Podcasts about Public policy

On Today's Episode – Mark is joined by Dr. Eric Wallace, who tells us a little about how he came to be a member of Project 21. He has a new book out (link below). The guys talk all things politics and the relationship between them and the Black Church. Tune in for all the funProject 21 Ambassador Dr. Eric Wallace is the president and co-founder of Freedom's Journal Institute (FJI) for the Study of Faith and Public Policy, an Illinois-based nonprofit organization designed to “advance the Kingdom of God through socio-political, education and engagement.”Wallace is a visionary who couples his rich educational background with a bold approach to challenging the status quo. His post-graduate degrees in Biblical Studies (M.A., ThM, Ph.D.), combined with his passion and powerful message, make him one of today's most powerful voices of Bible-centered reason and change. Eric is the first African American to earn a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Union-PSCE (now Union Presbyterian Seminary).Wallace is outspoken about the evils of Critical Race Theory (CRT) — speaking recently about CRT at the For God and Country Biblical Worldview Intensive at World Outreach Center in Newport News, Va., and at a special panel discussion at the Conservative Minority Convention (CMC) in Dallas-Fort Worth. https://www.amazon.com/Heart-Apostasy-Abandoned-Authority-Ideology/dp/0979763185 https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/4pUysvR Final Dividend Cafe of 2025: Year-End Market Recap and Outlook for 2026 In this final Dividend Cafe of 2025, David Bahnsen reviews key economic data points and market trends, including the performance of major indices and sector highlights. The discussion covers the lack of seasonality in market movements, updates on bond yields, and the significance of periodic portfolio rebalancing. The episode also touches on public policy issues related to data centers and provides insights on midstream energy sectors. David announces the upcoming annual 'year behind, year ahead' white paper and his ongoing book project on dividend growth investing. The session concludes with a look ahead to the first Dividend Cafe of 2026 and encourages listeners to read further on topics like gold as an inflation hedge. 00:00 Welcome to the Final Dividend Cafe of 2025 00:43 Recap of the Year and Upcoming Plans 02:44 Market Updates and Trends 06:29 Public Policy and The Fed 07:28 Energy Sector Insights 08:39 Looking Ahead to 2026 Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

Kyla Scanlon and Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at University of Michigan, join the show to break down the Federal Reserve's latest rate cut—and why growing internal dissent at the Fed actually matters. We unpack what the dot plot reveals, how markets may be misreading Jerome Powell, and whether inflation data is being misunderstood rather than manipulated. The conversation also dives into tariffs, affordability, and why cost-driven inflation hits households differently than demand-driven price spikes.

In this episode of Energy Newsbeat – Conversations in Energy, host Stu Turley sits down with Sarah E. Hunt, President of the Rainey Center, to break down groundbreaking new polling that reveals overwhelming bipartisan support for American energy dominance, secure domestic data centers, and rapid permitting reform. Sarah explains how voters overwhelmingly link energy independence to national security, the growing AI arms race with China, and the urgent need to build every possible electron—nuclear, natural gas, solar, wind—to safeguard America's technological future. From China's 10x energy build-out to AI-driven permitting solutions, this conversation delivers sharp insights, alarming realities, and a clear call to action for policymakers across the U.S.Highlights of the Podcast00:00 - Intro00:33 – Why Energy Dominance = National Security01:04 – The Shocking Truth About U.S. Data Stored in China02:27 – Voters See a Tech Arms Race With China03:23 – China's 10x Energy Build-Out Advantage03:58 – Nuclear Power, Permitting, & Speeding Up Builds05:42 – Using AI to Fix Permitting Bottlenecks06:08 – The “Three Horsemen” of Energy Dominance07:02 – Voters Overwhelmingly Support Cutting Red Tape08:03 – Grid Vulnerabilities & Chinese-Linked Equipment09:02 – Electricity as a Weapon of War10:12 – Bipartisan Consensus on Energy Independence10:40 – How the Rainey Center Started11:22 – Supporting Local, State & Federal Leaders14:00 – State-Level Energy Action & AI Competition With China16:41 – The Electricity War for Human Freedom17:15 – Wind, Solar, Nuclear & Reality of Energy Costs18:44 – Who Should Pay for Data Center Power?20:18 – Solar Already Built But Stuck in Red Tape21:48 – Critical Minerals, Supply Chains & Energy Security22:13 – How to Follow & Connect With Sarah23:59 – Closing RemarksWe recommend checking out the Rainey Center for Public Policy: https://www.raineycenter.org/Follow Sarah on her LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarahelisabethhunt/Check out https://theenergynewsbeat.substack.com/and https://energynewsbeat.co/

Kara and Scott take questions from listeners about how they manage their money, how to fix the American tax system, and which public policy would help the greatest number of people.  Plus…all the audience suggestions for Kara's next tattoo. Watch this episode on the ⁠⁠Pivot YouTube channel⁠⁠.Follow us on Instagram and Threads at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcastofficial⁠⁠.Follow us on Bluesky at ⁠⁠@pivotpod.bsky.social⁠⁠Follow us on TikTok at ⁠⁠@pivotpodcast⁠⁠.Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or email Pivot@voxmedia.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What if a single clause in your job contract could quietly shape how much you are able to get paid -- after you leave that job? And what if that same contract clause ends up limiting the places you can move for a job? Today, the hidden power of the non-compete clause. New research from Matt Johnson, professor at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and co-authors gives insight into what the practice actually costs workers.

In this episode, I'm joined by Shana Peschek, Executive Director of the Machinists Institute, for a timely conversation about what it really takes to build a manufacturing workforce that can meet the moment. Workforce is one of the AMCC “Big Six” pillars of a functioning regional manufacturing ecosystem, and across the country, we're falling short. Shana brings a practitioner's lens to this challenge, drawing on her experience building apprenticeship and training models to support advanced manufacturing talent pipelines.We talk about how the Machinists Institute was founded by IAM District 751 to serve aerospace, manufacturing, and industrial trades; how Shana scaled the organization from an idea into a statewide—and now national—workforce platform; and why apprenticeship is fundamentally an educational modality, not a niche labor program. Along the way, she breaks down persistent myths around apprenticeship, explains how employer-driven curriculum keeps training relevant, and shares how the Institute partners with unions, non-union employers, community colleges, workforce boards, and community-based organizations without duplicating efforts.If you care about reindustrialization, aerospace and defense manufacturing, apprenticeships, or how regions can build real workforce capacity,this is a must-listen. Shana's work shows what systems leadership looks like in practice, and why workforce development can't be siloed from economic development if we're serious about competing globally, way to go Shana!

Daily Israeli breaches of the Gaza ceasefire agreement threaten the entire peace process, says the Qatari prime minister, who helped broker the deal forged by Donald Trump. So, what's gone wrong -- and what might the US president do to get it back on track? In this episode: Tamer Qarmout - Associate Professor of Public Policy at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies Daniel Levy - President of the U.S. / Middle East Project and a former Israeli negotiator Rami Khouri - Distinguished Fellow at the American University of Beirut Host: Folly Bah Thibault Connect with us: @AJEPodcasts on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook

What if the loudest stories in politics are really about insecurity, not strength? We start with the whiplash of overnight headlines and a White House obsessed with optics, then trace how petty theater bleeds into policy with life-or-death stakes. The thread is simple and sobering: when leaders reward cruelty, the most vulnerable pay for it. We dig into the targeting of gender-affirming care, the threats to hospital funding, and why deference to doctors and real expertise is a civic duty, not a partisan stance.From there, we get personal. Faith without empathy rings hollow, so we revisit the early AIDS era, Magic Johnson's watershed moment, and the way testimony can change hearts. We talk about projection—how unhappy people outsource their pain—and the antidote that actually works: service. Helping others reliably produces joy and meaning, which is exactly why it's absent from the politics of resentment. The money conversation follows naturally: nonprofits and tax write-offs, the discipline of “enough,” and the hard truth about billionaire wealth, loopholes, and the public goods that should never be optional: health care, education, housing, clean water.Culture gives us oxygen. We celebrate Rob Reiner's legacy—from When Harry Met Sally and The Princess Bride to Spinal Tap and Misery—and how great directors pull out performances that remind us what empathy looks like. Even our Hallmark detour has a purpose: why familiar tropes soothe when the world spins off its axis, and where brands lose the plot when they chase reality-show gimmicks. It all circles back to a promise: name the petty, protect the vulnerable, and choose compassion as a daily practice.If this conversation moved you, share it with a friend, subscribe for more candid culture and consequence, and leave a review to help others find the show. What's one small act of service you'll choose this week?Thank you for stopping by. Please visit our website: All About The Joy and add, like and share. You can also support us by shopping at our STORE - We'd appreciate that greatly. Also, if you want to find us anywhere on social media, please check out the link in bio page. Music By Geovane Bruno, Moments, 3481Editing by Team A-JHost, Carmen Lezeth DISCLAIMER: As always, please do your own research and understand that the opinions in this podcast and livestream are meant for entertainment purposes only. States and other areas may have different rules and regulations governing certain aspects discussed in this podcast. Nothing in our podcast or livestream is meant to be medical or legal advice. Please use common sense, and when in doubt, ask a professional for advice, assistance, help and guidance.

