schoolgirls case. What began as ideological acts, like the abduction of schoolgirls, has turned into a ruthless business model. Ransoms pay for weapons, logistics and recruitment.

Regional instability

Ecological and economic desperation fuels regional instability. As communities fracture and compete over dwindling resources, the borders of the four Chad Basin countries become highways for insurgents, smugglers and arms.

Since 2014 Boko Haram has spilled from Nigeria into Cameroon, Chad and Niger, where security forces are stretched and coordination is uneven. Arms flow through the Sahel and abuses by security actors erode public trust, which in turn eases recruitment.

The paper details how national armies, often under-equipped and struggling with coordination, have been unable to secure this vast terrain. The Multinational Joint Task Force, a regional military coalition, has had successes but is hampered by these same challenges.

This security vacuum is the space in which Boko Haram’s parallel governance and illicit economy thrive, making the crisis a truly regional one that no single country can solve alone. The result is a conflict system that crosses borders, mixes ideology with profit, and outlasts purely military responses.

Bombs not the answer

Military force alone cannot fix this. It’s necessary to address the root causes, ecological collapse, broken livelihoods, and the economic lifelines that keep the insurgency going.

The Lake Chad Basin Commission is the intergovernmental body that manages the lake’s resources. Created in 1964 by Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria, and later joined by the Central African Republic and Libya, the commission and national governments must lead with urgency and courage. They must:

invest in climate resilience, large-scale water management, drought-resistant crops, restored wetlands and sustainable fishing
disrupt illicit trade and go after the money, not just the militants
demand transparency from foreign actors about their agendas in the region
rebuild local economies and trust.

Fatima’s daily struggle on Lake Chad is not just about fish. It is about the future of the region. The shrinking lake, the abandoned villages, the armed taxmen – these are not side effects. They are the story.

Richard Atimniraye Nyelade 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. Military force isn’t the solution for Lake Chad Basin conflict: the key is rebuilding local economies – https://theconversation.com/military-force-isnt-the-solution-for-lake-chad-basin-conflict-the-key-is-rebuilding-local-economies-262640

September 7, 2025

Joseph Kabila is on trial for treason in the DRC. What the case against the former president is all about

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Jonathan Beloff, Postdoctoral Research Associate, King’s College London

The Congolese military court has accused former president Joseph Kabila of treason, corruption, war crimes and supporting the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group. During court proceedings that began in July 2025, arguments were made for utilising the death penalty against Kabila, who was in power from 2001 to 2019. The trial is going on in Kabila’s absence as the threat of arrest led him into exile. The former president had fought against the M23’s first iteration in 2012-2013, as well as its predecessor, the National Congress for the Defence of the People, which fought the DRC government between 2006 and 2009. Jonathan R. Beloff, who has studied the regional and internal political dynamics in the DRC for over a decade, examines the implications of the case.

What is Joseph Kabila’s political history?

Joseph Kabila took over as president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on 26 January 2001 after the assassination of his father, Laurent-Désiré. He was 29.

Before this, during the First Congo War (1996-1997), he served in the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo, which aimed to overthrow the Zairean dictator Joseph Mobutu. This war has been labelled “Africa’s World War” by historians like Gérard Prunier because of the large number of foreign actors it involved. These include Angola, Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda.

A significant number of soldiers and commanders in the alliance were Rwandan. Much of the war was conducted by Rwandan General James Kabarebe, who became a de facto father figure for Kabila, training him in military strategy, tactics and politics.

A breakdown in Rwanda’s relationship with the DRC in 1998 led to the bloody Second Congo War (1998-2003). It was between Uganda, Rwanda and to a lesser extent Burundi, who fought against the DRC and its allies like Angola and Zimbabwe. The war was mostly fought by rebels from these nations who had varying interests. During this period, Kabila became the deputy chief of staff for the Congolese military.

After he became president, he successfully applied pressure on Rwanda and Uganda to negotiate peace agreements in 2002.

Overall, his presidential term was marred by the persecution of political rivals, corruption and multiple active rebel forces in the volatile eastern region.

Further, despite the DRC’s constitution forbidding it, Kabila extended his presidency from two five-year terms, only stepping down in 2019. A political deal was struck that saw him relinquish power and hand over to Felix Tshisekedi.

What has happened to Kabila since then?

Kabila and his successor have not seen eye to eye.

Since departing from power, the former president has faced increased accusations of corruption during his presidency. Further, by 2021, many of Kabila’s supporters within the government and military had been removed.

The relationship between the two further soured in 2023 when Kabila spoke out against Tshisekedi’s handling of the M23’s violent campaign in eastern DRC. Kabila has also criticised Tshisekedi’s use of uncontrolled militias, Wazalendo, who have been unsuccessful in combating the M23.

Kabila went into self-exile, reportedly in South Africa and other African nations, that year. He returned to eastern DRC’s regional hub Goma in May 2025, when he met with M23 leaders.

The Congolese government used Kabila’s visit to M23-controlled Goma to justify the charges brought against him. Further, the government suspended Kabila’s political party, Parti du Peuple pour la Reconstruction et la Démocratie. The party represented Kabila’s interest in Congo’s legislative branch.

Soon after the party’s suspension, the senate stripped Kabila of his immunity, allowing charges to be filed against the former president.

Why is the case against Kabila before a military court?

While Kabila doesn’t hold any political or military post – he last served as president and major-general in January 2019 – his past experience in the army led to a military rather than civilian process.

Additionally, the case is before a military court as Kabila is accused of committing treason by meeting with an opposing military force, the M23. The government seized his assets after he met and engaged with leaders of the rebel group.

While it’s not the most significant charge, Kabila also faces accusations of massive corruption during his 18-year presidency. Further, he’s being held accountable for past military decisions that led to war crimes, murder and rape during and after the Second Congo War (1998-2003).

What are the implications of the court case for DRC’s peace process?

In June 2025, Rwanda and the DRC signed a peace agreement following negotiations led by Qatar and the United States.

On the surface, the agreement could lead to regional stability and growth. However, for Tshisekedi, it is a landmine of political risks.

Since the M23’s resurgence in November 2021, Tshisekedi has blamed Rwanda, as well as the Banyarwanda and Banyamulenge, who are historically Rwandan populations resident in eastern DRC, for the return of the rebel group.

The new peace deal significantly complicates Tshisekedi’s relationship with his key political allies and ministers. If they begin to believe he is caving in to Rwanda, Tshisekedi could lose the presidency ahead of next year’s election.

Thus, in my view, based on my research on Congolese instability, Tshisekedi needed to find a political distraction that his supporters could rally behind.

Kabila’s return to Goma and relationship with the M23 provided that opportunity. The court case allows Tshisekedi to highlight his fight against the rebel group and its allies. The Congolese military has been unable to significantly halt the M23’s advances.

The case also allows the president to demonstrate his tough stance on opposition figures.

However, Tshisekedi will need to be careful of the potential implications of the case for himself. Kabila’s remaining loyalists could become even more daring in standing up against Tshisekedi. While a majority were removed, there are still some left.

Jonathan Beloff 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. Joseph Kabila is on trial for treason in the DRC. What the case against the former president is all about – https://theconversation.com/joseph-kabila-is-on-trial-for-treason-in-the-drc-what-the-case-against-the-former-president-is-all-about-264412

September 7, 2025

South Africa’s small-scale rooibos tea growers aren’t getting much from an industry deal – why it’s not fair

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rachel Wynberg, Professor and DSTI/NRF SARChI Bio-economy Research Chair, University of Cape Town

A ground-breaking benefit-sharing agreement was signed in 2019 between South Africa’s lucrative rooibos herbal tea industry and two organisations representing Indigenous San and Khoi people.

Indigenous San and Khoi – the oldest known populations of southern Africa – are traditionally hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. Their traditional knowledge also contributed towards the development of the rooibos tea industry.

Today, the commercial rooibos tea industry sells more than 22,000 tons of tea every year and has an annual export value of over US$50 million.

