By Rahul Anand, Diaa Noureldin, Zexi Sun and Xin Cindy Xu
WASHINGTON DC, Apr 10 2025 – Strong economic fundamentals and sound macroeconomic policies have helped the Korean economy through multiple shocks in recent years. However, potential growth has slowed more quickly than in other major advanced economies, and the economic expansion is likely to moderate this year.

The country also is aging more rapidly than almost all others. That’s likely to reduce the labor supply and weigh on investment demand, further lowering growth and diminishing living standards.

Aging could shrink the labor force by more than a quarter by 2050, leading to an average annual decline of 0.67 percentage point in potential growth, according to our latest Article IV report.

The good news is that reforms would help address this adverse impact of aging in Korea:
Increasing labor force participation rates, especially among female and older workers, would help limit the decline in the supply of available workers.

Drawing on experiences in other advanced economies, in a typical labor market reform scenario, the participation rate for older workers is assumed to increase by 3 percentage points and the gender gap for female participation is expected to decrease by half. Such improvements would offset about one-fifth of the aging impact by 2050.

Furthermore, improving the efficiency of resource allocation across firms within sectors could increase aggregate productivity growth. This could be achieved through reforms that help channel labor and capital toward fast growing firms with higher productivity.

Such reforms include reducing barriers to opening or closing a business, enhancing access to finance, and removing distortive subsidies. In a reform scenario assuming a smaller productivity gap between the top and bottom performing firms, average annual potential growth could increase by 0.22 percentage points. That would be equal to about one-third of the aging impact.

Finally, better and broader use of artificial intelligence (AI) would help support potential growth. AI could impact the economy through three channels:

• Labor displacement, in which AI replaces people in some jobs, increasing productivity but reducing labor demand.
• Labor complementarity, where AI complements people in some roles, increasing productivity without eliminating their jobs.
• Overall productivity increase, or AI boosting productivity across all jobs, in turn raising overall labor demand.

Our new paper, published alongside the Article IV report, shows that AI adoption across all three of these channels could significantly increase average annual potential growth by as much as 0.44 percentage point.

Ultimately, the combined effects from a higher labor force participation rate, more efficient allocation of resources, and expanded AI adoption can more than fully offset the economic drag from aging.

Accelerating reforms would deliver growth gains early, earn more support from the public, help defend against potential shocks, and increase room in the government budget for adapting to an aging society.

Rahul Anand is the IMF mission chief for Korea; Diaa Noureldin is an economist in the Research Department; Zexi Sun and Xin Cindy Xu are economists in the IMF’s Asia-Pacific Department. This article is based on IMF’s 2024 country report on Korea, including a joint selected issues paper with the Bank of Korea, “Transforming the Future: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence in Korea.”

Source: IMF

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Naureen Hossain
NAIROBI, Apr 10 2025 – Women farmers face structural issues that prevent them from realizing their full potential, from societal perceptions that dictate their limitations to poor land.

However, CGIAR’s Gender Impact Platform Director, Nicoline de Haan, argues that leaning into a “victim” narrative does not serve them, especially when women are demonstrably more involved in agriculture.

De Haan says researchers need to be bolder in examining the gender impact in the agricultural sector to assess the key concerns that women farmers face in the field. The limited tools and resources in developing countries challenge both men and women farmers.

“We have made a lot of gains on gender, and if we fall back now, it’ll take another 30 years before we get back to where we were,” De Haan told IPS. “So we also need to be bold, and we need to be proud of what we have done.”

Even though women make up 62 percent of working farmers, they face more challenges than men. Among these are the major issues: access to knowledge, farming techniques, and quality equipment. Structural barriers also need overcoming.

Among rural communities across Africa, women and girls are raised with a particular perception of what their role and responsibility is in the household, such as being delegated as the primary child caregiver. However, the Gender Impact Platform has found in their research that women are far more involved in farming duties — and they shouldn’t be blamed for taking on what is considered a traditionally male occupation.

Land ownership is vital for farmers, especially women who work on but often don’t own the land. Certain perceptions of women’s roles in farming even influence the kind of livestock that women can have, De Haan explained. Goats, sheep, and especially chickens are seen as ‘socially acceptable’ livestock, as they can be raised in the homestead, traditionally considered the ‘woman’s place.’ With cattle, even if women are more involved in their care, men are more likely to own them, given that they are considered a huge investment.

