India’s GDP growth likely to scale 7.5 per cent in FY 26: SBI report
Australian economic growth is solid but not spectacular. Rate cuts are off the table
Stella Huangfu, University of Sydney
Australia’s economy grew by a softer-than-expected 0.4% in the September quarter, slowing from 0.6% growth in the June quarter. It confirms the recovery is tracking forward but without strong momentum.
Still, figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth was at a two-year high of 2.1%. That’s just above the Reserve Bank’s estimate of long-term trend growth of 2.0%.
The September quarter national accounts was the final major data release before the Reserve Bank’s meeting on 8–9 December.
The GDP result is steady enough to reassure the Reserve Bank the economy is not slipping backwards, while recent inflation data show domestic price pressures — especially in services — remain elevated. Together, the signals point clearly to a hold on interest rates next week.
All four major banks expect rates to remain on hold for many months, while financial markets on Wednesday were pricing in an 85% chance of a rate rise next year.
Across-the-board strength, led by IT
A key feature of the September quarter is the breadth of domestic growth.
In earlier quarters, much of the expansion came from the public sector — particularly government consumption and infrastructure spending — while private demand was subdued. This quarter marks a clear shift: private demand was the main driver, led by a strong lift in business investment, steady household consumption and continued public investment.
Domestic final demand rose solidly, with contributions from all major components — signalling improving confidence among both businesses and households and a more balanced base for growth than we saw earlier in the year.
Private investment led the gains, rising 2.9% – the strongest quarterly increase since March 2021.
Business investment in machinery and equipment jumped 7.6%, boosted by major data-centre projects in New South Wales and Victoria. IT-related machinery investment hit a record A$2.8 billion, double the June quarter, and aviation-related purchases also jumped. The Bureau of Statistics said in a statement:
The rise in machinery and equipment investment reflects the ongoing expansions of data centres. This is likely due to firms looking to support growth in artificial intelligence and cloud computing capabilities.
Household consumption rose 0.5%, but this was driven more by spending on essentials rather than discretionary items. A cold winter, reduced government rebates and a harsh flu season lifted demand for utilities and for health services.
Public investment grew 3.0%, after three quarterly declines. State and local public corporations led the rise through renewable-energy and water-infrastructure projects.
Coal exports are up
External conditions weakened this quarter as imports grew faster than exports.
Goods exports rose 1.3%, helped by a rebound in coal shipments and strong overseas demand for beef and citrus. Services exports were flat, as a fall in spending by overseas students offset a modest recovery in short-term tourism from China, Japan and South Korea.
Goods imports rose 2.1%, driven by demand for intermediate goods — especially diesel — and capital goods, mainly the data-centre-related equipment.
Companies drew down on inventories during the quarter, which acts as a drag on growth.
Households are saving more
Households remain central to the outlook. They are on firmer financial footing but still spending cautiously. The household saving ratio rose from 6.0% to 6.4%, helped by higher compensation of employees.
Economic growth per person (known as GDP per capita) was flat this quarter, but up 0.4% over the year. After several negative quarters, living standards appear to have stopped falling, though improvements remain modest.
Overall, households are in better shape financially but remain hesitant — a pattern that supports stability, not a consumption-led surge.
A steady result, but not enough to shift the rate outlook
Some parts of this quarter’s outcome — including the lift in machinery and aviation-related spending — are unlikely to be repeated.
For the interest rate outlook, however, the key issue remains inflation. Price pressures are still above the Reserve Bank’s target band, and services inflation has been slower to ease than anticipated. The Reserve Bank now expects a more gradual return to the 2–3% target band.
After three rate cuts earlier this year — the most recent in August — markets were expecting at least one more rate cut. That view has shifted. Sticky services inflation and a slower forecast decline mean expectations of further cuts have faded.
A steadier footing, but risks remain
The September quarter shows an economy on a steady, though still moderate, footing. Domestic demand is broad-based, investment is strong, and households have more income support — even if they remain cautious.