Explore how students are using simple mindful breathing practices to navigate stress, stay grounded, and support their classmates.Summary: Classrooms often are confronted with difficult topics that can leave students overwhelmed and anxious. In this episode of The Science of Happiness, we highlight how college student Evelyn Mata brought calm to herself and peers during an Immigration Studies class through simple collective breathing practices. How to Do Box Breathing: Sit comfortably: Find a quiet spot and focus on your breath, keeping a relaxed posture.  Inhale (4 counts): Breathe in slowly through your nose, letting the air fill your belly and chest. Keep the pace steady, not strained for a count of four.  Hold (4 counts): Pause gently at the top of the inhale. This isn't a tense hold, just a moment of stillness to let the body register calm. Hold your breath for four slow counts.  Exhale (4 counts): Release the breath through your nose or mouth in a smooth, even flow. Imagine tension leaving the body as the breath moves out for a count of four, emptying your lungs.  Hold (4 counts): Let yourself rest briefly in the empty space before the next inhale. This completes the “box.” Repeat: Continue this cycle for several minutes, or for 3-4 rounds, until you feel calmer. Stop sooner if you feel lightheaded; return to natural breathing when you're done. Scroll down for a transcription of this episode.Today's Guests: EVELYN MATA is an undergraduate student at UC Berkeley, studying Psychology and Public Policy.DR. PABLO GONZALEZ is a professor in the Ethnic Studies department at UC Berkeley.Learn more about Pablo here: https://ethnicstudies.berkeley.edu/people/pablo-gonzalezRelated The Science of Happiness episodes:  Breathe Away Anxiety (Cyclic Sighing): https://tinyurl.com/3u7vsrr5How To Tune Out The Noise: https://tinyurl.com/4hhekjuh What To Do When Stress Takes Over: https://tinyurl.com/mskvfmv4Related Happiness Breaks:Make Uncertainty Part of the Process: https://tinyurl.com/234u5ds7A Meditation for When You Feel Uneasy: https://tinyurl.com/4x27ut3pA Mindful Breath Meditation, With Dacher Keltner: https://tinyurl.com/mr9d22krTell us about your experience with this practice. Email us at happinesspod@berkeley.edu or follow on Instagram @HappinessPod.Help us share The Science of Happiness! Leave us a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts and share this link with someone who might like the show: https://tinyurl.com/2p9h5aapTranscription: https://tinyurl.com/4wz4vbc3

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Lamell J. McMorris about his book, THE POWER TO PERSIST: 8 Simple Habits To Build Lifelong Resilience. Lamell J. McMorris is a nationally recognized entrepreneur, activist, and changemaker dedicated to advancing equity and revitalizing underserved communities. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, he went on to find phenomenal success as a D.C. policymaker, a consultant in the financial and professional sports arenas, and a civil and human rights advocate. McMorris is the founder and CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based company Phase 2 Consulting, which offers strategic insight and external affairs services to some of the nation's leading decision-makers in the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including Fortune 100 companies. He is also founder and managing principal of Greenlining Realty USA, a comprehensive urban redevelopment firm dedicated to neighborhood investment, redevelopment, housing rehabilitation, and home improvement in low-income communities. He holds a BA in Religion and Society from Morehouse College, a MDiv in Social Ethics and Public Policy from Princeton Theological Seminary, and a DLP in Law and Policy from Northeastern University. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network!

The Reagan National Defense Survey has again illuminated the MAGA world: MAGA Republicans are not isolationists, nor are the majority of Americans. Despite what those in Washington assert Americans believe, the latest polling reveals that 64 percent of Americans support U.S. leadership on the world stage, with eight in ten self-identified MAGA Republicans driving that figure. So why do we see this dissonance on the Right? Who gets to speak for “America First,” and what does it really mean? Why are figures within Trump's ranks convincing him that his base opposes intervention and a strong foreign policy? The latest polling reminds us that the American people know who our enemies are, and they are telling us how they want to deal with them. Who's going to listen?Roger Zakheim serves as the Washington Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute. He previously practiced law at Covington & Burling LLP where he led the firm's Public Policy and Government Affairs practice group. Before joining Covington, he was General Counsel and Deputy Staff Director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. Mr. Zakheim also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense where he supported the department's policies and programs related to Iraq and Afghanistan coalition affairs. Mr. Zakheim also currently serves on the Board of Directors of the United States Institute of Peace and is a Commissioner on the Congressional Commission on the National Defense Strategy of the United States.Read the transcript here.Subscribe to our Substack here.

A Chicago violence prevention program is pairing cognitive behavioral therapy with intensive mentoring and wraparound support to help high-risk teens avoid incarceration.Guests:Nour Abdul-Razzak, Research Associate, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy; Research Director, University of Chicago Inclusive Economy LabCharles Branas, Professor and Chair, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public HealthToni Copeland, Director of Student Supports and Violence Prevention Programs, Chicago Public SchoolsJennifer Doleac, Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice, Arnold VenturesJasper Guilbault, Therapist, BrightpointGary Ivory, President and CEO, Youth Advocate ProgramsJulie Noobler, Director of Mental Health and Wellness, BrightpointT-ManLearn more and read a full transcript on our website.Help us unlock a $5,000 match by becoming one of 200 new donors at tradeoffs.org/donate.Want more Tradeoffs? Sign up for our free weekly newsletter featuring the latest health policy research and news. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“People are not looking for a perfect, polished answer. They're looking for a human to speak to them like a human,” says Jessica Malaty Rivera, an infectious disease epidemiologist and one of the most trusted science communicators in the U.S. to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. That philosophy explains her relatable, judgement-free approach to communications which aims to make science more human, more accessible and less institutional. In this wide-ranging Raise the Line discussion, host Lindsey Smith taps Rivera's expertise on how to elevate science understanding, build public trust, and equip people to recognize disinformation. She is also keen to help people understand the nuances of misinformation -- which she is careful to define – and the emotional drivers behind it in order to contain the “infodemics” that complicate battling epidemics and other public health threats. It's a thoughtful call to educate the general public about the science of information as well as the science behind medicine. Tune in for Rivera's take on the promise and peril of AI-generated content, why clinicians should see communication as part of their professional responsibility, and how to prepare children to navigate an increasingly complex information ecosystem.Mentioned in this episode:de Beaumont Foundation If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

In this episode of the Society of Actuaries Research Insights Podcast, Dale Hall, Managing Director of Research at the SOA Research Institute, welcomes Geralyn Trujillo, Senior Director of Public Policy at the American Academy of Actuaries. Together, they provide an insightful recap of the 2025 NAIC Fall Meeting held in Hollywood, Florida, December 8-11, 2025. The discussion covers key takeaways from the meeting, including updates from the SOA on climate-related research such as climate-induced migration, sea level rise, and wildfires, as well as important developments in long-term care experience studies and global mortality experience studies from Canada and China. Tune in for a deep dive into the issues shaping regulatory, policy, and actuarial landscapes in the U.S. and globally.

This episode is an audio recording of an Opportunity Starts at Home (OSAH) Campaign Roundtable event held in Washington, D.C. on December 2, 2025. The event brought together campaign partners to reflect on campaign achievements, mobilize around priority bills, and discuss new strategies to further multi-sector collaboration for housing affordability. The episode features Renee M. Willis, NLIHC President and CEO, Chantelle Wilkinson, NLIHC Vice President of Strategic Partnerships & Campaigns, May Louis-Juste, NLIHC Project Manager of Strategic Partnerships, Julie Walker, OSAH Campaign Project Manager, David Gonzalez Rice, NLIHC Senior Vice President of Public Policy, and Meghan Mertyris, NLIHC Disaster Recovery Policy Analyst. Learn more about the OSAH Roundtable here: https://www.opportunityhome.org/organizations-2/opportunity-roundtable/

Our world faces a growing set of challenges that transcend national borders - from climate change and pandemic threats to the governance of emerging technologies and the protection of public goods. Yet political authority and decision making remain overwhelmingly rooted in sovereign states. How, then, can global challenges be tackled effectively?In this special episode, we turn to the concept of global governance - the institutions, norms, and practices through which collective action is coordinated beyond the nation state. Joining us is Professor Tom Pegram, Director of the UCL Global Governance Institute and Programme Director of the MSc in Global Governance and Ethics in the UCL Department of Political Science.Tom recently delivered his inaugural lecture as Professor of Global Politics at UCL, titled “Crisis? What Crisis? Rethinking Global Governance Through the Lens of Crisis.” Drawing on that lecture and his wider body of work, this conversation ranges across his academic career and explores how moments of crisis, from financial shocks and pandemics to democratic backsliding and climate emergencies, both expose the limits of existing governance arrangements and create opportunities for innovation and reform.Mentioned in this episode:Prof Pegram's lecture on YouTubeReflexive legitimation conflict: trumpism and the crisis of legitimacy in global AI governance in Global Public Policy and Governance. UCL's Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy offers a uniquely stimulating environment for the study of all fields of politics, including international relations, political theory, human rights, public policy-making and administration. The Department is recognised for its world-class research and policy impact, ranking among the top departments in the UK on both the 2021 Research Excellence Framework and the latest Guardian rankings.

Claire de Mézerville López welcomes Blair Kirby and Professor Mark Osler to the Restorative Works! Podcast. Blair and Mark join us to illuminate how restorative practices intersect with clemency work, storytelling, and systemic reform. Their conversation opens a window into the human impact of policies that often feel remote, revealing how small acts of recognition and repair can shift entire systems toward healing. Mark tells us about his commutation clinic at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, where he guides students as they uncover untold stories, meet directly with clients inside federal prisons, and learn how authentic narrative reshapes justice. Blair, a third-year law student and senior editor of the Journal of Law and Public Policy, brings her own lens as a former data analyst turned advocate. Her retelling of a first-degree murder clemency case, where three heartfelt apology letters were lost inside the corrections system, reveals how transparency and communication influence a victim's family's capacity to heal. Together, Mark and Blair describe how the commutation clinic operates at both the individual and systemic level, helping incarcerated people tell the fuller stories of their lives while also proposing legislative reforms that expand access to second chances. They highlight clients whose transformations demonstrate the power of rehabilitation, the role of narrative in restorative justice, and the responsibility of legal advocates to restore humanity, not simply file petitions. Blair grew up in South Korea and came to the US on her own at 15. After graduating from Macalester College with degrees in Applied Mathematics, Statistics, and Economics, she worked with government agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on epidemiology studies during the COVID-19 pandemic as a data and policy analyst in the Bay Area of California. She is currently a student at the University of St. Thomas School of Law (MN). Mark is the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas, where he was chosen as Professor of the Year in 2016, 2019, and 2022. He also holds the Ruthie Mattox Preaching Chair at First Covenant Church, Minneapolis. His writing on clemency, sentencing, and narcotics policy has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and The Atlantic and in law journals at Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, Northwestern, Georgetown, the University of Texas, Ohio State, UNC, William and Mary, and Rutgers. A former federal prosecutor, he won the case of Spears v. United States in the U.S. Supreme Court, with the Court ruling that judges could categorically reject the 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine in the federal sentencing guidelines. Mark is a graduate of the College of William and Mary and Yale Law School. Tune in to discover how storytelling, advocacy, and courageous leadership move restorative justice from theory into action.

