doc_id
stringlengths 12
12
| url
stringlengths 32
189
| cleaned_text
stringlengths 0
149k
| cleaned_text_length
int64 0
149k
| tags
listlengths 2
8
| primary_topic
stringclasses 31
values | data_source
stringclasses 2
values | query
stringlengths 7
243
| html_fail_refetch
bool 2
classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
d3a09432c303
|
https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-much-does-a-vasectomy-cost-906900
|
How Much Does a Vasectomy Cost? Costs can vary, depending on insurance and other factors By Dawn Stacey, PhD, LMHC Updated on September 03, 2025 Medically reviewed by Jamin Brahmbhatt, MD Table of Contents View All Table of Contents Effectiveness Cost Comparing Birth Control Cost Insurance Coverage Cost of Reversal Key Takeaways The average cost of a vasectomy (male sterilization) in the U.S. is about $1,000, but prices can vary based on factors including insurance coverage.As a form of long-term contraception, vasectomy is more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy and is cheaper than tubal ligation in females.Talk to your healthcare provider about pregnancy prevention, vasectomy, and considerations like the cost of a reversal procedure before planning your procedure. Getting a vasectomy in the United States costs about $1,000 on average. Private insurance companies may cover the cost of a vasectomy, but it is not an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). As a permanent form of birth control, a vasectomy is more than 99% effective at preventing pregnancy. It can be a cost-effective method of birth control for many people over the long term. This article discusses the cost of a vasectomy. It also explains the procedure, its effectiveness, and other factors to consider before getting a vasectomy. Maskot / Maskot / Getty Images How Effective Is a Vasectomy? A vasectomy (male sterilization) is a permanent birth control method. In the United States, over 500,000 vasectomies are done each year. However, in some parts of the world, the number of people having a vasectomy has dropped significantly since the mid-2000s. One study from the United Kingdom found that the number of vasectomies performed in 2015-2016 was 62.21% lower than it had been a decade earlier. The failure rate for vasectomy is very low. Rates of pregnancy six months after a vasectomy are between 0.04% and 0.08%. The rate can be higher (0.3% to 9%) in under six months. A vasectomy is more than 99.9% effective in preventing pregnancy once a semen analysis shows that sperm is no longer present in a person’s semen. A vasectomy is a surgical procedure that can be done in an outpatient setting (meaning you do not have to be admitted to the hospital). The cost of a vasectomy is less than the cost of tubal ligation (female sterilization). Before you seek a vasectomy, ask your provider about any laws or rules that apply in your state. In some places, there are age restrictions, waiting periods, required counseling, or spousal consent that must be considered before a vasectomy can be done. Factors that Affect the Cost of a Vasectomy The cost of vasectomy will typically cover: Initial consultationThe vasectomy procedure itselfAnesthesia (local or general)Follow-up semen analyses Most healthcare providers or clinics will include all of these costs in one price. Others may charge for each individual service. You’ll want to clarify the cost breakdown with your provider. A semen analysis can be done at home or in the provider’s office to be analyzed for sperm. While doing it at home might be more convenient, you’ll usually have to pay to mail your sample to a lab. In most cases, the cost is the same for both types of vasectomy procedures: the no-scalpel vasectomy (sometimes called keyhole) versus a traditional vasectomy. Vasectomy costs may differ depending on where the procedure is performed. A vasectomy is usually done by a board-certified urologist in a healthcare provider’s office, a clinic (including at Planned Parenthood), or an outpatient surgical facility or hospital. Your vasectomy may cost more if it takes place in an outpatient medical building because they may charge a separate facility fee. Side effects or complications can also add to the cost of a vasectomy. Vasectomy Cost vs. Yearly Costs for Other Birth Control If you’re sure that you want long-term protection against pregnancy, you’ll want to weigh the cost of a vasectomy against the potential costs of not having one. That means looking at how much you’d have to spend on other birth control methods. For example, a lifetime supply of condoms may or may not cost more than a vasectomy—it depends on your preferences and how often you use them. Birth control options like the pill are usually purchased monthly and can be costly if they’re not covered by insurance. The average cost of a vasectomy in the U.S. is $1,000 (according to Medicare). The widely available, traditional scalpel procedure is the least expensive, which can range from a few hundred dollars up to around $1200. The procedure can also cost up to several thousand dollars for less invasive, more sophisticated techniques. Here’s an example of how much different types of birth control could cost a year if you have to pay for them out of pocket compared to the cost of a vasectomy. The average annual cost of different forms of birth control: Birth Control Yearly Cost Comparison Type of Birth Control Annual Average Cost External condoms $52 (+ $75 for spermicide) Internal condoms $531 Contraceptive pills, prescription $1,200 Contraceptive pills, over-the-counter $340 Patches $1,800 Vaginal ring $2,000 IUD $200 Implant $320 When you’re comparing the cost of a vasectomy with other birth control methods, you’ll also want to factor in the potential costs of handling an unplanned pregnancy (which could include the costs of abortion, raising a child, or adoption fees). Does Insurance Cover Vasectomies? Most private health insurance companies will cover vasectomy costs when they are done as an outpatient procedure. Check with your insurance provider first to make sure that they include vasectomy benefits in your plan. Usually, health insurance companies will cover most or all of your vasectomy cost after your yearly deductible has been met. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs in your area may also cover the cost of a vasectomy. Some providers or clinics may offer a sliding scale fee if you do not have a health insurance plan. In this case, the cost of a vasectomy will be based on your income level. Make sure you ask about the payment options your provider accepts. You can ask if they can offer you a discount on your vasectomy if you pay in cash or if you could set up a payment plan instead of paying the full cost upfront. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not require health insurance plans to cover the cost of vasectomy, as is the case with many forms of birth control. Each health plan will have its own coverage and deductible for the procedure. How Much Are Vasectomy Reversals? Another question to ask yourself is whether you are sure that you want to undergo permanent sterilization. A vasectomy reversal is possible if you change your mind, but it’s expensive and does not always work. The cost to reverse a vasectomy is between $5,000 and $15,000. In addition, most health insurance companies will not cover the procedure. It’s also important to know that the success rate varies greatly when a reversal is done to restore fertility and achieve pregnancy. In general, the more time that passes between a vasectomy and a reversal procedure and the higher the age of the partner who could become pregnant, the lower the chance of achieving pregnancy. Read more: Health A-Z Sexual Health Birth Control Permanent Methods 13 Sources Verywell Health uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy. Medicare.org. Does Medicare cover vasectomy?. Healthcare.gov. Birth control benefits. Zini A, Grantmyre J, Chan P. CUA guideline: vasectomy. Can Urol Assoc J. 2016;10(7-8):E274-E278. doi:10.5489/cuaj.4017 Planned Parenthood. How do I get a tubal ligation?. Ostrowski KA, Holt SK, Haynes B, Davies BJ, Fuchs EF, Walsh TJ. Evaluation of vasectomy trends in the United States. Urology. 2018;118:76-79. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.016 Wydera S, Wilson A. A 16-year overview of vasectomy and vasectomy reversal in the United Kingdom. AJOG Glob Rep. 2022;2(4):100105. doi:10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100105 Urology Care Foundation. How vasectomy compares to other forms of birth control. Trussell J, Lalla A, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79(1):5-14. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.08.003 GoodRx. The annual cost of birth control. Lee AL. Segesterone acetate and ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring (Annovera) for contraception. Am Fam Physician. 2020;101(10):618-620. Healthcare.gov. Birth control benefits. Vasectomy.com. How much does a vasectomy reversal cost? Patel A, Smith R. Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(3):365-371. doi:10.4103/1008-682X.175091 By Dawn Stacey, PhD, LMHC Dawn Stacey, PhD, LMHC, is a published author, college professor, and mental health consultant with over 15 years of counseling experience. See Our Editorial Process Meet Our Medical Expert Board Share Feedback Was this page helpful? Thanks for your feedback! What is your feedback? Helpful Report an Error Other Submit By clicking “Accept All Cookies”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. Cookies Settings Accept All Cookies
| 9,413
|
[
"health",
"simple",
"informational",
"research"
] |
health
|
geo_bench
|
cost for vasectomy
| false
|
35146c118e87
|
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/pop-culture/your-weird-dreams-actually-make-lot-sense-according-neuroscience-psychology-ncna913436
|
An ax murderer is attacking you. You find yourself in bed with a coworker. You’re walking down a road and suddenly your feet leave the ground and you’re flying.
Our dreams are the Wild West of our minds where rules and order don’t exist.
Or do they?
The scientists who study dreaming say it isn’t really as strange a phenomenon as it might otherwise seem — and even the really weird dreams probably don’t come out of the blue.
The brain thinks, makes memories, and solves problems. It observes new information. It processes that information by determining what’s important, what’s not, and what’s connected to something you already know. And then the brain either stores that information or dumps what’s not useful, explains Robert Stickgold, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School’s Center for Sleep and Cognition, who studies the role of cognition in sleep.
And you can’t do all of that at the same time, he tells NBC News BETTER. “You can’t both think about something and listen to people at the same time.”
Our brains need offline time for processing and learning new things — and they do this during sleep. (And there’s a whole lot of evidence to support the idea that sleep makes learning and memory storing possible.)
And it might be that dreaming plays a role in that process, Stickgold says — “where the brain is trying to solve problems and complete processes that were going on during waking that it — in its waking hours — didn’t complete.”
The dreaming brain can build stories better than a brain that’s awake
There are certain questions that come up for which we plot a potential course of action or think through a future scenario to solve, Stickgold explains.
That’s what our brains can’t do in the background when we’re awake. But that type of narrative construction (building a story) still requires us to be consciously aware, Stickgold says — which is one feature of dreams. We know they’re happening.
“It might be that you need to bring that sleep-dependent memory processing into consciousness to be able to solve those kinds of problems that require the development of a plan or a narrative or a plot,” Stickgold says — that you need to dream to do that kind of thinking .
Several studies show (what nearly everyone has probably experienced on their own) that our waking experiences show up in our dreams. Other research shows that we are more likely to remember something if we dream about it. (Erin Wamsley, PhD, an assistant professor in the Psychology Department at Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, explains all of those studies in further depth in a review article in a 2014 issue of Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports.)
And more research suggests that dreaming does actually help us problem solve.
A set of experiments conducted by Wamsley’s and Stickgold’s group (when Wamsley was at Harvard) showed that when a group of 99 individuals were given the task of navigating a complex maze, those whose performance on the task improved the most when re-tested after a five-hour period were those individuals given the opportunity to take a nap — and more specifically those who reported dreaming about the maze during that nap — compared to when they were simply awake during that time (even if they reported thinking about the maze during that period of being awake).
And perhaps more interesting still, research that looks at the mechanical changes in the brain during sleep and during dreaming align with this thinking, too.
During dreaming, the visual and emotional processing areas of the brain are active
Researchers have measured brain activity during sleep and during dreaming. “And it does match the psychology in some interesting ways,” says Benjamin Baird, PhD, a researcher at the Center for Sleep and Consciousness at University of Wisconsin-Madison, whose work focuses on understanding the neural mechanisms of consciousness.
Studies going back to the 1990s suggest the amygdala (a part of our brain that plays a role in emotional processing) appear to be very active during dreaming. And more recent work from Baird’s group suggests that areas of the brain known to be involved in visual processing (the regions that appear to allow us to register colors, motion, and faces) are active during dreaming.
On the flip side, other parts of the brain (the frontal and prefrontal cortices, which are involved with our ability to plan, think through things and apply logic and order) are less active during dreaming compared with other parts of sleep and wakefulness (that research also goes back to the late 1990s). “That doesn’t mean they’re totally off, but it means activity is suppressed to a very large extent,” Baird says.
All of that seems to fit our understanding of dreaming, Baird says — that we are visually and emotionally processing things, but certain executive processing functions (like being able to plan out the future or weigh the past against a present scenario) don’t really happen during dreaming.
The big caveat, however, is that nearly all of those studies have come to those conclusions using rapid eye movement (REM) sleep to measure dream sleep, Baird says — “which is a big (and actually a wrongful) assumption.”
We dream in the non-REM stages of sleep as well as in the REM stages of sleep, and we spend some of our time in REM sleep not dreaming.
But, Baird adds, REM sleep can be useful for approximating what’s happening during dreaming because it’s during REM sleep that we tend to have the most vivid, story-like dreams. And data suggests that we spend the vast majority of our time in REM sleep (as much as 95 percent of it, according to research from Baird and his colleagues published in 2017 in the journal Nature Neuroscience) dreaming.
“So looking at the brain during REM sleep can still give us some clues about what’s happening,” Baird says.
And it’s not actually that difficult to understand that when this type of brain activity happens, we dream, he adds.
“What the brain is doing at all times is trying to construct a model of the world around us from the best input it has,” Baird says. When we’re awake the input comes from our environment (what we see, taste, smell, hear, and feel). But when we’re asleep, it may be trying to do the same thing — but the input comes from within.
“During sleep — and particularly during REM sleep when the brain is becoming activated again — the brain tries to do what it always does: it tries to construct a reasonable model of the world,” he says.
So, why do we dream the truly wacky dreams?
But some dreams are very far from reasonable. Some dreams are really weird.
Even the really weird dreams may just be part of the brain’s process of elimination-approach to problem solving, according to Stickgold.
A lot of memory processing happens during sleep, he says. The brain is filing away new memories, deciding which ones to store and which ones not to. If we presume the brain is indeed problem solving during dreaming, it’s going to look through all of those files (sometimes the ones you just put there and sometimes the really old, dusty ones from a while back) and try to find something useful.
“Your brain is looking for associated memories that are relevant to recent events,” Stickgold explains.
And remember the emotional centers of the brain are more active during REM, and the parts responsible for logical thinking are less active. So it would make sense that the memories the brain uses during dreaming may be the more emotionally charged ones, and ones that may not fit the logical narrative.
This is when your brain is trying the out-of-the-box solutions, Stickgold says. It’s not necessarily looking for something reliable that works every time.
“The brain is acting like a venture capitalist,” he says. It’s intentionally throwing a lot of spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks, knowing that some of it won’t.
MORE "THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON"
- What the beach does to your brain
- Your brain on a diet
- Smiling can trick your brain into happiness (and boost your health)
- Your brain on prayer and meditiation
- The science behind being 'hangry'
Want more tips like these? NBC News BETTER is obsessed with finding easier, healthier and smarter ways to live. Sign up for our newsletter.
| 8,275
|
[
"health",
"simple",
"informational",
"question",
"research"
] |
health
|
geo_bench
|
why are dreams weird?
| false
|
8fae8e89d08d
|
https://www.health.com/condition/acne/stress-acne
|
How To Get Rid of Stress Pimples By Colleen Murphy Colleen Murphy Colleen Murphy is a senior editor at Health. She has extensive experience with interviewing healthcare providers, deciphering medical research, and writing and editing health articles in an easy-to-understand way so that readers can make informed decisions about their health. health's editorial guidelines Updated on October 12, 2025 Medically reviewed by Susan Bard, MD Medically reviewed by Susan Bard, MD Susan Bard, MD, is a board-certified general and procedural dermatologist with the American Board of Dermatology and a Fellow of the American College of Mohs Surgery. learn more Close Arisara_Tongdonnoi / Getty Images Stress management and acne treatments can help reduce stress pimples.Cortisol and androgen production in response to stress can worsen acne.Cleaning your skin gently and removing makeup can help prevent acne. Stress acne causes breakouts due to increased cortisol and androgen production. You can manage stress and use skincare products to help clear pimples. Symptoms of Stress Pimples Research hasn't identified stress acne as appearing any differently than regular acne. It has the potential to look like: Blackheads: A type of breakout with widened pores due to oil or dead skin building up, making a black spot because of oxygen reacting with the buildup Nodules or cysts: Breakouts with deep skin swelling as the result of oil, dead skin, and bacteria buildup Papules: Blemishes that appear as small, red bumps due to bacteria, dead skin cells, and oil going further into the skin Pimples: Breakouts that lead to swelling in the skin where bacteria has accumulated in a pore Pustules: A breakout similar to papules, where blemishes contain a yellow or white center and yellowish fluid Whiteheads: A type of breakout where raised, white or flesh-colored blemishes form due to oil and dead skin buildup In addition, stress acne is a flare or worsening of preexisting acne in response to a psychological stressor, Allison K. Truong, MD, an American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) fellow and dermatologist at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, told Health. For instance, if someone typically only has one or two pimples, they might suddenly have 10, 20, or 30 pimples during a stressful time. Does Stress Cause Acne? Stress isn't an actual cause of acne, though there's a link between acne severity and stress. One review, which analyzed several acne studies, found that emotional stress worsens acne for 50% to 80% of people. Angela Lamb, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told Health that people with more acne-prone skin, such as people who have larger pores or tend to have more oily skin, are a bit more sensitive to stress acne. Some researchers have proposed a few theories as to why the link between stress and acne exists. For example, an increase in specific hormones is one of the most widely agreed-upon causes. One of those hormones is cortisol, the "fight-or-flight" hormone. Bodies also increase androgen (male sex hormone) production in response to stress. These hormones stimulate the skin oil glands and hair follicles, resulting in acne. Other Acne Causes The exact cause of acne remains unknown, but you may end up with acne as a result of the following things happening in your pores: Bacterial growthDead skin buildupExcess or high oil production How To Treat Stress Pimples Recognizing if and when stress is contributing to acne development is important for managing it. Of course, the first step to getting rid of acne is to try to destress. You can achieve this by trying stress-relieving activities such as: Doing breathing exercisesGetting enough sleepListening to musicMeditatingReadingTrying yoga or tai chiWalking Other treatments vary from person to person. For instance, someone with mild acne who wants something a little stronger may try some of the following cleansers: Benzoyl peroxide Glycolic acid Salicylic acid Another person with mild acne may use a gentle cleanser with a topical antibiotic regimen, such as topical azelaic acid, dapsone, or clindamycin. In that case, Dr. Truong recommended adding a low topical retinoid, such as an over-the-counter (OTC) adapalene gel (like Differin) or a prescription tretinoin cream. The treatment approach could also depend on how quickly someone wants their acne to clear up. Regardless of what products you use to manage acne, Dr. Truong said that "the most important thing is you have to treat the cause. And that would be treating the stress—if there is a way that we could do that." Prevention Though it may not always be possible, you may be able to prevent stress pimples by avoiding or limiting your stress. Whether your breakouts are related to stress or not, you can also do the following to help prevent and manage acne in general: Clean your skin gently, which includes not scrubbing it and using a soap that doesn't dry your skin out. Keep your hair out of your face and limit how much you touch your face. Limit any pimple-picking, rubbing, scratching, or squeezing. Remove any dirt or makeup on your face, especially before going to sleep at night. Stick to your acne treatment plan. Wash your face up to twice daily and always after exercising. Other Skin Conditions Triggered by Stress Stress can also trigger or worsen other skin conditions, including: Atopic dermatitis: A subtype of eczema, a skin disorder characterized by itchy, scaly rashesPsoriasis: A condition that results in irritated skin that may be red and have whitish-silver scalesRosacea: A skin disorder where a person's face may turn red or have swelling and acne-like sores When To Contact a Healthcare Provider You'll want to contact a healthcare provider or dermatologist if you: Develop scarring when your acne is resolvingExperience stress because of your acneHave acne that gets worse or is painfulHave treated your acne with self-care or over-the-counter medications, and they are not working or no longer work See a healthcare provider if you have sudden breakouts but are unsure of the cause. A sudden breakout could also be due to an infection or rash. For instance, your acne may be due to folliculitis or allergic contact dermatitis. Folliculitis is a bacterial or fungal infection of the hair follicles, while allergic contact dermatitis is a rash from an allergy. Follow us to see more of our stories on Google. Follow Us On It may also be helpful to see a mental health professional if you find your acne is due to stress. They can provide you with guidance regarding stress relief or stress management techniques. Read more: Wellness Skincare Acne Was this page helpful? Thanks for your feedback! Tell us why! Other Submit 14 Sources Health.com uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read our editorial process to learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy. American Academy of Dermatology. Acne: signs and symptoms. American Academy of Dermatology. How to treat different types of acne. Jović A, Marinović B, Kostović K, Čeović R, Basta-Juzbašić A, Bukvić Mokos Z. The impact of pyschological stress on acne. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2017;25(2):1133-1141. Zari S, Alrahmani D. The association between stress and acne among female medical students in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2017;10:503-506. American Academy of Dermatology. Adult acne. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Acne - overview, symptoms, & causes. MedlinePlus. Acne - also called: pimples, zits. MedlinePlus. Learn to manage stress. American Academy of Dermatology. Feeling stressed? It can show in your skin, hair, and nails. American Academy of Dermatology. Acne: diagnosis and treatment. MedlinePlus. Acne - self care. MedlinePlus. Atopic dermatitis. MedlinePlus. Psoriasis. MedlinePlus. Rosacea.