But this is not yet a turning point. Inflation is still above target. As Australia enters 2026, the Reserve Bank remains firmly on hold — but alert to the possibility that, if inflation stays above 3%, the next adjustment may need to be upward rather than downward.![]()
Stella Huangfu, Associate Professor, School of Economics, University of Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The High-End Fashion Industry’s Reaction to Economic Turmoil
Luxury tourism is a risky strategy for African economies – new study of Botswana, Mauritius, Rwanda
Mauritius led the luxury tourism trend in Africa with all-inclusive resorts. Heritage Awali/yourgolftravel.com, CC BY-NC-ND
Pritish Behuria, University of ManchesterHow successful is luxury tourism in Africa? What happens if it fails to produce higher tourism revenues: can it be reversed? And does it depend on what kind of government is in place?
Pritish Behuria is a scholar of the political economy of development who has conducted a study in Botswana, Mauritius and Rwanda to find answers to questions like this. We asked him about his findings.
What is luxury tourism and how prevalent is it in Africa?
Luxury tourism aims to attract high-spending tourists to stay at premium resorts and lodges or visit exclusive attractions. It’s a strategy that’s being adopted widely by governments around the world and also in African countries.
It’s been promoted by multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the United Nations, as well as environmental and conservation organisations.
The logic underlying luxury tourism is that if fewer, high-spending tourists visit, this will result in less environmental impact. It’s often labelled as a “high-value, low-impact” approach.
However, studies have shown that luxury tourism does not lead to reduced environmental impact. Luxury tourists are more likely to use private jets. Private jets are more carbon intense than economy class travel. Supporters of luxury tourism also ignore that it reinforces economic inequalities, commercialises nature and restricts land access for indigenous populations.
In some ways, of course, the motives of African countries seem understandable. They remain starved of much-needed foreign exchange in the face of rising trade deficits. The allure of luxury tourism seems almost impossible to resist.
How did you go about your study?
I have been studying the political economy of Rwanda for nearly 15 years. The government there made tourism a central part of its national vision.
Over the years, many government officials and tourism stakeholders highlighted the challenges of luxury tourism strategies. Even so, there remains a single-mindedness to prioritise luxury tourism.
I found that, in Rwanda, luxury tourism resulted in a reliance on foreign-owned hotels and foreign travel agents, exposing potential leakages in tourism revenues. Crucially, tourism was not creating enough employment. There was also a skills lag in the sector. Employees were not being trained quickly enough to meet the surge of investments in hotels.
So I decided to investigate the effects of luxury tourism in other African countries. I wanted to know who benefits and how it is being reversed in countries that are turning away from it.
I interviewed government officials, hotel owners and other private sector representatives, aviation officials, consultants and journalists in all three countries. Added to this was a thorough review of economic data, industry reports and grey literature (including newspaper articles).
What are your take-aways from Mauritius?
Mauritius was the first of the three countries to explicitly adopt a luxury tourism strategy. In the late 1970s and early 1980s the government began to encourage European visitors to the island’s “sun-sand-sea” attractions. Large domestic business houses became lead investors, building luxury hotels and buying coastal land.
Over the years, tourism has provided significant revenues for the Mauritian economy. By 2019, the economy was earning over US$2 billion from the sector (before dropping during the COVID pandemic).
However, tourism has also been symbolic of the inequality that has characterised Mauritius’ growth. The all-inclusive resort model – where luxury hotels take care of all of a visitor’s food and travel needs themselves – has meant that the money being spent by tourists doesn’t always enter the local economy. A large share of profits remains outside the country or with large hotels.
After the pandemic, the Mauritian government took steps to loosen its focus on luxury tourism. It opened its air space to attract a broader range of tourists and re-started direct flights to Asia. There’s growing agreement within government that the opening up of tourism will go some way towards sustaining revenues and employment in the sector. Especially as some other key sectors (like offshore finance) may face an uncertain future.
And from Botswana?
Botswana followed Mauritius by formally adopting a luxury tourism strategy in 1990. Its focus was on its wilderness areas (the Okavango Delta) and wildlife safari lodges. For decades, there were criticisms from scholars about the inequalities in the sector.
Most lodges and hotels were foreign owned. Most travel agencies that booked all-inclusive trips operated outside Botswana. There were very few domestic linkages. Very little domestic agricultural or industrial production was used within the sector.