Although apartheid ended in 1994, the rooibos tea industry is still dominated by white-owned companies. These companies benefited from years of subsidies and protection by the apartheid government. Rooibos farmers who were classified as “Coloured” (an apartheid-era race term imposed on indigenous Khoi-San and other ethnically diverse oppressed people of colour) were excluded from the industry during this time.

The 2019 access and benefit-sharing agreement was meant to change that. It is legally binding, and sets out how those who hold traditional knowledge about rooibos will benefit from the industry.

Access and benefit-sharing agreements like this one are governed by global conventions and protocols. The main aim is to stop genetic resources and traditional knowledge from being used in commercial products without consent or compensation for the traditional knowledge holders and resource owners. They also aim to prevent biopiracy. In other words, they aim to strengthen the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities over their natural resources.

Many national laws now require companies to set up these agreements. In this sense, the 2019 rooibos benefit-sharing agreement was historic because it formally recognised, for the first time, the role of San and Khoi traditional knowledge in the development of the rooibos industry.

We are anthropologists, sociologists, environmental scientists, indigenous heritage practitioners and policy researchers. We’ve carried out decades of participatory action research with small-scale rooibos farmers and other Indigenous groups.

Our research found that the 2019 rooibos agreement has not changed who owns and benefits most from rooibos. Control remains vested in an industry set up during colonialism and apartheid. This is because the white-dominated industry still owns most of the tea lands and cultivates about 93% of rooibos tea today. This allows the same commercial farmers and industry players to continue to dominate the market.

Less than 7% of rooibos tea lands are today controlled by Indigenous farmers. As a result, they’re only able to produce about 2% of South Africa’s rooibos tea.

Our research also found that the rooibos agreement does not grapple with local contexts and struggles over identity. While some small-scale farmers identify as Khoi-San and “first nation”, they do not always recognise the authority of the councils endorsed by the government to represent them. Other small-scale farmers do not feel a connection to a Khoi-San identity at all, instead identifying with a “Coloured” heritage.

These problems need to be solved now because other South African plant industries based on traditional use, such as buchu, an indigenous shrub used widely in the herbal, flavour and fragrance industries, and honeybush tea, have begun adopting the rooibos benefit-sharing model.

For biodiversity-based economies to transform, they must go beyond agreements about sharing access to plants and profits from their sale. Government must recognise local guardians of biodiversity and redistribute land, and along with industry, must embrace economic transformation. If they don’t, they run the risk of securing benefits only for the few who are politically connected and organised.

A flawed process

In 2010, the South African San Council claimed the right to benefit from rooibos and honeybush. They were later joined by the National Khoisan Council, a body initiated by former president Nelson Mandela in 1999 as a way of including Khoi-San historical leadership in post-apartheid South Africa.

Government-commissioned research at the time urged the commercial rooibos tea industry to negotiate benefit-sharing agreements with the two organisations or risk losing its licence to operate.

However, these two groups do not represent all Khoi-San groups. Many small-scale rooibos farmers, who have deep historical connections to the plant and its traditional knowledge, weren’t part of the negotiations for the agreement. Small-scale rooibos farmers are typically ethnically diverse descendants of San, Khoi, former slaves, and European settlers.

They were eventually included in the final agreement as “rooibos indigenous farming communities”, but only through the National Khoisan Council and not in their own right.

The agreement offered some reparation for past injustices by establishing a “traditional knowledge levy” of 1.5% of the price that farmers receive. The levy – about US$700,000 per year – is paid to the South African San Council and National Khoisan Council.

What’s missing

The agreement has been cited as an example of best practice in equitable business. Yet small-scale rooibos farmers receive just 5% of the benefits. And they are also expected to pay towards the levy because they produce rooibos tea. Overall, they benefit little from access and benefit sharing.

The agreement doesn’t include everyone who holds traditional knowledge about rooibos, and therefore not every Indigenous rooibos grower benefits. It assumes that traditional knowledge is confined to specific groups. In contrast, research has found that Indigenous knowledge is shared across groups. It evolves and takes different forms over time.

The effect of the rooibos agreement is that small-scale Indigenous farmers are less empowered. They need to find the resources to organise across large distances and find ways to get legal support if they are to benefit equally.

More widely, our research shows that the agreement has introduced a new, intervening role for the state. In this case, the state rewarded ethnically defined beneficiaries. This raises questions about the power of the state and how it controls who is entitled to receive information, knowledge and benefits.

What next?

The rooibos agreement has given recognition and economic benefits to some Indigenous groupings. It’s been hailed as a transformation milestone, but has not brought about the changes needed to address social and economic inequities. Real change would include equal access to land, a more inclusive industry, and the wider sharing of economic benefits.

Access and benefit sharing is due for radical rethink. It needs an inclusive, bold, caring and imaginative approach that should be co-designed with communities from the outset. It needs an approach that is rooted in local context. Only this will create new possibilities for inclusive economic power, sustainability and recognition.

Rachel Wynberg receives funding from the South African Department of Science, Technology and Innovation and the National Research Foundation which support her Bio-economy Research Chair. She is affiliated with the University of Cape Town. She is a Board member for two non-profit organisatons: Biowatch South Africa and the Union for Ethical Biotrade (UEBT).

June Bam-Hutchison and Sarah Ives 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. South Africa’s small-scale rooibos tea growers aren’t getting much from an industry deal – why it’s not fair – https://theconversation.com/south-africas-small-scale-rooibos-tea-growers-arent-getting-much-from-an-industry-deal-why-its-not-fair-261288

September 7, 2025

Kenya has introduced new banking policies. An economist weighs them up

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By XN Iraki, Professor, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences, University of Nairobi

The Central Bank of Kenya has made two significant changes in the country’s banking sector. The first is to lift a decade-long moratorium on licensing new banks. Second is to raise capital requirements, the amount of money banks are required to keep readily available compared with the value of other assets they have. Bank capital is what shareholders have invested in the banking business. It’s a buffer against insolvency. Higher capital makes a bank stronger by reassuring depositors that their money is “safe” in case of a financial crisis. Economics professor XN Iraki answers some questions about Kenya’s banking sector and the importance of the two latest policy changes.

What is the state of Kenya’s banking sector?

Kenya has 39 licensed banks. Of these, 17 are classified as foreign-owned with 50% or more shareholding held by foreign interests. All the top commercial banks are listed on the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Three are majority government-owned while the rest are privately owned.

Kenya’s banking sector is known for its dynamism. This is reflected in the adoption of innovations, new product offerings and technology. It is also seen in the growth in assets, deposits and profitability. Finally, it is also evidenced in the mergers, buyouts and growth across borders into the neighbouring countries.

KCB Group – a publicly owned bank that is also the country’s largest – as well as privately owned Equity Bank have established foreign subsidiaries or acquisitions in Uganda, Tanzania, South Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The use of technology, for instance linking bank accounts with the popular M-pesa mobile payment platform, has made banking easier and more accessible. This has made banking popular with the younger generation, including Generation Z, who are astute at using technology.

The Kenyan banking sector is dominated by nine large banks that accounted for about 90% of the profit in 2024.

Nonetheless, the sector has been stable in recent years. It’s a far cry from the 1980s, when bank failures were constantly in the headlines. Up until 1998, 37 bank failures had been recorded. More followed in 2003 and in 2015.

Why did the government ban new banks 10 years ago? What was the impact?

The moratorium on licensing new banks was instituted in 2015. This followed the failure of Dubai Bank on 14 August 2015 and Imperial Bank on 13 October 2015.

At about the same time, another institution – Chase Bank – was in trouble. It was placed under management on 7 April 2016.

The banks were closed to protect depositors and ensure stability of the sector. But banning new banks was not the best solution. It stifled competition and could have led to the current situation where a few banks dominate the market.

Though the failures were not the first, they were a big blot on Kenya’s financial sector. They could have slowed the growth of the sector in at least two ways. First is the restriction on new players. Second, the perceptions of higher risk would have led to more cautious investment and lending decisions.

