You have left the new version of The Economist website. Please let us know your thoughts.

The Economist explains

Explaining the world, daily

  • The Economist explains

    Why the “WTO option” for Brexit will prove tricky

    by C.W.

    There are few widely agreed truths in the Brexit debate, but one of them is this: if Britain fails to reach a trade deal with the European Union after Brexit, it will have to fall back on the “WTO option”. This involves trading solely under rules set by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which govern things like tariffs and quotas. However, in recent months trade economists have reached an uncomfortable conclusion: falling back on the WTO could be a lot harder than it looks. Why?

  • The Economist explains

    What makes a work of art valuable?

    by F.R.

    To mark the publication of “Go Figure”, a collection of The Economist’s explainers and daily charts, the editors of this blog solicited ideas on Facebook and Twitter. This week we publish five explainers suggested by our readers, who will each receive a copy of the book.   

    THE first artists emerged in the Ice Age, when humans moved out of the eastern Mediterranean and into the rich central European plain with its plentiful supply of food. Initially they painted what they saw around them—people, animals, hunting—as scenes depicted in ochre and mud on the walls of caves.

  • The Economist explains

    What do think-tanks do?

    by T.W.

    To mark the publication of “Go Figure”, a collection of The Economist’s explainers and daily charts, the editors of this blog solicited ideas on Facebook and Twitter. This week we publish five explainers suggested by our readers, who will each receive a copy of the book.   

    “ACCORDING to such-and-such, a think-tank,” is a phrase familiar to readers of any newspaper, not least The Economist. Sharp quotes, intriguing facts and bold new policy proposals are attributed to the mysterious tanks (as is plenty of rubbish). What exactly are these outfits, which churn out reports on everything from Brexit to badgers?

  • The Economist explains

    What is the point of spam e-mail?

    by T.C.

    To mark the publication of "Go Figure", a collection of The Economist’s explainers and daily charts, the editors of this blog solicited ideas on Facebook and Twitter. This week we publish five explainers suggested by our readers, who will each receive a copy of the book.   

    ACCORDING to internet folklore, the very first spam e-mail was sent in 1978, to around 400 recipients. The sender was given a ticking-off, and told not to do it again. Alas for that golden age. These days, a torrent of poorly spelled e-mails promising to cure wrinkles, enlarge penises, banish fat or wire millions in unclaimed offshore wealth is the fate of almost everyone with an e-mail address.

  • The Economist explains

    What makes something a commodity?

    by H.T.

    To mark the publication of "Go Figure", a collection of The Economist’s explainers and daily charts, the editors of this blog solicited ideas on Facebook and Twitter. This week we publish five explainers suggested by our readers, who will each receive a copy of the book.   

    A COMMODITY, said Karl Marx, “appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” A commodities trader might snort at such a definition: there is nothing much metaphysical, after all, about pork bellies—however divine (or sinful) the taste of bacon.

  • The Economist explains

    Can markets be too free?

    by J.O’S.

    To mark the publication of “Go Figure”, a collection of The Economist’s explainers and daily charts, the editors of this blog solicited ideas on Facebook and Twitter. This week we publish five explainers suggested by our readers, who will each receive a copy of the book.

    ASKED why the Federal Reserve had failed to anticipate the lax bank lending that ultimately led to the global financial crisis, Alan Greenspan, the Fed’s former chairman, said he had the wrong model. He had assumed that bankers, acting in their self-interest, could not blow up their own banks. He was wrong, and the regulation of banks has since become far stricter.

  • The Economist explains 2016

    The most popular explainers of 2016

    by The editors

    EVERY weekday “The Economist explains” blog provides a simple, four-paragraph primer on subjects knotty and straightforward, newsy and evergreen. This year we helped readers unpick the many facets of Brexit and the implications of a Donald Trump presidency. We also devoted space to explaining seminal ideas of economics and the candidates’s positions on policy issues during the American presidential election. Many of these subjects feature in our list of the most read explainers of the year, as do matters of definition, such as what makes something an “assault weapon”. The list below is a distillation of the year in its purest form: gauged by reader interest.

  • The Economist explains

    How food packaging is good for the environment

    by M.S.L.J.