Guides take tourists across Botswana’s Okavango delta in boats. Diego Delso/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SAHowever, I found that the direction of tourism policies had also become increasingly political. Certain politicians were aligned with conservation organisations and foreign investors in prioritising luxury tourism. Former president Ian Khama, for example, banned trophy hunting on ethical grounds in 2014. He pushed photographic tourism, where travellers visit destinations mainly to take photos. But critics allege he and his allies benefited from the push for photographic tourism.
Photographic tourism is closely linked with the problematic promotion of “unspoilt” wilderness areas that conform to foreign ideas about the “myth of wild Africa”.
President Mokgweetsi Masisi reversed the hunting ban once he took power. He argued it had adverse effects on rural communities and increased human-wildlife conflict. He believed that regulated hunting could be a tool for better wildlife management and could produce more benefits for communities.
Since the latter 2010s, Botswana’s government has loosened the emphasis on luxury tourism and tried to diversify tourism offerings. It has relaxed visa regulations for Asian countries, for example, to allow a wider range of tourists to visit more easily.
What about Rwanda?
Of the three cases, Rwanda was the most recent to adopt a luxury tourism strategy. However, it has remained the most committed to this strategy. Rwanda’s model is centred on mountain gorilla trekking and premium wildlife experiences. It’s augmented by Rwanda’s attempt to become a hub for business and sports tourism through high-profile conferences and events.
Gorillas are a key attraction for luxury tourists in Rwanda. Gatete Pacifique/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SARwanda invited global hotel brands (like the Hyatt and Marriott) to build hotels and invested heavily in the country’s “nation brand” through sponsoring sports teams. The “luxury” element is managed through maintaining a high price to visit the country’s main tourist attraction: mountain gorillas. Rwanda is one of the few countries where mountain gorillas live.
After the pandemic, the government lowered prices to visit mountain gorillas but has also regularly stated its commitment to luxury tourism.
What did you learn by comparing the three?
I wanted to know why some countries reverse luxury tourism strategies once they fail while others don’t.
It is quite clear that luxury tourism strategies will always have disadvantages. As this study shows, luxury tourism repeatedly benefits only very few actors (often foreign investors or foreign-owned entities) and does not create sufficient employment or provide wider benefits for domestic populations. My research shows that the political pressure faced by democratic governments (like Botswana and Mauritius) forced them to loosen their luxury tourism strategies. This was not the case in more authoritarian Rwanda.
Rwanda’s position goes against a lot of recent literature on African political economy, which argues that parties with a stronger hold on power would be able to deliver better development outcomes.
While that may be case in some sectors, the findings of this study suggest that weaker political parties may actually be more responsive to changing policies that are creating inequality than countries with stronger political parties in power.![]()
Pritish Behuria, Reader in Politics, Governance and Development, Global Development Institute, University of Manchester
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Georgia clears debts to seven countries, including Armenia
.jpg)
G20 is too elite. There’s a way to fix that though – economists
Danny Bradlow, University of Pretoria and Robert Wade, London School of Economics and Political Science
The G20 claims to be “the premier forum for international economic cooperation”.
But is it?
As scholars of global economic governance, we are sceptical of this claim. Here are our main reasons.
The G20 is insufficiently representative of the 193 member states of the United Nations plus the small number of non-member states.
It is a self-selected group of 19 countries and the European and African Unions.
It has no mandate to act or speak on behalf of the international community.
It has no transparent or formal mechanisms through which it can communicate with actors who do not participate in the G20 but have a stake in its deliberations and their outcomes.
The growing tensions in the world make it more urgent to improve the efficacy of the G20. Firstly, because there is growing evidence of the loss of interest in global cooperation. Secondly, because rich states are cutting their official development assistance and are failing to meet their commitments to help countries deal with loss and damage from climate impacts and make their economies more resilient to shocks.
And thirdly, because rich countries are also reluctant to discuss financing sustainable and inclusive development in forums like the upcoming Fourth Financing for Development Conference or the UN, where all states can participate. They prefer exclusive forums like the G20.
Here, after briefly describing the structure of the G20, we argue that its lack of representation is a major problem. We offer a solution and argue that, as chair of the G20 this year, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution.
What is the G20 and how does it function?
The G20 was established in the late 1990s in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis. Its members were invited by the US and Germany based on a proposal from the Canadian government. Initially only finance ministers and central bank governors of major advanced and emerging economies were involved. After the financial crisis of 2008-2009 it was upgraded to summit level with the same membership.