Arrancamos con housekeeping importante de fin de año: no hay episodio el viernes, el del domingo se graba el jueves con Zoom, y el martes 23 es el último episodio del 2025. En el tema principal entramos de lleno a la comparación que muchos están mezclando: ¿en qué se diferencia la demanda contra LUMA del caso de Valerie DACO? Explicamos por qué LUMA removió el caso al foro federal, qué puede pasar ahora y cuáles son los findings clave que separan ambos escenarios: el contrato como propiedad del deudor, el police power del gobierno como excepción al Código de Quiebras y el Public Policy and Pecuniary Interest Test. Derecho, pero explicado. Luego volvemos a #NoticieroWars para contestarle —con calma quirúrgica— a quienes no nos pueden sacar de la boca. Si hay reply, hay reply. Si fueras integrante de nuestro Patreon, hubieras escuchado este episodio ayer. Únete ahora en patreon.com/puestospalproblema! PRESENTADO POR

Higher education is operating in a more competitive, consumer-driven environment than ever before, and new data shows what actually moves the needle. In this episode, Patrick Patterson, CEO of Level Agency, and Prithwi Dasgupta, President of LeadSquared North America, join host Jason Altmire to unpack national benchmarking data, analyzing more than 500,000 student inquiries and $100 million in higher education advertising spend.The conversation explores what the data reveals about enrollment performance today, including why responding to student inquiries within the first five minutes leads to significantly higher conversion rates, how channel mix and brand building impact cost per enrollment, and where many institutions are misallocating their marketing dollars. Listen now and learn how to adjust your marketing strategy!Learn more about Level Agency here.Learn more about LeadSquared here.Read the report here.To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website.

Colonel Lawrence (Larry) Wilkerson is a retired US Army Colonel who served in the military for 31 years and was the former chief of staff to General Colin Powell in his role as Secretary of State and earlier as a General Powell's special assistant when he served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He is a Distinguished Adjunct Professor of  Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. Col. Wilkerson was an outspoken critic of the Iraq War, the Bush and Cheney White House, and the Biden administration's fueling the current military engagements underway in Ukraine and Palestine at the expense of peaceful negotiations. 

Is grad school on your radar? Join host Tasha (formerly at Boston University and USC) and IvyWise graduate school admissions expert Indhika (formerly at Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service and McCourt School of Public Policy) as they break down what you should be doing in each year of your undergraduate career to prepare for successful graduate school applications.

Chapters:0:00 Introduction and Manbun3;00 Mosharraf Zaidi and the current regime11:00 PTI's future15:25 Shahbaz Sharif23:00 War with India24:46 Nadir Ali and Entertainment content37:00 Ayurvedic Medicine vs Western Medicine 43:30 Pitfalls of Capitalism and Public Policy making55:00 Hum Jannat Jaye gai1:00:32 God and existential philosophy1:10:24 Zahid Ahmed's clip and Hamza Ali Abbasi's evolution1:17:30 Malash story1:20:30 Audience QuestionsThe Pakistan Experience is an independently produced podcast looking to tell stories about Pakistan through conversations. Please consider supporting us on Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceTo support the channel:Jazzcash/Easypaisa - 0325 -2982912Patreon.com/thepakistanexperienceAnd Please stay in touch:https://twitter.com/ThePakistanExp1https://www.facebook.com/thepakistanexperiencehttps://instagram.com/thepakistanexpeperienceThe podcast is hosted by comedian and writer, Shehzad Ghias Shaikh. Shehzad is a Fulbright scholar with a Masters in Theatre from Brooklyn College. He is also one of the foremost Stand-up comedians in Pakistan and frequently writes for numerous publications. Instagram.com/shehzadghiasshaikhFacebook.com/Shehzadghias/Twitter.com/shehzad89Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC44l9XMwecN5nSgIF2Dvivg/join

Listener survey: bit.ly/datasmartpodIn our end-of-year episode, host Stephen Goldsmith reflect on 2025's most promising advancements in local government and shares his vision for how cities can harness generative AI to drive real change. Goldsmith discusses why a problem-first approach to AI implementation matters, how cities can rebuild public trust through better community listening, and why government processes must fundamentally transform—not just be overlaid with new technology. Drawing on decades of experience, he explains how bridging the gap between data-rich officials and context-rich residents creates opportunities for meaningful, co-created solutions.Episodes mentioned: City Leadership in the AI Era with Rochelle Haynes and Carrie Bishop; Generative AI and the Possibility Government with Mitch Weiss; and Recoding America Author Interview with Jennifer Pahlka.Music credit: Summer-Man by KetsaAbout Data-Smart City SolutionsData-Smart City Solutions, housed at the Bloomberg Center for Cities at Harvard University, is working to catalyze the adoption of data projects on the local government level by serving as a central resource for cities interested in this emerging field. We highlight best practices, top innovators, and promising case studies while also connecting leading industry, academic, and government officials. Our research focus is the intersection of government and data, ranging from open data and predictive analytics to civic engagement technology. We seek to promote the combination of integrated, cross-agency data with community data to better discover and preemptively address civic problems. To learn more visit us online and follow us on Twitter. 

In the final episode of Season 2, Valerie Mirko, Partner at Armstrong Teasdale LLP and leader of the firm's Securities Regulation and Litigation Practice, joins William Nelson, Director of Public Policy and Associate General Counsel at the Investment Adviser Association, to recap a truly momentous year - one that brought a new administration, a new SEC Chairman, and the longest government shutdown in history. Valerie and William reflect on key themes and conversations from throughout the season, revisiting episodes on digital assets, artificial intelligence, corporate governance, and SEC examination and enforcement priorities. They also look ahead to 2026, offering insights into what the next six to twelve months may hold for the regulatory and policy landscape. To close out the season, we extend a heartfelt thank-you to all our incredible guests, to the D.C. Bar, and to you - our listeners - for your support and for making this podcast possible.Past Episodes of this Series:When Washington Stops: What the 2025 Shutdown Means for the SEC and Congress Going Forward (11/19/2025)⁠⁠The SEC's New Direction: Enforcement and Governance in Focus⁠⁠ (10/22/25) ⁠⁠⁠From Memecoins to Custody: What Firms Need to Know About Crypto⁠⁠⁠ (9/24/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠Corp Fin in Flux: What the SEC's Latest Moves Mean for Issuers and Investors⁠⁠⁠⁠ (8/13/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AI in the Investment Adviser Industry⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (7/16/25) ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Harnessing AI: What Attorneys and Financial Industry Professionals Need to Know⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (6/18/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEC Leadership, Crypto Policy, and FINRAs Regulatory Refresh⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (5/21/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠New Leadership, New Priorities: Paul Atkins at the SEC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (4/23/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠How the New Administration and Congress Will Shape the SEC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (3/26/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Reflecting on 30 years of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (2/26/25)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Insights on SEC Transition and Policy Priorities with Pete Driscoll⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (2/5/25)Please note, the positions and opinions expressed by the speakers are strictly their own, and do not necessarily represent the views of their employers, nor those of the D.C. Bar, its Board of Governors or co-sponsoring Communities and organizations.

