Thursday, September 18, 2025
Home Blog Page 68

Minimum-wage law in Ethiopia makes economic, political and moral sense

0

The question of minimum wage has been hotly debated for decades by economists and politicians alike. Lately, the debate in many countries has increasingly been less on the utility of a minimum wage and instead on its periodical cost-of-living adjustments. Ethiopia is a prominent laggard in this respect, with a statutory minimum wage conspicuously absent from its labor market policies or safety nets. It does have a minimum pay for civil servants, though. But as it turns out, setting a legal minimum on wages today would make a lot of sense.

For sure, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade Unions (CETU) has been demanding extension of minimum-wage regulations to workers in public and private enterprises. But the government has so far remained cautious in its approach to the matter. Ethiopia’s Labor Proclamation of 2019 does provide for the establishment of an all-inclusive “wage board that will periodically revise minimum wages,” albeit somewhat bewilderingly given there is no national minimum wage to begin with. Yet Ethiopia has not ratified the International Labor Organization’s Minimum Wage Fixing Convention of 1970, despite marking the centenary anniversary of its ILO membership.   

However, the immediacy of the need to provide greater economic security to low-income families is undeniable. The cost of living in Ethiopia has gone through the roof, turbocharged by negative collateral effects from Washington Consensus-like reforms. Incomes in real terms have nosedived; the poor and the working class are staring into a financial abyss. Heartbreaking stories of Ethiopians failing to make a living despite working full-time and often in wretched conditions are not news. And one reason for workers’ heightened economic plight is that their wages have lagged far behind inflation; another is effective tax overburden. Needless to say, the workers are calling for faster wage hikes as their real wages plummet before their very eyes.

To be fair, the gravity of workers’ pittance has not been completely lost on the policymakers. Not long ago, the federal government more than tripled the minimum pay for civil servants from a mere ETB 1,500 (USD 11, at current exchange rates) to ETB 4,800 (USD 35) per month. But the fate of low-wage workers in public and private enterprises – including those in the industrial parks – has been left ostensibly to the labor market, in actuality at employers’ mercy.

The problem is that the market economy is inherently amoral. It treats labor very much like a commodity. Employers, being in business to maximize profit, pay as little as possible. And they are able to pay low wages when alternative opportunities for workers are minimal as is the case in Ethiopia. To put it baldly, the alternative for workers may well be living on a garbage dump or even worse. Still, the working poor do not necessarily deserve their poverty wages. You might argue that their productivity is pretty low, but is it really fair to expect more from food-insecure workers? On the other hand, one of the primary moral functions of a contemporary state is to promote the economic well-being of its citizens. And mandating a wage floor is the least the government can do to protect the least-paid against exploitation and provide more social justice.  

Of course, morality aside, we must also ask key economic questions. Firstly, do minimum wages reduce the incentive to create jobs, or price some workers out of the market? Theoretically, they can. The labor market is supposed to be governed by the forces of supply and demand. So, if a minimum-wage legislation raises the wage rate above the level that balances supply and demand, it reduces the quantity of labor demanded, resulting in loss of employment. But since this loss of employment is thought to concern the unskilled and inexperienced members of the labor force, it is presumed to be small in relative terms. Thus, minimum-wage advocates used to argue that this small trade-off is worth making in order to raise the earnings of the laboring poor.

But in reality, it has become increasingly evident that a minimum wage has very little if any practical impact on jobs. One explanation for this is that the extra cost to firms may be relatively small, especially when the minimum wage is binding for only a fraction of their workforce. An even more important justification is that while paying workers more increases production costs, offsetting benefits accrue to the firm from better morale, lower turnover and greater effort (productiveness) of the workforce. That is, the employer ends up reaping a competitive advantage, instead of losing it. And recent research shows that the net firm-level employment and wage effects of productivity growth have been positive.

At a macro level, too, decent wages do not just reduce in-work poverty and promote quality of life, but boost economic growth through consumption expenditure and productivity channels. Raising incomes of the working poor can also reduce income inequality and distribute economic opportunities, thereby enriching the whole society. The purpose of an economy, after all, is not to revel or dazzle in statistical wonderland, but to improve the standard of living of the majority. And one way growth can trickle down to the average Ethiopian is via wage gains for lower-paid workers. Yes, this wage growth normally results from tighter labor markets, but that is not in sight in Ethiopia thanks to an indomitable “reserve army of labor.” So, as alluded to above, when the invisible hand of the market is debilitated, the government needs to wield its legislative arm.   