    SUPERMARKETS encourage shoppers to buy products through clever layouts and cunning promotions. Packaging presents items in an alluring way. It also keeps them clean and safe to eat. Green types balk at plastic-encased bananas. But some forms of packaging, especially for meat, can be an environmental boon. A third of food never makes it to the plate according to the UN, costing billions of dollars every year. Taken together, greenhouse-gas emissions from food waste are higher than those of India, Brazil or Saudi Arabia, because chucking out items means the water, fuel, fertilizer and other inputs that went into them are wasted too.

  • The Economist explains

    Should you say Myanmar or Burma?

    by J.F. | YANGON/RANGOON

    “FOLLOW local practice when a country expressly changes its name,” advises “The Economist Style Book”, the Bible of this newspaper. Among the list of examples that follow (“Lviv, not Lvov” etc) only two rate authorial interjections: “Myanmar, not (alas) Burma” and “Yangon, not (alas, alack) Rangoon”. We follow that dictate in our pages, of course, but not everyone else does.

  • The Economist explains

    What is populism?

    by M.S.

    DONALD TRUMP, the populist American president-elect, wants to deport undocumented immigrants. Podemos, the populist Spanish party, wants to give immigrants voting rights. Geert Wilders, the populist Dutch politician, wants to eliminate hate-speech laws. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the populist Polish politician, pushed for a law making it illegal to use the phrase “Polish death camps”. Evo Morales, Bolivia’s populist president, has expanded indigenous farmers’ rights to grow coca. Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines’ populist president, has ordered his police to execute suspected drug dealers.

  • The Economist explains

    How Oxford University is diversifying its student body

    by H.B.

    BETWEEN 2010 and 2015, just 20 of Britain's 650 parliamentary constituencies accounted for 16% of successful applicants to Oxford University, by one ranking the world’s best. By contrast 156 constituencies got on average less than one pupil a year into Oxford. Although the university attracts many more students from ethnic minorities and state schools than it once did, such figures show the difficulty it has in bringing in students from the poorest parts of Britain. How does Oxford hope to change its intake?

    Two main barriers stand in the way of a more diverse university. First, poor pupils are less likely to apply to Oxford.

  • The Economist explains

    How faithless electors could flip the vote

    by V.v.B | CHICAGO

    “FIFTEEN years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On December 19th, I will do it again.” Thus ended an op-ed in the New York Times at the beginning of December by Christopher Suprun, a Republican paramedic from Texas, who is one of the 538 members of the electoral college that will do its work on December 19th. Mr Suprun says he has the legal right and the constitutional duty to vote following his conscience. This is why he decided to become a “faithless elector”, as some have called him, by refusing to cast his electoral college vote in accordance with the results in his state.

  • The Economist explains

    Turkey’s constitutional overhaul

    by P.Z. | ISTANBUL

    TURKEY'S president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has held power for the past 13 years, first as prime minister and since 2014 as president, longer than any leader other than the country's founder, Kemal Ataturk. He came a step closer to his cherished dream of one-man rule on December 10th when his prime minister, Binali Yildirim, unveiled a raft of constitutional changes that would place all executive power in Mr Erdogan’s hands. Parliament will vote on the amendments early next year. If at least 330 of 550 lawmakers endorse the package, it will be put to a referendum in the late spring.

  • The Economist explains

    Why half of Africans still don’t have mobile phones

    by J.R.

    JUMP onto the back of a motorcycle taxi almost anywhere between Nigeria and Kenya and the odds are that your driver will be wearing a high-visibility vest carrying the logo of a mobile telephone company. The phones themselves are even more ubiquitous. By the end of this year there will probably be close to 1bn active subscriptions for mobile phones across the continent, almost one for each of 1.2bn people living in Africa.

  • The Economist explains

    Why Japan and Russia never formally ended the second world war

    by N.S. | MOSCOW

    VLADIMIR PUTIN, Russia's president, will make his first official visit to Japan on December 15th, where he will join Shinzo Abe in the hot springs in the Japanese prime minister’s hometown of Nagato. Mr Abe hopes to use the occasion to resolve a 70-year standoff that stretches back to the closing phase of the second world war, when the Soviet Union suddenly joined the allies in attacking Japan. After the Japanese capitulated, the two sides never signed a peace treaty (though a 1956 joint declaration restored diplomatic relations and ended the state of war). Relations have been strained ever since. Why have Russia and Japan never formally ended the second world war? 

About The Economist explains

On this blog, our correspondents explain subjects both topical and timeless, profound and peculiar, with The Economist's trademark clarity and brevity

Advertisement

Advertisement

Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines


Visit The Economist e-store and you’ll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more

Advertisement