Steve Forbes explains how Congressional Republicans can push back on Democrats' successful efforts to portray them as wrong on healthcare, achieve good results for the American people, and regain momentum as the midterms near.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of the Leading Voices in Food podcast, Norbert Wilson of Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy speaks with researchers Jean Adams from the University of Cambridge and Mike Essman from Duke's World Food Policy Center. They discuss the mandatory calorie labeling policy introduced in England in April 2022 for large food-away-from-home outlets. The conversation covers the study recently published in the British Medical Journal, exploring its results, strengths, limitations, and implications within the broader context of food labeling and public health policies. Key findings include a slight overall reduction in calorie content offered by food outlets, driven by the removal of higher-calorie items rather than reformulation. The discussion also touches on the potential impacts on different consumer groups, the challenges of policy enforcement, and how such policies could be improved to more effectively support public health goals. Interview Summary Now everyone knows eating out is just part of life. For many, it's a place to make connections, can be a guilty pleasure, and sometimes it's just an outright necessity for busy folks. But it is also linked to poor dietary quality, weight gain, and even obesity. For policymakers, the challenge is identifying what policy changes can help improve population health. Jean, let's begin with you. Can you tell our listeners about the UK's menu labeling intervention and what change did you hope to see? Jean - Yes, so this was a policy that was actually a really long time in coming and came in and out of favor with a number of different governments. So maybe over the last 10 years we've had various different suggestions to have voluntary and/or mandatory calorie labeling in the out-of-home sector. Eventually in April, 2022, we did have new mandatory regulations that came into a force that required large businesses just in England - so not across the whole of the UK, just in England - if they sold food and non-alcoholic drinks and they had to display the calories per portion of every item that they were selling. And then have alongside that somewhere on their menu, a statement that said that adults need around 2000 calories per day. The policy applied just to large businesses, and the definition of that was that those businesses have 250 or more employees, but the employees didn't all have to be involved in serving food and drinks. This might apply also to a large hotel chain who just have some bars or something in their hotels. And the food and drinks covered were things that were available for immediate consumption. Not prepackaged. And then there was also this proviso to allow high-end restaurants to be changing their menus regularly. So, it was only for things that were on the menu for at least 30 days. You mentioned that this policy or a menu labeling might have at least two potential modes of impacts. There's first this idea that providing calories or any sort of labeling on food can somehow provide information for consumers to make what we might hope would be better choices. Might help them choose lower calorie options or healthier options. And then the second potential impact is that businesses might also use the information to change what sort of foods they're serving. It might be that they didn't realize how many calories were in the foods and they're suddenly embarrassed about it. Or as soon as their customers realize, they start to put a little bit of pressure on, you know, we want something a little bit lower calorie. So, there's this potential mechanism that operates at the demand side of how consumers might make choices. And another one at the supply side of what might be available to consumers. And we knew from previous evaluations of these sorts of interventions that there was some evidence that both could occur. Generally, it seems to be that findings from other places and countries are maybe null to small. So, we were thinking that maybe we might see something similar in England. Thank you for sharing that background. I do have a question about the length of time it took to get this menu labeling law in place. Before we get into the results, do you have a sense of why did it take so long? Was it industry pushback? Was it just change of governments? Do you have a sense of that? Jean - Yes, so I think it's probably a bit of both. To begin with, it was first proposed as a voluntary measure actually by industry. So, we had this kind of big public-private partnership. What can industry do to support health? And that was one of the things they proposed. And then they didn't really do it very well. So, there was this idea that everybody would do it. And in fact, we found maybe only about 20% of outlets did it. And then definitely we have had government churn in the UK over the last five years or so. So, every new prime minister really came in and wanted to have their own obesity policy threw out the last one started over. And every policy needs consulted on with the public and then with industry. And that whole process just kind of got derailed over and over again. Thank you. That is really helpful to understand that development of the policy and why it took time. Industry regulated policy can be a tricky one to actually see the results that we would hope. You've already given us a sort of insight into what you thought the results may be from previous studies - null to relatively small. So, Mike, I want to turn to you. Can you tell us what came out of the data? Mike - Thank you, yes. So, we found a small overall drop in average calories offered per item. That amounts to a total of nine calories per item reduction in our post policy period relative to pre policy. And this is about a 2% reduction. It was statistically significant and we do in public health talk about how small effects can still have big impacts. So, I do want to sort of put that out there, but also recognize that it was a small overall drop in calories. And then what we did is we looked at how different food groups changed, and also how calories changed at different types of restaurants, whether it was fast food, restaurants, sit downs that we call pubs, bars, and inns. And then also other different types of takeaways like cafes and things like that where you might get a coffee or a cappuccino or something like that. What we found was driving the overall reduction in calories was a reduction in higher calorie items. So, as Jean mentioned at the outset, one of the things we were trying to identify in this analysis was whether we saw any evidence of reformulation. And we defined reformulation as whether specific products were reduced in their calories so that the same products were lower calories in the post period. We define that as reformulation. And that would be different from, say, a change in menu offering where you might identify a high calorie item and take it off the menu so that then the overall calories offered goes down on average. We found more evidence for the latter. Higher calorie items were removed. We separated into categories of removed items, items that were present in both periods, and new items added in the post period. There were higher calorie items in the removed group. The items that were present in both periods did not change. The new items were lower calorie items. What this says overall is this average reduction is driven by taking off high calorie items, adding some slightly lower calorie items. But we did not find evidence for reformulation, which is a crucial finding as well. We saw that the largest reductions occurred in burgers, beverages and a rather large mixed group called Mains. So, burgers reduced by 103 calories per item. That's pretty substantial. One of the reasons that's so large is that burgers, particularly if they're offered at a pub and might even come with fries or chips, as they say in the UK. And because they have such a high baseline calorie level, there's more opportunity to reduce. So, whether it's making it slightly smaller patty or reducing the cheese or something like that, that's where we saw larger reductions among the burgers. With beverages, typically, this involved the addition of lower calorie options, which is important if it gives an opportunity for lower calorie selections. And that was the main driver of reduction there. And then also we saw in Mains a reduction of 30 calories per item. A couple of the other things we wanted to identify is whether there was a change in the number of items that were considered over England's recommended calories per meal. The recommended calories per meal is 600 calories or less for lunch and dinner. And we saw no statistical change in that group. So overall, we do see a slight reduction in average calories. But this study did not examine changes in consumer behavior. I do want to just briefly touch on that because this was part of a larger evaluation. Another study that was published using customer surveys that was published in Nature Human Behavior found no change in the average calories purchased or consumed after the policy. This evaluation was looking at both the supply and the demand side changes as a result of this policy. Thanks, Mike and I've got lots of questions to follow up, but I'll try to control myself. The first one I'm interested to understand is you talk about the importance of the really calorie-heavy items being removed and the introduction of newer, lower calorie items. And you said that this is not a study of the demand, but I'm interested to know, do you have a sense that the higher calorie items may not have been high or top sellers. It could be easy for a restaurant to get rid of those. Do you have any sense of, you know, the types of items that were removed and of the consumer demand for those items? Mike - Yes. So, as I mentioned, given that the largest changes were occurring among burgers, we're sort of doing this triangulation attempt to examine all of the different potential impacts we can with the study tools we have. We did not see those changes reflected in consumer purchases. So, I think sticking with the evidence, the best thing we could say is that the most frequently purchased items were not the ones that were being pulled off of menus. I think that would be the closest to the evidence. Now, no study is perfect and we did in that customer survey examine the purchases and consumption of about 3000 individuals before and after the policy. It's relatively large, but certainly not fully comprehensive. But based on what we were able to find, it would seem that those reductions in large calorie items, it's probably fair to say, were sort of marginal choices. So, we see some reduction in calories at the margins. That's why the overall is down, but we don't see at the most commonly sold. I should also mention in response to that, a lot of times when we think about eating out of home, we often think about fast food. We did not see reductions in fast food chains at all, essentially. And so really the largest reductions we found were in what would be considered more sit-down dining establishment. For example, sit-down restaurants or even pubs, bars and ends was one of our other categories. We did see average reductions in those chains. The areas you kind of think about for people grabbing food quickly on the go, we did not see reductions there. And we think some of this is a function of the data itself, which is pubs, bars and inns, because they offer larger plates, there's a little bit more space for them to reduce. And so those are where we saw the reductions. But in what we might typically think is sort of the grab and go type of food, we did not see reductions in those items. And so when we did our customer surveys, we saw that those did not lead to reductions in calories consumed. Ahh, I see this and thank you for this. It sounds like the portfolio adjusted: getting rid of those heavy calorie items, adding more of the lower calorie items that may not have actually changed what consumers actually eat. Because the ones that they typically eat didn't change at all. And I would imagine from what you've said that large global brands may not have made many changes, but more local brands have more flexibility is my assumption of that. So that, that's really helpful to see. As you all looked at the literature, you had the knowledge that previous studies have found relatively small changes. Could you tell us about what this work looks like globally? There are other countries that have tried policy similar to this. What did you learn from those other countries about menu labeling? Jean - Well, I mean, I'm tempted to say that we maybe should have learned that this wasn't the sort of policy that we could expect to make a big change. To me one of the really attractive features of a labeling policy is it kind of reflects back those two mechanisms we've talked about - information and reformulation or changing menus. Because we can talk about it in those two different ways of changing the environment and also helping consumers make better choices, then it can be very attractive across the political landscape. And I suspect that that is one of the things that the UK or England learned. And that's reflected in the fact that it took a little while to get it over the line, but that lots of different governments came back to it. That it's attractive to people thinking about food and thinking about how we can support people to eat better in kind of a range of different ways. I think what we learned, like putting the literature all together, is this sort of policy might have some small effects. It's not going to be the thing that kind of changes the dial on diet related diseases. But that it might well be part of an integrated strategy of many different tools together. I think we can also learn from the literature on labeling in the grocery sector where there's been much more exploration of different types of labeling. Whether colors work, whether black stop signs are more effective. And that leads us to conclusions that these more interpretive labels can lead to bigger impacts and consumer choices than just a number, right? A number is quite difficult to make some sense of. And I think that there are some ways that we could think about optimizing the policy in England before kind of writing it off as not effective. Thank you. I think what you're saying is it worked, but it works maybe in the context of other policies, is that a fair assessment? Jean - Well, I mean, the summary of our findings, Mike's touched on quite a lot of it. We found that there was an increase in outlets adhering to the policy. That went from about 20% offered any labeling to about 80%. So, there were still some places that were not doing what they were expected to do. But there was big changes in actual labeling practice. People also told us that they noticed the labels more and they said that they used them much more than they were previously. Like there was some labeling before. We had some big increases in noticing and using. But it's... we found this no change in calories purchased or calories consumed. Which leads to kind of interesting questions. Okay, so what were they doing with it when they were using it? And maybe some people were using it to help them make lower calorie choices, but other people were trying to optimize calories for money spent? We saw these very small changes in the mean calorie of items available that Mike's described in lots of detail. And then we also did some work kind of exploring with restaurants, people who worked in the restaurant chains and also people responsible for enforcement, kind of exploring their experiences with the policy. And one of the big conclusions from that was that local government were tasked with enforcement, but they weren't provided with any additional resources to make that happen. And for various reasons, it essentially didn't happen. And we've seen that with a number of different policies in the food space in the UK. That there's this kind of presumption of compliance. Most people are doing it all right. We're not doing it a hundred percent and that's probably because it's not being checked and there's no sanction for not following the letter of the law. One of the reasons that local authorities are not doing enforcement, apart from that they don't have resources or additional resources for it, is that they have lots of other things to do in the food space, and they see those things as like higher risk. And so more important to do. One of those things is inspecting for hygiene, making sure that the going out is not poisonous or adulterated or anything like that. And you can absolutely understand that. These things that might cause acute sickness, or even death in the case of allergies, are much more important for them to be keeping an eye on than labeling. One of the other things that emerged through the process of implementation, and during our evaluation, was a big concern from communities with experience of eating disorders around kind of a greater focus on calorie counting. And lots of people recounting their experience that they just find that very difficult to be facing in a space where they're maybe not trying to think about their eating disorder or health. And then they're suddenly confronted with it. And when we've gone back and looked at the literature, there's just not very much literature on the impact of calorie labeling on people with eating disorders. And so we're a little bit uncertain still about whether that is a problem, but it's certainly perceived to be a problem. And lots of people find the policy difficult for that reason because they know someone in their family or one of their friends with an eating disorder. And they're very alert to that potential harm. I think this is a really important point to raise that the law, the menu labeling, could have differential effects on different consumers. I'm not versed in this literature on the triggering effects of seeing menu labeling for people with disordered eating. But then I'm also thinking about a different group of consumers. Consumers who are already struggling with obesity, and whether or not this policy is more effective for those individuals versus folks who are not. In the work that you all did, did you have any sense of are there heterogeneous effects of the labeling? Did different consumers respond differentially to seeing the menu label? Not just, for example, individuals maybe with disordered eating? Mike - In this work, we mostly focused on compliance, customer responses in terms of consumption and purchases, changes in menus, and customers reporting whether or not they increase noticing and using. When we looked at the heterogeneous effects, some of these questions are what led us to propose a new project where we interviewed people and tried to understand their responses to calorie labeling. And there we get a lot of heterogenous groups. In those studies, and this work has not actually been published, but should be in the new year, we found that there's a wide range of different types of responses to the policy. For example, there may be some people who recently started going to the gym and maybe they're trying to actually bulk up. And so, they'll actually choose higher calorie items. Conversely, there may be people who have a fitness routine or a dieting lifestyle that involves calorie tracking. And they might be using an app in order to enter the calories into that. And those people who are interested in calorie counting, they really loved the policy. They really wanted the policy. And it gave them a sense of control over their diet. And they felt comfortable and were really worried that if there was evidence that it wouldn't work, that would be taken away. Then you have a whole different group of people who are living with eating disorders who don't want to interact with those numbers when they are eating out of home. They would rather eat socially and not have to think about those challenges. There's really vast diversity in terms of the responses to the policy. And that does present a challenge. And I think what it also does is cause us just to question what is the intended mechanism of action of this policy? Because when the policy was implemented, there's an idea of a relatively narrow set of effects. If customers don't understand the number of calories that are in their items, you just provide them with the calories that are in those items, they will then make better choices as rational actors. But we know that eating out of home is far more complex. It's social. There are issues related to value for money. So maybe people want to make sure they're purchasing food that hasn't been so reduced in portions that now they don't get the value for money when they eat out. There are all sorts of body image related challenges when people may eat out. We didn't find a lot of evidence of this in our particular sample, but also in some of our consultation with the public in developing the interview, there's concern about judgment from peers when eating out. So, it's a very sensitive topic. Some of the implications of that are we do probably need more communication strategies that can come alongside these policies and sort of explain the intended mechanism impact to the public. We can't expect to simply add numbers to items and then expect that people are going to make the exact choices that are sort of in the best interest of public health. And that sort of brings us on to some potential alternative mechanisms of impact and other modes of labeling, and those sorts of things. Mike, this has been really helpful because you've also hinted at some of the ways that this policy as implemented, could have been improved. And I wonder, do you have any other thoughts to add to how to make a policy like this have a bigger impact. Mike - Absolutely. One of the things that was really helpful when Jean laid out her framing of the policy was there's multiple potential mechanisms of action. One of those is the potential reformulation in menu change. We talked about those results. Another intended mechanism of action is through consumer choice. So, if items have fewer calories on average, then that could reduce ultimately calories consumed. Or if people make choices of lower calorie items, that could also be a way to reduce the overall calories consumed. And I would say this calorie labeling policy, it is a step because the calories were not previously available. People did not know what they were eating. And if you provide that, that fulfills the duty of transparency by businesses. When we spoke to people who worked in enforcement, they did support the policy simply on the basis of transparency because it's important for people to understand what they're consuming. And so that's sort of a generally acceptable principle. However, if we want to actually have stronger population health impact, then we do need to have stronger mechanisms of action. One of the ways that can reduce calories consumed by the consumers, so the sort of demand side, would be some of the interpretive labels. Jean mentioned them earlier. There's now a growing body of evidence of across, particularly in Latin America. I would say some of the strongest evidence began in Chile, but also in Mexico and in other Latin American countries where they've put warning labels on items in order to reduce their consumption. These are typically related to packaged foods is where most of the work has been done. But in order to reduce consumer demand, what it does is rather than expecting people to be sort of doing math problems on the fly, as they go around and make their choices, you're actually just letting them know, well, by the way, this is an item that's very high in calories or saturated fat, or sodium or sugars. Or some combination of those. What that does is you've already helped make that decision for the consumers. You've at least let them know this item has a high level of nutrients of concern. And you can take that away. Conversely, if you have an item that's 487 calories, do you really know what you're going to do with that information? So that's one way to have stronger impact. The other way that that type of policy can have stronger impact is it sets clear thresholds for those warnings. And so, when you have clear thresholds for warnings, you can have a stronger mechanism for reformulation. And what companies may want to do is they may not want to display those warning labels, maybe because it's embarrassing. It makes their candy or whatever the unhealthy food look bad. Sort of an eyesore, which is the point. And what they'll do is they can reformulate those nutrients to lower levels so that they no longer qualify for that regulation. And so there are ways to essentially strengthen both of those mechanisms of action. Whereas when it's simply on the basis of transparency, then what that does is leave all of the decision making and work on the consumer. Mike, this is great because I've worked with colleagues like Gabby Fretes and Sean Cash and others on some menu labeling out of Chile. And we're currently doing some work within the center on food nutrition labels to see how different consumers are responding. There's a lot more work to be done in this space. And, of course, our colleagues at UNC (University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) have also been doing this work. So, this work is really important because it tells us how it can help consumers make different choices, and how it can affect how companies behave. My final question to the two of you is simply, what would you like policymakers to learn from this study? Or maybe not just this study alone, but this body of work. What should they take away? Jean - Well, I think there's lots of information out there on how to do food labeling well, and we can certainly learn from that. And Mike talks about the work from South America particularly where they're helping people identify the least healthy products. And they're also providing messaging around what you should do with that - like choose a product with fewer of these black symbols. But I think even if labeling is optimized, it's not really going to solve our problem of dietary related diseases. And I think I always want policymakers to know, and I think many of them do understand this, that there is no one magic solution and we need to be thinking about labeling as part of a strategy that addresses marketing in its entirety, right? Companies are using all sorts of strategies to encourage us to buy products. We need to be thinking of all sorts of strategies to support people to buy different products and to eat better. And I think that focuses on things like rebalancing price, supporting people to afford healthier food, focusing advertising and price promotions on healthier products. And I also think we need to be looking even further upstream though, right? That we need to be thinking about the incentives that are driving companies to make and sell less healthy products. Because I don't think that they particularly want to be selling less healthy products or causing lots of illness. It's those products are helping them achieve their aims of creating profit and growth for their shareholders. And I think we need to find creative ways to support companies to experiment with healthier products that either help them simultaneously achieve those demands of profit or growth. Or somehow allow them to step away from those demands either for a short period or for a longer period. I think that that requires us to kind of relook at how we do business in economics in our countries. Mike? Yes, I think that was a really thorough answer by Jean. So, I'll just add a couple points. I think most fundamentally what we need to think about when we're doing policy making to improve diet is we need to always think about are we helping to make the healthier choice the easier choice? And what that means is we're not implementing policies that merely provide information that then require individuals to do the rest of the work. We need to have a food environment that includes healthier options that are easily accessible, but also affordable. That's one thing that's come through in quite a lot of the work we've done. There are a lot of concerns about the high cost of food. If people feel like the healthier choices are also affordable choices, that's one of many ways to support the easier choice. And I really just want to reiterate what Jean said in terms of the economics of unhealthy food. In many ways, these large multinational corporations are from their perspective, doing right by their shareholders by producing a profitable product. Now there are debates on whether or not that's a good thing, of course. There's quite a lot of evidence for the negative health impacts of ultra-processed (UPF) products, and those are getting a lot more attention these days and that's a good thing. What we do need to think about is why is it that UPFs are so widely consumed. In many ways they are optimized to be over consumed. They're optimized to be highly profitable. Because the ingredients that are involved in their production means that they can add a lot of salt, sugar, and fat. And what that does is lead to overconsumption. We need to think about that there's something fundamentally broken about this incentive structure. That is incentivizing businesses to sell unhealthy food products with these food additives that lead to over consumption, obesity, and the associated comorbidities. And if we can start to make a little progress and think creatively about how could we incentivize a different incentive structure. One where actually it would be in a food business's best interest to be much more innovative and bolder and produce healthier products for everyone. That's something that I think we will have to contend with because if we are thinking that we are only going to be able to restrict our way out of this, then that's very difficult. Because people still need to have healthy alternatives, and so we can't merely think about restricting. We also have to think about how do we promote access to healthier foods. This is great insight. I appreciate the phrasing of making the healthy choice the easy choice, and I also heard a version of this making the healthy choice the affordable choice. But it also seems like we need to find ways to make the healthy choice the profitable choice as well. Bios: Jean Adams is a Professor of Dietary Public Health and leads the Population Health Interventions Programme at the University of Cambridge MRC Epidemiology Unit. Adams trained in medicine before completing a PhD on socio-economic inequalities in health. This was followed by an MRC Health of the Population fellowship and an NIHR Career Development Fellowship both exploring influences on health behaviours and socio-economic inequalities in these. During these fellowships Jean was appointed Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in Public Health at Newcastle University. Jean moved to Cambridge University to join the MRC Epidemiology Unit and CEDAR in 2014 where she helped establish the Dietary Public Health group. She became Programme Leader in the newly formed Population Health Interventions programme in 2020, and was appointed Professor of Dietary Public Health in 2022. Mike Essman is a Research Scientist at Duke University's World Food Policy Center. His background is in evaluating nutrition and food policies aimed at improving diets and preventing cardiometabolic diseases. His work employs both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore drivers of dietary behavior, particularly ultra-processed food consumption, across diverse environments and countries. Mike earned his PhD in Nutrition Epidemiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where his research focused on evaluating the impacts of a sugary beverage tax in South Africa. He completed MSc degrees in Medical Anthropology and Global Health Science at the University of Oxford through a fellowship. Prior to joining Duke, he conducted research at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, where he evaluated the impacts of calorie labeling policies in England and led a study examining public perceptions of ultra-processed foods.  