A summit is held annually, under the leadership of a rotating presidency.
The group accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade. The membership comprises 19 of the “weightiest” national economies plus the European Union and the African Union. The 19 national economies are the G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada), plus Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. These countries are permanently “in”. The remaining 90% of countries in the world are excluded unless invited as “special guests” on an ad hoc basis.
Representatives of a select group of international organisations including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization also participate, together with those from some UN entities.
The G20’s work is managed by a troika consisting of the current president with the assistance of the past president and the incoming president. In 2025 this troika consists of South Africa as the current chair, Brazil as the past chair and the US, which will become the G20 president in 2026. The G20 has no permanent secretariat.
The consistency in G20 membership has proven to be an advantage because it helps foster a sense of familiarity, understanding and trust at the technical level among the permanent members. This is helpful in times of crisis and in dealing with complex problems.
But its exclusivity and informal status have limited its ability to address major challenges such as the global response to the economic and health consequences of the COVID pandemic. This is because an effective response required agreement and coordinated action by all states and not just those in the G20.
A solution
We think that the governance model of the Financial Stability Board offers a solution.
The Financial Stability Board was established under the umbrella of the G20 in 2009. Its job is to coordinate international financial regulatory standard-setting, monitor the global financial system for signs of stress, and to make recommendations that can help avert potential financial crises.
It is also an exclusive club. Its membership consists of the financial regulatory authorities in the G20 countries plus those in a few other countries that are considered financially systemically important.
However, unlike the G20, the Financial Stability Board has made a systematic effort to learn the views of non-members. It has established six Regional Consultative Groups, one each for the Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.
The objective is to expand and formalise the Financial Stability Board’s outreach activities beyond its membership and to better reflect the global character of the financial system.
The regional consultative groups operate in a framework which promotes compliance within each region with the Financial Stability Board’s policy initiatives. The framework enables the group members to share among themselves and with the board their views on common problems and solutions and on the issues on the board’s agenda.
Importantly, each regional group is co-chaired by an official from a Financial Stability Board member and an official from a non-member institution.
Applying this model to the G20 would allow the current G20 membership to continue, while obliging the members to establish a consultation process with regional neighbours. This would create a limited form of representation for all the world’s states.
It would also empower the smaller and weaker members of the G20 because it would enable them to speak with more confidence and credibility about the challenges facing their region.
This arrangement would also establish a limited form of G20 accountability towards the international community.
Next steps
As chair of the G20 chair for 2025, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution to the group’s representation problem. It should work with the African Union to establish an African G20 regional consultative group. South Africa and the African Union could invite each African regional organisation to select one representative to serve on the initial consultative group.
South Africa could also commit to convey the outcomes of G20 regional consultative group meetings to the G20.
South Africa can then use this example to demonstrate to the G20 the value of having a G20 regional consultative group and advocate that other regions should adopt the same approach.![]()
Danny Bradlow, Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria and Robert Wade, Professor of Political Economy and Development, London School of Economics and Political Science
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Oshikatsu, the fandom phenomenon Japan hopes can boost its flagging economy
Posters in Tokyo’s enormous Shinjuku railway station are normally used for advertising commodities like cosmetics and food, as well as new films. But occasionally you may happen across a poster with a birthday message and a picture of a young man, often from a boy band and typically with impeccable looks.
These posters are created by specialised advertising companies and are paid for by adoring fans. They are part of a phenomenon called oshikatsu, a term coined in recent years that is made from the Japanese words for “push” and “activity”.
Oshikatsu refers to the efforts fans engage in to support their favourite oshi, which can mean an entertainer, an anime or manga character, or a group they admire and want to “push”.
A considerable part of this support is economic in nature. Fans attend events and concerts, or buy merchandise such as CDs, posters and other collectables. Other forms of oshikatsu are meant to spread the fame of their idol by sharing content about their oshi, engaging in social media campaigns, and writing fan fiction or drawing fan art.
Oshikatsu developed out of the desire of fans to have a closer link to their idols. The combination of oshi and katsu first appeared on social media networks in 2016 and became widespread as a hashtag on Twitter in 2018. In 2021, oshikatsu was nominated as a candidate for Japan’s word of the year, a sign that its use had become mainstream.
