Digital Educational Publishing Market to grow by USD 9.03 billion during 2021-2025

Technavio has been monitoring the digital educational publishing market and it is poised to grow by USD 9.03 billion during 2021-2025, progressing at a CAGR of almost 16% during the forecast period. The report offers an up-to-date analysis regarding the current market scenario, latest trends and drivers, and the overall market environment.

Impact of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to transform the growth of various industries, however, the immediate impact of the outbreak is varied. While a few industries will register a drop in demand, numerous others will continue to remain unscathed and show promising growth opportunities.

Digital Publishing Market by Type and Geography - Forecast and Analysis 2021-2025: The digital publishing market has the potential to grow by USD 65.31 billion during 2021-2025, according to Technavio.

Digital Education Content Market by End-user and Geography - Forecast and Analysis 2021-2025: The digital education content market size has the potential to grow by USD 42.93 billion during 2021-2025, according to Technavio.

The market is fragmented, and the degree of fragmentation will accelerate during the forecast period. Bertelsmann SE & Co. KGaA, Cengage Learning Holdings II Inc., Georg von Holtzbrinck GmbH & Co. KG, Instructure Inc., John Wiley & Sons Inc., Lagardere SCA, McGraw-Hill Education Inc., Pearson Plc, RELX Plc, and Scholastic Corp. are some of the major market participants. Although the expeditious penetration of smartphone devices will offer immense growth opportunities, the increased availability of open-source materials likely to pose a challenge for the market vendors. In a bid to help players strengthen their market foothold, this digital educational publishing market forecast report provides a detailed analysis of the leading market vendors. The report also empowers industry honchos with information on the competitive landscape and insights into the different product offerings offered by various companies.

Technavio's custom research reports offer detailed insights on the impact of COVID-19 at an industry level, a regional level, and subsequent supply chain operations. This customized report will also help clients keep up with new product launches in direct & indirect COVID-19 related markets, upcoming vaccines and pipeline analysis, and significant developments in vendor operations and government regulations.

This study identifies growing government initiatives to improve digital education technology as one of the prime reasons driving the digital educational publishing market growth during the next few years.

Technavio is a leading global technology research and advisory company. Their research and analysis focuses on emerging market trends and provides actionable insights to help businesses identify market opportunities and develop effective strategies to optimize their market positions. With over 500 specialized analysts, Technavio's report library consists of more than 17,000 reports and counting, covering 800 technologies, spanning across 50 countries. Their client base consists of enterprises of all sizes, including more than 100 Fortune 500 companies. This growing client base relies on Technavio's comprehensive coverage, extensive research, and actionable market insights to identify opportunities in existing and potential markets and assess their competitive positions within changing market scenarios.

It's now crystal clear that the US might not be prepared to deal with power blackouts if these happened simultaneously in various regions. Yes, the recent blackouts in California and Texas were a lifetime lesson for all stakeholders. The power issues were a clear sign of the authorities' failure to plan with the possibility of extreme weather in mind. So, when the fires raged throughout California, causing massive power failures, the powers-that-be were shaken. A summer heat storm and wildfires primarily caused the blackouts. The comments of one Senator pointed at the heart of the matter. Here's what Senator Ted Cruz tweeted when the massive heat waves heat the state: "Right now, California cannot perform the most basic functions that anyone would expect in a civilized society- including supplying power to its people."

But the taunting Lawmakers ( from Texas) soon had to eat humble pie when a massive storm crushed the Lonar Star power grid. More than 4 million were left without power or heat under swirling polar temperatures in its wake. Although the Texas and California cases were different in severity and scale, the result appeared the same. There was a fire in California and an ice storm in Texas. Experts, however, say that the outages in the two states make it clear that none of these states is prepared to deal with the ravages of the climate crisis.

Speaking about the situation, Roshi Nateghi, who is a Purdue University researcher, said that there are striking similarities between the occurrences in Texas and California. The scholar is an expert in sustainability, resilience, and infrastructure. "In both situations, there was extreme weather or climate event. Also, both states were not really prepared to deal with the situation." She said. Nateghi noted that in the last 20 years, severe weather had caused sustained power outages across the US.

The US Energy Department data analysis, published last year, showed that weather-related power outages went up by a massive 67% since the year 2000. Moreover, climate change is expected to continue fueling hotter heatwaves, ferocious hurricanes, and bitter winter storms in the future. Just as Texas and California have recently discovered more, generators, power plants, and electrical lines are not the answer to dealing with the coming catastrophes. Further, states like Texas and California, which rely on fossils, are making the situation worse, considering that these fuel sources are increasing the climate crisis, and contributing to the collapse of infrastructure.

Sascha Von Meier, a serving professor at the University of California, Berkeley (specialized in electrical engineering), said this: "The effects of the climate change are already evident. We can only expect more of this in the future."

The entire California power system is faced with two major issues: Demand and delivery. For the last few years, Pacific Gas and Electric (the suppliers of electricity in these states) have typically switched off the power whenever they believe their equipment risks starting wildfires during high winds or dry conditions. Actually, old and faulty power lines have caused such disasters in the past. According to company sources, it will take years to update the local power grids to deal with this.

Clearly, the state agencies failed to provide enough power for millions of residents to use when they needed it most. The Energy Commission' said in its report the heat storm was the "most extraordinary event." However, the commission admitted that it "has the intent and responsibility to plan how to deal with such events in the future." The commission acknowledged that it was becoming common to be "adversely impacted by factors of climate change. It appears things will get worse in the future."