Women that are able to use farmland for themselves find the quality of the land to be much poorer, according to CGIAR. Even seeds and manure may be degraded when passed down to women. Women also cannot own property in parts of Africa and Asia, and while their farms and livestock may be their only sources of income, their access to the land could be complicated.

However, to simply challenge the norms or declare them wrong would do little to make progress, so De Haan calls for nuance when considering the best course of action. When dialogue between men and women farmers is held over a technical issue first, such as animal disease, it encourages men to recognize and respect how active women are outside the household and therefore consider the gender issue. “We are trying to change society and systems, but we’re trying to make it better for everyone. We’re not out there to burn down the patriarchy. But we are there to make sure that women can actually function better.”

She also says that more research and effort should be made to ask women farmers what they want and where they need help, whether that be financial support or equipment. More can be done to ask them directly and demand their needs. Further research into women’s participation in the sector revealed that women were far more involved in farming and perfectly capable of self-sufficiency.

“We ask the wrong questions sometimes. We ask by default that they’re victims; we ask by default that they have no agency. We don’t look past the defaults of what agency they do have and how amazing they get things done in a patriarchal society,” said De Haan. “But they have their way. I’m a sociologist; I always say people do things for a reason. We might not understand it, we might not agree, but they do it for a reason and we need to understand that reason.”

Women’s participation in agriculture is only part of a wider problem of poverty and rural areas not getting enough investment. In Kenya, men are not getting enough opportunities for stable employment, especially in agriculture. Agriculture jobs do not pay enough to make a living wage, which for young people seeking jobs, is a key factor in deciding their lives. There is not enough of a livelihood to be made in farm work at present.

“We’ve talked to a lot to youth and basically they said, ‘we’ll stay in agriculture, but make it pay,’” said De Haan.

While urbanization has drawn millions of youth to big cities to seek work opportunities, many young people are finding that jobs in urban areas require different skill sets than labor-intensive field jobs.

CGIAR’s focus is on finding technical solutions and impactful change through data-driven evidence that illustrates women’s lived experience in rural communities and in agricultural spaces. The research makes sure that people “have the mental support and frameworks” that help them.

CGIAR Gender recognizes that technology should be part of those technical solutions rather than another problem for women farmers to overcome. Time and resources need to be invested into equipping women with the technology itself, along with teaching them how to apply it to their work. Rather than the end, technology is the means to economic empowerment, De Haan said.

However, a potential pitfall of rapid digitalization is that structural barriers are reinforced even within digital technology, especially when the digital gap between men and women in East Africa is so stark. Owning a smartphone is not as ubiquitous for rural communities, especially for women. In a 2018 survey, it was shown that only 10 percent of Kenyan women used a mobile phone for information compared to 22 percent of men.

With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), CGIAR Gender is also looking into its presence in the sector, especially given the limitations. The group has been working with large language models and training them to consider gender in their responses. “If we don’t do it now, we will continue putting in those structural barriers, those inequities… If [ChatGPT] gets the wrong answer, we need to train it to get the right answer,” De Haan said. De Haan believes that research must address the issue of gender-blind training in AI.

CGIAR Gender is pushing for wider research that aims to inform the decision-makers and policymakers on the best course of action to serve the farmers who will be impacted by those decisions, de Haan said. “We might not be able to directly influence that one little farmer in the field, but we can influence the model that is deciding what policies are coming to her table.”

IPS UN Bureau Report,

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Maximilian Malawista
NEW YORK, Apr 10 2025 – While the U.S. argues over tariffs, China, Japan, and South Korea are quietly reshaping their tech markets, shifting towards regional dominance – signaling a potential turning point in global tech leadership.

Since 2012, substantial progress on a trilateral free trade agreement between China, South Korea, and Japan has been at a standstill – but amidst new U.S. tariffs, the situation is beginning to evolve. April 2nd marked “Liberation Day” – a promise from the U.S. to the rest of the world that tariffs were coming, upsetting ASEAN allies and creating an opening for new players in the valley.

South Korean Trade Minister Ahn Duk-geun remarks: “It is necessary to strengthen the implementation of RCEP, in which all three countries have participated, and to create a framework for expanding trade cooperation among the three countries through Korea-China-Japan FTA negotiations.”

Picking a battle with these countries means upsetting trade with the U.S’s 3rd, 6th, and 7th largest partners, accounting for a large part of U.S. global trade. But this really isn’t the problem.