Here, though, is another economic question: If the federal government flexes its muscles by enacting a minimum wage, does this jeopardize Ethiopia’s ability to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) based on cheap labor and the attendant prospect for industrial growth? Not really. True, for a long time investment in labor-intensive export industries of developing countries was preached and often undertaken by anticipating profit opportunities offered by cheap labor. And workers in those countries would be told to endure their “slave wages” until the export-oriented industrialization process had matured enough to correct them. Essentially, we have workers’ misery justified by invoking their own and their nation’s very economic survival.  

But how poor do we need the working poor to be? Surely not as poor as ours are, and not least because it is not at all clear that the price they are paying will be worth it. First, to argue that Ethiopia will reach the “promised land” by pursuing low wage-driven industrialization requires a questionable economic leap of faith. Has Ethiopia not been locked in the production and export of primary commodities for a very long time, all the while having low wages? In fact, low labor productivity is arguably the most binding constraint on Ethiopia’s ability to break into world markets for labor-intensive manufactures. To help overcome this constraint, we need to actually raise labor remuneration, not depress it. Besides, a large proportion of recent FDI in Ethiopian manufacturing has been prompted by market-seeking or import-substituting motives. Finally, in today’s global competition, low labor cost has less of a role to play in determining countries’ relative position. A major factor for this is the fact that foreign rivals can match or even surpass it with higher productivity, or eliminate labor altogether through automation in some industries.

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that low-cost labor is the be-all and end-all of Ethiopia’s comparative advantage in attracting manufacturing FDI, a minimum-wage imposition will barely risk waiving it. First, more than 170 countries have one or more minimum wages, so it will not shock or awe investors if Ethiopia legislates its own. In fact, Ethiopia is one of only four countries in Africa without a minimum-wage policy (the others are Eritrea, Somalia and South Sudan – not the most enviable company). Second, the current level of wages at the bottom of the wage distribution is so low by any reasonable standard that it can be raised by some amount without incurring the undesired side effects. Last, our actual and expected currency depreciation works to offset the potential reduction in comparative advantage.

What of the political viability of a minimum-wage law? In the Ethiopian context, it is not in question. Firstly, the law would resonate well with the overwhelming majority of the public. Secondly, the bill can sail through Parliament, not just because the ruling party enjoys an overwhelming majority of the seats, but because the law entails no budgetary allocation. Finally, it is known that an economy that combines rising prices with unduly low wages is often a recipe for political and social unrest. So the legislation would add to headwinds for the latter.  

Now, it is one thing to endorse a minimum wage, and quite another to set it appropriately. To serve its intended purpose, the federal wage floor should be set at a level that ensures the minimum acceptable standard of living. More technically, the earnings per month of a minimum-wage worker should be at least equal to the national (total) poverty line. By an already four-year-old estimation (before Birr’s abject surrender in Forex), this would be ETB 8,262 (now USD 60). To ensure that most of the mandatory earnings remain disposable, the gross wages of the said worker should then be taxed after a generous exemption and at the lowest possible tax withholding rate (typically 10%). In light of this, last week’s fiscal policy maneuver that raises the antiquated personal income tax exemption from ETB 600 to a flattering ETB 2,000 for a monthly pay, and raises the bottom withholding rate from 10 to 15%, comes across as pathetic.

This being said, a note of caution is in order. For one thing, a national minimum wage is not meant to provide a decent standard of living, regardless of the extent of taxation. Looking forward, what workers really need to earn to afford their basic needs is a “living wage,” which is also endorsed by the ILO. To that end, workers will have to muster not legislative but bargaining power through trade unions. Beyond this, Ethiopia’s “working poor” includes both wage and non-wage earners, so the minimum-wage protection itself will not reach out to the latter. And even within the wage earners, a pragmatic approach in Ethiopia dictates that some should be exempt from the legal wage floor – apprentices, domestic workers (paid mainly in kind), workers in micro and small enterprises, and those in religious denominations, to name a few. 

Putting it all together, too low a wage is in the interest of neither workers, nor employers, nor the economy as a whole. And mandating a minimum wage is good economics, good politics, as well as a reasonable morality. There is little reason for our government to dillydally over the issue. But if the law comes to fruition, all those concerned will do well not to get hysterical about it.