| 7,993
|
[
"health",
"simple",
"informational",
"research"
] |
health
|
geo_bench
|
what kind of pimples does stress cause
| false
|
e8a7347a7c52
|
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/rhubarb
|
Rhubarb is a good source of antioxidants, vitamin K, and fiber. It’s also rich in calcium oxalate, so if you’re prone to kidney stones, it might be best to avoid. More importantly, the leaves are toxic and should never be eaten.
Rhubarb is a vegetable known for its reddish stalks and sour taste.
In Europe and North America, it’s cooked and often sweetened. In Asia, its roots are used medicinally.
This article provides a detailed overview of rhubarb, including its uses and potential health benefits.
Rhubarb is renowned for its sour taste and thick stalks, which are usually cooked with sugar.
The stalks range in color from red to pink to pale green and have a consistency that’s similar to celery.
This vegetable requires cold winters to grow. As a result, it’s mainly found in mountainous and temperate regions around the world, especially in Northeast Asia. It’s also a common garden plant in North America and Northern Europe.
Several varieties and species exist. In the West, the most common variety is called culinary or garden rhubarb (Rheum x hybridum).
Rhubarb is an unusual vegetable because it’s very sour and slightly sweet.
In fact, it’s easily mistaken for a fruit. Adding to the confusion, rhubarb is officially classified as a fruit by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Due to its sour taste, it’s rarely eaten raw. Instead, it’s normally cooked — either sweetened with sugar or used as an ingredient.
It wasn’t until the 18th century, when sugar became cheap and readily available, that rhubarb became a popular food.
Before that, it was mainly used medicinally. In fact, its dried roots have been utilized in traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years.
Only the stalks are eaten, most commonly in sweet soups, jams, sauces, pies, tarts, crumbles, cocktails, and rhubarb wine.
As sweet rhubarb pies are a traditional dessert in the United Kingdom and North America, this vegetable is sometimes called “pie plant.”
Rhubarb is not especially rich in essential nutrients, and its calorie content is low.
However, it is a very good source of vitamin K1, providing around
Like other fruits and vegetables, it’s also high in fiber, providing similar amounts as oranges, apples, or celery.
A 3.5-ounce (100-gram) serving of cooked rhubarb with added sugar
- Calories: 116
- Carbs: 31.2 grams
- Fiber: 2 grams
- Protein: 0.4 grams
- Vitamin K1: 18% of the DV
- Calcium: 11% of the DV
- Vitamin C: 4% of the DV
- Potassium: 2% of the DV
- Folate: 1% of the DV
Although there are decent amounts of calcium in rhubarb, it’s mainly in the form of the antinutrient calcium oxalate. In this form, your body can’t absorb it efficiently.
It is also moderately high in vitamin C, boasting 4% of the DV in a 3.5-ounce (100-gram) serving.
Studies on the health benefits of rhubarb are limited.
However, a few studies have examined the effects of isolated rhubarb stalk components, such as its fiber.
May lower cholesterol levels
A
Rhubarb stalks are also a good source of fiber, which may affect your cholesterol. This beneficial effect is not exclusive to rhubarb fiber. Many other fiber sources are equally effective.
Provides antioxidants
Rhubarb is also a rich source of antioxidants.
One
The antioxidants in rhubarb include anthocyanins, which are responsible for its red color and thought to provide health benefits. Rhubarb is also high in proanthocyanidins, also known as condensed tannins.
These antioxidants may be responsible for some of the health benefits of fruits, red wine, and cocoa.
Rhubarb is probably the most sour-tasting vegetable you can find.
Its acidity is mainly due to its high levels of malic and oxalic acid. Malic acid is one of the most abundant acids in plants and contributes to the sour taste of many fruits and vegetables.
Interestingly, growing rhubarb in darkness makes it less sour and more tender. This variety is known as forced rhubarb, which is grown in spring or late winter.
Rhubarb is among the richest dietary sources of calcium oxalate, the most common form of oxalic acid in plants.
In fact, according to folk tradition, rhubarb should not be harvested past late June, as oxalic acid levels are said to rise from spring to summer.
This substance is particularly abundant in the leaves, but the stalks may also contain high amounts, depending on the variety.
Too much calcium oxalate can lead to hyperoxaluria, a serious condition characterized by the accumulation of calcium oxalate crystals in various organs.
These crystals may form kidney stones. Sustained hyperoxaluria
Not everyone responds to dietary oxalate in the same way. Some people are genetically predisposed to health problems associated with oxalates.
Vitamin B6 deficiency and high vitamin C intake may also increase your risk.
Additionally, growing evidence suggests this problem is worse for those who lack certain beneficial gut bacteria. Interestingly, some gut bacteria, such as Oxalobacter formigenes,
Although reports of rhubarb poisoning are rare, make sure you consume it in moderation and avoid the leaves. What’s more, cooking your rhubarb may reduce its oxalate content by 65.9% to 74.5%.
Rhubarb can be eaten in a number of ways. It is usually used in jams and desserts, which contain plenty of added sugar. Make sure to cut off the tops and bottoms of the stalks and discard the leaves before cooking.
That said, it’s easy to use in low-sugar recipes — or even cooked with no sugar at all.
A few creative ideas include rhubarb salad and healthy rhubarb crumble. You can also add this vegetable or its jam to your morning oatmeal.
Try this rhubarb crisp recipe.
Rhubarb is a unique vegetable that people use in cooking and baking.
Since it may be high in oxalate, you should avoid eating too much of it and try to select stalks from low-oxalate varieties. If you are prone to kidney stones, it might be best to avoid rhubarb altogether.
On the bright side, rhubarb is a good source of antioxidants, vitamin K, and fiber.
Additionally, its sour taste makes it a perfect ingredient in jams, crumbles, pies, and other desserts.
| 6,072
|
[
"health",
"simple",
"informational",
"fact",
"research"
] |
health
|
geo_bench
|
calcium containing food
| false
|
edac288abbfc
|
https://www.mskcc.org/news/truth-behind-three-natural-cures
|
The internet is full of “miracle cures” for cancer and alleged surefire ways to prevent it, and well-meaning people may urge cancer patients to just try them out in hopes of eliminating their disease. Some patients, worried that conventional treatments won’t work or pose significant side effects, seek a treatment whose effectiveness isn’t actually supported by scientific evidence or may even prove dangerous. During a time of uncertainty and anxiety, it’s understandable that any hope for a cure — even if it isn’t medically proven — is tempting.
“Amid the growing preference for natural products to bolster general health, patients often confront a myriad of misinformation,” explains Jason Hou, a pharmacist and herbalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering. “Despite this, they seek natural remedies to combat or prevent cancer recurrence. Often, advocates of such products lack medical or oncological expertise.” Dr. Hou is especially concerned when patients delay conventional treatment to explore such therapies. “They may later don’t discover, when they do seek out conventional treatment, that their cancer has already metastasized.”
Dr. Hou manages both the About Herbs database, and the Herbal Oncology Program (HOP), created and maintained by MSK’s Integrative Medicine Service. The service provides complementary therapies such as acupuncture, music therapy, and massage that are used in addition to — not as alternatives to — standard cancer treatments including chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
Here, Dr. Hou explains the hype and the scientific evidence surrounding four highly publicized but unproven therapies: Cannabis oil, castor oil, Laetrile, and a pH-manipulation (also known as alkaline) diet.
Cannabis Oil
The hype: Cannabis oil is often heralded as a treatment to destroy or shrink cancerous tumors, as well as a cure for diabetes, ulcers, arthritis, migraines, insomnia, infections, and many other diseases. Also called marijuana oil or hemp oil, it’s extracted from marijuana plants, often with higher proportion of a compound known as CBD (cannabidiol), which has less of a psychoactive effect than the more-famous THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) compound that gets marijuana users high.
Cannabis oil is available in several forms with different potencies. It can be infused into cooking oil that users squirt under the tongue or mix into food. Its vapors can also be inhaled. By federal law, cannabis products are illegal, though several states have enacted laws to legalize their medical use.
The evidence: While commercially available cannabis compounds are FDA-approved to reduce cancer treatment–related side effects such as nausea and vomiting and to improve appetite, no clinical trials have shown that cannabis products can treat cancer.
Claims that cannabis oil cures cancer are anecdotal and largely unsupportable, based on scant research done in mice and in labs. Side effects can include memory and attention loss. Perhaps most important, there is evidence that cannabis compounds may inhibit enzymes that patients need to metabolize other anticancer drugs, thereby increasing their toxicity or reducing their effectiveness.
The verdict: “Thus far, there haven’t been any human studies demonstrating that cannabis oil can effectively treat cancer,” Dr. Hou explains. “If patients are using it, or any other form of cannabis, it’s important to inform their doctors so they can provide appropriate guidance.” According to a 2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline, “Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial.”
Castor Oil
The hype: Castor oil has been recently promoted as a cancer cure over the Internet and social media, particularly on TikTok with claims that it can treat breast cancer by topical application. Recently, we began receiving requests for information about the benefits of castor oil.
The evidence: There is no evidence that castor oil can fight cancer. This underscores the importance of About Herbs in providing trustworthy information while helping to debunk false claims, especially given how easily they get shared and amplified on social media.
The verdict: “We consistently warn patients that ‘natural doesn’t always mean safe.” Dr. Hou explains. “But with social media emerging as a means of disseminating information, we should add that videos that go viral, should not always be trusted!”
Laetrile
The hype: Laetrile, first popularized as a cancer therapy in Russia and the United States more than a century ago, is the trade name for a purified form of amygdalin, an extract derived from apricot pits and some nuts and plants. Intestinal enzymes break down Laetrile to produce cyanide, which proponents claim kills cancer cells and leaves normal tissue unharmed. Some also claim that Laetrile is actually a vitamin called B-17 and that deficiencies can cause certain cancers. Banned in the United States, an oral form of Laetrile is available in other countries.
The evidence: Laetrile indeed breaks down into cyanide, but the poison doesn’t just selectively strike cancer cells — it can sicken or kill patients as well. Clinical studies done in the 1970s and 1980s, including those sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, indicated that Laetrile didn’t reduce malignant tumors’ size or growth, but some patients experienced cyanide poisoning.
The verdict: “Laetrile hasn’t been shown to combat cancer and can pose the risk of cyanide poisoning,” Dr. Hou emphasizes. “If amygdalin is ever considered for use in an anticancer medication, it would need to be in a modified form, as the oral version is toxic to normal human cells and too hazardous for use.”
Manipulating pH Levels through Diet
The hype: Based on the scientific observation that cancer cells thrive in an acidic environment — meaning low pH levels — some people contend that highly “acidic” foods such as meat, cheese, and grain products raise the risk of cancer by reducing pH levels in the blood. They claim that eating “alkaline” foods such as fruit, green vegetables, and other plant-based products discourages the growth of cancer cells by raising blood pH levels and tout the benefits of the alkaline diet (also known as the alkaline ash diet or alkaline acid diet).
The evidence: Cancer cells create an acidic microenvironment due to a high metabolic rate. Cancer cells can’t live in a highly alkaline environment, but neither can healthy cells. Your body works to keep pH levels constant, and changing your diet is not going to substantially change the pH levels of your blood, which are tightly regulated by the kidneys and lungs regardless of foods consumed.
The pH of bodily fluids, such as saliva and urine, does change temporarily depending on the foods you eat, but that doesn’t affect blood pH levels (or, hence, the environment of cancer cells in the body). In fact, any significant deviation in blood pH levels can cause serious, even life-threatening conditions known as acidosis (low pH) or alkalosis (high pH)
The verdict: “There is no evidence to support the notion that altering your diet can alter blood pH levels, let alone impact cancer growth,” Dr. Hou states. “The science behind this has been misconstrued. Modifying the pH of your saliva doesn’t influence the pH of your blood. Some patients may attempt to adjust their blood pH using chemicals, but this can pose serious risks.”
The Bottom Line
“Natural” cancer therapies should be regarded with great caution because most are unsupported by evidence. Many people offering testimonials to the effectiveness of such treatments may attribute benefits to them simply because their condition improved after using them — when the actual cause for the improvement is unrelated.
The good news is that mainstream cancer therapies are safer and more effective than ever. New chemotherapies work better with fewer side effects, and novel drugs target specific mutations in cancer cells to minimize harm to healthy cells. Highly precise forms of radiation therapy destroy tumors while sparing normal tissue. New approaches harness the body’s own immune powers to destroy cancer cells. And new surgical techniques are making it possible to remove tumors more safely while minimizing both risk of recurrence and recovery times.
If you’re considering using a complementary therapy in addition to your traditional cancer treatments, always check with a reputable source such as our About Herbs database or the National Cancer Institute, and always tell your doctor.