The United States hosts Silicon Valley, the largest capital network of tech companies and startups on the globe. Corporations like the “Magnificent Seven”: Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla dominate the tech market, attracting substantial investments. For this reason, this culture of success attracts venture capitalists who are willing to take risks due to the association with positive capital investment, but this could change.

A group of people standing on top of a hill. Credit: Ran Liwen / Unsplash

These companies stay in the U.S. because, at least for now, it’s a good deal, and their markets within the U.S. are enormous. However, with tariffs on China, South Korea, and Japan, semiconductors, microchips, automobiles, and parts are exceedingly expensive. These are all components essential in the tech industry, meaning looming rising costs can lead to a shift in balance.

This creates an opening for China, South Korea, and Japan to invest in their markets. The combination of a free trade agreement and proximity to each other could have drastic changes in market trends, as none of these countries has to go a large distance in order to import or export their supplies, potentially transforming global market trends.

Distances between regional trade ports:
Shanghai → Busan: Approx. 530 km (330 miles)
Busan → Fukuoka: Approx. 180 km (110 miles)
Shanghai → Fukuoka: Approx. 870 km (540 miles)

Distance between U.S. trade ports:
Shanghai → Seattle: Approx. 5,400 km (3,350 miles)
Busan → Seattle: Approx. 7,960 km (4,950 miles)
Fukuoka → Seattle: Approx. 8,160 km (5,070 miles)
Fukuoka → Los Angeles: Approx. 8,640 km (5,370 miles)
Shanghai → Los Angeles: Approx. 10,900 km (6,770 miles)
Busan → Los Angeles: Approx. 9,960 km (6,190 miles)

Expanded RCEP capabilities:

Regional expansion results in products becoming cheaper, shipping becoming easier, and job growth accelerating, creating a trickle-down from this regional investment in trade to their other markets.

While trade only accounts for less than 25% of the U.S. GDP, this affects a lot. With less foreign investment into U.S. tech markets, possibly Silicon Valley could relocate to East Asia, as their factories are there, and an even bigger consumer base awaits. While wealthy companies could try to set up factories within the U.S. to compete with East Asian manufacturing, this could be really difficult, and take a long time, as U.S. infrastructure is not prepared for the logistics of refining, processing, and supply chain operations on a large scale. The CHIPS Act, aiming to boost semiconductor production domestically, represents the U.S.’s largest attempt to catch up to East Asia in this sector, but it’s going to take loads of time.

Global Trade War Implications:

The U.S. has slapped tariffs on nearly every country, creating the opportunity for supply and demand shifts in many sectors, not only tech. While called “reciprocal” in nature, these tariffs are not reciprocal, instead actually accounting for a “trade deficit”, as Alan Cole from the Tax Foundation details, “The alleged tariff rate from each trading partner is fully a function of trade aggregates, specifically, the deficit divided by US imports, with a minimum of 10 percent. No factors discussed by the administration in these documents or anywhere else (like tariffs, digital services taxes, value-added taxes, or monetary policy) play any role.” – additionally, the WTO found these measures in violation of trade rules, making them not only non-reciprocal, but also incompatible with international trade law.

Since Friday, April 4th, South Korea’s KOSPI Index has fallen 4.27%, Japan’s Nikkei 225 Index by 4.42%, China’s Shanghai Composite Index has risen by 2.91%, with the S&P 500, Dow, and Nasdaq all down by about 2%. While there have been some minimal rebounds, the overall trend points to a steady decline amid ongoing market sell-offs.

Trade talks with Japan and South Korea have been scheduled with the U.S., while China refuses to back down in the slightest, slapping an additional 50% tariffs totaling 84% starting Thursday, April 10th, after Trump’s 104% levy goes into effect Wednesday, April 9th.

China’s retaliatory tactics have seemed to push back, creating an unstable and unpredictable market space, with Japan and South Korea’s indexes trending downwards. These numbers, scheduled talks, and policy choices by China signal strong shifts in reprisal to U.S. tariffs, further outlining a motive for a strategic shift that could move Silicon Valley from the U.S. to East Asia.

The world now watches to see if countries will continue investing in Silicon Valley following this global trade war, with already 50 countries reaching out to the Trump Administration for negotiations. The U.S. and China are battling it out, trade war style, each vying to see who rises from the ashes, and who sits below the mound. The outcome of this war will determine which nation solidifies its position as the global hyperpower. Determining whether the U.S. can maintain its dominance in the tech industry or if East Asia will seize this opportunity to lead in the next wave of innovation. The real question remains: is the U.S. prepared for that shift?