Matias Assefa is Economic and Business Analyst based in Addis Ababa. He can be contacted at matias.assefa@gmail.com

THE INCONSIDERATE REMARK CONTRARY TO HYDRODYNAMIC REALITY OF NILE RIVER

0

President Trump’s remarks about the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) have indeed stirred controversy across Eastern Africa, particularly between Ethiopia and Egypt. Trump unashamed claim and  characterization of the dam as “closing up water going to the Nile,” calling it “incredible” and suggesting the U.S. would resolve the issue quickly is undue and uninvited intrusion in the normal and peaceful play field of  the riparian countries game.

In the first place, no dam was ever designed or constructed anywhere in the world with the purpose or capacity to completely stop the normal flow of water downstream. This is unthinkable leave alone in modern world where hydraulic science has reached cutting age stage, but even when people, guided by informal knowledge, understood the importance of allowing water to flow downstream and sustain life.

The hydrodynamic reality of any river simply does not permit a complete shut-off of its natural flow, regardless of human intervention. By its very nature, it will compel a way out for itself in the downstream direction. In reality there is nothing that threatens the natural share of Nile waters to Sudan and Egypt.  This is affirmed by other riparian countries around.

Thus, stirring unwanted political incendiary comment in the peaceful zone seems either with lack of knowledge of the hydrodynamic ground reality around or it is to bring unwanted anarchy in the region stability.

Such remarks risk disturbing the long-standing peaceful diplomatic ties among these countries. Ethiopia’s stance remains firm, emphasizing its sovereign right to develop its water resources within its borders to alleviate its own people problem while promoting a fair, win-win sharing of these resources with downstream and other riparian nations.

Hence, external political remarks—especially when misinformed or inconsiderate—can disrupt regional equilibrium and sow unnecessary inharmoniousness seeds in the relation. Uninformed comments may stem from a lack of understanding of local realities, or from a wrong move intended to provoke instability. Either way, such corrosive effect is unwanted on this part of Africa land.

When powerful nations interject with partisan bias, it risks eroding or unravelling decades of careful diplomacy between Ethiopia, Egypt, and Sudan. Ethiopia upholds its sovereign right to develop the Blue Nile with a win-win shared vision. It openly declares that it has no intention to harm any riparian country taking disproportionate share. Ethiopia rather promote regional cooperation through fair and equitable resource sharing open to peaceful dialogue honouring all riparian nations.

Ethiopia among others, doesn’t want frustration to be planted by unsolicited oversight from individual acting as self-appointed sheriffs who lack contextual understanding. Rather, Ethiopia demands respectful relation that insists equity among the riparian countries. Ethiopia emphasizes that trustworthy, fair-share relations, transcending territoriality, should govern regional partnerships among riparian countries

Leaders who speak their mind unfairly, often due to a lack of understanding of the real situation or context, can inadvertently encourage misguided actions while undermining the legitimate position of others in the field. Therefore, they should exercise caution and avoid making naive statements that could disturb the delicate balance of the diplomacy by tilting the scales onto uneven ground evoking a distorted image that create  imbalance where equity should prevail.

However, when leaders speak without fully grasping the context, their words can cause unintended disruption to peaceful neighbourhood diplomatic platform. The riparian countries therefore urge global actors to speak loudly with wisdom, not mere volume, aiming beyond empty declarations toward meaningful cooperation among all riparian states.

The Nile River’s waters are not merely a resource but a lifeline, a legacy, and a catalyst for cooperation among all riparian countries—not a commodity to fuel conflict. The riparian countries including Ethiopia do not need self-appointed sheriffs or watchdogs to meddle in their internal affairs uninvited.

Ethiopia and fellow riparian states clearly positioned themselves to steward their own developmental destiny seeking cooperation not control. They want other world in the diplomatic area to realize that they really recognize Nile water not merely as a common commodity but as a shared moral and economic value and ecological bond of trust among riparian countries.

Ethiopia, along with other riparian countries, rejects any attempts to sow frustration through unsolicited oversight imposed by individuals acting as self-appointed sheriffs who lack the necessary contextual understanding. Instead, Ethiopia calls for respectful relations grounded in equity among all riparian nations. Trustworthy and fair-share partnerships—transcending narrow territorial interests—must govern regional cooperation to ensure sustainable and mutually beneficial water resource management.

Nile water is powerful catalyst for unity among all riparian nations in east Africa. Ethiopia, does not welcome uninvited frustration born unsought idea from individuals particularly when such actors lack contextual understanding and sensitivity to ground realities.