Now, it has appeared on the radar of corporate Japan. The reason for this is a burst of inflation in recent years, caused by pandemic supply chain disruption and geopolitical shocks, that has caused Japanese consumers to reduce their spending.
However, with wages set to rise again for the third time in three years, the government is cautiously optimistic that economic growth can be rekindled through consumer-driven spending. Entertainment and media companies are looking to oshikatsu as a potential driver of this, although it is unclear whether the upcoming pay hikes will be sufficient.
A widespread phenomenon
Contrary to popular perception, oshikatsu is no longer the purview solely of subcultures or young people. It has made inroads with older age groups in Japan as well.
According to a 2024 survey by Japanese marketing research company Harumeku, 46% of women aged in their 50s have an oshi that they support financially. Older generations tend to have more money to spend, especially after their own children have finished education.
Oshikatsu also signifies an interesting reversal in terms of gender. While husbands in the traditional Japanese household are still expected to be breadwinners, in oshikatsu it is more often women who financially support young men.
How much fans spend on their oshi depends. According to a recent survey by Japanese marketing company CDG and Oshicoco, an advertising agency specialising in oshikatsu, the average amount fans spend on activities related to their oshis is 250,000 yen (about £1,300) annually.
This contributes an estimated 3.5 trillion yen (£18.8 billion) to the Japanese economy each year, and accounts for 2.1% of Japan’s total annual retail sales.
Oshikatsu will drive up consumer spending. But I doubt it will have the impact on the Japanese economy that the authorities are hoping for. For the younger fans, the danger is that government approval will kill any kind of cool clout, making oshikatsu less appealing to these people in the long run.
And if you support an oshi who has not yet made it, you may have a stronger sense that your support matters. Hence some of the spending will go directly to individuals, rather than to established corporate superstars. But it’s also possible that struggling young oshis may spend more of this money than established celebrities.
The international press is focusing either on the economic side of oshikatsu, or on the quirkiness of “obsessive” fans who get second jobs to support their oshi and mothers spending large sums on a man half their age. But what such coverage misses is the slow yet profound societal transformation that oshikatsu is a sign of.
Research from 2022 on people engaging in oshikatsu makes clear that “fan activities” address a deep wish for connection, validation and belonging. While this could be satisfied by friendship or an intimate partnership, an increasing number of Japanese young adults feel that such relationships are “bothersome”.
Young men are leading in this category, especially those who do not work as white-collar corporate workers with relatively stable jobs, the so-called salarymen. Many who work part time or in blue-collar jobs are finding it difficult to imagine a future in which they have families.
The tertiary sector is thus changing to accommodate an increasing number of services that turn intangible things such as friendship, companionship and escapist romance fantasies into paid-for services.
From non-sexual cuddling to renting a friend for the day or going on a date with a cross-dressing escort, temporary respite from loneliness can be sought on a per-hour basis. As a result, human connection itself is becoming something that can be consumed for a fee.
On the other hand, sharing oshikatsu activities can create new friendships. Fans coming together to worship their idols collectively is a powerful way of creating new communities. It remains to be seen how these shifts in the way people relate to each other will shape the future of Japan’s economy and society.![]()
Fabio Gygi, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, SOAS, University of London
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The US and China have reached a temporary truce in the trade wars, but more turbulence lies ahead
Peter Draper, University of Adelaide and Nathan Howard Gray, University of Adelaide
Defying expectations, the United States and China have announced an important agreement to de-escalate bilateral trade tensions after talks in Geneva, Switzerland.
The good, the bad and the ugly
The good news is their recent tariff increases will be slashed. The US has cut tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China has reduced levies on US imports from 125% to 10%. This greatly eases major bilateral trade tensions, and explains why financial markets rallied.
The bad news is twofold. First, the remaining tariffs are still high by modern standards. The US average trade-weighted tariff rate was 2.2% on January 1 2025, while it is now estimated to be up to 17.8%. This makes it the highest tariff wall since the 1930s.
Overall, it is very likely a new baseline has been set. Bilateral tariff-free trade belongs to a bygone era.
Second, these tariff reductions will be in place for 90 days, while negotiations continue. Talks will likely include a long list of difficult-to-resolve issues. China’s currency management policy and industrial subsidies system dominated by state-owned enterprises will be on the table. So will the many non-tariff barriers Beijing can turn on and off like a tap.