What are the limits placed on banks wanting to set up in Kenya?

Banks are subject to regulation and rules set out in the Banking Act. These rules relate to licensing, capital requirements, who may be a shareholder or director, and protection of customer deposits, among other aspects. For this reason, shareholders and key employees are subject to vetting by regulators.

These regulations can be enhanced from time to time. It’s the basis on which the Central Bank of Kenya has increased bank core capital requirements to 5 billion shillings (US$38 million) by 2026. This will double to 10 billion shillings (US$76 million) by 2029. Core capital as defined by Central Bank of Kenya is “shareholders equity in the form of issued and fully paid-up shares of common stock, plus all disclosed reserves, less goodwill or any other intangible assets.”

Higher core capital is expected to strengthen banks and possibly reduce the number of players as some banks merge or are absorbed by stronger players.

This can only be counterbalanced if more banks enter the market after the moratorium was lifted. That would be the ideal case. More competition would lead to lower interest rates, which act as an economic stimulus. It would be easier to borrow money for more consumption or investment.

Higher core capital is a double edged sword. Lifting the moratorium will lead to greater competition if more banks enter the market. But higher core capital might deter new entrants. One speculation is that lifting the moratorium could usher in global brands with more capital and a competitive edge.

Investors who can overcome the higher core capital and join this sector are likely to reap big. Kenyan banks are a popular choice for investors in the security markets and are generally profitable.

What opportunities or pitfalls will the Central Bank be watching out for?

The lifting of the moratorium on new banks and raising capital requirements could be the start of more changes in the Kenyan banking sector.

It’s expected that with new capital requirements Kenyan banks will become bigger and more resilient and serve as the lubricant of economic growth. Bigger and fewer banks are likely to be more stable and easier to supervise.

Will bigger banks adequately respond to the needs of small and microenterprises (SMEs) and individuals? Will they keep the focus on local communities? Could new licences be granted to the politically connected as happened in the past? Here could lie a pitfall. The true test of such policy decisions is achieving faster economic growth and higher standards of living for all.

XN Iraki 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. Kenya has introduced new banking policies. An economist weighs them up – https://theconversation.com/kenya-has-introduced-new-banking-policies-an-economist-weighs-them-up-261590

September 7, 2025

« Bloquons tout » est-il vraiment la saison 2 des Gilets jaunes ?

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By François Buton, Directeur de recherche au CNRS, ENS de Lyon

Entre échos des luttes récentes et crispations politiques persistantes, « Bloquons tout » révèle les fragilités d’un système représentatif confronté à des colères sociales multiples.

Lancé en juillet, le « mouvement du 10 septembre » ou « Bloquons tout » est l’objet de toutes les attentions de la part de la société, du gouvernement, de la classe politique, des médias, des renseignements territoriaux. Plusieurs éléments de ce mouvement font à l’évidence écho avec celui des Gilets jaunes, survenu en novembre 2018. Il s’agit d’une mobilisation par en bas, lancée par différents groupes déjà organisés mais amplifiée par les réseaux sociaux (surtout Telegram), sans leadership mais structurée par des sites internet (Indignons-nous et Les essentiels qui témoignent d’emblée d’une forte hétérogénéité entre des contestataires plutôt souverainistes et défenseurs d’une France chrétienne et d’autres se réclamant de la gauche radicale.

L’opposition au projet de budget

Si la mobilisation présente des revendications nombreuses, plus ou moins élaborées, elle est à première vue motivée par le pouvoir d’achat et la dénonciation des inégalités : l’opposition au projet de budget du Premier ministre François Bayrou, dénoncé pour faire payer le fardeau de la diminution du déficit (40 milliards d’euros d’économie) aux travailleurs, aux chômeurs, aux salariés, aux précaires, aux malades, fait écho au sentiment d’injustice des Gilets jaunes à l’annonce d’une nouvelle taxe sur le carburant. Le projet de loi de finances est critiqué par l’ensemble des forces politiques opposées au gouvernement, et semble mal reçu par la population, qui soutient le mouvement à venir, si l’on en croît une enquête par sondage réalisée les 20 et 21 août (Toluna Harris Interactive pour RTL) et abondamment citée.

Ainsi, 59 % des Françaises et des Français soutiennent l’objectif de réduction des dépenses publiques, mais 63 % soutiennent le mouvement (70 % se disent favorables à des manifestations, 58 % à des blocages), 75 % s’opposant à la suppression de 2 jours fériés et 71 % se disant favorables à une « contribution de solidarité payée par les Français les plus aisés ». Depuis plusieurs semaines, l’organisation d’assemblées locales, la production de carte des rassemblements à venir, la variété des modes d’action envisagés (de la désobéissance civile au blocage de lieux de production) rappellent aussi la mobilisation de 2018.

Les Gilets jaunes, et autres luttes

La comparaison avec les Gilets jaunes fait donc sens, et ne manque pas d’être faite dans les commentaires : les Gilets jaunes sont dans « toutes les têtes », comme modèles positifs ou négatifs, comme motifs d’espoir ou d’inquiétude. Pour nous qui avons longtemps travaillé sur ce mouvement, le rapprochement est pertinent mais délicat à manier. La comparaison terme à terme ne doit pas faire oublier l’historicité des luttes : les Gilets jaunes sont un précédent, les protestataires potentiels du 10 septembre ont pu y participer, acquérir des savoir-faire protestataires, et tirer des enseignements quant à l’efficacité des actions du mouvement, de ses limites ou impasses, de sa durée ou encore de la répression subie.

Mais l’histoire des luttes est riche d’autres contestations, antérieures (Nuit debout), et surtout postérieures à 2018 : manifestations monstres de l’opposition à la réforme des retraites, manifestations des agriculteurs (certains en « bonnets jaunes »), occupations contre des projets autoroutiers (A 69) ou agricoles (Sainte-Soline), grèves diverses, mouvement d’opposition au pass sanitaire, ou encore, pétition elle aussi monstre (plus de 2 millions de signataires) contre la loi Duplomb en juillet dernier. Il est donc nécessaire de faire la part des apprentissages respectifs de toutes ces mobilisations dans ce qui se prépare pour le 10 septembre en différents points du territoire.

La comparaison des « profils » des Gilets jaunes et des « bloqueurs » potentiels n’est pas plus facile à mener, non seulement parce qu’on ne connaît par définition pas encore les bloqueurs, mais au mieux une partie de celles et ceux qui se mobilisent sur les réseaux sociaux et qui acceptent de répondre à des questionnaires, ou celles et ceux qui se réunissent dans des assemblées, mais aussi parce qu’il reste à définir qui a été Gilet jaune avant d’en présenter les profils.

Les Gilets sont là, mais pas tous

Dans nos propres enquêtes, nous avons par exemple choisi de nous intéresser à des « super Gilets », des primo-contestataires le plus souvent, engagés intensément (parfois à corps perdus), et longtemps (certaines et certains le sont encore !) dans un groupe local. Ces Gilets ne sont pas représentatifs de l’ensemble du mouvement, où d’autres étaient des militants plus expérimentés, et dont la grande majorité n’a participé qu’à quelques actes ou assemblées : des enquêtes estiment à 3 millions le nombre de citoyennes et de citoyens ayant participé à au moins une action gilet jaune en 2018-2019.

Quand nous les contactons pour leur demander ce qu’ils pensent de « Bloquons tout », ce qu’ils font et envisagent de faire, les réponses sont très variables. Certains, parés de leur gilet, ont investi les assemblées locales ou les boucles Telegram comme ils l’ont fait dans la plupart des contestations depuis 7 ans ; d’autres au contraire suivent de près ou de loin, attendant de voir, écœurés par la supposée « récupération » politique, sceptiques quant aux chances de succès d’une contestation de plus dans la rue, ou refroidis par le manque de soutien de la population et la dureté de la répression, y compris judiciaire, lors du mouvement de 2018 (« que les autres se mouillent »).