| 8,584
|
[
"health",
"simple",
"informational",
"research"
] |
health
|
geo_bench
|
cure cancer naturally
| false
|
fd9ad19ca6c7
|
https://www.thesprucepets.com/domesticated-pet-foxes-1238643
|
Should You Keep a Russian Red Fox as a Pet? Characteristics, Housing, Diet, and Other Information By Adrienne Kruzer Adrienne Kruzer Adrienne Kruzer is a veterinary technician with more than 15 years of experience providing healthcare to domestic and exotic animals. She is trained as a Fear Free Certified Professional to prevent and alleviate fear, anxiety, and stress in pets. Learn more about The Spruce Pets' Editorial Process Updated on 09/25/25 Credit: James Warwick / Stone / Getty Images In This Article Expand Is it OK to Own a Russian Red Fox? Behavior and Temperament Housing Diet Vet Care Purchasing Similar Pets and Breeds Key Takeaways The Russian red fox is a unique, selectively bred domesticated fox, suitable for pet ownership under specific conditions.Owning a Russian red fox requires a significant commitment in terms of legality, care, and financial investment.Russian red foxes need ample exercise, mental stimulation, and a carefully controlled diet. The tame Russian red fox is the only domesticated breed of fox, developed through selective breeding experiments conducted in Russia. These foxes behave similarly to dogs and can make wonderful pets for those who can afford to buy and care for them, as they tend to be expensive. Curious, intelligent, and animated, a red fox requires attentive supervision to keep it out of trouble, but its cuddles and companionship may make the challenge worthwhile. Foxes can live in your home like a dog, but they will require an enclosure for unsupervised periods. They also need daily outdoor time for exercise. Foxes do not require a specialized diet; high-quality dog food works well, with supplementary fruits and vegetables. Grooming foxes can be one of the most demanding aspects of ownership because their long coats require frequent brushing, especially during shedding seasons. Species Overview Common Names: Russian red fox, Siberian foxScientific Name: Vulpes vulpesAdult Size: About 30 to 50 inches (head to tail); up to 30 poundsLifespan: Up to 14 years in captivity Can You Own a Pet Russian Red Fox? Legality Before buying or adopting a fox, it's important to determine whether or not ownership is legal in your area. As of 2022, most states prohibit keeping foxes as pets. Sixteen states allow residents to own a fox, although regulations vary and often require obtaining unique permits. For example, in North Carolina, residents can own a fox as long as they obtain an exhibition license and use the animal for educational purposes. Check state and local regulations to ensure legal ownership, which also helps in securing proper veterinary care. Even exotic pet veterinarians will not treat illegally owned animals. Ethics Legally owning a domesticated Russian red fox does not pose ethical issues among people who understand that these tame animals have been bred to live with humans, not in the wild. Domesticated red foxes, particularly those of Russian descent, have been handled by humans for enough generations that they are content living the domestic life of a pet. Things to Consider If owning a Russian red fox is legal in your area, you may find this animal to be a delightful companion. These foxes are relatively well adapted to living alongside humans and behave similarly to domestic dogs, making their care familiar and manageable for people accustomed to owning dogs. All things considered, a Russian red fox makes a better pet than most other exotic species. However, foxes are intelligent, high-energy creatures that need plenty of exercise and stimulation. Expect to spend considerable time with your fox to keep it engaged, as boredom can lead to destructive behavior. A secure enclosure is essential when your fox is unsupervised, due to its natural inclination to urine-mark its territory. Russian Red Fox Behavior and Temperament Although sharing the same scientific name, Russian red foxes have been selectively bred for traits that distinguish them from wild foxes, rendering them domesticated. They have lower adrenaline levels and are less agitated in captivity, rarely showing aggression towards humans or the inclination to bite. Tame foxes tend to be friendly, with behaviors like tail wagging, licking, or whimpering with excitement similar to those of dogs. Like their wild relatives, Russian red foxes are athletic, nimble, and possess abundant energy. They can leap over six feet high, enjoy digging, and are adept swimmers. Capable of running up to 30 miles per hour, they require ample playtime and environmental enrichment to stay happy and healthy. A bored fox may become unhappy and potentially destructive, engaging in digging and chewing household objects, or displaying an increased drive to scent-mark with urine. This territorial behavior intensifies if the fox is left ignored for prolonged periods. Domestic foxes enjoy being part of a human family, including children, and get along well with other household pets, especially if raised with them. Many foxes appreciate being petted, held, and snuggled, making them comforting companions compared to many other exotic species. 1:09 8 Things to Know Before Adopting a Pet Fox Housing A large enclosure (approximately 10 by 20 feet) is suitable for a pet fox. Ensure the pen is secure, with a buried fence to prevent your pet from digging out and to keep predators from getting in. The fence should be a minimum of seven feet high to contain these agile animals. A roof is recommended for protection against the elements. The enclosure should also include an indoor area with bedding, straw, or wood chips where your fox can comfortably nap. Supervise your fox closely if it roams indoors. Secure breakables and valuables (including car keys) as pet foxes often grab and hide small objects. Keep electrical cords out of reach and consider childproof locks on cabinets. If your home is toddler-proofed, it should be relatively safe for a fox to explore. How to Train Your Dog to Pee in One Spot: A Step-by-Step Guide What Do Russian Red Foxes Eat and Drink? In the wild, red foxes are omnivores that eat small rodents, birds, raccoons, insects, reptiles, and plant materials, including fruits. In captivity, their diet can include grain-free dog food supplemented with fruit and vegetables. Purchase high-quality brands from pet stores, feeding your fox as per package directions for its weight, twice daily. Adjust portions if your fox is losing or gaining weight improperly. Use standard dog dishes for food and water. Fruits and vegetables should only constitute a small portion of your fox's total diet. Typically, 1/4 cup daily works well as a supplement. They enjoy strawberries, blueberries, apples, carrots, and mushrooms. Some breeders recommend raw meat, eggs, and taurine supplements as well. Consult your breeder and veterinarian to establish the optimal diet for your fox. What to Feed Your Pet Fox Common Health Problems Pet foxes are susceptible to most canine diseases, including rabies and distemper. It is crucial to research vaccines thoroughly and discuss options with your exotic pet veterinarian before deciding to vaccinate your pet fox, as some domestic foxes may react adversely to conventional vaccines. You're required to accept the risk and consequences if your unvaccinated fox contracts a disease or bites someone. Depending on local laws, your fox might be euthanized due to the rabies risk in any unvaccinated animal. Foxes can also contract livestock diseases like bovine tuberculosis, and they can transmit certain illnesses to humans and other pets. Credit: The Spruce/Wenjia Tang Exercise Pet foxes require substantial exercise. If you have a large yard, daily romps and ball-fetching games can help keep your fox fit and content. Without much outdoor space, you will need to walk your fox, provided it accepts a harness and leash. Your fox will be happiest with opportunities to run, jump, and play off-leash several times weekly. Grooming Like long-haired dogs, foxes need occasional baths. Use a gentle shampoo suitable for dog's skin and fur, bathing your fox in a sink or tub. Only bathe your fox when it seems particularly dirty from outdoor activities, or if its coat appears oily. Frequent bathing can dry out your fox's coat and skin, making it more susceptible to irritation and infections. Shedding Foxes have thick coats that require regular brushing, especially during the heavy shedding periods in spring and fall. Use a dog brush for daily grooming and a fur "rake" to reach and remove loose undercoat clumps that can become matted during shedding. Handle your fox gently during grooming to avoid causing pain or building distrust. Nail Trimming Your fox needs nail trimming, just like a dog. The need for trimming depends on your fox's access to hard surfaces like concrete. Start the trimming routine early and handle your pet gently to minimize anxiety as it ages. Size Information The Russian red fox is approximately the size of a small to medium-sized dog, featuring a large, fluffy tail. Generally, females are smaller than males, which can weigh up to about 30 pounds. Foxes appear larger in winter when their full coat develops. Training Your Russian Red Fox Begin house training your fox as soon as possible using dog potty-training pads. Ideally, train it to eliminate in a designated area. Both male and female foxes tend to mark territory and food with urine, which may be challenging to train out of the animal. Fox urine has a strong odor, so be prepared. Avoid leaving your fox unsupervised indoors, as separation anxiety might lead to marking. Pros and Cons of Keeping a Russian Red Fox as a Pet Russian red foxes are visually stunning animals that appear wild but behave similarly to domestic dogs. They can be friendly and affectionate, providing delightful companionship to the right owner. Nevertheless, sourcing a fox can be challenging and costly, and legality may be an issue depending on where you live. A fox comes with responsibilities similar to those of a furry, active dog in terms of exercise, nutrition, and grooming. However, foxes tend to mark their territory with pungent urine and may cause damage due to digging or chewing when they feel lonely or agitated. Purchasing Your Russian Red Fox Importing Russian red foxes can exceed $10,000 in costs. A few domestic breeders might exist in the U.S., but you should ensure that the breed offered is genuinely a domesticated Russian red fox. Some unscrupulous breeders may sell wild American red fox kits under the guise of Russian red foxes. These will display untamed traits such as skittishness, aggression, and compulsive marking. They do not make suitable pets for most individuals. Similar Pets to the Russian Red Fox If you find the Russian red fox intriguing, consider these similar options: Fennec Fox Species Profile Best Foxes to Keep as Pets 10 Dog Breeds That Look the Most Like Foxes FAQ Do Russian red foxes like to be touched? These foxes are bred to be tame and well-adjusted to human contact, so they tend to be friendly and enjoy petting, playing, and even snuggling with people. Are Russian red foxes the same as wild red foxes in the U.S.? Although they share the same genus and species, these foxes are quite different as a result of selective breeding programs in Russia. Behavioral characteristics such as friendliness and trainability have been selected throughout generations of foxes so that they behave much more like tame dogs than wild foxes do. Do Russian red foxes shed? They shed a lot. Red foxes grow a thick coat of fur for the winter, and they shed it in the spring; they also experience a lighter shedding period in the fall as their winter coat comes in. Explore more: Small Pets Exotic Pets Exotic Pet Care
| 11,754
|
[
"pets and animals",
"simple",
"informational",
"question",
"fact",
"research"
] |
pets and animals
|
geo_bench
|
Can foxes be domesticated?
| false
|
56622076e31f
|
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2017/jan/23/traditional-folk-sports-in-karnataka-remain-on-the-horns-of-a-dilemma-1562469.html
|
Traditional sports and rituals involving animals are an integral part of many communities in rural parts of Karnataka. Today, many of these events are banned under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but are widely practised. The protests over the ban on Jallikattu in Tamil Nadu, followed by an ordinance allowing groups to conduct the event has led to demands for revoking the ban on such sports. Express takes a look at traditional sporting events held across state
Yadgir - Tossing lambs over palanquin of village deity
For over a century, villagers in Mailapur in Yadgir taluk have performed the ritual of tossing lambs over the palanquin of the village deity Mallaiah. This is practised during the annual fair of Mailapur Mallaiah on the day of Sankranti (January 14) every year.
Members of the Kuruba community sacrifice the lamb as a gesture of devotion to the deity. Apart from Kurubas, members of Gonda community also participate in the ritual. Keshava Motagi, president of Nandi Animal Welfare Society, Kalaburagi, said the tradition is mere fashion today and is cruelty to animals.
“In this modern era, such practices should be prohibited,” Motagi said. Thousands of devotees arrive from parts of Yadgir, Kalaburagi, Vijayapura, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Maharashtra to take part in the fair. The ritual has been banned for the past three years by the Yadgir district administration.
However, despite the ban, some devotees have continued the practice. This year, six devotees tossed sheep over the palanquin. Police later arrested three people.
Status: Banned
Old Mysuru region
Cattle made to jump across fire or Kichchu Haisodu
Kichchu Haisodu is a ritual associated with farming in old Mysuru region.
The ritual is observed during Makara Sankranti every year when cattle are made to jump over fire. The cattle - bull and cow - are bathed, their horns painted and decorated. Later in the evening, they are made to jump over the fire. The ritual is still practised in villages around Bengaluru, Mandya, Ramanagara,
The ritual is still practised in villages around Bengaluru, Mandya, Ramanagara, Mysuru and Hassan. Farmers believe that the practice of making cattle jump over fire will kill small insects present on their body.
Status: Practised
Hubbali
Ram Fight of Savji Community
Somavansha Sahasrajun Kshatriya Samaj members also known as Savji community hold ram fights during Dasara. The community has been practising this for hundreds of years. Earlier, such fights were organised in district stadiums. But as crowds swelled, it attracted animal rights activists who vehemently opposed it.
At present, it is only held in areas where members of the Savji community live, mostly in Dajibanpet and Kamaripet in Hubballi. Organisers say the sport is part of their culture and courts should respect the sentiments of the people. Many Muslim families in Hubballi too organise ram fights annually.
Status: Banned, illegally practised
Hubbali
Kobri Hori competition
Kobri Hori Sparde translated as catch a running bull is among the state’s most popular rural sport. The event is held during Diwali when farmers, agricultural workers and youngsters try to subdue a bull and then tie dry coconuts around its horns.
The bulls are then taken in a procession around the village or town. Farmers usually sharpen the animal’s horn before the event. Over the years, stories of competitors losing their lives or suffering injuries has marred the event.
Status: Banned, illegally practised
Mangaluru, Udupi
Cock fighting or kori katte
Although a banned sport, cock fighting still thrives illegally in parts of Karnataka. However, the scale of the event pales in comparison with Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana where it is a huge betting sport, running to crores. Dakshin Kannada and Udupi districts still follow this age old tradition.
A special breed of cocks/fowls which are known as game cocks are bred and trained for fighting purposes. Blades are tied to the roosters spurs. Farmers engage in this activity before and after harvesting paddy crops.
The event is held after festivals like Sankranti and Diwali and is organised a few times a year in the vicinity of temples around Mangaluru and Udupi.
“The sport is held secretively as it is banned by High Courts and the Supreme Court. The cost of roosters varies from `20,000-`25,000 while the betting may go up to a few lakhs,” said activist Ravi.
According to PeTA India, cock fighting community rear, the roosters and trains them in such a way that these birds become killers.
Status: Banned, illegally practised
North Karnataka
Bullock cart racing
Bullock cart racing has been a traditional sport practised for more than hundred years. The event which was widely held across the state is now restricted to parts of north Karnataka. The races are held during Dasara and Diwali. Participants race in bullock carts and winners receive prize money.
Status: No ban
Udupi
Buffalo racing or kambala
Kambala is an annual buffalo race organised by agrarian families after the harvest of Rabi crop. Kambala season lasts from November to March, before the onset of summer when Kolke crop is cultivated. The animals race in paddy fields filled with slush. Locals believe this practice prepares the land for the Kolke crop.
In the last 50 years, Kambala’s mandate has changed and the folk sport has turned into a money spinner with audiences placing huge bets on the animals. The game has become an organised rural sport with committees setting up schedules and cash prizes.
The game is conducted across Dakshina Kannada, Udupi and even parts of Kasaragod in Kerala. However, the sport has been put on hold due to an interim ban by the High Court, following opposition by animal rights activists.
Previously, despite a petition for a ban on the event by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), the races were held with regulations issued by local district administration.
status: Interim ban
| 5,964
|
[
"sports",
"simple",
"informational",
"command",
"research",
"fact"
] |
sports
|
geo_bench
|
mention the names of any 3 famous folklore sports in karnataka state
| false
|
ba4f4dd11189
|
https://novoresume.com/career-blog/job-scams
|
Did you see a job ad on the internet and thought that it’s too good to be true?
Well, chances are, it is.
Job scams are rampant all over the internet and anyone can be tricked into one.
Of course, scammers have always existed, but the ever-increasing use of technology has enabled them to get creative and affect more people.
Want to learn whether that work-from-home job you found is a scam, or actually legit? In this article, we’re going to teach you all you need to know about job scams (and how to avoid them).
Read on to learn:
- 7 Common Types of Job Scams
- 9+ Warning Signs of a Job Scam
- 7+ Tips to Protect Yourself From a Job Scam
- FAQs on Job Scams
7 Common Types of Job Scams
Job scams have always existed in one way or another, be it in the form of a fake job ad in the newspaper, on TV, or on the radio.
But with more and more people turning to the internet to find jobs, job scams have both moved online and become more frequent. According to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, 16,012 people reported being victims of employment scams in 2020, with losses amounting to more than $59 million.
As a rule of thumb, scammers are our for two things:
- Your money
- Your personal information
But they use many ways to get to them. That’s why we have compiled a list of the most common types of job scams to help you identify them.
#1. Work-From-Home Job Scams
Generating income from the comfort of home has always been appealing to job-seekers worldwide…
And job scammers know this.
That’s why one of the most common job scams is placing ads (often online, but scammers could always reach you by phone, or text) that promise great pay in exchange for work from home.
Work-from-home job scams have been around for decades, but statistics show that job scams increased during the COVID-19 crisis, as many Americans were left unemployed and needed to work from home.
These types of scams seek to take your money in various ways, such as by making you pay enrollment fees, for training, or for useless certifications, among others.
Some examples of fake work-from-home job offers include:
- Stuffing envelopes, which involves signing up by paying a fee to stuff envelopes from home. The only commission you may ever receive, however, is by signing others up to pay the non-refundable registration fee.
- Reselling merchandise, which involves buying luxury products less than their retail price and reselling them at a higher price.
- Data entry scams that, unlike legitimate data entry jobs, promise great pay but require an upfront registration/training fee.
- Reshipping scams, which consist of receiving packages at home, getting rid of the original receipts, repackaging the products, and reshipping them. However, the “employer” never sends you a paycheck.
- Rebate processor, a job that promises high income for processing rebates from home for a non-refundable training fee, but actually involves placing ads online and getting a small commission every time a product gets sold.
- Assembling crafts/products, where the company hires you after paying the enrollment fee and purchasing the products’ materials, but later rejects the finished products.
#2. Emailed Fake Job Offers
Another popular job scam is receiving a job offer through email.
The email usually comes from a “recruiter/employer” who claims they found your resume on a job board, or that you applied for the position (and you’re the perfect candidate!).
Although you might not remember applying (because you didn’t) and the sender’s email might not ring a bell, you could still be tempted to accept the offer.
Now, the types of fake jobs offered via email are countless but, generally, the scammer will ask you to provide personal information such as:
- Your driver’s license (which lets them know your birthday)
- Your Social Security Number (with the pretense they need it to hire you)
- Your bank account information (“to transfer your paychecks”)
Once they have such sensitive information, they could harm you in various ways, from stealing your money all the way to stealing your identity.
#3. Fake Jobs on Social Media
Since 53.6% of the population uses social media platforms, they’ve become a popular place for scammers to share fake job ads.
Commonly, they create Facebook pages or LinkedIn profiles to advertise fake job opportunities, but real accounts can also be advertising fake postings.
And although both platforms try to block both fake profiles and fake job ads, sometimes, some slip through the cracks.
Twitter is another social media platform that’s not entirely guarded against fake or real accounts advertising fake jobs. For example, job scams can be shared around Twitter through shortened URL links (bit.ly or ow.ly) that lead to unverified sources outside of the platform.
When it comes to job scams taking place on social media, it’s important to always verify the recruiter/employer’s social media account is legit.
For example, if the account on Twitter has a small number of followers, it’s most likely a fake account. Similarly, if you google the employer’s name and more than one profile comes up, you have reason to be cautious.
#4. Government and postal service job scams
Some job scams work by promising a job with the federal government or the US Postal Service (USPS).
However, if the website/employer asks you to pay a fee to get the job or to pay for study materials so that you get a high score and qualify for the position, the job offer is a scam.
All federal jobs are free to apply for, so if you hear or see the contrary, you have reason to be cautious.
Want to know, for sure, if a federal job ad is legit? Only apply for federal jobs on the following websites:
💡
Quick Tip
Looking to land a federal job, but not sure where to stop? The first step is to create a convincing federal resume. Learn more with our article!
#5. Job Scams on Verified Job Sites
Even verified and popular job search sites like Indeed, CareerBuilder, or Craigslist are not 100% immune to fake job ads.
These kinds of job sites work by collecting listings from company websites, recruiting agencies, newspapers, or by companies uploading job offers directly on the platform. But, although the job boards might be verified, the employers and job offers are not always.
And yes, scam job ads are present even on the paid job boards, so don’t let your guard down.
#6. Job placement service scams
Another common type of job scam involves scammers impersonating job placement services such as staffing agencies, headhunters, etc.
Thankfully, spotting such scams is pretty simple.
Headhunters or placement professionals (the ones that come to you with an offer, anyway) will never ask you to pay for their services.
In such cases, it’s always the employer that foots the bill.
So, if a job placement service asks for money for a job offer, chances are, it’s a job scam.
#7. Fake Employment or Recruitment Websites
At times, scammers go as far as to create fake employment or recruitment websites.
This type of job scam can be harder to spot than the rest, particularly because some of these sites do a good job passing as legitimate recruitment sites. However, in reality, the job offer or recruiter doesn’t really exist outside of the website.
Usually, this type of job scam will ask for sensitive information such as your SSN or your bank details under the pretense of a pre-screening, or to start depositing your paychecks immediately.
💡
Quick Tip
Have you found a legitimate job but you don’t know how to get started writing the resume? Check out our guide on how to write a resume to make things easier!
9+ Warning Signs of a Job Scam
Now, although job scams come in many forms, there are still some warning signs that can help you identify one.