China is offering to purchase unspecified quantities of US goods – in a repeat of a US-China “Phase 1 deal” from Trump’s first presidency that was not implemented. On his first day in office in January, amid a blizzard of executive orders, Trump ordered a review of that deal’s implementation. The review found China didn’t follow through on the agriculture, finance and intellectual property protection commitments it had made.
Unless the US has now decided to capitulate to Beijing’s retaliatory actions, it is difficult to see the US being duped again.
Failure to agree on these points would reveal the ugly truth that both countries continue to impose bilateral export controls on goods deemed sensitive, such as semiconductors (from the US to China) and processed critical minerals (from China to the US).
Moreover, in its so-called “reciprocal” negotiations with other countries, the US is pressing trading partners to cut certain sensitive China-sourced goods from their exports destined for US markets. China is deeply unhappy about these US demands and has threatened to retaliate against trading partners that adopt them.
A temporary truce
Overall, the announcement is best viewed as a truce that does not shift the underlying structural reality that the US and China are locked into a long-term cycle of escalating strategic competition.
That cycle will have its ups (the latest announcement) and downs (the tariff wars that preceded it). For now, both sides have agreed to announce victory and focus on other matters.
For the US, this means ensuring there will be consumer goods on the shelves in time for Halloween and Christmas, albeit at inflated prices. For China, it means restoring some export market access to take pressure off its increasingly ailing economy.
As neither side can vanquish the other, the likely long-term result is a frozen conflict. This will be punctuated by attempts to achieve “escalation dominance”, as that will determine who emerges with better terms. Observers’ opinions on where the balance currently lies are divided.
Along the way, and to use a quote widely attributed to Winston Churchill, to “jaw-jaw is better than to war-war”. Fasten your seat belts, there is more turbulence to come.
Where does this leave the rest of us?
Significantly, the US has not (so far) changed its basic goals for all its bilateral trade deals.
Its overarching aim is to cut the goods trade deficit by reducing goods imports and eliminating non-tariff barriers it says are “unfairly” prohibiting US exports. The US also wants to remove barriers to digital trade and investments by tech giants and “derisk” certain imports that it deems sensitive for national security reasons.
The agreement between the US and UK last week clearly reflects these goals in operation. While the UK received some concessions, the remaining tariffs are higher, at 10% overall, than on April 2 and subject to US-imposed import quotas. Furthermore, the UK must open its market for certain goods while removing China-originating content from steel and pharmaceutical products destined for the US.
For Washington’s Pacific defence treaty allies, including Australia, nothing has changed. Potentially difficult negotiations with the Trump administration lie ahead, particularly if the US decides to use our security dependencies as leverage to wring concessions in trade. Japan has already disavowed linking security and trade, and their progress should be closely watched.
The US has previously paused high tariffs on manufacturing nations in South-East Asia, particularly those used by other nations as export platforms to avoid China tariffs. Vietnam, Cambodia and others will face sustained uncertainty and increasingly difficult balancing acts. The economic stakes are higher for them.
They, like the Japanese, are long-practised in the subtle arts of balancing the two giants. Still, juggling ties with both Washington and Beijing will become the act of an increasingly high-wire trapeze artist.![]()
Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide and Nathan Howard Gray, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for International Trade, University of Adelaide
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The High-End Fashion Industry’s Reaction to Economic Turmoil
India must aim for $1 trillion ‘Orange Economy’ by 2047: Kiran Mazumdar Shaw
India's IT hiring industry to generate up to 4.5 lakh new jobs in 2025
New Delhi, April 18 (IANS) The IT hiring sector in India is projected to grow by 7-10 per cent in the first half of 2025, while generating around 4-4.5 lakh new jobs for the entire year, industry experts said on Friday.
Indian retail market set to reach Rs 190 lakh crore by 2034 as consumption surges
Mumbai, (IANS): India, the fastest-growing major economy, is set to become the third-largest by GDP by 2030, driving a Rs 190 lakh crore retail market by 2034, according to a report released on Thursday.
The economics of ticket scalping
Allegations that tickets to recent AFL and NRL finals matches were being resold for up to three times their initial price raises questions of why ticket scalping happens, and whether anything can be done about it.