Bien des attitudes sont possibles, que nous pouvons expliquer finement dans chaque cas, mais dont nous savons qu’ils et elles ne représentent pas tous « les » Gilets jaunes. Une chose est sûre : des Gilets jaunes sont là, et d’autres sont prêts à participer.

Mais une différence majeure avec les Gilets jaunes, précisément en raison de leur antériorité, réside dans l’hyper attention médiatique à l’œuvre depuis quelques semaines pour le mouvement « Bloquons tout ». Tout en oubliant de mentionner la défiance immense des contestataires à leur égard (gageons que le thème reviendra avec les premières manifestations), les médias couvrent massivement la préparation, en lui posant les questions habituelles : qui sont les bloqueurs, qui peut incarner le mouvement voire en être les leaders, qui se « cache derrière », que veulent-ils, à quoi s’attendre, voire que craindre ? Or, l’hyper attention médiatique a sans doute eu pour effet de bousculer les responsables politiques et syndicaux de tous bords, quand ils et elles n’avaient pas pris les devants.

Au-delà de la « récupération »

Une autre différence majeure avec 2018, où les partis et les syndicats avaient ignoré voire condamné le 17 novembre, réside en effet dans la précocité de la politisation de la contestation qui vient. Le terme, qui a plusieurs sens, ne désigne pas pour nous la « récupération » du mouvement par telle ou telle force politique – expression largement employée, mais qui relève d’une catégorie politique stigmatisante. Il renvoie à l’idée que l’ensemble des forces du champ politique s’accordent, au-delà de leurs différences, pour redéfinir le mouvement et ses revendications comme politique, c’est-à-dire comme relevant de « la » démocratie politique (les élus et les partis) et de « la » démocratie social (les syndicats). D’un côté, les confédérations appellent à une autre « mobilisation massive » le 18 septembre, amplifiant les grèves annoncées ça et là ; de l’autre, depuis la « rentrée politique » des universités d’été, mi-août, les responsables de partis se prononcent en soutien ou contre le mouvement et discutent de la légitimité de ses revendications et de ses modes d’action.

Le coup politique le plus spectaculaire revient évidemment au premier ministre François Bayrou qui annonce le 25 août engager la responsabilité de son gouvernement en demandant un vote de confiance à l’Assemblée le 8 septembre sur son projet contesté de loi de finances. Cette décision spectaculaire permet en effet à l’agenda proprement politique de repasser au premier plan : éloges ou critiques du geste (un retour à la démocratie parlementaire pour Jean-Luc Mélenchon), consultations diverses et variées, prises de position sur tel ou tel point du projet (notamment la suppression de deux jours fériés). Le rejet de la confiance, qui est acquis, va faire entrer le pays dans une crise politique voire institutionnelle susceptible d’occuper l’agenda médiatique au détriment de la « crise » sociale .

Tout se passe donc aujourd’hui comme si les élus reprenaient la main au détriment des citoyennes et citoyens ordinaires. La dernière petite phrase de François Hollande (« Je ne peux pas m’associer à quelque chose que je ne maîtrise pas » révèle à cet égard une forme d’inconscient de la classe politique, qui dit « entendre l’exaspération », mais n’entend s’engager que dans ce qu’elle maîtrise, à savoir les jeux politiques et institutionnels, et ne donner la parole au peuple que sous la forme du suffrage électoral.

Les mouvements sociaux comme forces de proposition

Ce faisant, les élus font preuve d’un aveuglement qui ne laisse pas d’étonner. Une autre leçon du mouvement des Gilets jaunes, en effet, c’est qu’il a profondément transformé ses primo-contestataires sinon en militants, du moins en citoyens ayant le sentiment d’être enfin dignes d’être entendus, capables de débattre et de se prononcer sur les sujets politiques et même institutionnels (le RIC) qui engagent le pays, et refusant de se contenter de glisser un bulletin de vote dans l’urne tous les cinq ans.

Ce qu’on lit aujourd’hui sur les boucles Telegram ou ce qu’on entend dans les premières assemblées locales atteste la même résolution à ne pas se faire infantiliser et renvoyer à son labeur quotidien en vertu d’un défaut supposé de « titres à parler » (Jacques Rancière). La défiance à l’égard des élus nationaux, forte en 2018, l’est encore plus aujourd’hui : les fameuses « cotes de popularité », pour autant qu’elles aient la moindre signification, indiquent que les opposants les plus « populaires » ont la confiance d’au mieux un citoyen sur trois.

On peut douter que les petits jeux d’une crise institutionnelle et politique fascinent les Français, puisque les gouvernants ne les écoutent ni quand ils manifestent massivement (contre les retraites), ni quand ils votent contre une majorité (en 2024, qui n’est pas sans rappeler le référendum de 2005), et répondent par des conférences citoyennes ou grands débats dont ils ignorent les résultats et par une répression de plus en plus violente.

Dans ce contexte, « Bloquer tout » peut signifier bien des choses : pour certains, c’est mettre le chaos dans un pays pourtant « déjà bloqué ; pour d’autres, ce qui pose problème, c’est plutôt le blocage ou la fermeture du champ politique, qui entend réserver les décisions aux seuls représentants (les syndicats et les partis). Les Gilets jaunes n’ont pas seulement protesté contre une taxe, ils ont aussi appris chemin faisant à proposer une autre forme de démocratie ; il est peut-être temps de reconnaître que les mouvements sociaux apportent des solutions, et pas seulement des problèmes.

François Buton co-dirige en octobre aux PUF Les métamorphoses de la politisation (avec Eric Agrikolianski) et en novembre aux éditions du Croquant Devenir des Gilets jaunes (avec Emmanuelle Reungoat).

François Buton a reçu des financements pour des projets de recherche de la MSH SUD, du réseau des MHS, de l’ENS de Lyon et de l’ANR.

Emmanuelle Reungoat a reçu des financements d’institutions publiques pour des projets de recherche, la MSH-SUD, le RnMSH et l’ANR.

– ref. « Bloquons tout » est-il vraiment la saison 2 des Gilets jaunes ? – https://theconversation.com/bloquons-tout-est-il-vraiment-la-saison-2-des-gilets-jaunes-264549

September 6, 2025

IA et langues : de nouvelles pratiques à l’école, à quel prix ?

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Grégory Miras, Professeur des Universités en didactique des langues, Université de Lorraine

Former les élèves aux usages de l’IA est présenté comme une priorité politique pour les années à venir. Mais comment intégrer les préparations nécessaires aux cursus scolaires sans alourdir les coûts écologiques ? Il faut aussi compter avec un certain nombre d’enjeux éthiques.

L’année scolaire 2025-2026 s’ouvre dans un contexte de démocratisation massive de l’intelligence artificielle (IA) générative. Dans son dossier de rentrée, le ministère de l’éducation précise d’ailleurs que les élèves du second degré bénéficieront désormais d’un parcours de formation spécifique, sur la plateforme PIX. Faut-il voir dans ces nouveaux outils une menace à l’apprentissage et la maîtrise des langues, le français et celles dites étrangères ?

À l’heure où l’IA-anxiété devient un phénomène social, voici quelques éléments de réflexion pour les plus inquiets mais aussi les plus convaincus.

Converser avec l’IA : coût écologique et éthique

Si l’IA générative séduit par sa capacité à produire du texte ou à traduire instantanément, elle comporte des coûts cachés. S’entraîner à formuler des requêtes (prompt en anglais) amène à une interaction langagière qui mobilise d’immenses ressources humaines, matérielles et énergétiques, souvent invisibles à l’utilisateur. La Direction de région académique du numérique pour l’éducation de l’académie de Versailles rappelle aux enseignants que :

une requête d’environ 400 tokens sur ChatGPT/GPT-4o mini consomme environ 2 Wh d’électricité (ou 2 g de CO₂ rejeté), soit plus de 6 fois la consommation d’une recherche Google classique estimée à 0,3 Wh ;
la création d’une image en haute définition par une IA consomme autant d’énergie que la recharge complète d’un téléphone portable ;
les centres de données (data centers) liés à l’IA et aux cryptomonnaies ont consommé près de 460 TWh d’électricité en 2022, soit environ 2 % de la production mondiale.