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 10 2025 – On April 4, it was confirmed by Myanmar authorities that there were approximately 180,000 Rohingya refugees residing in Bangladesh that are eligible to return. Following numerous cuts in funding as a result of President Donald Trump’s reduction of USAID, as well as the increasingly volatile humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, it is uncertain if repatriation will best serve Rohingya refugee communities.

Following a series of armed attacks and human rights violations carried out by the Myanmar military in the Rakhine State, over one million Rohingya refugees fled to settlements in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, as a result of ethnic persecution. The Rohingya people have been denied citizenship by Myanmar, making them the world’s largest stateless population. Cox’s Bazar has been described as being the world’s largest refugee settlement.

Over 70,000 Rohingya refugees fled to Bangladesh in the past year alone. Since 2018, the Bangladeshi government has submitted the names of over 800,000 Rohingya refugees for repatriation. The Myanmar government announced that in addition to the 180,000 Rohingya refugees that are to return home, an additional 70,000 are in the process of awaiting further verification. It was also announced that the verification process for the additional 550,000 Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh will be expedited.

However, the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar has escalated considerably since the 2017 attacks and the current climate in Myanmar may not be safe for Rohingya populations. The ongoing Myanmar civil war continues to threaten the lives of thousands of civilians. Rampant political and economic instability, in addition to a compromised healthcare system as a result of the recent earthquake in Myanmar, makes it difficult for aid organizations and the government to facilitate safe returns. Additionally, many have argued that repatriation does not address the core of the issue that forced one million refugees to flee to Bangladesh.

“After all these years, they are confirming only 180,000 names. This feels like nothing more than an eyewash. We want a genuine solution,” said Shafiqur Rahman, a Rohingya refugee. “Myanmar must take all of us back — not just a selected few — and they must ensure we return with full rights, dignity, and citizenship. Without that, this process means nothing to us.”

Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are currently facing living conditions as a result of overcrowding, a lack of basic services, violence, climate change, and exploitation. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), Bangladesh is currently ranked third in the world among all the states that have been hit the hardest by natural disaster. Extreme heat, cyclones, flooding, and heavy rainfall are all regular symptoms of climate change in Bangladesh which disproportionately affect the Rohingya population.

“These camps – and the communities that host them – are on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Summers are scorching, and the chance of fires skyrocket. In the cyclone and monsoon seasons, floods and dangerous landslides destroy homes and lives,” said United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres.

Overcrowding has also given way to rampant insecurity within the settlements in Cox’s Bazar. According to estimates from UNHCR, over 50 percent of the displaced population in these camps are women and girls, who face higher risks of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation.

Additionally, Rohingya refugees have informed Doctors Without Borders (MSF) that high levels of violence persist in the Cox’s Bazar camps, particularly after nightfall. “When I hear loud noises, it’s like I’m back in Myanmar,” said a Rohingya refugee. “The sounds bring back all the fear—the fear that someone will come, that I’ll be taken, or worse. My heart races every time. I can’t sleep. I want to feel safe, but it’s hard.”

According to MSF estimates, over 1,000 young people were recruited into armed groups in 2024 to fight in Myanmar. Victims of violence also rarely seek justice or healthcare due to fear of reprisals.“Many patients are afraid to leave their shelters to seek medical care due to the threat of violence against their families. They fear that if they are seen going to a medical facility, their homes could be targeted, or their family members could be harmed,” says a mental health counsellor in the Jamtoli clinic.

“They fear that if they are seen going to a medical facility, their homes could be targeted, or their family members could be harmed. This fear is rooted in past incidents of violence, including the intentional burning of shelters …. The constant threat of violence has made many refugees hesitant to seek out the medical care they need.”

Humanitarian organizations and reporters have indicated that President Trump’s reduction in USAID allowances will further complicate repatriation efforts and the availability of protection services for Rohingya refugees. Guterres described Cox’s Bazar as “ground zero” for the most dire consequences of funding cuts, adding that it would become an “unmitigated disaster”.

According to Rana Flowers, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) representative for Bangladesh, cuts in US grants for Bangladesh will entail “services for (Rohingya) children will be significantly scaled back, putting their survival, safety and futures at risk”. Additionally, healthcare systems will be weakened significantly, which “will deteriorate, increasing the risk of deadly disease outbreaks with flow-on effects for the public health security,” Ms. Flowers warned.