So, if you notice any of the following when you receive an offer or see a tempting listing, then it’s most likely a job scam:
- You are contacted through non-company email domains and teleconference applications (e.g. an actual IBM recruiter would contact you using a company email such as [email protected], as opposed to [email protected])
- You are required to purchase start-up equipment from the company, such as is the case with assembling products work-from-home job scams.
- You are asked to pay a non-refundable registration fee.
- You are required to provide your bank account information (before you start working).
- You receive an employment contract to sign in advance, asking for Personal Identifiable Information such as your SSN and your bank details.
- Job postings appear on job boards, but not on the companies’ websites.
- Your potential employer is using a slightly altered website, such as www.2micro-soft.com and not www.microsoft.com
- The email or job ad is full of errors and the job description and requirements are vague.
- The potential employer shows a sense of urgency to hire you, such as listings that hire immediately, or within the same week of application.
- The job requirements apply to literally any candidate but offer very good pay.
💡
Quick Tip
Finding a good job that you enjoy can be challenging. Our article listing 35+ essential job search tips could make the process much easier for you!
7+ Tips to Protect Yourself from a Job Scam
Unfortunately, you can never be 100% safe from job scams—no matter how familiar you are with the different types and the signs they come with.
After all, scammers are constantly “re-inventing” job scams, but you might also find yourself in a position where you really need a job and fall prey to a scam.
For this reason, any time you come across a listing that seems sketchy, make sure that you:
- Do an online search. Google the company, the employer, or the recruiter, and see what pops up. For example, if you get emailed a job offer from say from a random name claiming they’re a recruiter, search up their name online (or on LinkedIn) to see if their claim stands.
- Talk to someone you trust. If you come across a job offer that just seems too good to be true (e.g. it promises great pay in exchange for minimal skills), then show the listing to someone you know and trust. They might give you a valuable second opinion on whether it’s a job scam or the real deal.
- Don't pay for the promise of a job. If you are required to pay for a job, it’s guaranteed to be a scam. In normal circumstances, you can’t just pay for a job - you have to deserve it. So, if you get an offer saying you can just pay for a position, you can rest assured it’s a scam.
- Connect with the company. Did you see a job offer on social media supposedly from a company? Don’t take everything at face value. Shoot the company an email asking if the offer is legit or, at least, check the company’s website to see if the listing is there. If the job opening is real, it should definitely be on the website.
- Never agree to a wire transfer of any sort. Wire transfers are common among thieves. They consist of moving money quickly from one account to another and it’s almost impossible to recover those funds. So, if you get an email supposedly from a company executive asking you to wire money for lack of an easier payment method, that’s your sign that it's a job scam.
- Reject job offers that require no experience. As we said before, a job that pays any decent amount of money will require a certain level of knowledge or experience in the field. So, if the job offer promises decent/easy money for an easy job, it’s probably a no-no.
- Don't agree to provide your bank details to a potential employer. Obviously, you will need to provide sensitive information such as your bank details to your employer eventually. However, no legit employer will ever ask for your bank details before you actually settle into the job.
- Don’t interact with potential employers who urge you to act fast. A typical sign of a job scam is when the scammer urges you to act fast to “seal the deal” and give them your money or your personal information. A normal hiring process takes at least 1-3 weeks, depending on the company procedure. So, any employer who guarantees a super fast hiring process is guaranteed to be a scammer.
- Don’t accept an offer when you didn’t apply. Sometimes, scammers will contact you out of nowhere, saying you’re hired for a job that you didn’t apply for. This is, of course, a scam.
Do you still have some questions about job scams? We’ll answer them here!
Key Takeaways
And that’s a wrap! We hope that you found the article on job scams helpful.
Here are the key takeaways of the information we just covered:
- Job scams consist of criminals posing as employers/recruiters reaching out to victims with a fake job offer and require their money or personal information, such as SSN or bank details.
- The most popular types of job scams include work-from-home scams, emailed job offers, fake jobs on social media, government and postal service job scams, job scams on verified job sites, job placement service scams, and fake employment/recruitment websites.
- To protect yourself from a job scam, make sure to do research on the company, talk to someone you trust, reject any offer that asks for your money and sensitive information, or promises you great pay for only a little professional experience.
| 13,229
|
[
"jobs",
"business and industrial",
"finance",
"people and society",
"intermediate",
"informational",
"research",
"question"
] |
jobs
|
geo_bench
|
tips to avoid fake job scams
| false
|
bed92055a273
|
https://lionstale.org/11370/opinion/pro-con-should-the-voting-age-be-lowered/
|
Pro/Con: Should the voting age be lowered?
January 24, 2023
Pro
Although amending a concrete institution in our democracy may seem daunting at first, the voting system and its rules regarding eligibility for citizens have evolved with the nation. Due to the changing political landscape as well as younger people getting more involved in the systems of our country, it is a logical step to reduce the voting age from 18 to 16 in the United States.
First, we need to test out this change in local counties and other municipalities. By doing so, it will become clearer if people between ages 16 and 18 participate in voting. Although many dismiss people in this age range as being too immature or uneducated on political issues to vote, there is ample evidence to prove that teenage advocacy for political issues and overall turnout will increase if younger people are able to vote.
Allowing some high school students to vote will help get them introduced to and involved in the voting process but also advocacy for issues that they care about. On a local scale, people could vote on topics that affect them, like electing the members of the public school board and each member’s agenda.
Also, 16 year olds are able to drive, pay taxes and work. So why not let those who are affected by these laws vote on potential changes to them along with other issues?
In Austria, which is the only country that allows 16 year olds to vote in all elections, voter turnout for that age range was lower than that of other age groups. However, their vote “quality,” meaning the issues they voted for combined with the reason for voting, was equal to that of the majority of the voting population. For example, teens voted for people whose political beliefs aligned with theirs as opposed to voting for candidates who were not qualified or had a legitimate agenda.
However, allowing younger people to vote wouldn’t just increase turnout for themselves. According to a study by Tufts University, allowing 16 and 17 year olds to get involved in politics and their civic duty to vote also increased turnout in older groups of citizens. Based on the research, children would start conversations with their families about local issues more often, causing more people of all ages to be involved in the political system.
If more teenagers were able to vote, it may help cause change in our government, particularly regarding the issue of gun violence and school shootings.
In 2022 alone, there were 300 school shootings, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database. Why shouldn’t students, who are most affected by this violence, be able to make their voices heard by voting to create new laws that prevent more tragedies from happening in the classroom?
High school students and teenagers are a group that is doubted by the rest of the population. Many believe that they are unable or unwilling to make rational decisions when it comes to voting, and that is simply untrue. With teens being directly impacted by government decisions, it is imperative that they are able to take action by participating in our political system.
Con
In the past decade, some towns in Maryland, such as Takoma Park and Hyattsville, have chosen to lower the voting age to 16. These cities’ main goal in doing so is to promote civic engagement in the youth, however, this may be wishful thinking. 16 and 17 year olds are not mature enough to take on the significant task of voting because they aren’t mature or have the knowledge of many of the issues that politicians discuss.
According to the Alcohol Pharmacology Education Partnership (APEP) at Duke, At the age of 16 and 17, the brain is developed with an exception of the prefrontal cortex. The prefrontal cortex is critical to a person’s decision making. Without the prefrontal cortex fully developed, how can we be sure that these newer, younger voters won’t make careless and uninformed decisions when voting?
16 and 17 year olds may be turned off from voting due to their lack of knowledge when it comes to economic issues. In the 2020 presidential election, the most popular issue that politicians run on is the economy. Many of the sub-issues that are in the economic debate – such as lowering taxes and reducing inflation – can be best understood by those who are directly affected by these economic changes, which is mainly people over 18.
“Today, just over one-third, or 35%, of teens between the ages of 16 and 19 are part of the workforce,” CNBC reported. “Those who are still on the family dole and don’t pay bills can’t fully appreciate the implications of politicians’ platforms on the economy.”
Another concern is the already low turnout for those of the younger generation. According to the United States Census Bureau, the voter turnout in the 2020 election for citizens ages 18-34 was 57%, which was 12% less than citizens ages 35-64 and was 17% less than citizens ages 65 and up. As seen in this pattern, the younger generations are less likely to vote, which would be even more exacerbated in the 16-17 age category. Allowing 16 and 17 year olds to cast a ballot is already risky, so why risk allowing them to vote if they won’t even want to go to vote.
Looking more inwards, 16 and 17 year olds at CESJDS are faced with an additional issue: school on election day. As a result of people having the day off, many students won’t be able to vote because election day is usually when most people remember to vote.
While encouraging civic participation from the younger generation is laudable, it would not serve our country well to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote. They are simply not mature enough to grasp the complexities of American politics and to cast a meaningful ballot.
| 5,709
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should the voting age be altered?
| false
|
9236c2a61b8c
|
http://meng.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/meng-reintroduces-legislation-to-lower-the-voting-age-in-america-to-16-0
|
Meng Reintroduces Legislation To Lower The Voting Age In America To 16 Years Old
January 26, 2023
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) announced today that she reintroduced her legislation that would lower the voting age in the United States to 16-years-old.
The Congresswoman's measure seeks to replace the 26th amendment of the U.S. Constitution with a new amendment that would allow 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote.
"Over the past few years, we have seen the influence young people in our nation have on trends, political movements, and elections," said Meng. "They continue to advocate for many crucial issues for which they are deeply passionate about. It is time to give them a voice in our democracy and reward their passion so that their voices are heard at the ballot box. 16- and 17-year-olds are legally permitted to work, drive and they also pay federal income taxes. They are contributing members of our society and I believe it is right and fair to allow them to vote in our elections. I am proud and honored to stand by our nation's young people in introducing this legislation and hope my colleagues in the House support it."
"We're excited to see momentum in states across the country for the common-sense policy reform of lowering the voting age to 16," said Andrew Wilkes, Generation Citizen's Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer. "Congresswoman Meng's national leadership in putting forward this legislation is aligned with the research: 16 is the right age to establish the habit of voting. This bill also supports young people's journey of informed participation and having a say on the issues which directly affect their lives."
"18by Vote deeply supports Representative Meng's proposed legislation to lower the U.S. voting age to 16-years-old," said Ava Mateo, Executive Director of 18by Vote. "As countries around the world have extended voting rights to 16-year-olds, research has found that lowering the voting age increases youth voter participation. Furthermore, studies have found that 16-year-olds hold equivalent levels of civic competence to 18-year-olds. Through their youth-led activism and advocacy, 16- and 17-year-olds across the nation have demonstrated their readiness to make their voices heard through their vote and to put in the work to be active, informed, and engaged citizens."
"Congresswoman Meng's record demonstrates a long-standing commitment to engaging young people in the civic process. As our democracy faces unprecedented attacks and as our country grapples with great, imminent challenges, it is critical we ensure those whose futures are most impacted and who will be responsible for resolving these issues for years to come are empowered to take action and have a voice today," said Carolyn DeWitt, President and Executive Director of Rock The Vote. "Any effort to make young people's voices heard on a local, state, and federal level is an important one."
"As a coalition of young and future voters, Voters of Tomorrow is thrilled to support Representative Meng's legislation to lower the voting age to 16-years-old," said Jack Lobel, Press Secretary for Voters of Tomorrow. "Young Americans like us have perhaps the most at stake in our nation's future. We deserve a direct say in electing the lawmakers who have the power to shape it. Sixteen- and seventeen-year-old Americans are students, workers, taxpayers, and engaged constituents. They will soon be the citizens responsible for upholding the ideals of our representative democracy, and we must include them in the quintessential civic process of voting."
"We at FairVote Action have always supported the importance of the right to vote, and we thank Representative Meng for leading this important conversation about the most appropriate voting age," said Rob Richie, President and CEO of FairVote Action. "It's time for our nation to embrace this conversation. Early uses of a lower voting age in some cities and state primaries have been promising, with positive impacts on voter participation and involvement of young people in the political process."
"The National Youth Rights Association strongly supports Representative Meng's constitutional amendment to lower the voting age to 16," said Neil Bhateja, a National Youth Rights Association Board Member. "When the government makes decisions about education, the environment, and war and peace, young people are affected for more years of their lives than any other age demographic. They work and are subject to taxation without representation: income tax, sales tax, payroll taxes, and more. In Scotland, Brazil, Austria, and Argentina, 16-year-olds have shown that they're ready to vote and deserve to shape their own futures. The United States should continue its democratic tradition of extending voting rights. Thank you Representative Meng for your leadership on this issue in Congress!"
"As an organization that builds youth political power, our communities face a glaring issue: 16 and 17-year-olds have no say in who will best represent their values and priorities even though they will disproportionately bear the brunt of decisions in the present and future," said Elona J Wilson, Executive Director at Next Up Action Fund. "Lowering the voting age to 16 is a bold idea to strengthen our democracy, and we strongly support Congresswoman Meng's proposed constitutional amendment to lower the voting age."
Constitutional amendments require passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the nation's state legislatures. If enacted, the voting age would be lowered for federal, state, and local elections. The last time that the voting age was lowered was when it went from 21 to 18 in 1971.
Meng's legislation (H.J.res.16), can be viewed here.
| 5,776
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should the voting age be altered?
| false
|
573d099fdcf2
|
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/09/nato-seen-favorably-across-member-states/
|
This analysis focuses on views of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) among 16 member nations and three nonmember nations in Europe and North America. In all, the analysis covers over 90% of the population living in NATO countries.
Pew Research Center has been tracking views of NATO since 2007. This report also includes views of Article 5 obligations, which state that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all; preferences for close relations with the U.S. versus with Russia; support for the use of military force to maintain order in the world; and agreement with the sentiment that parts of neighboring countries belong to another country.
For this report, we used data from a survey conducted across 19 countries from May 13 to Aug. 12, 2019, among 21,029 respondents. The surveys were conducted face-to-face in Central and Eastern Europe, Greece, Italy, Russia and Ukraine. Surveys were conducted over the phone in North America and Western Europe.
Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and its methodology.
NATO is generally seen in a positive light across publics within the alliance, despite lingering tensions between the leaders of individual member countries. A median of 53% across 16 member countries surveyed have a favorable view of the organization, with only 27% expressing a negative view. But opinions of NATO and related issues vary widely across the countries surveyed, especially regarding the obligations of Article 5 of the 70-year-old Washington Treaty, which declares that an attack against one member nation is considered an attack against all members.
Positive ratings of NATO among members range from a high of 82% in Poland to 21% in Turkey, with the United States and Germany in the middle at 52% and 57%, respectively. And in the three nonmember states surveyed, Sweden and Ukraine see the alliance positively (63% and 53%, respectively), but only 16% of Russians say the same.
Favorable views of the organization have fluctuated over time among both NATO member and nonmember countries. Since the late 2000s, favorable opinions of NATO are up 10 percentage points or more in Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland. However, positive opinions of NATO are down significantly in Bulgaria, Russia, Germany and France over the past decade, with double-digit percentage point declines in each of these countries. Favorable views of the organization are also down significantly in Spain and the Czech Republic.
In addition, across several countries surveyed, favorable views of the organization are related to ideological orientation, with those on the right sharing a more positive view than those on the ideological left.
NATO serves as a political and military alliance for its 29 member states spanning Europe and North America. Founded in 1949 to provide collective defense against the Soviet Union, the alliance seeks to balance Russian power and influence, in addition to a host of other operations.
Despite the organization’s largely favorable ratings among member states, there is widespread reluctance to fulfill the collective defense commitment outlined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. When asked if their country should defend a fellow NATO ally against a potential attack from Russia, a median of 50% across 16 NATO member states say their country should not defend an ally, compared with 38% who say their country should defend an ally against a Russian attack.
Publics are more convinced that the U.S. would use military force to defend a NATO ally from Russia. A median of 60% say the U.S. would defend an ally against Russia, while just 29% say the U.S. would not do so. And in most NATO member countries surveyed, publics are more likely to say the U.S. would defend a NATO ally from a Russian attack than say their own country should do the same.
In terms of transatlantic relations, some Western European publics prefer a close relationship with the U.S., but many others prefer a close relationship with both the U.S. and Russia. Nevertheless, few want to prioritize their relationship with Russia over their U.S. relations. Ideology also relates to views of potential allies: Those on the right in several countries are more likely than those on the left to prefer a relationship with the U.S.
Despite the reservations many have about NATO’s Article 5 commitments, half or more in nearly every country surveyed agree it is sometimes necessary to use military force to maintain order in the world. In most countries surveyed, those who say military force is sometimes necessary are also more likely to agree that their country should use military force to defend a fellow NATO ally.
These views have changed significantly over the past decade in some countries. In Ukraine, Russia, Slovakia and Germany, more say military force is sometimes necessary than said the same in 2007. And in Italy, Spain and the Czech Republic, publics have grown less inclined to agree.
On the topic of territorial ambitions, when asked if there are parts of neighboring countries that really belong to their country, relatively few surveyed agree. However, among NATO member states, majorities in Hungary, Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria agree that parts of other countries belong to them. In many European countries, those with a favorable view of right-wing populist parties are more likely to support this statement.
These are among the key findings from a Pew Research Center survey of 19 countries, including 16 NATO member states, Sweden, Russia and Ukraine. The survey was conducted among 21,029 people from May 13 to Aug. 12, 2019. Throughout this report, German results are occasionally sourced from a series of surveys conducted in Germany by Körber-Stiftung, in partnership with Pew Research Center.
NATO viewed favorably across member states, though opinions have shifted over time
Across the 16 NATO member countries surveyed, NATO is generally seen in a positive light. A median of 53% across these countries have a favorable view of the organization, while a median of 27% have an unfavorable opinion. In 13 of these countries, roughly half or more have a positive view of NATO.
Among NATO member countries, positive views of the organization range from 82% in Poland to 21% in Turkey. Majorities of people in Poland, Lithuania, Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany rate NATO positively in Europe. Opinions are also relatively positive in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, France, Spain, Hungary and Bulgaria.
Canadians and Americans hold positive views of NATO, with 66% in Canada and 52% in the U.S. expressing favorable opinions.
In Turkey and Greece, publics are particularly unfavorable toward the alliance: Roughly half or more express a negative opinion.
Among the three non-NATO countries surveyed, views of the alliance are mixed. In Sweden and Ukraine, more than half have a favorable view of NATO. But in Russia, 60% have an unfavorable view of the organization, while just 16% view it favorably, the smallest share across all countries surveyed.