S’exercer à développer un esprit critique face à l’IA devient incontournable. Cependant, amener les élèves à utiliser massivement les IA pour mieux les comprendre provoque un paradoxe. Une piste consiste alors à privilégier des IA éducatives dites « responsables », à l’image du modèle Vittascience, qui assure la transparence de ses données d’entraînement et de son fonctionnement. Entraînés à partir d’une quantité limitée de données, ces modèles apparaissent comme moins énergivores.

Il est également possible de proposer des ateliers, par exemple des escapes games, qui mobilisent des éléments pratiques pour aborder les principaux points en jeu sans nécessairement s’exercer sur des outils numériques.

D’un point de vue éthique, les grands modèles de langage (LLM) sont entraînés sur des corpus massifs constitués de textes issus de contenus en ligne. Cette alimentation soulève des questions majeures, en particulier autour de la propriété et de l’usage des données linguistiques.

Qui possède les mots, les expressions, les récits mis à disposition sur Internet ? Dans quelle mesure la réutilisation de ces ressources respecte-t-elle le droit d’auteur, la rémunération des créateurs ou encore la diversité linguistique et culturelle ?

Une machine à (re)produire des inégalités langagières ?

Enseignants comme parents accusent volontiers l’IA d’aider à tricher lors de devoirs écrits, creusant ainsi les inégalités scolaires et langagières. Pourtant, celles-ci préexistaient largement à son arrivée. Les élèves ne bénéficient pas tous des mêmes soutiens selon leur environnement familial. Certains peuvent compter sur des parents disposant d’un capital social et culturel élevé, capables de relire un devoir, de le corriger ou de l’enrichir.

L’arrivée des LLM a pu apparaître, dans le mandat de l’Unesco, comme une forme de démocratisation : « La promesse de « l’IA pour tous » doit permettre à chacun de bénéficier de la révolution technologique en cours et d’accéder à ses fruits, notamment en termes d’innovation et de connaissances. » Cette « IA pour tous » offrirait à chaque apprenant des outils disponibles en permanence (correcteur virtuel, un traducteur instantané, etc.), pouvant s’adapter à des besoins particuliers (élèves allophones, troubles du spectre autistique, un TDAH).

Cependant, les outils d’IA peuvent introduire de nouvelles inégalités, plus fallacieuses, comme le souligne Jeremy Knox, professeur à l’Université d’Oxford. En effet, cette amplification dépend à la fois de l’accès effectif aux technologies (déjà issu des inégalités sociales), des compétences nécessaires pour en tirer parti (littéracie numérique) et de la qualité des données qui les alimentent.

Dans une étude récente, des chercheurs en sociologie de l’information à l’Université de Stanford montrent que les auteurs de textes scientifiques en anglais, dont ce n’est pas la langue première, sont défavorisés dans l’évaluation scientifique, leur style d’écriture étant jugé de moindre qualité. L’arrivée de ChatGPT réduit légèrement ces biais en améliorant la traduction tout en contribuant à déplacer ces inégalités, non plus sur la maîtrise de l’anglais, mais sur l’hypothèse d’un usage de l’IA dans la production de ces textes. On imagine aisément un tel phénomène dans les évaluations scolaires.

L’humain derrière la machine parlante

Ces cinq dernières années, on assiste à une multiplication de guides éducatifs d’utilisation de l’IA tout autant qu’à une explosion des appels à financements éducatifs et de recherche autour de ces technologies. Ils permettent de financer des projets d’envergure comme le cluster IA-Enact porté par l’Université de Lorraine.

Toutefois, la multiplication de ces financements suscite des inquiétudes légitimes quant à l’ampleur des sommes investies au détriment d’autres sources de financement destinées à soutenir une vision alternative de la société. Aussi, il parait nécessaire de rappeler que certains cadres autour de l’IA soulignent l’importance de (re)penser une perspective centrée sur l’humain avant de réfléchir à la technologie en elle-même, comme le propose le Cadre de compétence en IA destiné aux enseignants par l’Unesco.

La structure de haut niveau du cadre de compétences en IA : aspects et niveaux de progression (Extrait du cadre de compétence en IA destiné aux enseignants par l’Unesco).

Dans ce contexte, l’école a un rôle central à jouer en sensibilisant les élèves à l’IA tout en développant leurs compétences en littéracies numériques et informationnelles. Mais, l’enseignement de la langue ne se limite pas à la transmission d’un code linguistique conforme aux normes grammaticales et syntaxiques, il s’agit avant tout d’enseigner la langue comme vecteur d’identité, comme manière de penser le monde et comme moyen privilégié de rencontre avec l’autre.

Penser l’école, et par extension une société avec ou sans l’IA, implique ainsi une réflexion autour du modèle social en construction. L’enseignante-chercheuse Karën Fort, lors d’une conférence en linguistique appliquée organisée par l’Association française de linguistique appliquée, soutient la nécessité de développer et diffuser des IA libres et plus ciblées aux différents usages en opposition aux modèles libéraux et capitalistes de la Silicon Valley. L’école ne devrait-elle pas principalement considérer l’IA comme un outil parmi d’autres pour soutenir les valeurs humaines indispensables au développement de futurs citoyens ?

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

– ref. IA et langues : de nouvelles pratiques à l’école, à quel prix ? – https://theconversation.com/ia-et-langues-de-nouvelles-pratiques-a-lecole-a-quel-prix-263840

September 6, 2025

Médicaments innovants : la France face à la guerre des prix lancée par Trump

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Augustin Rigollot, Normalien en économie et philosophie, spécialisé en économie de la santé (UPEC), externe en 6e année de médecine, Université de Montpellier

Seuls 63 % des nouveaux médicaments, répondant à des besoins thérapeutiques non pourvus, sont disponibles en France. HonshovskyiVadym/Shutterstock

Face aux tarifs douaniers de Donald Trump, les politiques publiques françaises cherchent à résoudre une équation complexe. Comment inciter les organismes publics et privés à créer des médicaments innovants, répondant à des besoins thérapeutiques non pourvus, dans un cadre budgétaire contraint, le tout rapidement et équitablement ? Mission impossible ?

Le 12 mai 2025, Donald Trump annonce un décret pour faire baisser le prix des médicaments aux États-Unis, accusant les autres pays de profiter de prix trop avantageux. Le 4 août, il adresse un ultimatum en ce sens à 17 grandes compagnies pharmaceutiques.

Cela fait craindre, en France et en Europe, une hausse du prix des médicaments, notamment les nouvelles molécules qui traitent des besoins thérapeutiques non pourvus. Le marché pharmaceutique des États-Unis étant le plus grand au monde, une baisse de prix dans la première économie mondiale entraînera symétriquement une hausse du prix dans les autres pays. Aux États-Unis, la négociation des prix a surtout lieu entre laboratoires et assureurs privés, avec une intervention étatique limitée, aboutissant à des prix particulièrement élevés. En Europe au contraire, les prix sont généralement plus bas, car négociés par le payeur public, avec un fort pouvoir étatique. Or, l’administration Trump souhaite que les États-Unis bénéficient systématiquement du prix le plus bas parmi les prix constatés dans les autres pays. Cela ne laisse que deux choix aux laboratoires:

baisser le niveau des prix aux États-Unis au niveau des prix les plus bas, notamment dans l’Union européenne (UE), les industriels du médicament supportant alors une lourde perte de revenu à l’échelle globale, obérant leur capacité à investir dans l’innovation ;
augmenter le niveau de prix des médicaments dans les pays de l’UE et ailleurs dans le monde en les faisant tendre vers les prix américains, afin de préserver leurs marges mondiales et de limiter la baisse de leurs revenus aux États-Unis.

