Educational attainment is a key determinant of diet quality. The overarching pathways (i.e. theories and mechanisms) through which educational attainment shapes diet quality remain largely unexplored in the nutrition literature, and the most salient pathways likely differ across time, populations and socio-economic and political contexts. This commentary proposes a research agenda and outlines methodological considerations that are intended to better illuminate the educational attainment–diet quality relationship. From an extensive review of the literature, which led to two publications pertinent to the topic, we identified three major research gaps that should be addressed to better understand how educational attainment stratifies diet quality to guide interventions and inform equity-enhancing policies: (1) interrogating the construct of educational attainment; (2) comparative population–level and subgroup studies; and (3) root cause analyses and structural reforms. We also discuss methodological considerations needed to inform future studies of associations between educational attainment and diet quality.

Private sector entities can invest in and own the means of healthcare provision, creating opportunities and risks for health systems. While private investment can enhance access to capital, promote competition, and foster innovation, it can also exacerbate incentives for providers to engage in supplier-induced demand, undue price increases, quality compromises, and ‘cherry-picking’ of the most profitable patients and services. Despite the growing presence of private investors in the healthcare sector, heterogeneity in investor types remains poorly understood. This limits the ability of policymakers to consider whether, and to what extent, regulatory intervention is called for in relation to different forms of investor-ownership. By drawing on principal-agent theory, this article begins to address this gap by presenting a typology of investor-ownership in health services provision. Examining the policy relevance of such a typology, we present a case study analysis of current regulations directed at ownership across five countries, representing different health system models. We find that regulatory frameworks that differentiate between types of for-profit investor-ownership are largely absent in Europe, but more developed in the US. We argue that growing private investments require a combination of entry regulation and behavioural oversight to better align the incentives of investor-owners with public health objectives.

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the biggest global health threats, demanding urgent action. However, the threat of AMR and the ability to respond to it are far from evenly distributed. In many parts of the global South, where infectious diseases are more common, healthcare systems are weaker, and the social conditions that shape health are more precarious, the effects of AMR are felt more acutely. Because AMR arises within these unequal conditions, rapid action alone is insufficient; attention to how costs and benefits are distributed, who is prioritised, and whose voices are heard is essential to ensure that efforts do not inadvertently deepen existing inequalities. Hence, as the world prepares to tackle this “complex wicked problem,” it needs to ensure that we not only make a quick transition but also a just one. The first step in ensuring a just AMR transition is examining the fairness of our current strategies. This study critically reviews the National Action Plans of the countries in the WHO Western Pacific Region to examine the extent to which ideas of justice are considered. Findings reveal that there are limited considerations for how the burden and benefits of actions are shared; decision-making is dominated by external and national actors within human health. Access to antibiotics is restricted across the spectrum without adequately expanding and strengthening alternatives. As NAPs undergo revision, there is a need to more consciously and explicitly integrate considerations of justice and equity to avoid unintended harm and ensure effective outcomes.

Growing demand for social care and resource constraints compel decision-makers to decide how to allocate public resources to social care. Such decisions may result in differences in access to social care between groups in society. In this study we conducted a secondary analysis of articles included in a systematic review on the underpinnings of resource allocation decisions in social care, extending that work to examine the potential consequences of such decisions. We conducted the review in accordance with the PRISMA framework. Through a thematic framework analysis of 37 of the 42 articles included in the parent review, we identified five groups in society that may be disproportionately affected by the consequences of resource allocation decisions on social care: (1) individuals with long-term social care needs (2) informal caregivers, (3) lower socio-economic groups, (4) individuals with limited health literacy skills, and (5) individuals living across different regions. Our findings highlight that allocation decisions in social care particularly affect women and individuals facing language barriers and may create local variation in provision of social care. These findings suggest potential for inequitable access to social care in society and underscore the need for decision-makers to consider the consequences of their allocation decisions.