Views of NATO have fluctuated since Pew Research Center began asking this question in 2007. In non-NATO-member Ukraine, for example, 34% said they had a favorable view of the organization in 2007. In 2019, 53% said the same, an increase of 19 percentage points. Lithuanians and Poles have also grown more favorable toward NATO over the past 10 to 12 years (increases of 18 and 10 points, respectively).
Several countries have soured on the alliance over that period. In France, favorable views of NATO dropped from 71% in 2009 to 49% in 2019, a decrease of 22 percentage points. In Germany, favorable views of the organization declined by 16 points, and in Bulgaria favorable views are down by 12 points. In nonmember Russia, positive views have been nearly cut in half: In 2007, 30% had a favorable view of NATO. By 2019, just 16% expressed the same sentiment.
In U.S., views of NATO differ among Democrats and Republicans
Americans’ views of NATO differ by political party affiliation. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have been more likely to have a favorable opinion of NATO than Republicans and Republican-leaning independents across most years. That remained true in 2019, as 61% of Democrats had a positive view of the alliance, compared with 45% of Republicans.
Both Democratic and Republican views of NATO remained generally stable until 2017, when Democrats grew much more likely to support NATO than their counterparts, a difference that has not changed significantly since. In 2017, 74% of Democrats and 48% of Republicans had a favorable opinion of the alliance, a difference of 26 percentage points. Since 2018, U.S. views of NATO have declined among supporters of both parties. Positive views among Democrats fell 15 points, while views among Republicans dropped 7 points.
Those on the right tend to have a more positive view of NATO
Ideology is a factor when it comes to views of NATO in several countries. In six countries, those placing themselves on the right side of the ideological spectrum are more favorable toward NATO than those on the left. In Sweden, for example, 79% of those on the ideological right have a positive opinion of NATO, compared with 38% of those on the left, a difference of 41 percentage points. Significant differences between those on the right and the left are also seen in Bulgaria (38 percentage points), the Czech Republic (36 points), Spain (25), Greece (19) and Slovakia (16).
Public reluctance on Article 5 obligations across NATO member countries
Article 5 of the NATO treaty is “at the very heart of NATO’s founding treaty,” according to the organization. The article states that “an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies.”
When asked whether their country should or should not use military force to defend a NATO ally from a hypothetical attack by Russia, in only five of the 16 member states surveyed – the Netherlands, the U.S., Canada, the UK and Lithuania – do half or more say that they should use such force. Across the 16 countries, a median of 50% say that their country should not defend a NATO ally in the event of an attack by Russia, while 38% say they should.
Larger shares in 10 NATO member countries surveyed say their country should not use force to defend a NATO ally should there be an attack by Russia. This includes majorities in Bulgaria, Italy, Greece, Germany and Spain. In Poland, sentiment is divided.
The belief that their country should respond to a hypothetical Russian attack on a NATO ally has become less common over time in a handful of countries. For example, in Italy, only a quarter in 2019 say that their country should defend a NATO ally, down from four-in-ten in 2015. Similar declines over this time period occurred in Poland (-8 percentage points), Spain (-7) and France (-6). However, support for protecting a fellow NATO nation has increased in the UK since 2015 (+6).
In eight of the countries polled, men are significantly more likely than women to say that their country should defend a NATO ally. For example, in Germany, 43% of men say that in the case of a Russian attack on a fellow NATO member their country should respond with force, compared with only a quarter of women. Similar double-digit differences occur in Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Poland.
Ideology also plays a role in people’s views about coming to an ally’s aid. In six countries, those who place themselves on the right end of the ideological spectrum are more willing to say they should defend a NATO ally than those on the right. This includes double-digit differences between right and left in all six countries: Spain (30 percentage points), the Czech Republic and Slovakia (21 points), Greece (14), and the UK and Italy (both 13 points).
Views on defending an ally from a potential Russian attack are related to general attitudes toward the use of military force. Across most of the NATO member countries surveyed, those who agree that military force is sometimes necessary to maintain order in the world are more likely to say that they would defend a fellow NATO member from an armed incursion than those who disagree that a military solution is the best choice for keeping order. For example, in Spain, 53% of those who agree that military force is sometimes necessary say they would come to the aid of a NATO ally, versus only 26% of those who disagree with the principle of military force – a 27 percentage point difference.
In contrast to skeptical opinions on whether their own country should come to the defense of a NATO ally, people are much more likely to think the U.S. would take military action in response to a Russian attack.
A median of 60% across the member countries say the U.S. would use military force to defend a NATO country that was subject to a Russian incursion. Only 29% across these countries believe the U.S. would not defend the country that was attacked.
Roughly two-thirds or more in Italy, the UK, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands and Greece say the U.S. would defend a NATO ally. Majorities in Germany, Slovakia, Lithuania and France agree.
Poles, on balance, say the U.S. would help out should Russia use military force against a neighboring NATO country, but sentiment is more divided in Turkey, the Czech Republic and Hungary.
Since 2015, there has been some change in a few countries on this question. The belief that the U.S. would defend a NATO ally is down 8 percentage points in France but up 7 points in the UK and Spain. These sentiments are also up 6 points in Turkey.
In Hungary, views that the U.S. would help out in the event of a Russia attack are down significantly since 2017, falling 16 percentage points.
Young adults in Spain, France, Slovakia, Canada and Germany are more likely to believe the U.S. would defend a NATO ally against a Russian attack. For example, in Spain, 84% of 18- to 29-year-olds say the U.S. would uphold their Article 5 obligations, compared with 68% of those 50 and older.
In almost every country surveyed, people are significantly more likely to say the U.S. would defend an ally from a Russia attack than say their own country should take such action.
The biggest difference measured is in Italy, where three-quarters say the U.S. would use such military force in such a scenario, compared with only a quarter who say Italy should defend that NATO ally, a 50 percentage point difference. Similar differences are seen in Greece (40 points), Spain (31), Germany (29), Slovakia (25), the UK (18), France (16), Turkey (14) and Canada (13).
Many NATO countries in Europe value a close relationship with both the U.S. and Russia
In nearly every country surveyed, larger shares support close ties with the U.S. than with Russia, with the exceptions of Bulgaria and Slovakia. And in many countries polled, publics tend to volunteer that a close relationship with both the U.S. and Russia is important.
Particularly in Western Europe, the share of the public that says a relationship with the U.S. is more important is substantial. For example, in the UK and the Netherlands, about eight-in-ten support ties with the U.S. over Russia or both. And in Sweden, a non-NATO state, 71% support closer ties with the U.S. than with Russia (11%) or both countries (9%).
Choosing a close relationship with Russia over the U.S. is considerably less widespread across the countries surveyed. Bulgarians are the most prone to this point of view, but just 28% say a close relationship with Russia is more important for their country. A quarter of Germans say it is important for their country to have a close relationship with Russia, compared with 39% who favor a close relationship with the U.S. Three-in-ten Germans volunteer that a close relationship with both countries would be preferable.
Central and Eastern European publics tend to volunteer their preference for a close relationship with both the U.S. and Russia. In Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria, roughly half or more say a relationship with both countries is important. And in Italy, Greece, the Czech Republic and Lithuania, about four-in-ten or more say the same.
Ideology is linked to views of closer relations with the U.S. In 11 of 14 countries, those on the ideological right are more likely to support a close relationship with the U.S. than those on the left. In the Czech Republic, for example, 40% of those on the right say a close relationship with the U.S. is more important, compared to 15% of those on the left, a difference of 25 percentage points.
Hungary is an exception. Hungarians on the left (40%) are almost twice as likely as their counterparts on the right (21%) to support close U.S. relations.
Most NATO and non-NATO countries believe military force is sometimes necessary
There is widespread support across most of the NATO countries surveyed for the use of military force to maintain order in the world. A median of 57% across 16 member countries agree that military force is sometimes necessary, while a median of 36% disagree.
Across most countries surveyed – both members of NATO and those that do not belong to the organization – about half or more support the use of military force to maintain order. And in seven countries (Sweden, the U.S., Canada, the UK, Turkey, Russia and Hungary) seven-in-ten or more hold this view.
Germans are more divided, with 47% saying that military force is sometimes necessary and a similar 52% disagreeing with that statement. In Bulgaria, only 38% say military force is sometimes necessary.
Support for military force has changed since Pew Research Center asked this question in 2007.
For example, in both Ukraine and Russia, two countries engaged in conflict since 2014, publics increasingly say military force is sometimes necessary (by 11 and 9 percentage points, respectively). This opinion has also become more common in Slovakia and Germany.
Yet in several European countries, support for military force has waned. This is the case in Italy (a decrease of 21 percentage points), Spain (10 points) and the Czech Republic (9).
In 12 countries, people on the right of the ideological spectrum are more apt than those on the left to agree that military force can be justified. In Spain, for example, those on the right are about twice as likely to support military force as their counterparts on the left.
In the U.S., conservatives are 25 percentage points more likely than liberals to say military force is sometimes needed. Similarly, 91% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say military force is sometimes necessary, while 71% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents agree.
Gender also shapes views of military action. Across most of the NATO and non-NATO countries surveyed, men are more likely than women believe in the need for military force. In the Czech Republic, for example, 63% of men say military force is sometimes necessary, compared with 45% of women. And in Ukraine, 71% of men support military force, versus 56% of women. Double-digit gender differences are also present in Germany (14 points), Poland (12), Bulgaria (12), Hungary (11), Italy (11) and Spain (10).
Are there parts of neighboring countries that really belong to us?
Across NATO and non-NATO countries, there is disagreement over whether parts of neighboring countries really belong to them. A median of 45% across the 16 NATO countries surveyed disagree, while a median of 35% agree (in several countries, the share who did not express an opinion is relatively high).
The shares who agree with this statement are highest in Central and Eastern European countries surveyed. About two-thirds of Hungarians (67%) agree that parts of neighboring countries belong to them, including 40% who completely agree. In Turkey, 58% agree that parts of nearby countries belong to them. And in neighboring Greece, 60% say the same.
In Western European countries, sentiments tend to run in the opposite direction. In Sweden (82%), the Netherlands (74%), the UK (72%), Germany (62%), Spain (60%) and France (59%), majorities disagree that there are parts of other countries that belong to them.
In both the U.S. and Canada, publics overwhelmingly disagree that parts of other countries belong to them (73% and 65%, respectively). However, a quarter of Canadians and roughly one-in-five Americans say the opposite and agree that there are parts of neighboring countries that belong to them.
Russians and Ukrainians tend to agree that parts of neighboring countries belong to them (53% and 47%, respectively).
In Europe, supporters of right-wing populist parties tend to be more likely to say parts of neighboring countries belong to their country. Supporters of right-wing populist parties are more likely to agree with this statement for nearly every European right-wing populist party included in the survey. In Spain, for example, those who have a favorable view of Vox are 27 percentage points more likely to say parts of another country belong to Spain than those who do not have a favorable view of the party.
Correction (February 12, 2020): This post has been updated with the proper characterization of NATO’s founding treaty and revised a significant difference in Lithuania. The changes due to these adjustments do not materially change the analysis of the report.
| 21,364
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should NATO's policy in Eastern Europe have been different over the last 30 years?
| false
|
d49ff0981ce5
|
https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/five-things-to-know-about-the-right-to-seek-asylum
|
Five Things to Know About the Right to Seek Asylum
Although our laws provide a clear right for people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in the United States, anti-immigration lawmakers have purposefully sown confusion about the law, the process of applying for asylum, and what is really needed to ensure a fair and orderly system for considering the claims of people seeking protection at the border. Instead of seeking solutions, they have tried to undermine the right to seek asylum at every turn.
Here’s what you need to know:
Seeking asylum is a human right protected under our laws.
The right to seek asylum — or safety from persecution — in another country was born out of the tragedies of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. In its aftermath, dozens of nations committed to never again slam the door on people in need of protection. The right to asylum was enshrined in 1948’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol.
The United States passed its own federal law in the Refugee Act of 1980, for people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” The Refugee Act is meant to ensure that individuals who seek asylum from within the U.S. or at its border are not sent back to places where they face persecution.
In today’s world, these protections remain critical, with more people forcibly displaced from their homes due to conflict, violence, and human rights violations than at any other point since World War II.
To be granted asylum, people must come to the U.S. or the border and must prove their case.
Elected officials and news outlets often mischaracterize those seeking asylum at the border as breaking the law or failing to seek protection “the right way.” However, under U.S. law, a person seeking asylum may do so by arriving at the border and asking to be screened by U.S. officials at a “port of entry,” or by entering the U.S. without prior inspection and then declaring their fear of persecution.
In either case, people seeking asylum at the border are subjected to a criminal background and security check. They must then navigate a complex and lengthy process, involving multiple government agencies, in order to prove that they have a well founded fear of persecution. Those who lose their cases and any appeals are ordered removed and are deported. Since March of 2020, most people seeking asylum at the border have been denied the right to do so under normal rules, and have instead been expelled from the U.S. under Title 42, described below.
Many policies threaten the right to seek asylum, but none actually stop people from trying to seek protection at the border.
President Trump implemented multiple policies in an attempt to end asylum at the border. President Biden promised to restore a fair and humane asylum system, but has been slow to fully reverse Trump’s policies. For example, Title 42, which uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for expelling asylum seekers without offering them any opportunity to seek protection, remains in effect. The policy has led to thousands of documented cases of violent attacks against individuals who the U.S. has expelled, including rape, torture, and abduction.
Elected officials in both parties have sought to justify restrictive asylum policies for their “deterrence” value, claiming that they discourage migrants from coming to the border. But these policies do not stop people from seeking safety and ultimately create more disorder. Title 42, for example, has encouraged people seeking protection to try multiple times to cross. Even after imposing the strictest and most punitive rules against asylum seekers, President Trump faced sharp increases in the numbers of migrants seeking asylum at the border, the highest numbers in over a decade.
Despite obstacles, asylum-seekers become integral members of our communities.
People seeking asylum in the U.S. must overcome many challenges. They leave their homes behind and endure grueling journeys in pursuit of safety. When they arrive, they are often unnecessarily detained by ICE in abusive conditions, even though they have family members or friends they could stay with while their cases proceed.
Despite these obstacles, asylum-seekers are eager to provide for their families and contribute to their communities. They have gone on to open their own businesses, work in jobs that help feed our communities, care for sick people, and advocate for people’s rights, contributing billions in taxes and revenue. One recent study estimated that on average, an asylum seeker contributes over $19,000 per year to the U.S. economy, and that a 25 percent reduction in the number of all people seeking asylum in the country would cause an economic loss of $20.5 billion over a five-year period.
Excess money spent on policing the border would be better spent on creating a fair, orderly, and welcoming system.
We need a more efficient, humane, and welcoming system at the border for people seeking asylum. Much of the money Congress currently spends on a bloated Border Patrol police force should be spent instead on making sure our immigration agencies and federal courts have enough employees and judges to adjudicate asylum claims in a fair and orderly manner, and to ensure that people are supported in their efforts to join their family members and sponsors in their destination locations. The sooner people are able to integrate into their new homes and are issued work permits, the sooner they’ll be able to support themselves and their families and contribute in other ways to their new communities.
| 5,705
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should refugees be allowed to seek asylum in other countries?
| false
|
e4079838c257
|
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
|
How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine
Russian military forces and Russian-backed separatists have invaded Ukraine. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says NATO allies condemn in "strongest possible terms" Russia's "horrifying attack" on Ukraine. With the invasion, a 30-year-old foreign policy debate has made a return to center stage.
The question: Should NATO, the mutual defense pact formed in the wake of World War II that has long served to represent Western interests and counter Russia's influence in Europe, expand eastward?
NATO's founding articles declare that any European country that is able to meet the alliance's criteria for membership can join. This includes Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies in Europe have repeatedly said they are committed to that "open-door" policy.
But in the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO's eastward march represents decades of broken promises from the West to Moscow.
"You promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly," Putin said at a news conference in December.
The U.S. says a ban on expansion was never on the table. But Russia insists it was — and now, Putin is demanding a permanent ban on Ukraine from joining the pact.
"Unsurprisingly, when you look at the evidence, what happened is somewhere in between," said Mary Sarotte, a post-Cold War historian whose book about those negotiations, Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate, was published last fall.
Loading...
What is the origin of Putin's "not move an inch" claim?
For the first four decades of NATO's existence, the treaty represented the U.S., Canada and America's closest allies in Western and southern Europe. On the other side of the Iron Curtain were the Soviet Union and its allies in Central and Eastern Europe, including the former East Germany.
But that long-standing divide was challenged in 1989 when anti-communist protests spread across East Germany and other countries in Central and Eastern Europe.
Early in the effort to reunify Germany, U.S. officials wrestled with the question of Soviet control of the east: What could entice Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to withdraw?
"The Americans guess that maybe what Gorbachev wants in exchange for letting Germany unify is a promise that NATO will not expand eastward," Sarotte said. "And so Secretary of State [James] Baker, in a speculative way in an early stage of negotiations, says to Gorbachev, 'How about this idea: How about you let your half of Germany go, and we agree to move that one piece forward?' "
But President George H.W. Bush rejected the idea, and when more formal negotiations began later in 1990, a ban on NATO expansion was never actually offered, Sarotte said.
There is some disagreement about what took place during the Baker-Gorbachev talks in February 1990. Some say that when Baker suggested that NATO shift not "one inch" to the east, he intended to refer only to East Germany, because neither side had begun to think about NATO expansion beyond that.
Seemingly conflicting comments from U.S. officials and Gorbachev made years later do not help clear this up. (Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said as recently as Friday that "nobody was even imagining Czechoslovakia or Poland or Hungary at that time.")
The historical record shows otherwise, according to Sarotte. Contemporaneous notes, letters, speeches and interviews show that Western leaders were, in fact, already contemplating NATO enlargement by the time the February 1990 talks took place, she says.
What is not in dispute: Gorbachev later agreed to withdraw from East Germany in exchange for financial concessions, in a treaty that did not place limits on the future expansion of NATO.
"But there's this residual bitterness afterwards. Still, to this day, Putin is saying, 'Look, there was this other offer on the table, right?' " Sarotte said. "And that's sort of factually accurate in a narrow sense, but it doesn't reflect the reality of the treaty."
Why did the West want to enlarge NATO, and how did Russia react?
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the NATO expansion question became more urgent — both for the U.S. looking to cement its influence in Europe and for countries emerging from communist control, like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
"They believed that the United States could bring them into the West, which was what they wanted. And they believed that the United States could protect them if Russia ever became aggressive again," said James Goldgeier, an American University professor who has written extensively about NATO.
