Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
A year ago New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, proposed to adjust a state cap on charter schools, the publicly funded but privately run schools that have become a locus of innovation and controversy in American education. Ms Hochul’s plan was not ambitious, but it would have allowed dozens of new charter schools to open in New York City, where they already attract about 15% of public-school students and where thousands of families languish on waiting lists. But the governor’s plan drew fervent protests from fellow Democrats, including state legislators aligned with teachers’ unions. After a bruising fight, the governor had to settle last autumn for a small increase.
The row reflected a discouraging change in the politics of charter schools. Once a topic of unusual bipartisan enthusiasm, the schools have become divisive, particularly among Democrats. Barack Obama campaigned on charter-school expansion in 2008, but Joe Biden declared in 2020 that he was not enamoured of them. (His administration has nonetheless maintained federal funding for charters.) Republicans are more favourably inclined overall, and Donald Trump increased support during his presidency. But Republican priorities have shifted since George W. Bush, as president, and his brother Jeb, as governor of Florida, championed charters as beacons of racial equity. These days Republicans prioritise vouchers that allow parents to use taxpayer funds to enroll children in religious schools.
The relative neglect of charters comes just as fresh evidence has arisen that they are successful. Last June a comprehensive new study emerged from Stanford University. It is the latest of three national studies carried out over two decades by the Centre for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). The first study analysed 13 states and three big cities between 2000 and 2008 by comparing charter pupils with peers in other public schools. On average charter pupils performed worse in reading and maths. This was hardly inspiring. Four years later, a follow-up study had mixed results: charter pupils performed better in reading but worse in maths.
Image: The Economist
Fast forward to June’s study, which used data from 2014 to 2019. Its results show a positive trajectory over time (see chart). In all 31 geographic locations studied (29 states, New York City and the District of Columbia), pupils in charters outperformed their traditional public-school peers, on average. Pupils gained the equivalent of six days of learning in maths and 16 days in reading each year. “We don’t see a revolution,” says Macke Raymond, the lead researcher of the Stanford studies. “We are seeing thousands of [charter] schools getting a little bit better every year.” Other recent studies, such as research by Douglas Harris at Tulane University and investigators at the University of Arkansas, also report positive results.
This is a departure not just from past findings of CREDO but also from the broader patterns of past research. During the 1990s and early 2000s, as the charter movement gathered momentum, Democrats and Republicans promoted the innovation more from instinct or a preference for parental choice than on the basis of evidence. It can be hard to study how particular schools shape educational outcomes, since so many other factors—economic circumstance and parental educational attainment, for example—are influential. Early studies often delivered mixed results. Research was like a Rorschach test: stakeholders interpreted new studies according to their own biases.
The latest CREDO report provides clear evidence of success and also describes which types of charter schools seem to be working best. Larger charter management organisations (cmos in the jargon), which run multiple schools at a time, have stronger results on average than stand-alone charters. There were also hundreds of successful charters where disadvantaged pupils (black, Hispanic, poor pupils or English-learners) performed similarly to or better than their more advantaged peers.
Charter enrolment is growing and the schools’ impact on American children is substantial. In 2021 about 4m public-school pupils studied in charters, more than double the number enrolled back in 2010. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia allow them. In Chicago, where 15% of public-school students enroll, black and Hispanic families are disproportionately represented, as is typical in cities that offer them. In poverty-stricken Philadelphia, a third of public-school children are educated in charters.
Republican support for charters reflected a preference for parental choice among right-leaning politicians, but the policy did not pay clear dividends at election time, since the schools had the most impact in big cities, which are often dominated by Democrats. Vouchers offer political benefits because they are attractive to religious, home-schooling and suburban voters. Amid great fanfare, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and other Republican-led states have passed laws allowing parents to use vouchers to direct public dollars to private schools they choose, including religious ones, or for other educational assistance. “Republicans have long been supportive of charter schools even though most of their constituents do not attend,” says Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, a think-tank. However, school-choice plans “can result in money actually in the pockets of Republican constituents…and so I think that has obvious appeal.”
Mr Trump has seized on school choice as a campaign issue for 2024. He hopes to tap into the emotional “parents’ rights” movement visible in the form of shouting matches at school-board meetings, as conservative parents have lately battled teaching about DEI and trans rights while their liberal opponents seek curriculums they regard as inclusive and essential.
Democrats have no obvious parent-friendly education policy to promote now they have turned away from charter-school expansion. According to a survey by Education Next, a journal, while 55% of Republicans support charter schools, only 38% of Democrats do. More white Democratic voters oppose charters than do non-white Democratic voters. Many of the white respondents say they fear charters undermine racial equity, which may surprise the black and Hispanic voters whose children are flourishing in them. ■
On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.
How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister
Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.
If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.
Why No Election Was Required
A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.
This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.
The King’s Constitutional Role
After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.
Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.
Could an Election Still Happen?
Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.
In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.
What This Means for the UK
The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.
Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.
On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.
According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.
The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.
For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.
The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.
The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.
Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.
For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.