To an economist, the existence of a secondary market - where tickets are resold - is a sign that they have been undersupplied, underpriced or a combination of the two.
Event promoters, for example, are incentivised to sell as many tickets as possible so they can profit off sales of food, drinks and other concession stand items. This leads them to price tickets low.
Scalpers thrive off such conditions as it presents them with an arbitrage opportunity (the chance to make a profit from buying and selling the same thing) that would never have existed in a world where tickets were plentiful and priced in line with demand.
Online reselling platforms also put upward pressure on prices by making tickets easier to re-sell, while simultaneously allowing ticketing companies to double dip on commissions and booking fees. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is taking ticket re-seller Viagogo to the Federal Court, alleging the company engaged in deceptive pricing.
While some Australian states have introduced legislation to limit the amount that tickets can be resold for, promoters and policymakers are struggling to keep up with advances in technology that make scalping tickets easier than ever.
Why is there scalping?
The continued existence of scalping and resale markets is puzzling to economists. If tickets to major events are consistently undervalued, to the point that there is an entire industry based on resale, why do promoters continue to price tickets so low?
One argument is that event promoters are risk averse, preferring the certainty of a guaranteed sell-out over the uncertainty of potentially over-valuing tickets.
This fits with research that suggests people prefer to attend events in a packed-out venue, as opposed to a sparsely attended one. This incentivises event promoters to sell out venues as people’s demand for tickets depends, to some extent, on the demands of others.
There is also the somewhat idealistic idea that fairness stops event promoters from setting prices too high. This is the idea, often voiced in the media, that tickets should end up in the hands of “true fans”.
The pros and cons of scalping and reselling
But there is an argument that ticket scalping actually enhances the total welfare of concert goers and sports fans. Scalpers act to distribute tickets to those who value them the most, or, as economists’ would say, they increase the allocative efficiency of the market.
Secondary markets for tickets allow potential buyers to indicate how much they want to go to the event – their “willingness to pay”. If tickets can only be bought at a single price on a first come first serve basis, then some people who really want to go will be left out. Secondary markets permit these mutually beneficial exchanges to take place.
Online platforms for buying and selling tickets actually increase this allocative efficiency. These platforms arm buyers and sellers with ever increasing amounts of information, and the time and expenses associated with the purchase of each resold ticket (known as “transaction costs”) are greatly reduced.
But scalping and secondary ticket markets are not without their downsides. Enterprising scalpers may be encouraged to buy up large proportions of available tickets in order to maximise their profits.
This is called “rent seeking” and has been shown to potentially reduce (or even eliminate) any gains in allocative efficiency.
There is also the issue of fairness, and whether “true fans” will be priced out of going to see their favourite performer or team. And then there is the issue that scalpers take away profits that could have instead accrued to the very artists, entertainers or sporting personalities on show.
Can anything be done about scalping?
As demonstrated by the likes of Taxi competitor Uber (and soon to be found in some Australian cinemas), “pricing bots” can adjust prices in real time based on demand or other consumer characteristics.
Such technology could reduce ticket scalping by putting pricing power in the hands of event promoters. But as previously noted, there is a reluctance to increase prices, and so some artists and groups have begun a series of blunt measures designed to tackle the problem.
Kid Rock, for example, has embarked on a number of “US$20 Best Night Ever” tours. As the name suggests, almost all tickets are sold for US$20 at supermarkets and venue box offices. Making the ticket price clear and transparent up front is a rather neat trick to try and stop tickets from being sold above face value.
Kid Rock also tends to perform many shows at the same venue. This increases the total supply of tickets on offer in a single city, reducing the premium that can be placed on a ticket in the secondary market.
The Glastonbury music festival has begun printing pictures of the ticket purchaser on every ticket. This may ensure the purchaser of the ticket and the attendee are the same person. However, the high cost of administering such tight controls make them viable to only the most profitable of events.
A similar system will be in place when former 1-Directioner, Harry Styles, plays Sydney’s Enmore Theatre later this year. Ticket holders will be required to attend a “check-in” before entering the venue.
Meanwhile Taylor Swift has announced that fans can “boost” their place in the virtual ticketing queue by participating in a range of Swift related activities such as watching music videos and purchasing her music.