From the beginning, Russia strongly objected to NATO's borders creeping closer to its territory. In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin tried to secure a guarantee from President Bill Clinton that NATO would not add any former Soviet republics. Clinton refused.
The U.S. hoped that its financial support, along with diplomatic overtures from NATO, could be enough to counterbalance Russia's displeasure over expansion — but ultimately, that didn't work, Goldgeier said.
Over the course of the 1990s and early 2000s, NATO expanded three times: first to add the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland; then seven more countries even farther east, including the former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; and finally with Albania and Croatia in 2009.
"Obviously, the more it did to stabilize the situation in central and Eastern Europe and bring them into the West, the more it antagonized the Russians," he said.
Why is Ukraine important?
Ukraine, as the largest former Soviet republic in Europe besides Russia itself, has been a key part of alliance talks since it declared independence from the USSR in 1991. In the three decades since, NATO expansion has put four members on Ukraine's borders.
"The Russians were always concerned about how far NATO enlargement was going to go. It's one thing for Poland to come in, or the Czech Republic to come in. That's not such a big deal. But there was always a concern about Ukraine," Goldgeier said.
Putin himself has long said that he believes Ukrainians and Russians to be a single people, unified by language, culture and religion. In July 2021, he wrote a long essay about the "historical unity" between the two nations.
For the U.S. and its Western allies, a successful and independent Ukraine was a potent potential symbol that Russia's time as a powerful empire had come to an end.
During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia.
The result was a "worst of all worlds" compromise in 2008, Goldgeier said: a promise that Ukraine would eventually join NATO, but without any concrete timeline or pathway to do so.
When the compromise was announced, some analysts were surprised that "there was not this major temper tantrum" from Putin and Russia, said Rose Gottemoeller, an American diplomat who served as deputy secretary general of NATO from 2016 to 2019.
"It needed another 15 years before the major temper tantrum ensued. Unfortunately, we're experiencing it now," Gottemoeller said.
Why has this come up again now?
Ukraine cannot imminently join NATO. Aspiring members are asked to meet various conditions before they are allowed to begin the process of joining via a "Membership Action Plan." NATO allies have not yet granted that to Ukraine — and have long appeared uninterested in offering, in part because of political complications with Russia.
Now, Russia's protests over Ukraine's future membership have put the U.S. and NATO in a difficult spot over NATO's "open-door" policy.
"The louder Moscow protested, the more determined western capitals became to deny Russia what was seen as a veto over alliance decision-making," Samuel Charap, a Russia specialist at Rand Corp., wrote in the Financial Times earlier this month.
And the more Putin has tried to control Ukraine and its foreign policy, the more he has pushed Ukrainians themselves to look toward the West, experts said.
Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 was a major turning point. Afterward, popular support for joining NATO rose among Ukrainians, who had once been more ambivalent about the alliance.
"Putin has constructed in his head and in his heart, perhaps, the idea that NATO is encircling him, that that has always been the intention," said Rice, speaking at a Council on Foreign Relations panel on Friday. "Ukraine is moving closer to the West — but it's doing it because the Russians have been annexing Ukrainian territory and threatening the Ukrainians."
(In annexing Crimea, Russia itself broke a promise: In the Budapest Memorandum, a treaty Russia signed with the U.S. and U.K. in 1994, it committed "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine" in exchange for Ukraine's denuclearization.)
None of that has deterred Putin, for whom Ukraine is "personal," says Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former senior U.S. intelligence officer now with the Center for a New American Security.
"Putin, over his 22 years now in power, has tried and failed repeatedly to bring Ukraine back into the fold. And I think he senses that now is his time to take care of this unfinished business," she told NPR's Weekend Edition Sunday.
With the U.S. internally divided over domestic politics and Germany's new government not yet settled on policy positions after the departure of longtime Chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin "senses that this is a good time to push matters," said Sarotte.
"He's basically holding Ukraine hostage to force a do-over of these NATO expansion battles," she said.
| 9,730
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should NATO's policy in Eastern Europe have been different over the last 30 years?
| false
|
009aa6dab659
|
https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/refugees
|
The definition of a refugee is someone who:
"owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it"
At the end of June 2024, 122.6 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced from their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events seriously disturbing public order.
Among those were 43.7 million refugees, (32 million refugees under UNHCR's mandate, and 6 million Palestine refugees under UNRWA's mandate). There were also 72.1 million internally displaced people and 8 million asylum seekers.
In the first half of 2024, the primary factors driving the increase in refugee numbers were ongoing displacements from Sudan and Ukraine. As of mid-2024, just over one-third of all refugees under the UNHCR's mandate, along with others in need of international protection, are hosted in the Islamic Republic of Iran, Türkiye, Colombia, Germany, and Uganda.
New internal displacements occurred in 16 countries, with six of them – Sudan, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ukraine, Haiti and Mozambique – accounting for 90 per cent of people who were forced to flee within their own country in 2024.
There are diminishing prospects for refugees when it comes to hopes of any quick end to their plight. In the 1990s, on average 1.5 million refugees were able to return home each year. Over the past decade that number has fallen to around 385,000, meaning that growth in displacement is today far outstripping solutions.
UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency
People fleeing persecution and conflict have been granted asylum in foreign lands for thousands of years. The UN agency that helps refugees is UNHCR (also known as the UN Refugee Agency), which emerged in the wake of World War II to help Europeans displaced by that conflict.
UNHCR was established on December 14, 1950 by the UN General Assembly with a three-year mandate to complete its work and then disband. The following year, on July 28, the legal foundation of helping refugees and the basic statute guiding UNHCR's work, the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, was adopted. So instead of ending its work after three years, UNHCR has been working ever since to help refugees.
In the 1960s, the decolonization of Africa produced the first of that continent's numerous refugee crises needing UNHCR intervention. Over the following two decades, UNHCR had to help with displacement crises in Asia and Latin America. By the end of the century there were fresh refugee problems in Africa and, turning full circle, new waves of refugees in Europe from the series of wars in the Balkans.
UNHCR in the field
The UN Refugee Agency has its Headquarters in Geneva, but about 89 per cent of staff are in the field. Today, our staff provides protection and assistance to millions of refugees, returnees, internally displaced and stateless people in 136 countries. The largest portion of UNHCR staff are based in countries in Asia and Africa, the continents that both host and generate the most refugees and internally displaced people. Many are in isolated locations where staff work in difficult - and often dangerous - conditions.
Nansen Refugee Award
The UNHCR Nansen Refugee Award is given to individuals, groups, and organizations that demonstrate exceptional commitment to protecting refugees, displaced and stateless people.
The award was established in 1954 to honor the legacy of Fridtjof Nansen, a Norwegian scientist, polar explorer, diplomat, and the first High Commissioner for Refugees for the League of Nations.
The first Nansen Refugee Award was presented in 1954 to Eleanor Roosevelt, the first Chair of the UN Human Rights Commission and First Lady of the United States alongside President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Since then, over 60 individuals, organizations or groups have been honored with the Award, for their exceptional work and service towards people who are compelled to leave their homes.
Global Compact on Refugees
On 17 December 2018, the United Nations General Assembly approved the Global Compact on Refugees, a framework for more predictable and equitable responsibility-sharing, recognizing that a sustainable solution to refugee situations cannot be achieved without international cooperation.
The four key objectives of the Global Compact are:
- Ease the pressures on host countries
- Enhance refugee self-reliance.
- Expand access to third-country solutions.
- Support conditions in countries of origin for return in safety and dignity.
The 2023 Global Refugee Forum, an event designed to support the practical implementation of the four objectives and the world’s largest international gathering on refugees, resulted in more than 1,600 pledges in support of refugees and their host communities, including 43 multi-partner commitments led by governments.
An estimated $2.2 billion in new financial commitments were announced by States and other actors, with some $250 million pledged by the private sector. These outcomes offer a source of hope for the more than 36 million refugees displaced worldwide.
UNRWA
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), was mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1949 to provide services to registered Palestine refugees in the Middle East. When the Agency began operations in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees.
UNRWA is a direct service provider, delivering primary and secondary education, health care, relief and social services, camp infrastructure and improvement, microfinance, and emergency aid to Palestine refugees, now numbering almost 6 million, in the Agency’s five mandated areas of operation: the Gaza Strip, West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
UNRWA mandate
Definitions of refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention and of Palestine refugees per the UN General Assembly are complementary.
For UNRWA’s mandate, ‘Palestine refugee’ relates to people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between 1 June 1946 and 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict. Palestine refugees and their descendants can register with UNRWA to receive services in UNRWA’s mandated areas of operation.
The Member States, through the UN General Assembly, have tasked UNRWA to provide assistance and protection to Palestine refugees until a just and lasting political solution is found that addresses their plight.
Aftermath of 7 October 2023 attack
Since the beginning of the Israeli military operation in Gaza in response to the attack on Israel by Palestinian armed groups, almost two million people have been internally displaced in Gaza and 92% of the housing units have been either destroyed, or partially damaged preventing people from returning home
Following allegations that 12 UNRWA staff were involved in the attacks, the Secretary-General opened an investigation, the results of which were made public later in the year. The decision by various Member States to suspend funding to UNRWA over the allegations prompted a statement by the heads of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee, the UN System’s highest-level humanitarian coordination forum, warning that “pausing funds from UNRWA will have catastrophic consequences for the people of Gaza”.
Descendants of refugees retain refugee status
Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. Both UNRWA and UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee hosting countries.
Palestine refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, considered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.
Support for refugee camps
UN peacekeepers are often there to protect the camps in which refugees must live. When they are left without access to such basic necessities as food, water, sanitation and health care, the UN family provides it. Much of this support is provided through the United Nations humanitarian action machinery. The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), through its “cluster approach”, brings together all major humanitarian agencies, both within and outside the UN system, for coordinated action.
UNHCR is the lead agency with respect to the protection of refugees and the internally displaced. Along with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), it is the lead agency for camp coordination and management. And it shares the lead with respect to emergency shelter with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has twice been the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize — in 1954 and most recently in 1981.
Climate change, natural disasters and displacement
In addition to persecution and conflict, in the 21st century, natural disaster (sometimes due to climate change) can also force people to seek refuge in other countries. Such disasters – floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides – are increasing in frequency and intensity. While most of the displacement caused by these events is internal, they can also cause people to cross borders. None of the existing international and regional refugee law instruments, however, specifically addresses the plight of such people.
Displacement caused by the slow-onset effects of climate change is largely internal as well. But through its acceleration of drought, desertification, the salinization of ground water and soil, and rising sea levels, climate change, too, can contribute to the displacement of people across international frontiers.
Other human-made calamities, such as severe socio-economic deprivation, can also cause people to flee across borders. While some may be escaping persecution, most leave because they lack any meaningful option to remain. The lack of food, water, education, health care and a livelihood would not ordinarily and by themselves sustain a refugee claim under the 1951 Convention. Nevertheless, some of these people may need some form of protection.
All of these circumstances - conflict, natural disasters, and climate change - pose enormous challenges for the international humanitarian community.
Climate change and conflict
An increasing numbers of people fleeing persecution, violence and human rights violations linked to the adverse effects of climate change and disasters require international protection.
In 2022, 84% of refugees and asylum seekers fled from countries highly vulnerable to climate change, whereas it was only 61% in 2010. The possibility of finding long-term solutions for these refugees is becoming increasingly limited. In 2020, only 1% of refugees were able to return home, which is a worrying trend, as the impact of climate change worsens the living conditions and opportunities for development in their countries of origin.
Moreover, a considerable percentage of forcibly displaced and stateless people are currently living in the most climate-vulnerable environments across the world. These people, along with their host communities, lack the resources and resilience necessary to cope with the impacts of climate change.
Women, girls, and other groups with specific needs often face greater challenges and burdens from the effects of climate change, due to existing cultural norms, roles, and responsibilities.
Events
As proclaimed by the General Assembly, World Refugee Day is observed annually on 20 June.
The UN General Assembly hosted a high-level meeting on 19 September 2016 to address large movements of refugees and migrants, with the aim of bringing countries together behind a more humane and coordinated approach.
| 12,420
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should refugees be allowed to seek asylum in other countries?
| false
|
7701425cc574
|
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/universal-basic-income-good-idea
|
Is Universal Basic Income a good idea?
Universal Basic Income (UBI) could be designed to reduce poverty, improve income security and boost well-being, but could be expensive and challenging to introduce. Many of its goals could be achieved through changes to the existing social security system and addressing the underlying causes of insecurity in the labour and housing markets.
Universal Basic Income (UBI, Citizens’ Basic Income – CBI, or simply Basic Income) is an idea whose time appears to have come. The Welsh Government has committed to trialling it, the Scottish Government has invested in the feasibility of pilots, several English cities are keen to test it out and a number of political parties included UBI trials in their manifestos. But is it really the right basis on which to build a post-pandemic society? What problems is it trying to solve? Is it the only or the best solution to those issues?
What exactly is Universal Basic Income?
There are many models but at its heart it is a regular cash payment every individual receives, without any reference to their other income or wealth and without any conditions. Payment amounts can vary according to broad demographic characteristics, such as a different payment for working-age adults, children and pensioners.
It is important to distinguish UBI from a Minimum Income Guarantee, which at its most basic is simply a set of policies designed to ensure no one falls below a set income level.
What problems are intended to be solved by UBI?
Some argue that Universal Basic Income is part of a radical rethinking of our economy and society, that provides a level of economic security to everyone and destigmatises the social security system. It is also seen as a potential solution to insecurity in the labour market.
The social security problems which UBI could help to address include -
- Coverage. Too many people locked out of the support they need, due to:
Policy design - for example, deficiencies in maternity and paternity pay, support whilst training, and low-earning workers without Statutory Sick Pay.
Non-take up - due to stigma, lack of awareness, mistakes, the difficulty or unpleasantness of the system.
Dropping out of the system - because of conditions or treatment.
Sanctions - losing part or all of your benefits because you are deemed not to have met the conditions of receipt.
Delays, errors and problems with benefits - which can result in people having to go for long periods of time with little or no income.
- Adequacy. High poverty rates for some groups even when they receive social security and are meeting work or activity requirements, demonstrate its current inadequacy. Official food insecurity statistics show 4 in 10 Universal Credit claimants can’t even afford food. Providing a high enough universal payment could ensure everyone has the resources to meet basic standards of living, preventing poverty or destitution.
- Uncertainty. Many people, particularly those on low incomes, emphasise the importance of having predictable and stable payments. Yet people often experience variable and unpredictable fluctuations in benefit payments.
- Complexity. Any system which tailors support to individual circumstances will entail some complexity. Introducing ever more means-testing and conditions attached to various benefits requires more complex systems and processes.
- Dignity, respect and well-being. Not all benefit claimants experience problems or feel they are treated poorly. But some find the culture of our social security system suspicious, disrespectful and undignified. There is evidence of the negative impact of these experiences on people’s mental health. Over many years, the ramping up of conditionality and means testing has been accompanied by a narrative of ‘scroungers and skivers’, a presumption that there are large numbers of people trying to game the system, and a drive to reduce claimant numbers.
Some advocates also argue that UBI could improve work incentives, if it was either not withdrawn at all as people earned more or was withdrawn at a lower rate than in the current benefit system. (Although others worry that the incentive to enter work at all might be reduced if people could rely on a high enough income outside it, discussed further below).
Alongside problems in our social security system, many advocates also see UBI as a response to increasing insecurity in our labour market. Too often low-paid jobs are unpredictable and insecure. Workers don’t know what shifts or hours they will be working from one week to the next or how long the job will last. People cycle in and out of low-paid, temporary jobs, never able to rely on a steady income. UBI could provide a fixed income stream to offset this earnings volatility. In addition, some argue that UBI would free people to choose whether to take paid work or care for others, train or do other activities, and would recognise the value to society of such activities. In this scenario, it might bring wider benefits through better job matches and people holding out for better quality work, creating pressure on employers to pay more and achieve greater productivity. There are also wider debates about the extent to which automation may lead to significantly fewer jobs or climate change may necessitate such major economic changes that there will be a new norms of people doing much less paid work. For some, UBI is a necessary accompaniment to such radical economic changes.
Finally, there are a range of other arguments put forward for UBI which do not relate to poverty, social security or labour market insecurity, such as the idea it would reduce the level of state involvement in people’s lives. In this piece, we focus on the arguments relating to poverty and insecurity. There are, of course, versions of UBI which would significantly increase poverty by reducing the support provided to those on low incomes, but we assume these would not be proposed by those aiming to reduce poverty.
UBI: costs and impacts
Most UBI proposals now include two features, in contrast to some earlier proposals which intended to replace all benefits with UBI or introduce UBI without accompanying tax changes. Alongside flat payments, there would continue to be a system of benefits linked to costs. A system of flat payments alone could not offer adequate support with varying costs of housing, childcare or disability. This means that there would continue to be a degree of complexity and means-testing even if UBI was introduced (sometimes known as UBI+), and that efforts to improve the existing system must continue. Second, UBI would replace parts of the tax system as well as social security. Most likely, the tax-free personal allowance would be removed, so people would pay tax on the entirety of their earned income. Depending on the design, many on lower- to middle-incomes would more than recoup this in the universal payment.
Costs and poverty impacts
A key design question is obviously the level at which UBI is set. Would it be based below, at, or just above current benefit levels? Or provide much higher payments, for instance at the level of JRF’s Minimum Income Standard?* This would be the main determinant of both the cost of UBI and its immediate impact on poverty levels.
A recent study by the Fraser of Allander Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University and IPPR Scotland, examined the costs and benefits of a Citizen’s Basic Income in Scotland at current benefit or at Minimum Income Standard level. These costs relate to introducing the scheme in Scotland; those for a UK-wide version would be much higher. However, estimates of necessary tax rate increases would be similar whether in Scotland or across the whole country.
A UBI based on current benefit levels would bring clear gains for those who are currently ineligible, where they are on a low income but are shut out, or fall out, of the existing system; it would probably bring smaller gains for many of those successfully claiming current benefits. Fraser of Allander et al estimates the costs and impacts of introducing this kind of UBI in Scotland. This scheme would require £7 billion in net additional funding (after existing benefits have been reduced and the tax-free personal allowance eliminated), paid for by increasing all tax rates by eight percentage points. UBI at this level would deliver lower levels of poverty and greater income security (reducing the number of people in poverty in Scotland by a quarter and child poverty by a third). However, it seems unlikely to achieve wider goals of significantly reducing insecurity and allowing more people to choose whether to care, train, or hold out for better jobs.