Ethiopia’s stance is clear on regional cooperation and water resource management, emphasizing equity, respect, and mutual understanding among riparian countries rather than unilateral or imposed misunderstanding. The power and peril of global influence should not be wielded indiscriminately across East Africa.

All riparian countries emphasis  that genuine regional progress can only be achieved through dialogue characterized by mutual respect, equity, and an informed appreciation of the unique challenges and aspirations of all riparian countries.

The inconsiderate remarks made by President Trump, which run contrary to the existing realities, underscore a lack of contextual understanding of the complex hydrodynamic dynamics of the Nile River. At this critical stage, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) holds the full might of the Blue Nile, capable of producing serious impacts for better or worse in the region.

In place of imbalance and undue interference, Ethiopia calls for respectful engagement rooted in mutual equity. It champions partnerships that transcend territorial boundaries and prioritize trust, fairness, and inclusiveness in the governance of shared resources.

 All riparian countries, including Ethiopia, emphasize that regional cooperation must be driven not by volume or vanity, but by wisdom, empathy, and a steadfast commitment to the well-being of all communities dependent on these waters.

Ethiopia’s stance, is steeped in a deep understanding of sovereignty and mutual respect, and it carries a call for equitable collaboration. When countries are bound by a shared vision, their collective voice signals diplomatic strength. Their message is not to silence global engagement but to elevate it to fostering a well-rooted understanding of the corresponding needs of all riparian nations with mutual respect.

This stance aligns with Ethiopia’s active commitment to the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) under the Nile Basin Initiative, which seeks to institutionalize equitable and reasonable utilization of Nile waters.

Ethiopia among others believes mutual respect trust will foster and promote peace and sustainable development among riparian states. Such an approach will best ensure sustainable peace, economic progress, and equitable benefit-sharing across the Nile Basin. This is a cornerstone of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI).

This agreement isn’t just a legal document—it’s a vision for sustainable, inclusive, and equitable water governance across the region. Ethiopia’s stance on mutual respect, trust, and equitable cooperation among Nile Basin riparian states reflects a forward-looking approach to regional water governance. The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was indeed established to foster dialogue and joint management of the Nile’s resources, emphasizing sustainable development, peace, and shared benefits.

Ethiopia advocates for a cooperative framework where all Nile Basin countries engage as equal partners, moving away from historical imbalances in water allocation. Ethiopia fully supports the NBI’s Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA), which seeks fair and reasonable utilization of the Nile’s waters, balancing economic growth with environmental protection.

To sum up, it has to be noted that Ethiopia’s Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is framed as a development project that can also benefit downstream nations through regulated flows and potential energy trade. We hope this collaborative water management can prevent conflicts and strengthen regional integration.

Thank be yours for reading this little piece

The writer can be reached via gzachewwolde@gmail.com

Economic Genocide: An Invisible Atrocity

0

When we mention the word genocide, we usually envision horrific massacres, ethnic cleansing, or organized annihilation by means of physical violence. But today, more annihilating patterns of devastation occur not with gun and gas chamber but by policies and procedures that disenfranchise entire communities of the capacity to survive and thrive. This is also more and more referred to as Economic Genocide – systematic or intentional destruction of the economic pillars of a people to the extent that their own existence, identity, and future are drastically threatened.

While not yet a codified international law definition as the definition of genocide in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Economic Genocide covers willful conduct or chronic negligence that directly lead to economic destruction for an intended group. Economic destruction can lead to forced displacement, hunger, illness, destruction of culture, and ultimately, the disintegration of communities.

Some of the key elements include targeted Economic Marginalization by law or policy that empowers specific groups economically; structural deprivation represented by withholding access to food, water, land, or market; intentional Destruction of Livelihoods which means destruction of homes, farms, or businesses and economic blockades and sanctions which entails use of economic instruments to subdue or exterminate a population’s ability to live.

There are several past and recent instances of economic genocide. Colonialism is generally regarded by most historians as one of the first forms of economic genocide. European empires would demolish indigenous economic institutions, appropriating natural resources under coercion, and imposed taxation that drove subsistence societies into debt bondage and starvation. The British colonial economic strategies in Bengal resulting in the 1943 Bengal Famine that resulted in approximately 3 million deaths are commonly used as an example.

South Africa during apartheid forcibly relocated Black communities from fertile land to places with poorer quality soil and lower economic prospects. It produced engineered poverty for generations and has produced social and economic inequalities which persist to this day.