Renée DiResta, Lawfare contributing editor and associate research professor at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy, and Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare senior editor and associate professor of law the University of Minnesota, spoke with Jacob Mchangama, research professor of political science at Vanderbilt University and founder of The Future of Free Speech, and Jacob Shapiro, the John Foster Dulles Professor of International Affairs at Princeton University. The conversation covered the findings of a new report examining how AI models handle contested speech; comparative free speech regulations across six jurisdictions; empirical testing of how major chatbots respond to politically sensitive prompts; and the tension between free expression principles and concerns about manipulation in AI systems. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Nathan Fabian, Chief Sustainable Systems Officer at the PRI, examines rising economic inequality and why it poses a material, systemic risk for long-term investors. He is joined by Delaney Greig (Director of Investor Stewardship, University Pension Plan Ontario), Emma Douglas (Sustainable Investment & Stewardship Lead, Brightwell; BT Pension Scheme), and David Wood (Adjunct Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School).Together, they explore how inequality affects economic stability, corporate performance, long-horizon portfolio returns, and what asset owners can do to respond.OverviewTen years after the adoption of the SDGs, inequality is increasing across major economies. The top 1% now holds over 40% of global wealth, and widening gaps in income, labour rights and access to opportunity are shaping economic and political outcomes.The guests discuss:Why inequality is a non-diversifiable, systemic riskHow it undermines growth, resilience and productivityThe implications for diversified investorsThe interplay between inequality, climate, nature and social outcomesHow asset owners can use stewardship, integration and policy engagement to address key driversDetailed Coverage1. Why inequality matters for investorsDelaney and Emma outline why rising inequality threatens long-term returns: weakening demand, increasing volatility, reducing workforce resilience, and fuelling political instability. Both highlight evidence linking excessive pay gaps and poor labour practices to weaker corporate performance.2. What the research showsDavid summarises major findings from the IMF, OECD and others showing that inequality constrains growth rather than accelerates it. He notes that investors have clearer data and frameworks today than ever before, and that social issues have become central to responsible investment.3. Making inequality actionableEmma discusses a new analysis tool developed with Cambri to map social risks across sectors, revealing under-examined areas such as technology, media and natural-resource-intensive industries.Delaney explains UPP's “top-and-bottom guardrails” approach, engaging on excessive executive pay at the top and fundamental labour rights at the bottom.4. Stewardship, integration and policyThe panel discusses:Embedding social risks into investment processesSector-level prioritisationCollective action on labour rightsThe emerging TISFD standardHow investors should (and should not) engage in political debates around taxation, labour markets and redistribution5. Looking aheadGuests reflect on:Strengthening investor–manager dialogueIntegrating inequality into capital allocation decisionsOpportunities in areas such as affordable housingAddressing market concentration and competition issuesThe need for aligned, collective advocacy from asset ownersChapters(0:00) - Introduction: Economic Inequality and Investment Risk (2:29) - Delaney Greg: Why Inequality Matters for Pension Plans (4:50) - Emma Douglas: Systemic Risk and Investment Opportunities (7:16) - David Wood: Research on Inequality and Growth (9:21) - Understanding the Drivers of Economic Inequality (11:51) - Emma's Approach: Using Data and AI for Social Risk Analysis (15:01) - Delaney's Strategy: Top-End and Bottom-End Guardrails (17:55) - Measuring Impact and Defining Success in Inequality Work (20:16) -...