Introducing a higher level of UBI, for instance at Minimum Income Standard level, would potentially achieve these benefits and almost eradicate poverty in Scotland, but would be extremely expensive. Fraser of Allander et al estimates this would require £38 billion in net additional funding (again, after existing benefits have been reduced and the tax-free personal allowance eliminated). If funded through income tax it would require tax rates to start at 58p for the first £1 earned and rise to 85p for the higher and top rates. The Minimum Income Standard is significantly higher than the poverty line. An alternative would be to set UBI rates at or around the poverty line. This would be less costly than a version based on the Minimum Income Standard but still very expensive.
The specific design of UBI significantly impacts the distribution of winners and losers, and increases or decreases in poverty amongst different groups. Some proposals result in higher poverty for some groups than under the current social security system. One version with UBI payments based mainly on current benefit levels (funded by increasing tax rates by three percentage points and abolishing the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance thresholds) would reduce poverty overall but lead to higher poverty rates for children and lone parents. Around 20% of people in the poorest fifth would lose more than 5% of their income (despite the scheme being highly redistributive overall).
Other proposals avoid big losses for people on low incomes. Malcolm Torry proposed a UBI payment of £60 per week, funded by raising the basic, higher and top rates of tax by two, three and four percentage points respectively (and substantially reducing – though not eliminating - the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance threshold). This reduces the number of people in poverty by 16% and children in poverty by 13%, while fewer than 2% of the poorest fifth of households lose more than 5% of their income. Compass proposed a scheme that reduces working-age poverty by a fifth and child poverty by a third, with only around 1% of people in the bottom fifth losing more than 5% of their income. It raises existing tax rates by three percentage points, abolishes the tax-free personal allowance and National Insurance thresholds, and introduces a starter tax rate of 15% on the first £11,850 of earnings. However, that leaves a funding gap of £28 billion.
These models provide only illustrative examples of how UBI might be funded by income tax. In reality, such radical changes might require a more balanced tax response (such as wealth or carbon taxes) but there is no doubt that significant tax rises would be necessary.
Employment and work incentives
Would giving people an income regardless of work lead to many more people deciding not to take paid employment, valuing the unpaid work of carers and contributions to society other than paid jobs? If so, would that damage or improve our economy and society? Alternatively, UBI could increase work incentives by reducing the rate at which income from it was reduced as someone earned more. For example, Universal Credit is reduced by 63p in every pound earned above a set level; under some versions of UBI this would change to someone losing only 20p for every pound earned.
Economic models estimate employment effects purely through a financial lens. Work incentives are calculated according to the net financial gain from taking a job or increasing earnings. Most modelling suggests that UBI (accompanied by higher taxes on earnings to pay for it) would have a complex mix of impacts. Some groups see increased work incentives because their benefits are reduced by less as they move into work or earn more. Others have lower work incentives due to unearned income and higher tax rates. Under the version of UBI modelled by Fraser of Allander et al, the overall result was that UBI reduced financial incentives to work and so could lead to a lower labour supply and a smaller economy. By contrast, Martinelli and Pearce found that several UBI schemes strengthened work incentives on average for low- and middle-income households.
A change on the scale of UBI would be likely to affect other aspects of our economy, for instance how wages were set. It is hard to predict how individuals and businesses might react to such changes. In addition, in the real world we don’t make decisions purely on the basis assumed in economic modelling. There is limited evidence about how people respond to UBI in practice. So far, trials suggest that providing an unconditional payment may not have the negative employment effects found in some modelling. Finland is the only country to have carried out a nationwide, randomised control trial of UBI. The evaluation found that people receiving basic income were more likely to be in work than those in the control group. This is not conclusive, due to the introduction of other unemployment policies at the same time, although the signs from other smaller trials have also been positive, such as those in Stockton (USA) and the Netherlands. However, these trials have not examined the potential employment effects of changes to tax rates or other measures to fund such a system.
Health and well-being
One of the potential benefits of UBI is the removal of stress caused by means-tests, conditionality and uncertainty about whether support will be withdrawn, coupled with destigmatisation of social security support. This could lead to better mental and physical health. It is easy to see the well-being advantages of a system providing a reliable income, uncoupled from complex conditions, shorn of the fear of failing and the feeling of being seen as a scrounger or having to continually prove your eligibility. The limited evidence from trials backs up this theory. In Finland, people on basic income reported higher life satisfaction, better health and lower levels of depression and loneliness.
So, is UBI a good idea or not?
Some versions of UBI could reduce poverty and improve recipients’ mental health and well-being. But it would be expensive. It would require significant increases in tax rates, which people may be reluctant to accept, even if many of those on low- to middle-incomes would be better off overall once receipt of their UBI payment is accounted for. The principle of offering payments without conditions might well also meet resistance among the public.
Public attitudes towards welfare have been softening in recent years, with increasing support for raising benefit levels. There has also been rising willingness to pay more tax to fund more public spending. However, when asked what kind of public spending additional taxes should be spent on, very few people prioritise social security. When asked directly about UBI, some studies show a sizeable minority of the public are receptive to the idea, at least of a pilot, but with no majority in favour and significant concerns about cost and use of the money, even among supporters; other studies suggest around half may be in favour. JRF polling in Scotland found a majority in favour of the Minimum Income Guarantee and significant minorities receptive to the idea of UBI, but no majority for that, or for increasing unemployment benefits. Willingness to personally pay more tax to fund UBI may well also be much lower than such polling implies. YouGov polling in 2020 examined whether the British public would be willing to pay more in tax to deal with the costs of the pandemic. It found that the public did support tax rises, but not for themselves. Only a quarter would back a tax rise that affected everyone.
A second barrier to introducing UBI nationally is the potential complexity and disruption of introducing large-scale changes to the social security and tax systems. The roll-out of Universal Credit has shown just how challenging such a change can be, for claimants, staff and civil society. Many of those who rely on social security feel extremely fearful about transferring from one benefit to another, or from one system to another. The extent of potential disruption does depend on the details of the scheme. The addition of a small simple new universal payment while maintaining the rest of the existing benefit system around it might be less challenging.
Is this really necessary? Is it the only way to solve the problems in our social security system and labour market?
It is undoubtedly true that our social security system is failing to protect people from destitution and hardship. We need better coverage and to invest more in the system. But a multitude of changes to the existing system would go a long way to achieving those goals, without the expense and disruption of a new system. We could remove the benefit cap, the two-child limit and the five-week wait; extend sick pay to all; boost support for those at most risk of poverty; run national take up campaigns and reform council tax. A range of other measures, such as these, could be taken to fulfil other goals or principles of UBI. None of these individual changes would eradicate poverty, as a generous UBI system would. They would all require money and political will. But pursuing such improvements could transform the system for a fraction of the cost and difficulty of that kind associated with UBI.
Our current system fails to ensure that all those within it are treated with dignity and respect. It causes unnecessary and harmful stress for too many people and the sanctions regime is unnecessarily punitive. Again, however, we could roll back the complexity and harshness of conditionality and refocus the current system on maximising take up, valuing caring and supporting people to move into high-quality work.
Changing the public and media narrative is necessary to achieving greater and more sustainable investment in our social security system, whether that is to improve the existing system or put a new UBI in place. The question is whether couching the debate in terms of introducing UBI will be more or less effective in building that support compared to focusing more specifically on the different elements that are needed, such as greater understanding of the purpose of social security, greater empathy for those relying on it, the need for adequate support and dignity.
And what about the underlying issue of insecurity in work (and housing for that matter)? Our social security system needs to do more to counter the volatility in earned income that many low-earning workers face. For some, Universal Credit is exaggerating that volatility rather than counterbalancing it. This is a difficult policy challenge, but UBI is not the only way to solve it. Smaller changes could achieve significant improvements such as strengthening more universal elements of the system (like Child Benefit) and contributory benefits; more infrequent reassessments of eligibility for some benefits; run-ons when circumstances change, and disregard when incomes rise or fall by small amounts. Clearer incentives to move into work and increase earnings could be achieved by allowing people to earn more before they started to lose benefits and reducing the ‘taper rate’ so benefits reduce more slowly. All of these would require additional investment, so the argument about funding still needs to be won, but they would probably be less expensive and might be less challenging to achieve than UBI.
Addressing insecurity also requires wider changes to our economy and society – no social security system can or should do the whole job. We must redesign the labour market to offer greater security as well as better pay, training and treatment at work. We need more low-cost rented homes and better rights for private sector renters so that people on low incomes can be freed from the constant fear of homelessness.
UBI is not a silver bullet that would immediately and straightforwardly solve poverty. It could not replace the whole social security system. It is beyond doubt that a UBI that radically reduced poverty levels would require enormous increases in public spending and be a very significant redistribution across society. A smaller, less radical but potentially more immediately achievable, partial UBI payment could achieve some valuable outcomes but would fall short of some of the bigger aims of UBI. There are more targeted ways of achieving similar outcomes, although these might not bring some of the wider impacts of a very generous UBI.
The debate about ambitious interventions to reduce poverty is welcome, underlining the growing consensus that the current social security system is inadequate and does not provide the effective public service we need to protect people from poverty. A social security system that provides adequate support, reduces poverty and removes the indignities and stigma associated with the present system is a vital part of ending the injustice of poverty in the UK. A Minimum Income Guarantee could provide a positive framework within which to make progress. Whatever form it takes, it will require significant investment, for which we must build public support.
*The Minimum Income Standard (MIS) is funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and carried out by Loughborough University. It involves research which produces budgets for different household types, based on what members of the public think you need for a minimum acceptable standard of living in the UK.
This report is part of the social security topic.
Find out more about our work in this area.
| 22,255
|
[
"business and industrial",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
business and industrial
|
geo_bench
|
Should there be a Universal Basic Income?
| false
|
5f3cbfba68c1
|
https://www.procon.org/headlines/universal-basic-income-top-3-pros-and-cons/
|
Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status. It is intended to create a financial floor or base, for reducing poverty and income inequalities and for ensuring that everyone has the resources to acquire basic needs. [45]
UBI remains largely theoretical and, thus, does not have much of a history.
Pilot UBI or more limited basic income programs that give a base income to a smaller group of people instead of an entire population have taken place or are ongoing on in many countries, including Brazil, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Namibia, Spain, and The Netherlands. Many U.S. cities—including Chicago, Stockton (CA), Cambridge (MA), Los Angeles, Denver, Oakland, among others—have also directed a “guaranteed basic income” (called GBI) to targeted groups such as low-income families and the unhoused; the guaranteed income has frequently been a monthly payment, for a specified amount of time, of $50 to $2,000.[46][61]
In the United States the Alaska Permanent Fund (AFP), created in 1976, is funded by oil revenue. AFP provides dividends to permanent residents of the state. The amount varies each year based on the stock market and other factors and has ranged from $331.29 (1984) to $2,072 (2015). The payout for 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, was $992.00, the smallest check received since 2013. The most recent payment was $1,312 for 2023. [46][47][48][49][58]
UBI popped up in American news thanks to the 2020 presidential campaign of Andrew Yang, whose continued promotion of a UBI resulted in the formation of a nonprofit, Humanity Forward. UBI continues to occasionally surface in the news thanks to local campaigns such as the 2025 New York City mayoral race in which Adrienne Adams proposed a UBI for those experiencing homelessness. [53][60]
Some consider the stimulus payments from the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic to be a sort of “emergency UBI.” Those payments, however, were not unconditional but instead were calculated based on individual or family income. [59]
So, should the U.S. implement a UBI? Explore the debate below.
Pros and Cons at a Glance
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: UBI reduces poverty and income inequality and improves physical and mental health. Read More. | Con 1: UBI increases poverty by giving to everyone instead of targeting the poor. Read More. |
| Pro 2: UBI leads to positive job growth and a better educated citizenry. Read More. | Con 2: UBI is too expensive. Read More. |
| Pro 3: UBI reduces gender inequality. Read More. | Con 3: UBI removes the incentive to work. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: UBI reduces poverty and income inequality and improves physical and mental health.
A UBI set at $1,000 per adult per month and $300 per child per month would entirely eradicate poverty in the U.S., according to Scott Santens, founding member of the Economic Security Project. [12]
Case in point: the poverty rate in Brazil fell to its lowest level in 40 years in just six months in 2020 after $110 (600 reais) per month was distributed to about 25% of the population as a pandemic relief program called Bolsa Família. [51]
Namibia’s UBI program trial, the Basic Income Grant, reduced household poverty rates from 76% of residents before the trial started to 37% after one year. Child malnutrition rates also fell from 42% to 17% in six months. [7]
Participants in India’s UBI trial said that UBI helped improve their health by enabling them to afford medicine, improve sanitation, gain access to clean water, eat more regularly, and reduce their anxiety levels. [14]
Mincome, a UBI trial in Manitoba, Canada, found that hospitalizations for accidents, injuries, and mental health diagnoses declined during the trial. [1]
Kenya’s ongoing UBI trial has reportedly led to increased happiness and life satisfaction and to reduced stress and depression, proving that UBI could improve a range of mental health concerns and stressful situations proven to deteriorate mental health. [2]
“Recent research has linked the stress of poverty with inflammation in the brain…UBI could be set at a level to ensure that everyone’s basic needs are met. This would reduce much of the stress faced by the working poor or families on benefits…UBI would also help people, usually women and children, to leave abusive relationships. Domestic abuse occurs more often in poorer households, where victims lack the financial means to escape. Similarly, UBI might prevent the negative childhood experiences believed to lead to mental illness and other problems later in life. These include experiencing violence or abuse, or having parents with mental health, substance abuse and legal problems. Behind these problems are often poverty, inequality and social isolation,” says Matthew Smith, professor in health history at the University of Strathclyde. [50]
Pro 2: UBI leads to positive job growth and a better educated citizenry.
The guarantee of UBI protects people from sluggish wage growth, low wages, and the lack of job security caused by the effects of the growing gig economy, as well as increased automation in the workplace. [42][5][10]
Researchers from the Roosevelt Institute created three models for American implementation of UBI and found that under all scenarios, UBI would grow the economy by increasing output, employment, prices, and wages. [44]
Since implementation of the Alaska Permanent Fund, for example, the increased purchasing power of UBI recipients has resulted in 10,000 additional jobs for the state. [6]
UBI would also give employees the financial security to leave a bad job or wait until a good job comes along to (re)join the job market. People won’t have to take an awful job just to pay the bills. [54]
Further, UBI enables people to stay in school longer, reducing drop-out rates, and to participate in training to improve skills or learn a trade, improving their chances of getting a good job. Uganda’s UBI trial, the Youth Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%. [8]
The Canadian Mincome trial found that participants of the trial were more likely to complete high school than counterparts not involved in the trial. [1]
The Basic Income Grant trial in Namibia (2007–12) enabled parents to afford school fees, buy school uniforms, and encourage attendance. As a result, school dropout rates fell from almost 40% in Nov. 2007 to 5% in June 2008 to almost 0% in Nov. 2008. [7]
Pro 3: UBI reduces gender inequality.
UBI makes all forms of work, including child care and elder care, “equally deserving” of payment. “Almost definitionally, a properly designed basic income system will reduce gender-based inequality, because on average the payment will represent a higher share of women’s income,” says Guy Standing, professor of development studies at the University of London. [25][56]
A UBI also allows working parents to reduce their working hours in order to spend more time with their children or help with household chores. [26][27]
Reviewing the UBI trial in India, SEWA Bharat (an organization related to women’s employment) and UNICEF (a children’s rights organization) concluded that “women’s empowerment was one of the more important outcomes of this experiment,” noting that women receiving a UBI participated more in household decision making, and benefited from improved access to food, healthcare, and education. [14]
The Basic Income Grant Coalition trial in Namibia found that UBI “reduced the dependency of women on men for their survival” and reduced the pressure to engage in transactional sex. [7]
Mincome, the Canadian UBI trial, found that emergency room visits as a result of domestic violence reduced during the period of the trial, possibly because of the reduction in income-inequality between women and men. [28]
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: UBI increases poverty by giving to everyone instead of targeting the poor.
UBI takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of much needed targeted support.
People experiencing poverty face a variety of hardships that are addressed with existing antipoverty measures such as food stamps, medical aid, and child assistance programs. UBI programs often use funds from these targeted programs for distribution to everyone without regard for need. [15]
“If you take the dollars targeted on people in the bottom fifth or two-fifths of the population and convert them to universal payments to people all the way up the income scale, you’re redistributing income upward. That would increase poverty and inequality rather than reduce them,” according to Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. [15]
Luke Martinelli, research associate at the University of Bath, created three models of UBI implementation and concluded that all three would lead to a significant number of individuals and households being worse off. He notes, “these losses are not concentrated among richer groups; on the contrary, they are proportionally larger for the bottom three income quintiles.” [37]
“Rather than reducing the overall headcount of those in poverty, a BI [basic income] would change the composition of the income-poor population” and thus “would not prove to be an effective tool for reducing poverty,” concludes research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Finland, France, Italy, and the U.K. [39]
UBI does not cure addiction, poor health, lack of skills, or other factors that contribute to and exacerbate poverty, making UBI less cost-effective than targeted welfare programs. [19][24]
There is “the danger of UBI entrenching low pay and precarious work. It could effectively subsidise employers who pay low wages and—by creating a small cushion for workers on short-term and zero-hours contracts—help to normalise precarity,” explains Anna Coote of the New Economics Foundation and Edanur Yazici, Ph.D. student. UBI could become another American tipping system in which employers pay low wages and count on customers to fill in the gap with tips. [52]
Con 2: UBI is too expensive.