It is imperative that the core issues that drove the Rohingyas out of Myanmar are addressed so a peaceful return can be facilitated and a long standing resolution can be made. According to Flowers, Rohingya refugees “cannot yet safely return home, and have no legal right to work.”

To ensure a safe return for Rohingya refugees, there must be a continuous flow of funding to Myanmar to allow for increased protection services. The issue of Rohingyas being persecuted in Myanmar must be addressed. A change in legislation that grants the Rohingya people citizenship in Myanmar is crucial to achieve a peaceful and permanent repatriation. Additionally, there must be transparency and accountability for violations of international humanitarian law.

“Responsibility for the immense suffering of the Rohingya starts at the top. Min Aung Hlaing, who led the genocidal campaign, is now at the head of an illegal and illegitimate military junta that is attacking civilian populations throughout Myanmar. He must be brought to justice and be made to answer for his crimes,” said Tom Andrews, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, in a statement.

“The Rohingya are tired of empty promises. Their children cannot eat political rhetoric or UN resolutions that go nowhere. They need and deserve the world to end the deadly paralysis of indifference. Immediate action is needed to hold accountable those responsible for genocide and to end the suffering and save the lives of Rohingya who are within and beyond the borders of Myanmar,” Andrews adds.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Naureen Hossain
NAIROBI, Apr 10 2025 – Increasingly, experts in the global health and agricultural sectors are finding the One Health approach effective for identifying and addressing health concerns that can influence facets of health. Implementing this approach worldwide will require partnerships across different sectors.

On the sidelines of CGIAR Science Week, the “One Health Horizons: Catalyzing Collaborations, Innovations, and Policies for Improving Global Health and Food Security” side event brought together researchers and scientists to discuss how the One Health approach can benefit research in the agricultural sector.

According to the World Health Organization, One Health is an “integrated, unifying approach” that aims to optimize the health of people, animals, and ecosystems because they are interdependent. Researchers in the health sectors were finding that investing in capacity building and collaboration through the One Health approach could strengthen treatment responses for these three groups. The idea emerged in the wake of disruptions to the global supply chains brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The One Health approach also emphasized sustainable recovery, as countries faced several development challenges that would shape their relationship to the environment, such as demographic shifts, climate change, and natural resource degradation. In adopting the One Health approach to the wider agricultural sector, the impacts of one area of health on another can be assessed with a focus on environmental integration.

“When we want to transform the food land systems, we have to consider the global challenges,” said Hung Nguyen-Viet, Program Leader, Health, at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

As part of CGIAR’s Agenda for 2030, the One Health initiative was first built on protecting human health from zoonoses—diseases from wild animals or livestock—food-borne diseases, and antimicrobial resistance. The focus on animal diseases served as an entry point for the One Health approach, according to Jordon Chamberlin, principal scientist for the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Nairobi. Through their research projects, they could advance their understanding of the risks for infectious diseases and antibiotic resistance in livestock.

Following the projects’ conclusions, CGIAR’s team found that there were opportunities for cross-sectoral collaborations to incorporate the One Health approach. The team also recommended there needed to be greater engagement with policymakers to translate research findings into tangible strategies and the development of adaptable, context-specific interventions.

The open, analytical nature of the One Health model can go beyond health and agriculture. The impact of the global and local economies should also be taken into consideration, Chamberlin argued, such as in how global trends or supply shocks play out in local markets and how this influences farm management. This raises the possibility for new One Health research opportunities, such as the economics of organic production in smallholder systems and the new market opportunities or the impact of soil health across the food value systems.

The need for cross-sectoral partnerships and data was addressed during a panel discussion.
“We need partnerships; we need an enabling environment through enabling policies and legislative framework,” said Lillian Wambua, Regional Programme Officer, One Health for Africa, World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). “We need data and evidence that is going to help us… navigate the environments and barriers.”

Esther Mugi, a scientist for the African Plant Nutrition Institute (APNI), recommended that professionals from different sectors could convene in joint training programs or public dialogues to address the One Health principles. This would also ensure that there were domestic, homegrown approaches to addressing the challenges in the One Health approach, she said.

These partnerships across different sectors – the public and private sectors, academia, research groups like CGIAR, and government partners — should also be rooted in the involvement of the agricultural communities. As Wambua pointed out, “Most of these issues start and end with the community.”

IPS UN Bureau Report,

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);