Where does BC stand with DRIPA and what should be done next? Guest: Spencer Chandra Herbert, Minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation Talking to the Emergency Minister Guest: Kelly Greene, bc minister of emergency management Feeling Burnt out?  You might have ‘festive exhaustion'! Guest: Amanda Jewson, sleep expert with over 17 years of experience in the education and sleep consulting industry Is it a good idea to use a “Buy now and pay later” program? Guest: Vivek Astvansh, Associate Professor of Quantitative Marketing and Analytics, McGill Santa Fox 50/50 to help SHARE Family & Community Services Guest: Claire MacLean, Chief Executive Officer, SHARE Family & Community Services Are more MPs going to cross the floor and join the Liberals? Guest: Asa McKercher, Research Chair in Canada-US Relations and Associate Professor in Public Policy and Governance at St. Francis Xavier University Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why is there so much dumb public policy and what can we do about it?There's government money to address a service need in just about every arena, which is great. But the flip side of that is the rules that are attached to that money. The rules about who can be served, how they can be served, under what circumstances, how money can be spent. All those rules, more often than not, get in the way of Nonprofits' ability to provide a high-quality service that is going to actually solve the problem. It happens so often that we start to think that's just the way it always is. I had a conversation recently with one of my clients who expressed this exact sentiment. She had been dealing with a number of really stupid public policy problems. And one day in exasperation, she just said, “public policy is just bad. It never works.”  My initial reaction to that was to argue with her. But the fact is, a lot of the time that's true. The problem with operating from that frame is two things really. One, it presumes things can't be changed. And two, it keeps you operating under a set of limitations that are tangibly impairing your ability to deliver the exceptional outcomes you want to create. It's time to take apart why so much public policy is such a mess. And then look at what we can do about it – without devoting our entire lives to changing public policy. Because we have other work we have to do.  There really are things that we can do. And you'll not be surprised to learn that a lot of them center on our messaging and engagement strategies. In this episode, we share:The three main causes of unhelpful, counterproductive public policy around fundingHow good intentions result in some of the worst policy decisionsThe biggest mistake Nonprofit leaders often make when trying to get decisionmakers to change an unhelpful policyWhy your best policy analysis will likely be ignored if you offer it at the wrong point in the processThe perspective shift we must be able to make in order to motivate the decisionmaker to help solve the problem they createdHow to create powerful metaphors that will help decisionmakers see the flaws in their policy Ready to take your messaging and engagement skills to the next level and start getting next-level results? The wait list for my new coaching program is now open. Only 10 Founding Member spots will be available. Claim yours by sending me a message here: On the Podcast websiteOn LinkedIn

Have you ever spent over a fortnight in Antarctica? Jess Styles recounts a fabulous experience with Homeward Bound doing exactly that!My guest today is Jess Styles who earlier this year spent 16 days on a ship in Antarctica with 120 other women leaders in STEM. Not only did she learn a lot about leadership, ice and penguins... she had the opportunity to self-reflect and heal having undergone cancer treatment only months before. Join Jess and me for this fascinating reflection. Jess, on what she learned:"In Antarctica, we saw extreme nature and got to see places no human has ever set foot in before which was really special. With 120 other STEM leaders onboard our ship over the 16 days, I learned a lot about leadership and what kind of leader I aspire to be. A big part of my learning was self-discovery. Taking time out for me was really important and I'd encourage everyone to do that: take time out for yourself because it isn't selfish - it's needed. It was very freeing to have that time to work out what I really want to do."Links:For Career & Leadership coaching, connect with Rebecca Allen on Linkedin or visit the Illuminate website Rate, Review, & Follow our Show on Apple Podcasts:Also, if you haven't done so already, follow the podcast. We air every week and I don't want you to miss out on a single broadcast. Follow now!About Jess:Jess Styles is a graduate of Human Biology and Psychology with a Masters degree in Social and Public Policy. She has worked for the public service, not-for-profit and private sectors to support health and wellbeing outcomes for Australians, using her knowledge and experience to connect and understand people.Currently working to support outcomes in social policy and gender equality for education, Jess has also had roles in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health space, supporting work in closing the gap in health inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.  She has previous experience in supporting mental health research in current serving and recently discharged military veterans, and their families to support policy change and clinical outcomes for the Australian Defence Force.About Rebecca:Rebecca Allen is a Career & Leadership Coach for corporate women, aspiring to senior levels of leadership. Over the last decade, Rebecca has helped women realise their potential at companies including Woolworths, ANZ, J.P. Morgan, PwC, Coca-Cola Amatil, Ministry of Defence, Frontier Sensing and AbbVie Medical Research through her Roadmap to Senior Leadership coaching programs. 

Jim Duffy is joined by David D. Cole, Professor of Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University and former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. They discuss the US President's invocation of emergency powers to deport, to attack vessels on the high seas, and to impose sweeping international trade tariffs. Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. This episode was co-produced by 1 Crown Office Row and Emma Darlow Stearn. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.