A $2,000 a month per head of household UBI would cost an estimated $2.275 trillion annually, says Marc Joffe, director of policy research at the California Policy Center. Some of this cost could be offset by eliminating federal, state, and local assistance programs; however, by Joffe’s calculation, “these offsets total only $810 billion…[leaving] a net budgetary cost of over $1.4 trillion for a universal basic income program.” [23]
A 2018 study found that a $1,000 a month stipend to every adult in the United States would cost about $3.81 trillion per year, or about 21% of the 2018 GDP, or about 78% of 2018 tax revenue. [57]
The UBI trial in Finland provided participants with €560 ($673 USD) a month for two years. Finland’s UBI model is “impossibly expensive, since it would increase the government deficit by about 5 percent,” explains lkka Kaukoranta, chief economist of the Central Organization of Finnish Trade Unions (SAK). [20][21]
Former U.K. Minister of State for Employment Damian Hinds rejected the idea of UBI during parliamentary debate, saying that the estimated implementation costs ranging from £8.2–160 billion ($10.8–211 billion USD) are “clearly unaffordable.” [38]
Economist John Kay, research fellow at the University of Oxford, studied proposed UBI levels in Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, and concludes that, in all of these countries, UBI at a level that can guarantee an acceptable standard of living is “impossibly expensive…Either the level of basic income is unacceptably low, or the cost of providing it is unacceptably high.” [41]
Con 3: UBI removes the incentive to work.
Earned income motivates people to work, be successful, work cooperatively with colleagues, and gain skills. However, “if we pay people, unconditionally, to do nothing…they will do nothing,” and this leads to a less effective economy, says Charles Wyplosz, professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute in Geneva. [33]
The Swiss government opposed implementation of UBI, stating that it would entice fewer people to work and thus exacerbate the current labor and skills shortages.[34]
A strong economy relies on people being motivated to work hard, and in order to motivate people there needs to be an element of uncertainty for the future. UBI, providing guaranteed security, removes this uncertainty, according to economist Allison Schrager. [36]
UBI would cause people “to abjure work for a life of idle fun … [and would] depress the willingness to produce and pay taxes of those who resent having to support them,” says Elizabeth Anderson, professor of philosophy and women’s studies at the University of Michigan. In fact, guaranteed income trials in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s found that the people who received payments worked fewer hours. [9][17]
“The daily routines of existing work-free men should make proponents of the UBI think long and hard. Instead of producing new community activists, composers, and philosophers, more paid worklessness in America might only further deplete our nation’s social capital at a time when good citizenship is already in painfully short supply,” according to Nicholas Eberstadt and Evan Abramsky, both at American Enterprise Institute (AEI). [55]
1-minute Survey
After reading this debate, take our quick survey to see how this information affected your opinion of this topic. We appreciate your feedback.
Discussion Questions
- Should the United States implement a Universal Basic Income? Why or why not?
- Should cities or states implement Universal Basic Income? Why or why not?
- What other economic polices to reduce poverty would you enact? Explain your answers.
Take Action
- Investigate the World Bank’s report, “Exploring Universal Basic Income: A Guide to Navigating Concepts, Evidence, and Practices.”
- Explore Stanford University’s Basic Income Lab.
- Examine where a basic income has been implemented and the results at Vox.
- Consider how you felt about the issue before reading this article. After reading the pros and cons on this topic, has your thinking changed? If so, how? List two to three ways. If your thoughts have not changed, list two to three ways your better understanding of the “other side of the issue” now helps you better argue your position.
- Push for the position and policies you support by writing U.S. senators and representatives.
Sources
- Evelyn L. Forget, “The Town with No Poverty,” public.econ.duke.edu, Feb. 2011
- Johannes Haushofer and Jeremy Shapiro, “The Short-Term Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers to the Poor: Experimental Evidence from Kenya,” princeton.edu, Apr. 25, 2016
- John McArthur, “How Many Countries Could End Extreme Poverty Tomorrow?,” brookings.edu, June 1, 2017
- Caroline Lucas, “These Are the Simple Reasons Why a Basic Income for All Could Transform Our Society for the Better,” independent.co.uk, Jan. 15, 2016
- May Bulman, “French Socialist Presidential Candidates Back Universal Basic Income of £655 a Month for All Citizens,” independent.co.uk, Jan.17, 2017
- Luke Kingma, “Universal Basic Income: The Answer to Automation?,” futurism.com (accessed July 6, 2017)
- Basic Income Grant Coalition, “Pilot Project,” bignam.org, 2014
- Christopher Blattman et al., “Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda,” ssrn.com, Nov. 14, 2013
- Alicia H. Munnell, “Lessons from the Income Maintenance Experiments: An Overview,” bostonfed.org, Sep. 1986
- Robert B. Reich, “Why We’ll Need a Universal Basic Income,” robertreich.org, Sep. 29, 2016
- Greg Mankiw, “News Flash: Economists Agree,” gregmankiw.blogspot.co.uk, Feb. 14, 2009
- Scott Santens, “Universal Basic Income as the Social Vaccine of the 21st Century,” medium.com, Feb. 5, 2015
- Oren Cass, “Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Terrible Idea,” nationalreview.com, June 15, 2016
- SEWA Bharat, “A Little More, How Much It Is... Piloting Basic Income Transfers in Madhya Pradesh, India,” unicef.in, Jan. 2014
- Robert Greenstein, “Commentary: Universal Basic Income May Sound Attractive But, If It Occurred, Would Likelier Increase Poverty Than Reduce It,” cbpp.org, May 31, 2016
- Noah Zon, “Would a Universal Basic Income Reduce Poverty?,” maytree.com, Aug. 2016
- Elizabeth Anderson, “Forum Response: A Basic Income for All,” bostonreview.net, Oct. 1, 2000
- Robert Whaples, “Skeptical Thoughts on a Taxpayer-Funded Basic Income Guarantee,” The Independent Review, Spring 2015
- Isabel V. Sawhill, “Money for Nothing: Why a Universal Basic Income Is a Step Too Far,” brookings.edu, June 15, 2016
- Raine Tiessalo, “Free Money Provokes Some Finns to Slam Basic Income as ‘Useless’,” bloomberg.com, Feb. 8, 2017
- Kela, “Experimental Study on a Universal Basic Income,” kela.fi, Feb. 16, 2017
- Jason Koebler, “100 People in Oakland Will Get Free Money as Part of a Basic Income Experiment,” motherboard.vice.com, May 31, 2016
- Marc Joffe, “Universal Basic Income: An Idea Whose Time Should Never Come,” thefiscaltimes.com, Apr. 3, 2017
- Andreas Mogensen, “Why We (Still) Don’t Recommend GiveDirectly,” givingwhatwecan.org, Feb. 27, 2014
- Guy Standing, “How Cash Transfers Promote the Case for Basic Income,” guystanding.com, Apr. 2008
- Philippe Van Parijs, “A Basic Income for All,” bostonreview.net, 2000
- Olivia Goldhill, “All of the Problems Universal Basic Income Can Solve That Have Nothing to Do with Unemployment,” qz.com, Apr. 24, 2016
- Canadian Medical Association, “National Support for a Basic Income Guarantee,” cloudfront.net, 2015
- Malcolm Torry, Money for Everyone, 2013
- Philippe Van Parijs, “Basic Income and Social Justice: Why Philosophers Disagree,” jrf.org.uk, Mar. 13, 2009
- Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE), “Benefit System Riddled with ‘Stigma’,” poverty.ac.uk (accessed July 25, 2017)
- David R. Henderson, “A Philosophical Economist’s Case Against a Government-Guaranteed Basic Income,” independent.org, 2015
- Charles Wyplosz, “Universal Basic Income: The Contradictions of a Simple Idea,” parisinnovationreview.com, Dec. 8, 2016
- Swiss Federal Council, “‘Unconditional Basic Income’ Popular Initiative,” admin.ch, June 2016
- Rachel Slater, “Cash Transfers, Social Protection and Poverty Reduction,” odi.org, Mar. 2008
- Allison Schrager, “Why You Need a Healthy Amount of Uncertainty in an Economy,” qz.com, Nov. 16, 2013
- Luke Martinelli, “Exploring the Distributional and Work Incentive Effects of Plausible Illustrative Basic Income Schemes,” bath.ac.uk, May 2017
- Damian Hinds, “Universal Basic Income,” hansard.parliament.uk, Sep. 14, 2016
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Basic Income as a Policy Option: Technical Background Note Illustrating Cost and Distributional Implications for Selected Countries,” oecd.org, May 2017
- GiveWell, “GiveDirectly: Supplementary Information,” givewell.org (accessed Aug. 24, 2017)
- John Kay, “The Basics of Basic Income,” johnkay.com, Apr. 5, 2017
- Thomas A. Husted, “Changes in State Income Inequality from 1981 to 1987,” journal.srsa.org (accessed Sep. 5, 2017)
- Kirby B. Posey, “Household Income: 2015,” census.gov, Sep. 2016
- Michalis Nikiforos et al., “Modeling the Macroeconomic Effects of a Universal Basic Income,” rooseveltinsitute.org, Aug. 2017
- Kimberly Amadeo, “What Is Universal Basic Income?,” thebalance.com, Aug. 19, 2021
- Sigal Samuel, “Everywhere Basic Income Has Been Tried, in One Map,” vox.com, Oct. 20, 2020
- Robyn Sundlee, “Alaska’s Universal Basic Income Problem,” vox.com, Sep. 5, 2019
- Alaska Department of Revenue Permanent Fund Dividend Division, “Summary of Dividend Applications and Payments,” pfd.alaska.gov (accessed Feb. 22, 2021)
- Genevieve Wojtusik, “Department of Revenue Announces 2020 Permanent Fund Dividend,” alaska-native-news.com, June 13, 2020
- Matthew Smith, “Universal Basic Income Could Improve the Nation’s Mental Health,” theconversation.com, Apr. 27, 2020
- Salil B Patel and Joel Kariel, “Universal Basic Income and Covid-19 Pandemic,” bmj.com, Jan. 26, 2021
- Anna Coote and Edanur Yazici, “Universal Basic Income: A Union Perspective,” world-psi.org, Apr. 2019
- Yelena Dzhanova, “Why Andrew Yang’s Push for a Universal Basic Income Is Making a Comeback,” cnbc.com, July 29, 2020
- David Tal, “Universal Basic Income Cures Mass Unemployment,” quantumrun.com, Sept. 14, 2020
- Nicholas Eberstadt and Evan Abramsky, “What Do Prime-Age ‘NILF’ Men Do All Day? A Cautionary on Universal Basic Income,” ifstudies.org, Feb. 8, 2021
- Guy Standing, “Gender Inequality in Times of COVID-19—Give Women Cash,” en.unesco.org, Apr. 17, 2020
- Ryan Hughes, “Universal Basic Income Is a Bad Idea,” bulloakcapital.com, July 26, 2020
- State of Alaska: Department of Revenue, “Permanent Fund Dividend,” pfd.alaska.gov (accessed Apr. 2, 2024)
- Logan Ward, “The Pros and Cons of Universal Basic Income,” college.unc.edu, Mar. 10, 2021
- Emma G. Fitzsimmons, “N.Y.C. Mayor Candidate Pitches Largest Guaranteed Income Program in U.S.” (April 7, 2025), nytimes.com
- Allie Kelly, “Universal Basic Income in the US Isn’t Yet Reality, but 16 States Have UBI-like Programs that Give Residents Cash,” businessinsider.com, Dec. 2, 2024
| 21,641
|
[
"politics",
"intermediate",
"debate",
"question",
"opinion",
"research",
"informational"
] |
politics
|
geo_bench
|
Should all citizens receive a basic income?
| false
|
8f5492f8fd42
|
https://eurac.com/cultural-barriers-and-how-to-overcome-them-in-your-global-company-as-a-global-leader/
|
Did you know that culturally diverse teams produce more creative and innovative results than culturally homogenous groups?
This is a result of the fact that people from different cultural groups approach challenges and problems in different ways. Different cultures think and react differently to the same situations. They get the job done in different ways.
By combining those different approaches and mindsets, a culturally diverse team not only expands their skills and knowledge pool, but has the power to think in more abstract terms and find solutions on various levels.
Of course, this only works if the team works well together — and that tends to be the tricky part. Cultural differences can lead to barriers between team members, when their different styles of approach are misunderstood, misinterpreted or not accepted.
Global leaders face not only the challenge of making a multi-cultural team work well together despite their differences, but often also of doing this while the team members are based in different international locations.
In today’s globalized world, global leaders have to learn to understand a wider, richer array of work styles. They must be able to determine what aspects of an interaction are a result of personality and which are a result of differences in cultural perspective.
Five causes of cultural barriers
Let’s get on the same page here first: what exactly is culture?
Culture is all socially transmitted and shared behaviors, manners, customs, rituals, beliefs, ideas, arts, knowledge, values, morals and ideals that are learned in a group of the same nationality, religion or ethnicity. It is handed down from generation to generation, slowly evolving, and creating many subcultures in the process.
Cultural diversity can make communication difficult, especially in the workplace, where a misunderstanding can cause costly problems. When people from different cultures work together, several factors can become barriers. We’ll be taking a look at these factors first, and then dive into how to overcome them in a global team.
1. Language
Not speaking the same language (well) can cause a myriad of misunderstandings and is considered the most crucial barrier in cross-cultural communication.
Verbal communication is important in every context, but the meaning of words can literally get lost in translation. If one person isn’t aware of the exact meaning of a word, it may be misunderstood or misinterpreted by the other person and lead to a conflict of ideas.
2. Stereotypes and prejudices
Stereotypes are mostly negative images or preconceived notions about a specific community, group or culture. The basis of stereotyping can be many things, though the most common are nationality, gender, race, religion or age.
Popular stereotypes, for example, are that all Germans are punctual and very direct, or that all Asians are good at math.
This creates prejudice among people of different cultures and causes judgmental attitudes towards one another. People look at other cultures with certain stereotypes as “bad” or “difficult to work with”, or “incomprehensible” and treat them with contempt and disrespect. If things get this far on a team or in a company, working together effectively can become extremely difficult between people who resent and disrespect each other.
3. Signs and symbols
Non-verbal communication like signs and symbols differ from culture to culture and can therefore not be relied upon in communication. For example, the “thumbs up”, known in the Western world as a sign of approval, is seen as an insult in Bangladesh.
While not quite as easily misconstrued in a team environment as the other factors, it can still lead to cultural faux-pas that may take time to smooth over and could be avoided in the first place.
4. Behaviors and belief
Cultural differences cause behavioral and personality differences like body language, gestures, mindsets, communication, manners, and norms, which may lead to miscommunication. Eye contact, for example, is very important in some cultures, but rude and disrespectful in others.
People’s varied religious or spiritual beliefs can also lead to conflict and cross-cultural barriers.
Different cultures also have different understandings of time. Some countries like Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Switzerland or the United States tend to view time as linear. Time is money, and punctuality is a great value. Things tend to be done one at a time, to be able to focus on it and finish the task within a fixed time frame.
Other countries, for example many Southern European countries like Spain or Italy, see time as multi-active; this means that the more things they do at the same time, the happier and more fulfilled they feel. Present reality and especially personal relationships are more important and valued than schedules or punctuality.
5. “Us” versus “them” (ethnocentrism)
From an evolutionary standpoint, belonging to a group made you stronger and more likely to survive in a hostile world. Strangers or other groups were “the enemy”, competing for food, safety and territory.
This us- versus them-thinking is ingrained in our subconscious and can lead to a sense of alienation if someone behaves in a way we don’t understand or aren’t expecting — if they don’t fit in.
A person’s standard is his or her own culture; the more another person’s culture, behavior, language, and beliefs deviate from it, the more “other” they are labeled. This affects the understanding of message and creates hostility.
How to overcome cross-cultural barriers
Successful and effective cross-cultural management can be a daunting task — and even more so for teams with members scattered across the globe. People who are constantly interacting with each other face-to-face for eight hours every day will bond and find common ground faster than people who only interact with each other online at certain times.
As a global leader you not only have to be aware of the cultural barriers within your team, but actively strive to overcome them.
Embrace diversity and accommodate cultural differences
As a global leader, you must make your team members and employees understand that culturally diverse teams produce more innovative and and creative results as opposed to homogenous groups. Therefore, cultural differences should be appreciated, openly discussed and utilized to support each other, rather than creating barriers. You want a team to work well because of their differences, not in spite of them.
Create opportunities for your employees to learn about their colleagues’ perspectives and ways of life to build open-mindedness and appreciation. Focus on the strengths that each culture brings to the mix and discuss how these strengths can be integrated in the way your team works together, handles challenges and tackles projects.
Promote open communication
Open communication is the only way that culturally diverse teams can work through and overcome their differences to make them work well together. As global leader, it’s up to you to promote that culture of open communication within your company or team.
Don’t let resentment, problems, or misunderstandings between team members fester; address them as soon as they arise and give all parties the opportunity to present and discuss their grievances in a safe and open environment.
If your team members’ or employees’ problems are with you, listen closely to what they have to say. Thank them for their honesty, and try to find a good solution or compromise that everyone agrees with.
A company culture of open communication is grown from the top down. As global leader, you must lead by example and value everyone’s opinion equally to ensure openness and honesty between your team members.
Lead open discussions about team norms and shared company culture
When your team members differ on a cultural level, you can unite them by creating a new common culture: your company or team culture.
Unlike leading by example to promote open communication, this won’t happen in a top-down approach, though. A company or team culture must be cultivated together and include all members. As the team leader, it’s important to allot specific times for the team to discuss differences and air grievances, find common ground and decide together how to proceed.
This becomes more important, but also more challenging, with a team that isn’t just culturally diverse, but situated in various locations. Where people don’t interact personally, it becomes more difficult to look beyond the cultural stereotypes and get to know the person behind them. But this is crucial to foster understanding of each other and building a company- or team culture together.
Rally the team around a shared vision or common cause
Bringing people together around a shared vision or common cause can be a powerful thing to unite the team and have all members pulling together in the same direction.
Maybe the product or technology you’re developing and producing together will save lives or help people in need? Or you might run regular fundraisers to support local charities in your team members’ locations. Or maybe you’re all working together towards that 20% more revenue to ensure a raise for all team members this year.
Leading cultural diversity as a global leader
As a global leader, it is your responsibility to ensure that your team members or employees work together through their cultural differences. Be aware of the stereotypes and prejudices you may yourself have and try to consciously overwrite them. Understand the differences your team members deal with among each other and foster a company culture of open communication.
But the ability to lead your team or company through cultural barriers is only one of the challenges a global leader faces every day. Find out more about global leadership on this Global Leadership Magazine, or make it even easier by signing up for our weekly news on all things Global Leadership:
| 9,961
|
[
"people and society",
"intermediate",
"informational",
"question",
"fact",
"research"
] |
people and society
|
geo_bench
|
How do language and cultural barriers affect the way people communicate and form relationships in multicultural societies?
| false
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 10