Au total, les pays bénéficiant actuellement des remises les plus fortes seront les plus atteints par les hausses éventuelles, et le prix global de l’innovation thérapeutique augmentera: un risque pour son accessibilité.

Cette actualité met en lumière les modèles de santé du monde, entre financement par les assurances publiques, comme en France, et par les assurances privées, comme aux États-Unis. Dès lors, de quels leviers la France dispose-t-elle face à une hausse du prix des médicaments innovants ? Qu’en est-il tout particulièrement de ceux luttant contre le cancer (oncologie) ?

Prix bas du médicament en France

La France bénéficie d’une négociation médico-économique efficace du prix du médicament. Celui-ci y est donc bien plus bas qu’outre-Atlantique, ce qui expose fortement notre pays à une éventuelle hausse des prix. Il y a une raison historique : la France représente un fort volume de vente de médicaments en Europe, solvable par une assurance obligatoire publique. De facto, le débouché est garanti pour les industriels, un argument pour négocier des prix plus faibles.

La France dispose d’un environnement réglementaire contraignant sur les prix. Les prix bas dans notre pays permettent que les restes à charge pour les ménages soient très contenus, se situant parmi les plus faibles d’Europe.

Répartition des dépenses pharmaceutiques selon le financeur.
Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques

Cependant, la France fait face à une contrainte budgétaire croissante, illustrée par les 5 milliards d’euros d’économie prévus dans les comptes sociaux 2026. Ses marges de manœuvre face à une hausse du prix de l’innovation seraient donc particulièrement réduites.

Accessibilité des médicaments

La France présente une accessibilité plus faible à l’innovation pharmaceutique que ses voisins européens 63 % des nouveaux médicaments sont disponibles en France, contre 88 % en Allemagne. Par exemple, en oncologie (diagnostic et traitement des cancers), la France se positionne au 6ᵉ rang en terme de disponibilité en Europe en 2020. Pour expliquer ce défaut d’accessibilité, les industriels pointent les carences du marché français du médicament. Parmi les freins à l’accessibilité, le syndicat des industries du médicament (LEEM) souligne le prix trop bas des médicaments en France, qui ne serait pas attractif par rapport aux pays comparables européens. Ce manque d’attractivité ne se limite pas au prix, et serait renforcé par des délais d’accès trop longs au marché français, notamment par rapport à l’Allemagne. Ce contexte n’incite pas les industriels à prioriser le marché français pour leurs lancements.

La procédure d’accès précoce permet de nuancer grandement cet argument du délai d’accès.

En France, lors d’une procédure d’accès précoce dérogatoire, le médicament arrive sur le marché 18 jours avant son autorisation de mise sur le marché (AMM), contre 549 jours après l’AMM pour la procédure normale.
Assurance maladie en France

Grâce à cette procédure dérogatoire, un médicament présumé innovant, répondant à un besoin médical majeur et grave, est remboursé sur le marché sans devoir attendre la fin de la procédure d’autorisation de mise sur le marché (AMM). Cela a permis de réduire drastiquement ces délais d’accès pour plus de 120 000 patients en France, concernant une centaine de molécules coûteuses et innovantes, surtout en oncologie.

Motifs d’inquiétude

Une autre préoccupation, solidariste, reflète plutôt les attentes du payeur public. Elle est illustrée par l’avis 135 du Comité consultatif national d’éthique (CCNE) de 2021. Ce dernier s’inquiète de la pérennité de notre modèle social.

« Les prix très élevés de certains traitements innovants pourraient compromettre l’équilibre financier des systèmes de soins dans leur fonctionnement actuel. »

Depuis cet avis, les motifs d’inquiétude ont crû parallèlement à la hausse des prix de l’innovation. Désormais le médicament le plus cher du monde, le Libmeldy (traitement de la leucodystrophie métachromatique), atteint, pour l’ensemble du traitement, 2,5 millions d’euros en Europe et aux États-Unis environ 4,25 millions de dollars.

Contrats de partage du risque

Parmi les nombreux dispositifs qui s’offrent à nous, certains permettent de maîtriser le prix et l’accès au marché, très en amont dans la négociation, tout en soutenant les innovations performantes. C’est le cas des contrats de partage du risque, dit risk sharing agreement. Ils sont documentés depuis une quinzaine d’années et inscrits, par exemple, dans l’article 54 du projet de loi de financement de la Sécurité sociale (PLFSS) en 2023 pour les médicaments de thérapie innovante (MTI). Ces accords entre un laboratoire pharmaceutique et le payeur public visent à limiter les conséquences financières des nouveaux traitements.

Ces contrats sont encore peu exploités en France. Ils constituent un vivier d’efficience que les politiques publiques pourraient utiliser en cas d’inflation du prix de l’innovation thérapeutique, sur fond de guerre tarifaire venant des États-Unis de Donald Trump.

Fonctionnement schématique des contrats de partage de risque.
Schéma de l’auteur, d’après Launois et Ethgen (2013), Fourni par l’auteur

On distingue :

Des accords purement financiers (financial based agreements), les plus répandus. Ils plafonnent les dépenses, avec des seuils de volumes (accord prix-volume) au-delà desquels l’industriel réduit son prix afin de stabiliser l’enveloppe budgétaire. En échange, le payeur public garantit des volumes et un meilleur accès au marché.
Des accords de performance (performance based risk sharing agreements) qui indexent le paiement sur la performance réelle du médicament, plutôt que sur les seuls résultats des essais cliniques. Ils portent sur des critères d’efficience clinique, avec des clauses de remboursement total ou partiel par l’industriel en cas de résultats insuffisants en vie réelle. Ces contrats sont très adaptés aux médicaments ayant une population cible restreinte (afin de pouvoir suivre correctement la performance en vie réelle), ou pour lesquels l’incertitude sur l’efficacité en vie réelle est élevée lors de la commercialisation.

L’exemple italien en oncologie

L’Italie est souvent considérée comme le pays européen le plus avancé dans les accords de partage de risque, en particulier en oncologie. En 2017, le montant économisé via ces contrats y était estimé à près d’un demi-milliard d’euros (35 millions sur les seuls contrats de performance). En oncologie, les molécules couvertes par ce dispositif auraient vu leur délai d’accès au marché diminuer de 256 jours.

Ce déploiement en Italie a été accompagné tôt par un système pointu de collecte et d’évaluation des données de performance en vie réelle, géré par l’Agence italienne de santé publique (AIFA). En 2016, elle disposait déjà de 172 registres de données de vie réelle portant sur plus de 300 contrats de partage de risque, concernant environ 900 000 patients. Le coût supplémentaire de ce suivi était estimé dans une fourchette de 30 0000 à 60 000 euros par médicament et par an la première année, dégressif ensuite. La question du partage de ce coût entre le payeur public et l’industriel doit également être prise en compte.

Une telle logique de collecte des données de performance en vie réelle a fait défaut en France. Cela explique en partie notre retard et le faible nombre de contrats de performance – une quinzaine en dix ans, selon l’économiste de la santé Gérard de Pouvourville.

Aujourd’hui, reste le défi de développer ces contrats sans que le suivi de la performance accapare des ressources soignantes dans un contexte de pénurie de temps et de moyens médicaux.

Solidarité mise à rude épreuve

Le problème de l’équilibre entre le soutien à l’innovation, son accessibilité et la soutenabilité du système de santé n’est pas seulement français. C’est un enjeu si important qu’il a été intégré à la Stratégie pharmaceutique pour l’Europe en 2020. Le projet européen Hi-Prix y cherche une réponse, avec la création du Pay for Innovation Observatory, qui recense en ligne l’ensemble des dispositifs de financement de l’innovation.

Face à l’inflation du prix des médicaments innovants, sans commune mesure avec leur soutenabilité pour les systèmes de santé, émerge aussi un débat éthique, que ne pourront résoudre les seules prédictions économiques.