In Season 3, Navigating Major Programmes expanded the podcast's primary goal—to go beyond the tools and frameworks of program delivery into the humanity behind it—with amazing results. In this wrap-up episode, Riccardo reviews the past year, celebrating the panelists, guests, and listeners who make the show possible. He highlights salient points from Uncharted Conversations and Master Builders, points that truly capture the breadth and depth these collaborators have achieved, both behind the mic and every day in their roles as leaders and innovators.With nearly twice as many episodes and double the weekly listeners from Season 2, the 2025 season gave Riccardo and his co-hosts and guests so many opportunities to explore both the big picture thinking and practical applications that are shaping—and shaking up—the industry today. In January 2026, Navigating Major Programmes will return for season 4 with even more inspiring stories, game-changing ideas, and disruptive conversations about the future of program management.Disclaimer: Navigating Major Programmes believes in adapting with technological advances. This episode was narrated by an AI-generated voice of the program host.Key Takeaways:What this season taught the hosts about what you—the listener—want to hear;Riccardo's favourite episodes, to listen back on during the break;What to expect in season 4, including a brand new series. Quote:“The future of this industry will be built by those who lead with humanity.” - Riccardo CosentinoThe conversation doesn't stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:Listen to Episode 4, The Human Side of Major Projects with Melissa Di Marco: https://navigating-major-programmes-2a01b27b.simplecast.com/episodes/the-human-side-of-major-projects-with-melissa-di-marco-master-builders-s3-ep4Listen to Episode 10, The Powerful Impact of Specialization and Dedication on Long-Haul Projects with Wendy Itagawa: https://navigating-major-programmes-2a01b27b.simplecast.com/episodes/the-powerful-impact-of-specialization-and-dedication-on-long-haul-projects-with-wendy-itagawaListen to Episode 16, Public–Private Partnerships Part 2: Contracts, Contractors, and True Collaboration: https://navigating-major-programmes-2a01b27b.simplecast.com/episodes/publicprivate-partnerships-part-2-contracts-contractors-and-true-collaborationFollow Navigating Major Programmes: https://www.linkedin.com/company/navigating-major-programmes/Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cosentinoriccardo/Read Riccardo's latest at: https://riccardocosentino.com/ Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Joining State of Tel Aviv and Beyond today is Professor Suzie Navot, one of Israel's foremost constitutional law experts currently serving as Vice President of the Israel Democracy Institute.For six years now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been on trial for multiple corruption charges. He does not hide his contempt for the judicial system which he considers to be rotten to the core. A consistent theme of his leadership for the last decade has been to relentlessly attack the judiciary and law enforcement institutions for being an elitist, self-serving clique that is also left leaning and determined to sabotage the policies of his successive government coalitions. Most recently, Netanyahu has enlisted the support of U.S. President Trump to publicly pressure President Isaac Herzog to grant him a pardon; to make the charges and the trial just go away. Two months ago, in signature Trump larger-than-life theatrics, the American president implored his Israeli counterpart to just give Bibi a pardon already. Raucous applause filled the Knesset hall - where Trump was speaking - but the din has since died down. Pardoning Netanyahu is no simple matter - legally, politically or in terms of social mores. But Netanyahu is not relenting. In the last two weeks, Bibi and his lawyer sent written documents to President Herzog setting out what they state is the legal rationale for granting a pardon. Interestingly, they present Netanyahu as the man who is needed to heal the country and manage the security and diplomatic challenges free from distractions - like the trial. But, as Prof. Navot notes - Benjamin Netanyahu is charged personally with corruption-related offenses. He is not the state. And he is not above the law. With clarity and precision, Prof. Navot explains why the Netanyahu pardon request does not meet Israeli legal requirements and this request places President Herzog in a very difficult spot.Show your support for STLV at buymeacoffee.com/stateoftelavivPodcast NotesProfessor Suzie Navot is a Professor of Constitutional Law. She holds an LL. B degree from Tel-Aviv University, an MA in Public Policy from Tel-Aviv University and a LL.D from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her doctoral thesis studied the parliamentary immunity of the Knesset members.Prof. Navot's areas of research include constitutional law, law of institutions, parliamentary law and comparative constitutional law.Prior to her appointment to IDI. she served on the faculty of the Striks Faculty of Law, College of Management. For over ten years, she served as a visiting Professor at the National Security College, and from 2009 until 2015, as a visiting Professor at the University of Paris (Sorbonne).Navot has served as the Chairperson of the Israeli Association of Public Law (2014-2017), currently serves on the executive council of the Israeli Association of Legislation and is a member of the Executive Council of the International Association of Constitutional Law (IACL).She is active in a wide range of public activities. A small selection of these activities includes her service on public commissions dealing with such issues as an Ethics Code for the Israeli Parliament, the Presidential volunteers' award; the preparation of a new law on election propaganda (appointed by the Israeli President and the Chair of the Central Elections Committee), and was appointed by the Prime Minster to the board of directors for the Civil Service education program. Since 2021, Prof. Navot serves as a member of the commission tasked with preparing a draft of the Basic Law: The Legislature, presided by the Minister of Justice.Navot has published widely in several languages. She has prepared written opinions for Knesset committees and for the President of Israel on constitutional questions. She received a special award from the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the prestigious Zeltner prize for a special contribution to Israeli society in the field of law, and the “Ometz” award for a special contribution to the battle against corruption.In recognition of her extraordinary teaching skills, Navot was the recipient of the teaching excellence nomination, for almost 30 consecutive years, and the Inspiring Lecturer award, by the National Students Union.State of Tel Aviv is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.stateoftelaviv.com/subscribe

On this week's episode, The Supreme Court hears major test of presidential power over Trump's firing of FTC commissioner. Dan is joined by guests Don Kettl, Professor Emeritus and Former Dean at University of Maryland School of Public Policy and Stanley Brand, Distinguished Fellow in Law and Government at Penn State Dickinson Law and a Washington, D.C.-based criminal defense lawyer.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How has China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transformed itself into one of the most assertive diplomatic actors on the global stage? What explains the rise of “wolf warrior” practices, and how should we interpret Beijing's evolving diplomatic identity? In this episode, Duncan McCargo speaks with Dylan Loh, an Associate Professor in the Public Policy and Global Affairs programme at Nanyang Technological University (Dr. Dylan M.H. Loh - Associate Professor | International Relations Scholar | Chinese Foreign Policy), about his award-winning new book China's Rising Foreign Ministry: Practices and Representations of Assertive Diplomacy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Dylan Loh unpacks how Chinese diplomats craft narratives and balance assertiveness with professionalism, touching on institutional habitus, ritualised loyalty, and China's bid for discourse power on platforms like X. This conversation offers timely insights for anyone interested in Chinese foreign policy, diplomacy, and the future of great-power relations. Host: Duncan McCargo is President's Chair in Global Affairs at Nanyang Technological University. Podcast Editing: Ishaan Krishnan Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Why is freedom to read so important? I think we take for granted the idea that a multiplicity of voices are accessible to us, and our libraries are places that represent the voices of everyone in the community. There's a court case called Little v Llano just came out of the 5th district of the 5th circuit court of appeals, the district covers Texas and Louisiana. This court case is threatening one of the most essential freedoms that we have which is a couple of First Amendment precedents that were established in the 60s-70s that say that very thing -- that books cannot be removed from the shelves based on just disagreeing with the partisan ideas or the ideas wherein...the threats to these freedoms are very real, and what I try to do is get out the urgent message that we could see the Supreme Court weaken the first amendment as it comes to free expression, as it comes to the freedom to read, as it comes to the ability to read what you want, think what you want about it, write what you want, and I don't know what could be more fundamental than that. That's the message I'm really trying to get across. ~ Rosie StewartRosalie (Rosie) Stewart is Senior Manager of Public Policy at Penguin Random House. A skilled grassroots organizer with a passion for youth, LGBTQ+ advocacy, and championing the freedom to read, Rosie has extensive experience working at the federal, state, and local levels on issues including appropriations, intellectual freedom, and voting access. Rosie is a graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government 

Alan J. Kuperman, an associate professor at the LBJ School of Public Policy, University of Texas, talks with co-hosts Llewellyn King and Adam Clayton Powell III about whether U.S. nuclear energy policy could accelerate weapons proliferation.

This episode, from our November National Conference, explores one of healthcare's most persistent challenges: how hospitals and health plans can move from operating at cross-purposes to truly rowing in the same direction. Our guests are Danielle Lloyd, SVP of Private Market Innovations and Quality Initiatives, AHIP and Molly Smith, Group VP for Public Policy, American Hospital Association. Led by moderator Stephan Rubin from Optum, Danielle and Molly dig into the misconceptions that providers and payers often hold about each other and discuss how better data transparency, shared incentives, and policy alignment — including recent CMS rules such as 0057F — can help bridge long-standing divides. The 3 examine the future of prior authorization, the promise and limits of interoperability initiatives like TEFCA and the CMS Aligned Network, and why value-based care still struggles to scale despite years of policy focus. Finally, they look ahead to the role of AI, automation, and emerging data standards in reshaping care delivery and payment, and ask what real payer-provider collaboration must look like to deliver a more seamless, efficient, and patient-centered healthcare system.

“Delivering a baby one day and holding a patient's hand at the end of life literally the next day...that continuity is very powerful,” says Dr. Jen Brull, board chair of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). And as she points out, that continuity also builds trust with patients, an increasingly valuable commodity when faith in medicine and science is declining. As you might expect given her role, Dr. Brull believes strengthening family medicine is the key to improving health and healthcare. Exactly how to do that is at the heart of her conversation with host Lindsey Smith on this episode of Raise the Line, which covers ideas for payment reform, reducing administrative burdens, and stronger support for physician well-being. And with a projected shortage of nearly forty thousand primary care physicians, Dr. Brull also shares details on AAFP's “Be There First” initiative which is designed to attract service-minded medical students – whom she describes as family physicians at heart -- early in their educational journey. “I have great hope that increasing the number of these service-first medical students will fill part of this gap.”Tune-in for an informative look at a cornerstone of the healthcare system and what it means to communities of all sizes throughout the nation.  Mentioned in this episode:AAFP If you like this podcast, please share it on your social channels. You can also subscribe to the series and check out all of our episodes at www.osmosis.org/podcast

Rural populations are shrinking. In 11 of the 29 OECD countries included in the OECD Reinforcing Rural Resilience report (https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/reinforcing-rural-resilience_7cd485e3-en.html), rural populations are declining, not only as percentage of national populations but also in absolute numbers. Rural regions close to cities are also exposed to this trend, particularly if their populations tend more easily to move to urban areas. Despite not being an OECD Member country, Kazakhstan is experiencing similar trends. During the Soviet Union, its urban population was 53% but today that percentage has increased to 63%. Now only 37% of its population is living in rural areas, with only 5% of its GDP coming from the agricultural sector. Discussing all things decentralisation, digitalisation and democracy in Kazakhstan, Shayne MacLachlan from the OECD has a conversation with Zhanerke Kochiigit. This conversation took place at the 2025 OECD Latin American Rural Development Conference, Rural-Urban Connections: Pathways to Sustainable Development (https://www.oecd.org/en/events/2025/11/oecd-latin-american-rural-development-conference.html) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Have a listen. Zhanerke Kochiigit is a researcher in Nazarbayev University, located in Astana, Kazakhstan. She works in the Graduate School of Public Policy and is dedicated to studying rural development in northern regions of Kazakhstan, where there is very low population density. Her recent papers include: "Analysis of Migration Processes and Recommendations on Regulation of Internal Migration from Southern to Northern Regions of Kazakhstan" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345845312_Analysis_of_Migration_Processes_and_Recommendations_on_Regulation_of_Internal_Migration_from_Southern_to_Northern_Regions_of_Kazakhstan?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InByb2ZpbGUiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSJ9fQ and " Actual aspects of population migration from labor surplus to the labor-deficit regions of Kazakhstan and state regulation of migration processes" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328552379_Actual_aspects_of_population_migration_from_labor_surplus_to_the_labor-deficit_regions_of_Kazakhstan_and_state_regulation_of_migration_processes. She previously worked at Eli Lilly and Company as a Product Manager. https://www.linkedin.com/in/zhanerke-kochiigit-7ab130b9/?originalSubdomain=kz **** To learn more, visit OECD Latin American Rural Development Conference https://www.oecd.org/en/events/2025/11/oecd-latin-american-rural-development-conference.html and the OECD's work on Rural Development https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/rural-development.html. Find out more on these topics by reading Reinforcing Rural Resilience https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/reinforcing-rural-resilience_7cd485e3-en.html and Rural Innovation Pathways https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/rural-innovation-pathways_c86de0f4-en.html. To learn more about the OECD, our global reach, and how to join us, go to www.oecd.org/about/ To keep up with latest at the OECD, visit www.oecd.org/ Get the latest OECD content delivered directly to your inbox! Subscribe to our newsletters: www.oecd.org/newsletters