Sanctions and blockades have been used as a means of war in the recent decades. The criticisms include that broad sanctions placed upon countries like Iraq in the 1990s or Gaza strip blockades of today can be considered collective punishment that destroys civilian economies, causing mass malnutrition and anguish – labeling them with the definition of economic genocide.

There are a number of mechanisms of Economic Genocide. Legal and Policy Instruments by which Governments can pass discriminatory laws that exclude a group from possessing property, accessing credit, or practicing certain professions. Historical examples include the Nuremberg Laws under Nazi Germany and Jim Crow laws in the Southern United States.

Environmental Annihilation whereby extractive industries and mass developmental schemes displacing indigenous peoples and destroying their customary ways of living can constitute economic genocide, especially when done knowingly and without fair compensation.

Blockades and siege warfare whereby cutting off an area from trade, aid, or essential supplies, common in modern warfare – can annihilate civilian populations and break the will to resist by targeting their very survival.

In contrast with mass killings, economic genocide is covert. Its tools – policies, markets, commerce – are bureaucratic and neutral-appearing. Perpetrators can conceal economic ruin with the mask of “development,” “security,” or “democracy sanctions.” Victims often have trouble proving intent, making legal responsibility the exception.

The effects of economic genocide are catastrophic. Economic genocide devastates the social and cultural life of a people. If individuals lose their means of subsistence, they typically migrate or scatter, leading to loss of language, culture, and identity. It traps generations in poverty and dependency and perpetuates inequality and exclusion cycles.

Legal acknowledgment is required to combat economic genocide. Expanding international law to recognize and criminalize sweeping economic destruction. It requires accountability. Strengthening institutions to hold states and corporations accountable for policies that deliberately destroy communities.

It requires restorative Justice. Restoring reparations and economic reconstruction to dispossessed communities that have been victimized by economic warfare. It requires sustainable development: Empowering local economic sovereignty and self-determination, especially for indigenous and marginalized people.

To put it simply, economic genocide isn’t just history anymore but harsh reality in a large part of the world today. It is a reminder that instruments of oppression have evolved, and that the battle for justice has to be equally evolved. To name and recognize economic genocide as such, is the first step towards making sure that no community’s right to live with dignity is erased in the backroom of economic policy.

THE NEW NORM PARADOX RESTRICTING INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

0

Countries like Canada, Australia, and parts of Europe are actively welcoming global talent, offering stable environments and pathways to citizenship. Throughout any learning journey, having access to strong, effective resources is crucial. Learning resources, whether they are from universities, books, mentors, online tools, or communities, serve as steady guides that support growth even in the face of adversity.

Despite tiresome challenges, academic research used to bring most impactful means available to improve human life. However it’s hard to believe there would be anything positive as recent president Trump administration pressure is mounting on academic institution to bar foreign student entry in to US. This is a move that contradicts to its historical role as a global hub for learning and innovation.

The idea that learning isn’t just about acquiring facts, but about building resilience and confidence through connection and support has long been a guiding principle in education. Yet, the academic atmosphere seems to face serious challenge in America especially for those having foreign students in their compound. The contrast between the ideal of education as a nurturing, inclusive journey and the current reality for many international students in the U.S. are starkly adverse.

Visa restrictions and unpredictability is reigning since early 2025. The Trump administration has tightened visa policies, suspending entry for new foreign students at certain universities, and even revoked visas of current students over political activism. This sweeping actions have deeply affected international students, particularly at elite institutions like Harvard.

It goes without question that the disturbing clock is ticking to reach the dead line w the shockwave of Trumps rejection on foreign student registration and research fund reduction is creating unwanted edge in prominent universities. Funding cuts affecting research projects jeopardize not only academic progress but also opportunities for students to engage meaningfully in collaborative innovation.

The Trump Administration froze federal grants (e.g., $9 billion at Harvard) and threatened tax-exempt status over non-compliance with policies on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), a framework used in organizations, education, and workplaces to promote fair treatment, representation, and participation for all people, particularly those from historically marginalized groups.

The imposed severe restrictions on anti-Semitism act on the admission of international students including visa terminations, deportation threats heightened a pervasive climate of fear and confusion among foreign students living in the U.S. This disruption on the educational environment fuelled anxiety in the international student community.

These moves sparked concerns about academic freedom, constitutional rights, and the erosion of intellectual independence in higher education. Restrictions threaten research funding, local jobs, and cross-cultural exchange which were key pillars of the “soft power” these nations known fighting for for long. Harvard has condemned the directive as “retaliatory” and ‘’unlawful’’ and challenged the administration’s actions in court.

