Search results

The global economy has already experienced recession in 1975, 1982, 1991, 2007 (the Great Recession or the Global Financial Meltdown), and 2020 (The Pandemic Recession). When hope of recovery has just started to emerge with real gross domestic product (GDP) growth reaching 5.7% in 2021, dark clouds are gathering ominously on the horizon again. In January 2022, the World Bank's forecasts (for global growth) were 4.1% for 2022 and 3.3% for 2023. Not only the indicators like industrial activity are shrinking, consumer and investor confidence is at a low point, workers are losing jobs, profit margins and global trade are showing a downward trend, after a period of post-pandemic expansion. But most worrying is the slowing down of the Big Trio of USA-China-Euro Zone that currently accounts for over 50% of real global GDP in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) terms and contributed 62% to global growth over 2015–2019. Moreover, energy and food prices are showing rising trend, and Ukraine war is showing no sign of ending in the near future. In this context, the present chapter attempts to analyze whether with prices rising and productive activities (including trade) shrinking (described as “stagflation”), is the world headed for another serious slump, and if that happens, what will be its severity? It also tries to point out some limitations of the policy suggestions of the structural projection models used by the World Bank. It also tries to point out the policy suggestions of the models used by the World Bank.

Housing is a fundamental need for all humans. A roof over our heads can provide safety, warmth and stability. Once we have this stability, our physical and mental health is more likely to be managed effectively. However, housing, or indeed a roof, is not something everyone has the privilege of experiencing. Housing policy across the globe is dominated by capitalistic thinking: the profit becomes the priority. Those marginalised, traumatised and stigmatised suffer the most, many having to access inadequate homeless shelters, still more sleeping on our cold streets. Current service provision favours the middle class. In these circumstances ill-health manifests, responses are often inadequate, yet some innovations develop. Housing First seeks to reach into the homeless population and provide housing to those most entrenched, while Safetynet seeks to provide health-related services to those homeless and experiencing other related problems. Both interventions understand the role peers can play in providing these services.

Rapid technological change in the transport sector is leading to a growing range of potential and actual ‘business models’ deployable for the movement of goods and people. Two key uncertainties arise from this proliferation: first, concerning which ones can be economically viable, and, second, whether they can be both simultaneously economically viable and contribute to the imperatives of more sustainable mobility. The present chapter reviews and appraises the emergence of these new business models, drawing on both literature review and empirical research with entrepreneurs involved in the new mobility sector. Specifically, the potential of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, n.d.) as a device to structure and frame the debate about what constitutes a valuable contribution to sustainable mobility is considered. A framework is developed which captures how mobility and transport have dependencies with the SDGs. From this analysis, key sustainability concepts are derived which have either a subsistence function (maintaining the basics of human life) or an enhancement function (enabling citizens to realise their potential whilst reducing impacts on the planet). Five different innovations involving mobility sector business entrepreneurship are then characterised using this framework to exemplify its ability to deconstruct and test claims that ‘smart mobility’ is also good for sustainability as well as good for business. It is concluded that the framework could contribute to a wider architecture of sustainability interrogation. It could promote discourse around a wide range of actors, posing questions and surfacing tensions and contingencies effectively, whilst providing a holistic, strategic assessment to inform more targeted, scientific evaluations of sustainability metrics.

Globalization of agriculture via the evergreen revolution (which encompasses large-scale production-collection-cleaning-processing-packaging-transportation-storage-distribution-sale of high-value cereals-fruits-flowers-vegetables-agrofuel-feedstock through technology-intensive global value chains) has opened the door to corporate capital involvement in agriculture. While the mainstream perspectives and international organizations have optimistically viewed this as a catalyst for inclusive growth, this article seeks to unveil the concealed hegemony of capital underlying the ostensibly beneficial façade of the evergreen revolution. It underscores the concerns regarding the immiseration of asset-poor farmers, petty nonfarm entrepreneurs and labourers resulting from the globalization of agriculture. Furthermore, it explores the implications for micro and macro food security in this context.