This hour, we look at the political erasure of history, and its impacts. Plus, we talk about why artists destroy their own work or the works of others. And, the history and evolution of erasers. GUESTS: Jason Stanley: Bissell-Heyd-Associates Chair in American Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto. His latest book is Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future Preminda Jacob: Associate Dean of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, where she is also an Associate Professor of Art History and Museum Studies Caroline Weaver: Former shopkeeper at CW Pencil Enterprise, a pencil shop in New York City. She is founder of The Locavore Guide and author of The Pencil Perfect: The Untold Story of a Cultural Icon Join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to The Noseletter, an email compendium of merriment, secrets, and ancient wisdom brought to you by The Colin McEnroe Show. The Colin McEnroe Show is available as a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, TuneIn, Listen Notes, or wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe and never miss an episode! Colin McEnroe and Dylan Reyes contributed to this show, which originally aired on April 23, 2025.Support the show: http://www.wnpr.org/donateSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Carol Platt Liebau, President of the Yankee Institute for Public Policy & Salem National News & Public Affairs Board Member, discusses the crisis of our young men, the role parents, society, and culture plays in properly rearing children, the profound loss of the late Charlie Kirk as a guiding voice for young men, and more!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of The Puck, Jim Baer sits down with Jack Goldstone—the Hazel Chair Professor of Public Policy at George Mason University and one of the world's foremost scholars on revolutions and social change. Goldstone has advised the National Intelligence Council, the World Bank, and the U.S. State and Defense Departments. His latest book, Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction, distills decades of research into why societies unravel—or endure. Jim and Jack explore how rising debt, political polarization, elite fragmentation, and declining public trust mirror the early stages of historic revolutionary periods. They discuss China's global ambitions, the impact of social media algorithms, the stagnation facing America's working class, and what it would take to restore stability and rebuild a shared national purpose. Goldstone offers a candid assessment of where the U.S. stands in 2025—and why compassionate, unifying leadership will be essential to avoid deeper turmoil. A wide-ranging and timely conversation about the forces reshaping democracy, the risks ahead, and the paths that might still lead America toward renewal.

In this episode of Walk Talk Listen, Maurice Bloem speaks with Sara Rahim, a global interfaith practitioner and youth leader working at the intersection of belonging, inclusion, and social transformation. Sara is part of the Programming Team of ACWAY, supporting young leaders across regions who are building bridges across difference through interfaith cooperation and grassroots leadership. With a decade of experience in network cultivation, health equity, workforce development, and intercultural engagement, she has helped design and lead initiatives that move inclusion from theory into daily practice. Sara has addressed major platforms on the role of interfaith action, including the White House, the United Nations, and multiple G20 Interfaith Forums. She is a Global Shaper with the World Economic Forum and previously served as a UN Youth Representative for the Parliament of the World's Religions. She holds a Master of Public Policy from the University of Chicago. In this conversation, we explore: how her understanding of belonging formed early in life what youth leadership really looks like today how interfaith engagement translates into everyday work why inclusion is not an “extra,” but a responsibility and how she responds to the powerful question passed on by Benny Rietveld: “What are you doing to help?” This episode is about becoming, choosing to help in quiet but structural ways, and discovering where belonging begins.   Listener Engagement: Discover the songs picked by Sara and other guests on our #walktalklisten here. Also check out Sara's own playlist here.  Learn more about Sara via her LinkedIn, and the ACWAY Instagram account and their website. Share your feedback on this episode through our Walk Talk Listen Feedback link – your thoughts matter! Follow Us: Support the Walk Talk Listen podcast by following us on Facebook and Instagram. Visit 100mile.org or mauricebloem.com for more episodes and information about our work. Check out the special series "Enough for All" and learn more about the work of the Joint Learning Initiative (JLI).

The Alliance for Civics in the Academy hosted "Comparative Civics: Beyond Western Civ" with Dongxian Jiang, Shadi Bartsch, Simon Sihang Luo, and Peter Levine on December 10, 2025, from 9:00-10:00 a.m. PT. There is broad agreement that effective citizenship requires a firm understanding of the history and principles of the American constitutional system. But what about the insights, lessons, and perspectives that can be drawn from foreign contexts? How might the study of other societies–including those with autocratic systems or markedly different cultural traditions–enhance one's preparation for effective American citizenship? This webinar explores what global perspectives can teach us about citizenship and democracy at home. Panelists: Dongxian Jiang: Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies, Department of Languages and Cultures, Fordham University.  Shadi Bartsch: Helen A Regenstein Professor of Classics; Director Emerita, Institute on the Formation of Knowledge, University of Chicago Simon Sihang Luo: Nanyang Assistant Professor, Public Policy and Global Affairs Programme, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Moderator: Peter Levine: Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship & Public Service, Tufts University; Executive Committee Members, Alliance for Civics in the Academy 

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/44NZ88R Market Volatility, Small Cap Performance, and Corporate Takeovers: A Comprehensive Market Update In this episode, we cover the Fed's anticipated rate cut, the current state of credit spreads, and the mixed performance of sectors with a focus on semiconductors. We analyze the significant increase in negative earnings within the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index post-financial crisis and highlight the importance of selectivity in small cap investing. We also discuss President Zelensky's visit to London, Netflix's bid to acquire Warner Brothers Discovery, and the White House's concerns about the deal. Other topics include the executive order on AI regulation, China's compliance with new trade agreements, and the state of the U.S. labor market. We provide insights into New York City's office vacancy rates, the Bank of Japan's expected rate hike, and recent fluctuations in oil prices and infrastructure stocks. Additional information is available on DivaidendCafe.com, including a discussion on the yen carry trade and its potential future impact on stocks. 00:00 Market Overview and Rate Cuts 00:30 Equity Volatility and Sector Rotation 01:07 Small Cap Index Performance 02:10 Global News Highlights 02:38 Corporate News and Mergers 03:42 Public Policy and AI Regulation 04:43 Economic Indicators and Trade 05:04 Labor Market Analysis 07:07 Commercial Real Estate Insights 08:00 Global Financial Movements 08:57 Weekly Recap and Closing Remarks Links mentioned in this episode: DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

When most people hear the word policy, they immediately picture Washington, D.C., marble hallways, and people in suits arguing on TV. But as my guest today so brilliantly reminds us, policy is simply how decisions get made - and you don't need to be a political insider to influence it.In this episode, I talk with Dr. Deborah Stine, founder of the Science and Technology Policy Academy, former Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in the Obama White House, and someone who has spent her career helping scientists, engineers, and health professionals turn their expertise into impact.And yes, her résumé reads like a Washington fairytale, but what makes Debbie extraordinary is how down-to-earth and practical she is. She's spent decades working at the national level and then chose to move back to the “ground floor” of change—state and local work—where impact shows up fast and in real lives.Debbie and I talk about:Why most experts accidentally sabotage their own influenceHer 4E Framework for better decision-makingHow to translate complex, jargon-heavy research into something the public—and policymakers—actually understandWhy state and local advocacy can be even more powerful than federal workHow to work with people who disagree with youA surprising turn into AI—and how Debbie used my Automate & Amplify program to keep her content going while traveling the worldThis conversation is a powerful reminder that your voice matters, especially when you pair your expertise with a compelling story and a clear message.About My Guest: Dr. Deborah Stine is the founder of the Science and Technology Policy Academy, where she helps scientists, engineers, and health professionals translate what they know into policies that improve people's lives. Deborah has worked with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, at the Congressional Research Service, and was the Executive Director of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in the Obama White House. She was also Professor of the Practice, Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. Deborah is also the author of From Expertise to Impact, which is all about how experts can communicate in a way that truly influences public decision-making. About Us: The Speaking Your Brand podcast is hosted by Carol Cox. At Speaking Your Brand, we help women entrepreneurs and professionals clarify their brand message and story, create their signature talks, and develop their thought leadership platforms. Our mission is to get more women in positions of influence and power because it's through women's stories, voices, and visibility that we challenge the status quo and change existing systems. Check out our coaching programs at https://www.speakingyourbrand.com. Links:Show notes at https://www.speakingyourbrand.com/454/ Deborah's website: https://scitechpolicyacademy.com/ Listen to my Confident Speaker companion podcast = https://confidentspeaker.transistor.fm/ Discover your Speaker Archetype by taking our free quiz at https://www.speakingyourbrand.com/quiz/Enroll in the Automate & Amplify with AI course: https://www.speakingyourbrand.com/ai/ Apply for our Thought Leader Academy = https://www.speakingyourbrand.com/academy/ Attend our 1-day in-person Speaking Accelerator workshop in Orlando: https://www.speakingyourbrand.com/orlando/ Connect on LinkedIn:Carol Cox = https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolcoxDeborah Stine = https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborah-stine/ Related Podcast Episodes:Episode 411: Reframing Public Speaking: From Elite Skill to Everyday Power with Dr. Karen CorbinEpisode 406: Authenticity and Owning Your Story as Women with a Public Voice with Jennifer Adams and Sarah HenryEpisode 384: How to Tackle a Big Global Issue in Your Thought Leadership and Talks with Dr. Neha Pathak