While Swift’s stated goal of “getting tickets into the hands of fans…NOT scalpers or bots” is admirable, this has been viewed by many as nothing more than an opportunistic cash grab from her most loyal fans.
Measures such as these are more likely to inconvenience ardent ticket scalpers rather than deter them. As long as tickets to major events are being systematically under-priced, scalpers have an incentive to bypass tighter controls and headlines bemoaning “inflated” prices will continue.![]()
Paul Crosby, PhD Scholar in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University and Jordi McKenzie, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Electronics sector in India projected to create 12 million jobs by 2027
What’s a trade war?
This article is part of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.
Thanks to US President-elect Donald Trump, the term “trade war” is back in the headlines. Trump campaigned successfully on a platform of aggressive trade policies, and since being elected, has only doubled down on this posture.
On Tuesday, he threatened Mexico and Canada with new 25% tariffs on all goods, and a separate “additional” 10% tariff on China “above any additional tariffs”.
While the term might conjure up dramatic images of battlefield tactics, the real economic impact of any looming trade war is likely to hit much closer to home – both for Americans and the rest of the world.
Global supply chains are deeply interlinked. That means a major trade war initiated by the US could push up the prices of all kinds of goods – from new cars to Australian-inspired avocado on toast.
To understand where we might be headed, it’s worth unpacking the metaphor. What exactly is a trade war? What are the “weapons” countries use? Perhaps most importantly – can either side win?
The weapons of war
There are many “weapons” available to a country in a trade war, but tariffs are often a popular choice. This is simply an extra tax put on a product as it crosses a border as an import.
For example, all else equal, Trump’s proposed 25% tariff on goods from Canada would bump the price of a $32,000 Canadian-built car up to $40,000.
Tariffs are usually paid by whoever is importing the product and paid to the government of the importing country.
That means the extra cost is almost always passed on to consumers.
Why would any government want to force prices up like that? Because it gives locally produced goods without the tariff a cost advantage.
That might seem like a reasonable way to protect local industries, but tariffs can backfire in unexpected ways. Consider how many foreign parts go into “American-made” products.
When a car rolls off a US assembly line, it’s built from thousands of components – many of which have to be imported from other countries. If those parts face tariffs, manufacturing costs rise for domestic producers, and prices rise further for domestic consumers.
Limiting what comes in
There are other trade restrictions, too, referred to as non-tariff measures. Quotas are one example. These place limits on how many units of something can be imported during a specific time period.
Returning to our earlier example, the US could choose to set an import quota on that same Canadian-made car of one million per year. Once that limit had been reached, no more Canadian cars could enter the country, even if consumers wanted to buy them.
This artificial scarcity can drive up prices because demand stays the same while supply is restricted. Like tariffs, the theory is that those higher prices for imports will cause consumers to favour locally manufactured goods.
More covert weapons
Some other trade restrictions are more covert – arguably easier to conceal and deny.
Imagine your export permit was cancelled without explanation or your shipment of lychees was left rotting in a foreign port for reasons that seem to be political.
Or your country suddenly disappears from another country’s electronic export system, meaning that you now cannot export anything there at all (this happened to Lithuania, which was removed from China’s customs database).
These are the sorts of trade war tactics that my research team and I have been studying in our Weaponised Trade Project.
We have collected nearly 100 examples of coercive trade weapons over the past decade, used by a wide range of countries against their competitors.
Today’s tariff is tomorrow’s trade war
Once deployed, trade weapons can cause political tensions to escalate rapidly. Other countries often retaliate with their own tit-for-tat measures. From there, they can escalate into full-blown trade wars.
The new president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum, has already warned this may happen, in response to Trump’s threats earlier this week.
One tariff would be followed by another in response, and so on until we put at risk common businesses.
We’ve had some nasty trade wars before. One of the most notorious examples from history were the “beggar-thy-neighbour” tariffs and other protectionist policies of the interwar years, which deepened the Great Depression.
You might remember this from the classic movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off:
When countries restrict trade, prices typically rise for consumers, jobs can be lost in industries dependent on foreign materials, and trade and economic growth slow on both sides.
Politicians might claim victory when their foreign competitors make concessions, but economists generally agree that trade wars create more losers than winners.![]()
Lisa Toohey, Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.