Harvard condemned President Trump’s directive as “retaliatory” because it believes the administration’s actions were politically motivated to give corresponding punishments for the university’s refusal to comply with federal demands that Harvard saw as unconstitutional and intrusive.

Thus, Harvard filed a lawsuit seeking permanent relief from funding cuts and visa restrictions. A federal judge has already issued temporary restraining orders blocking the administration’s attempts to bar foreign students and revoke Harvard’s certification to host them. The University expressed firm position that it will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.

Yet, there is a ripple effect which can be seen on the decline in international applications, with many students turning to Canada, Europe, or Australia for more stable and welcoming environments. Thus, universities that rely on international tuition and research are facing budget shortfalls and program cuts.

Besides the threat of deportation of foreigners have also created havoc and a climate of fear and confusion on existence in US.  The climate of uncertainty has disrupted the lives of thousands of foreign students and scholars, many of whom contribute to cutting-edge research out puts in different aspects of science. This is unprecedented trial to global talent

America has long been considered a land of opportunity, attracting talent worldwide, including many prominent scientists and entrepreneurs with foreign backgrounds. Albert Einstein, a refugee from Nazi Germany, revolutionized science while teaching at Princeton. Elon Musk born in South Africa, who first moved to Canada and later to the United States to pursue higher education naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 2002 and built a career that made him one of the most influential innovators globally.

Similarly, Jeff Bezos, born in the U.S. to a Cuban immigrant mother, reflects the diverse backgrounds that have contributed to American success stories. Even both Barack Obama Nobel laureate and Donald Trump have enthralling immigrant family histories that reflect the diversity of American leadership.

These backgrounds highlight how immigrant stories — whether recent or generations old — continue to shape the American immigration and political landscape interweaved with innovation. The U.S., a nation profoundly shaped by immigrant roots and global contributions, now seems to be turning inward at the very gate of knowledge and opportunity.

Countries—renowned for embracing global talent are indeed tightening policies on international students, driven by political, economic, and social pressures. The US is now imposing limits on those foreigners interested to learn and improve their own life and others in the world. In UK, the government has introduced stricter visa rules, including banning master’s students from bringing family members, leading to a 40% drop in postgraduate enrolments.

Labour party parliament members warn that further restrictions, like a proposed levy on international student fees, could exacerbate university funding crises and harm the UK’s reputation as a top education destination. Canada’s 35% cap on new study permits aims to address housing and healthcare strains but risks destabilizing universities reliant on international tuition fees. Australia proposed caps annual enrolments and higher visa fees targeting metropolitan universities, with critics arguing this victimize students for housing shortages rather than addressing policy failures

Recent executive aggressive actions against international students by the US President Trump at prominent universities like Harvard creates unprecedented havoc. Over the past few periods, the U.S. immigration landscape has shifted significantly, especially with policies impacting international students, skilled workers, and academic institutions. These changes have fuelled uncertainty, forcing many to reassess their plans and dreams.

In 2025, major traditional destinations for international students—including the United States, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—are imposing significantly tighter visa restrictions and enrolment caps, creating an unprecedented challenge for foreign students eager to pursue education abroad

This  trend  impose stricter limits and regulations not only to the students themselves but also to the legacy these countries have built as welcoming hubs for international talent and academic excellence. This increased uncertainty and risk for prospective students, especially from countries of lower-income backgrounds.

The country that long has been known for its openness to talent from around the world,the country that welcomed Albert Einstein, who fled from Nazi Germany and became one of the most iconic American and world scientists. The home to Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, the two most impactful entrepreneurs—Bezos was born in the U.S. to Cuban heritage, Musk emigrated from South Africa.

The U.S. known to cherish Malala Yousafzai’s advocacy, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize embracing her as a global symbol for girls’ education and women’s rights. America thatprudly elected Nobel laureate Barack Obama (of Kenyan heritage) and Donald Trump (whose family has German heritage) as presidents

The country well known to warmly welcome world talent has now imposed limits on those foreigners eager to learn and contribute to the world. Sometimes things don’t go the way they used to go. The new norm is becoming a paradox that has caught international students off guard: to be restricted with unprecedented or unheard-of difficulties in the academic environment.

Thank be yours for reading this little piece.

The writer can be reached via gzachewwolde@gmail.com