Si le prix de l’innovation, notamment pour les maladies orphelines ou rares, continue d’augmenter et si, en même temps, des avancées diagnostiques, notamment les techniques géniques, lèvent l’incertitude sur les aléas et les états de santé futurs des individus, il existe un risque de fragiliser le consentement à payer, base du contrat tacite de solidarité assurantielle dans nos sociétés.

Augustin Rigollot a reçu au cours des 5 dernières années des financements individuels ou collectifs de différentes fondations : Fondation Bettencourt-Schueller, Fondation Groupe Dépêche, Fondation Axa, Fondation MGEN, Fondation de l’Ecole Normale. Ces financements, de nature générale, n’avaient pas pour objet les recherches liées à cet article.

Augustin Rigollot a travaillé en 2023 au sein de la Chaire Hospinnomics de la Paris School of Economics sous la direction de Lise Rochaix pour le projet Hi-Prix cité dans cet article.

– ref. Médicaments innovants : la France face à la guerre des prix lancée par Trump – https://theconversation.com/medicaments-innovants-la-france-face-a-la-guerre-des-prix-lancee-par-trump-261414

September 5, 2025

Jamaican prime minister returns to power amid reduction in violent crime

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics, Lancaster University

Jamaicans voted Andrew Holness, the leader of the centre-right Jamaica Labour party (JLP), into power for a third consecutive term on September 3. Holness beat Mark Golding of the People’s National party (PNP) in a tight election, with the JLP winning 34 seats and the PNP 29.

A head of state winning a third straight term is a rare feat in a participatory democracy. There are several factors that have contributed to Holness’s enduring appeal before the voters.

Jamaica’s economy has improved since Holness first took office in 2016. Public debt fell from more than 140% of GDP in 2013 to 73.4% by 2024, while the World Bank expects the economy to grow by 1.7% in 2025.

At the same time, Holness has sought to upgrade and improve public access to beaches across Jamaica. Most of the country’s beaches are gated and held in the hands of hoteliers, expats and private companies.

The Holness government introduced an initiative in 2024 to create new “beach parks” for ordinary Jamaicans. It also strenghtened regulations to prevent private developments from blocking public access to beaches.

But what is likely to have contributed most to Holness’s victory are his crime-busting policies. Jamaica has been reeling under gang violence for the past 25 years. As recently as 2023, Jamaica had the second-highest rate of homicide in the Caribbean region – behind only Haiti.

Holness has overseen a steady decline in the country’s murder rate since then. There was an 18.7% decline in homicides in Jamaica from 2023 to 2024, while the island registered an even greater drop of 43% between 2024 and 2025.

Like in nearby gang-infested Haiti, criminality and violence has long thrived in Jamaica owing to political patronage. Most homicides there are carried out by gangs known as “posses”. These groups have in the past been linked to major Jamaican political parties.

The JLP and PNP both fostered the development of posses in inner-cities and deprived areas by providing them with weapons and a free hand to run protection rackets in exchange for political support. Jamaican politicians have on occasion also allegedly paid gangsters to carry out crimes for political gain.

In the 2010s, an article in the Irish Independent accused Bruce Golding, the then-Jamaican JLP prime minister, of openly using the powerful “Shower Posse” gang to intimidate opposition voters in elections three years earlier. Shower Posse was led by Christopher “Dudus” Coke, a convicted drug kingpin who is now jailed in the US.

Golding “categorically denied” the claims at the time, and called them part of a conspiracy to undermine his government. However, regardless of the accuracy of these specific allegations, collusion between criminals and political elites turned Jamaica into a hotbed of criminality and spiralling violence.

Responsive governance

Holness’s success in fighting crime rests on three pillars: fighting urban poverty, clamping down on the drugs trade and putting tight restrictions on the importation of firearms.

One of his main focuses has been enhancing social programmes to reduce the allure of gang membership. His government has put in place a social pension, while also raising the minimum wage. These policies contributed to the national poverty rate falling to 8.2% in 2023 – its lowest level since measurements began in 1989.

Holness also amended Jamaica’s 2014 Gang Suppression Act in 2021, a year into his second term. This gave the police and military more power to combat criminality and was followed by the launch of an anti-gang task force in 2022. The task force oversaw direct combat with national and transnational gangs operating within Jamaica.

That same year, Holness launched his “Get Every Illegal Gun” campaign. This initiative was accompanied by severe penalties for those found in possession of illegal weapons. The countrywide illegal firearms crackdown is widely attributed as having brought down rates of violence across Jamaica.

However, while Holness’s zero tolerance stance towards criminality has successfully tackled crime rates, there are some concerns about his approach. His critics often cite human rights violations associated with the introduction of a state of emergency in parts of the capital Kingston and 14 other parishes in 2022. The measure enabled the authorities to arrest people and search buildings without a warrant.

Holness justified the move by saying gang violence had forced Jamaicans “to hide under their beds, hide their daughters, can’t go to church, and they see their sons and their boyfriends and husbands killed. That’s the reality”.

The election of Holness for a third time is by no means a guarantee that Jamaica will complete its transition from rampant violence to peace. His populist economic promises, such as lowering income tax rate from 25% to 15% earned him much-needed votes. But it is unlikely that such promises can be sustained in the long run.

Jamaican society has also not been completely freed from the ravages of its violent past. Parts of the country, such as Tivoli Gardens, Grants Pen and Trench Town in Kingston, Rose Heights, Flankers and Norwood in the city of Montego Bay, and the most of Spanish Town (colloquially known as the valley of death), still reel from vendetta violence.

It is these lingering fears that may have motivated a voter turnout of just 39.5% in the recent election – a turnout far lower than when Jamaicans last went to the polls in 2020. Holness’s vision of “a stronger, safer, more prosperous Jamaica” is still a long way from the finishing line.

Amalendu Misra is a past recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation Fellowships.

– ref. Jamaican prime minister returns to power amid reduction in violent crime – https://theconversation.com/jamaican-prime-minister-returns-to-power-amid-reduction-in-violent-crime-264644

September 5, 2025

We risk a deluge of AI-written ‘science’ pushing corporate interests – here’s what to do about it

Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Comerford, Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science, University of Stirling

Back in the 2000s, the American pharmaceutical firm Wyeth was sued by thousands of women who had developed breast cancer after taking its hormone replacement drugs. Court filings revealed the role of “dozens of ghostwritten reviews and commentaries published in medical journals and supplements being used to promote unproven benefits and downplay harms” related to the drugs.

Wyeth, which was taken over by Pfizer in 2009, had paid a medical communications firm to produce these articles, which were published under the bylines of leading doctors in the field (with their consent). Any medical professionals reading these articles and relying on them for prescription advice would have had no idea that Wyeth was behind them.

The pharmaceutical company insisted that everything written was scientifically accurate and – shockingly – that paying ghostwriters for such services was common in the industry. Pfizer ended up paying out more than US$1 billion (£744 million) in damages over the harms from the drugs.

The articles in question are an excellent example of “resmearch” – bullshit science in the service of corporate interests. While the overwhelming majority of researchers are motivated to uncover the truth and check their findings robustly, resmearch is unconcerned with truth – it seeks only to persuade.

We’ve seen numerous other examples in recent years, such as soft drinks companies and meat producers funding studies that are less likely than independent research to show links between their products and health risks.

A major current worry is that AI tools reduce the costs of producing such evidence to virtually zero. Just a few years ago it took months to produce a single paper. Now a single individual using AI can produce multiple papers that appear valid in a matter of hours.

Already the public health literature is observing a slew of papers that draw on data optimised for use with an AI to report single-factor results. Single-factor results link a single factor to some health outcome, such as finding a link between eating eggs and developing dementia.

These studies lend themselves to specious results. When datasets span thousands of people and hundreds of pieces of information about them, researchers will inevitably find misleading correlations that occur by chance.