This response builds upon ideas introduced in Charity Hudley et al.'s (2020) target article by focusing on the themes of excellence and racial justice. In addition to relying on previous academic work on race and racism, I also draw from my own experiences as a person of color in the field of linguistics and as a scholar who works with racially minoritized communities. The primary claims of this paper are that the field of linguistics as a whole benefits from broadening and deepening our conceptualizations of scholarly excellence and from consciously attending to the needs and concerns of scholars and community members from racially minoritized groups. To support these claims, I discuss ways in which institutional structures of universities hinder equity and inclusion by marginalizing contributions of scholars from racially minoritized groups and by promoting extractive and neocolonial work involving minoritized communities. I conclude by offering general principles that can serve as guides for fostering greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in university settings. These principles involve acknowledging present shortcomings, aligning the reward system to a broadened notion of excellence and to inclusion, and embracing creative alternatives.

This research examines the role that myths play in sustaining the institutional position of philanthropy in a context of sector reinvention during the COVID-19 recovery. Specifically, we study discourse around the post-pandemic philanthropic sector reforms to the Disbursement Quota (DQ) in Canada. The DQ is the minimum asset payout rate that philanthropic foundations in Canada must maintain to enjoy charitable status and associated tax benefits. We examine submissions to government, media articles, and public statements by philanthropic sector advocates to analyze the ideological work of DQ-related discourses in creating and entrenching philanthropic myths. Our findings coalesce around three philanthropic myths: (1) the Modernization Myth (2) the Goodness Myth; and (3) the Equity Myth. We argue that these philanthropic myths function to maintain the institutional position of philanthropy in this moment of sector reinvention by obscuring the sector’s colonial-capitalist histories and institutional contradictions.

Philanthropic foundations in the USA have long wrestled with how to demonstrate they contribute to the public good in a democratic society given the outsized voice their wealth provides. Evaluating the work of their grantees is one way that foundations can demonstrate what that contribution is; the data drawn from evaluation are used to give accounts about the value of their work. Recently, foundations have confronted the evidence-based policy movement which promotes randomized controlled trials as an evaluation tool that can help reveal “what works” in the realm of social services. This provides a path for foundations to more firmly establish that they are benefiting society by providing impact but also presents risks around entrenching inequities and diminishing the voice of community partners. Drawing on interviews from 2019 with program officers from large U.S. foundations that fund social services evaluation, we find that, perhaps surprisingly, the majority of these foundations have serious concerns about RCT-based evaluation, are not giving impact-based accounts of their contributions, and instead rely on equity-based accounts, presenting grantees as partners and recognizing pluralist forms of knowledge. This approach offers a different, less top-down, solution to ongoing demands that foundations demonstrate their value in a democracy.

Most European universities lag behind the best universities in the Anglo-Saxon world. A key challenge is to raise resources per student in Europe to US levels. The Lisbon agenda demands fundamental reform of the European university system in order to enhance efficiency, yet avoid grade inflation, to foster more competition, to allow for much larger private contributions accompanied by income-contingent student loans, and to attract larger numbers of foreign students. European universities will be pushed to compete with each other, to offer better incentives and to generate substantially more income. Universities will be stimulated to provide sufficient diversity and quality to meet the demands of a growing and diverse student body. Their ambition should be to educate the best minds in society irrespective of whether their parents are rich or poor, academically inclined or uneducated. A shift from grants to loans and an increase in tuition fees are justified by high returns. Reform should lead to a better and more equitable system of European universities.

We study how competition impacts security-bid auctions by comparing Monopolistic and Competitive auctions. Sellers choose their security designs between debt and equity, and buyers select auctions based on sellers’ choices. We find that an auction’s security design has limited influence on revenue under monopoly, whereas equity substantially increases revenue under competition due to equity attracting more bidders. Despite this, sellers’ rate of choosing equity does not differ between the treatments. While theory suggests that security choice when acting as a buyer should be negatively correlated to one’s choice as a seller, we find the empirical correlation to be positive.