A search of leading academic databases Scopus and Pubmed showed that an average of four single-factor studies were published per year between 2014 and 2021. In the first ten months of 2024 alone, a whopping 190 were published.

These weren’t necessarily motivated by corporate interests – some could, for example, be the result of academics looking to publish more material to boost their career prospects. The point is more that with AI facilitating these kinds of studies, they become an added temptation for businesses looking to promote products.

Incidentally, the UK has just given some businesses an additional motivation for producing this material. New government guidance asks baby-food producers to make marketing claims that suggest health benefits only if supported by scientific evidence.

While well-intentioned, it will incentivise firms to find results that their products are healthy. This could increase their demand for the sort of AI-assisted “scientific evidence” that is ever more available.

Fixing the problem

One issue is that research does not always go through peer review prior to informing policy. In 2021, for example, US Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito, in an opinion on the right to carry a gun, cited a briefing paper by a Georgetown academic that presented survey data on gun use.

The academic and gun survey were funded by the Constitutional Defence Fund, which the New York Times describes as a “pro-gun nonprofit”.

Since the survey data are not publicly available and the academic has refused to answer questions about this, it is impossible to know whether his results are resmearch. Still, lawyers have referenced his paper in cases across the US to defend gun interests.

One obvious lesson is that anyone relying on research should be wary of any that has not passed peer review. A less obvious lesson is that we will need to reform peer review as well. There has been much discussion in recent years about the explosion in published research and the extent to which reviewers do their jobs properly.

Over the past decade or so, several groups of researchers have made meaningful progress in identifying procedures that reduce the risk of specious findings in published papers. Advances include getting authors to publish a research plan before doing any work (known as preregistration), then transparently reporting all the research steps taken in a study, and making sure reviewers check this is in order.

Also, for single-factor papers, there’s a recent method called a specification curve analysis that comprehensively tests the robustness of the claimed relationship against alternative ways of slicing the data.

Young man looking at a screen — Peer review is under threat from AI publshing.
Gorodenkoff

Journal editors in many fields have adopted these proposals, and updated their rules in other ways too. They often now require authors to publish their data, their code and the survey or materials used in experiments (such as questionnaires, stimuli and so on). Authors also have to disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources.

Some journals have gone further, such as requiring, in response to the finding about the use of AI-optimised datasets, authors to cite all other secondary analyses similar to theirs that have been published and to disclose how AI was used in their work.

Some fields have definitely been more reformist than others. Psychology journals have, in my experience, gone further to adopt these processes than have economics journals.

For instance, a recent study applied additional robustness checks to analyses published in the top-tier American Economic Review. This suggested that studies published in the journal systematically overstated the strength of evidence contained within the data.

In general, the current system seems ill-equipped to cope with the deluge of papers that AI will precipitate. Reviewers need to invest time, effort and scrupulous attention checking preregistrations, specification curve analyses, data, code and so on.

This requires a peer-review mechanism that rewards reviewers for the quality of their reviews.

Public trust in science remains high worldwide. That is good for society because the scientific method is an impartial judge that promotes what is true and meaningful over what is popular or profitable.

Yet AI threatens to take us further from that ideal than ever. If science is to maintain its credibility, we urgently need to incentivise meaningful peer review.

David Comerford currently receives funding from Open Philanthropy for a project to design a system that incentivizes meaningful and timely peer review. He has previously received funding from UKRI, IDRC and the Chief Scientist’s Office of the Scottish Government.

– ref. We risk a deluge of AI-written ‘science’ pushing corporate interests – here’s what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/we-risk-a-deluge-of-ai-written-science-pushing-corporate-interests-heres-what-to-do-about-it-264606

September 5, 2025

History is full of failed attempts to establish new currencies. So what makes crypto different?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hiroki Shin, Associate Professor of History, University of Birmingham

The confusion and commotion over cryptocurrency often reminds me of the 19th-century German drama Faust. In Goethe’s masterpiece, the devil Mephistopheles offers an emperor the tantalising vision of limitless wealth through the printing of paper money.

The emperor grasps the idea (unheard of at the time the play is set), and the magical wealth which paper creates brings brief prosperity to his troubled dominion.

But what appeared to be an inexhaustible source of value soon proves illusory. A combination of misunderstanding and hype leads to economic and moral corruption, and the empire descends into chaos.

It is a tale which could well have parallels for digital currencies now. People use them despite not fully understanding how they work, sometimes to their financial loss.

And history shows us that we should be wary of the idea that currency systems always change for the better, following some sort of natural evolutionary path. In fact, new currency systems don’t always succeed, and even when they do, monetary regime change can be a long and arduous process.

Coins and tokens were used more than 2,000 years ago, and continued through to the 19th century before paper finally dominated. Rather than a clean, irreversible shift from coins to notes, nations often alternated between the two systems.

There were failed experiments with paper money in 14th-century China, 17th-century Sweden and 18th-century France, to mention just a few.

Research on these problematic attempts suggests that social division also makes new currency shifts especially vulnerable.

During the American war of independence for example, a currency (the “continental dollar”) was briefly introduced in 1775. It was later abandoned due to mismanagement and misunderstanding, but had also served to sharpen political tensions between the patriots who supported it, and the loyalists to Britain, who detested it.

Similarly, in the 1750s and 1760s, the Swedish government issued non-redeemable paper money to pay its war debts. The consequent extreme inflation coincided with intense social division and led to a period of political chaos.

In 1789, at the start of the French Revolution, a paper form of government bond was issued, which rapidly lost its value. Seven years later, the “assignat” had become virtually worthless.

Britain fared slightly better, as I explore in my book The Age of Paper. Its departure from the metal standard in 1797, amid the financial pressures of the Anglo–French war, did not produce a collapse of the nation’s paper currency.

But the paper-based regime came to a halt in 1819, a year of bitter class conflicts, which culminated in the Peterloo massacre, where at least 18 people were killed and hundreds wounded by the cavalry at a peaceful rally for democratic reform. The public had come to detest Bank of England notes, which became a symbol of economic depression and political oppression.

Britain then followed the pattern of other nations, reverting to a traditional monetary system that rested on the solid value of precious metals.

These cases of failed paper currencies – and there are many more – show that the general acceptance of currency ultimately requires shared values and social solidarity. Paper currency works when people trust it, knowing that it has been valued and accepted by others in the past, and will be valued and accepted in the future.

It would otherwise be unlikely for a piece of paper to become a reliable means of payment and value. Once such shared values are lost, there is usually a downward cycle of currency depreciation.

Cryptic currency

In the 21st-century, cryptocurrencies challenge the conventional idea of money as something of value – or at least linked to something of value, like gold. And as something that is issued and managed by a trusted central authority.

For cryptocurrencies exist only in the realm of blockchain technology. Their value is created and maintained not by central banks, but by complex computer algorithms.

To many, all of these abstract computational processes make cryptocurrencies as mysterious as Mephistopheles’ dark magic in Faust.

Even so, with Donald Trump’s strong support, cryptocurrencies are enjoying a surge in popularity. This trend will undoubtedly be reinforced by further deregulation which means requirements for transparency will be relaxed, and safeguards for consumer protection weakened.

The rise in popularity has coincided with the US government’s apparent preference for weakening the dollar in the international currency markets as a way of boosting US exports by pushing down the prices of US goods abroad.

These events may lead to a profound transformation in the monetary system on a global scale. As the US dollar loses value and crypto regulations are relaxed, countries and investors around the world may be enticed to diversify their assets and increase their holdings of cryptocurrency.

But the combination of social division and rapid expansion may not be a positive sign for the future of cryptocurrency. Far from establishing it as a dominant medium of exchange in a new decentralised regime, history suggests that its rapid growth in a fractured society might instead accelerate its self-destruction.

Hiroki Shin 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. History is full of failed attempts to establish new currencies. So what makes crypto different? – https://theconversation.com/history-is-full-of-failed-attempts-to-establish-new-currencies-so-what-makes-crypto-different-258867