Notably, in Texas and California, the power issues put the lives of the poor, the disabled, and the elderly in jeopardy. When the power failures came, many found that they were precariously placed; some had their life- sustaining medical devices losing power, putting their lives at high risk. For instance, when the heat storm caused blackouts in Texas, the wastewater treatment plant failed. This forced workers of color in places like Oakland to decide whether they'd open their windows (to cool the home) or close the windows to keep off the foul smell of 50,000 gallons of raw sewage that flowed from the nearby bay. In the same way, according to Nateghi, " Low-income people of color are always the worst affected by the power outages, pollution and climate and weather change.

The longest-running US government shutdown occurred in 2018-2019. The shutdown ran on for more than 22 full days. Previously, the most prolonged shutdown went on for 21 days.

The partial shutdown commenced on December 22nd, 2018. What triggered it? Apparently, President Donald Trump's demand for $5 billion to fund his pet project- the full-length US- Mexico border wall. Interestingly, both the Republican and Democratic congressmen had agreed on a $1.6 billion compromise figure before the President's demands. But the President rejected the deal. He argued that while the $5 billion would not be sufficient to build an entire wall, it could build a section that would effectively block off 215 more miles (this is in addition to the 120 miles the government was currently building using available funds). Hence, the shutdown countdown began in earnest.

What was the immediate result? 420, 000 federal workers were doing without pay. An additional 380,000 were furloughed without pay. There were fears the tax refunds would be delayed. In fact, the Women and Infant Children (WIC) payments would have to be cut off for lack of money.

Of course, most Americans are quite familiar with government shutdowns. Despite this, government shutdowns are a relatively more recent phenomenon. The first government shutdown occurred following the 1974 Congressional Budget Act. Since that time, the US Congress has failed in its duty to authorize federal government funding on 21 occasions.

Bu the first six situations never affected the government functions significantly. Later on, in 1980-81, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued opinions that sparked the government treatment of "funding gaps" as either a full or partial government shutdown.

The first US government shutdown occurred in 1976 when Gerald Ford was President. Why did it happen? President Ford vetoed the Department of Health, Education, Welfare, and Labor funding bill. But Democrats quickly overrode the President's veto, preventing an immediate shutdown. However, on October 11th, 1974, the shutdown commenced when the government failed to access funding.

The Second shutdown occurred in 1977 under Jimmy Carter. It happened because the Senate sought to lift restrictions on the Medicaid dollar-use to find abortions. Previously such funding was allowed for cases of incest, rape, and whenever the mother's health was endangered. Then, funding was only granted to abortions that were necessary to save a mother's life. However, the House voted to maintain the status quo- leading to a stricter ban. By the September 30th deadline, both Houses could not agree on thrashing a deal. This led to a funding gap that caused the shutdown. It all ended on October 31st when Congress-later- reached a deal on the abortion issue.

The third shutdown was to come in November 1977 (still under Jimmy Carter). Why? The abortion ghost came back! But the matter ended when the President signed a second short-term extension. The fourth shutdown took place December 9th 1977- still under Jimmy Carter! The abortion ghost was back for the third time in a row! The dispute was resolved later, and the funding was extended to cover incest, rape, and the mother's welfare. But in 4 years- under the Ronald Regan presidency, this funding-for mothers- was yet again quashed.

The fifth shutdown occurred in 1978 ( under Jimmy Carter). This time the was a new element to the dispute- the HEW funding. At the same time, President Carter had vetoed a bill touching on defense spending since it sought to fund a nuclear-powered aircraft. The President considered this wasteful and believed it fell under the public works docket. In the end, the President won the dispute, stopping the funding of the aircraft and other disagreeable projects.

The sixth shutdown occurred in 1979 (under Jimmy Carter). The aborting dispute re-emerged. The House also sought higher pay for the civil service and congressional staff. The changes were eventually made but with a caveat- there would be (also) some funding for abortions done due to incest and rape (but not on the grounds of the mother's health).

The Seventh shutdown occurred under President Ronald Reagan in 1981. The functions of federal governments were badly curtailed. The President furloughed 241,000 workers of the federal government. What caused the situation? President had demanded $ 8.4 billion spending cuts. He actually promised to veto any bill that did not cut that amount by half. But the Senate was not ready to comply. Instead, the House insisted on civil service and Congressional staff pay hikes and a slashing of the defense budget. Eventually, the two Houses of Congress struck a deal that-nevertheless- fell short of the President's demands by $2 billion. Thus, President Reagan vetoed the new deal, leading to a government shutdown. But the stalemate soon ended after the passage of a Congress resolution to reach an agreement.

The eighth shutdown occurred in 1982. Why? Congress and President Reagan forgot to keep the funds' deadline due to some social engagements! This means that government operations could not be financed for at least 2 and a half months. Interestingly, President Reagan had invited all Congressmen to the White House for a barbecue. House Democrats, on their part, were holding a separate $1,000 a-plate dinner to raise funds.

Several US banks that facilitated the government's PPP (Paycheck protection Program) now face regulatory agencies' questions over how the program was run. Initially, most banks considered the mandate a small booster of revenue that comes with a special patriotic bonus. Little did they expect that the arrangement had a hidden face. The banks successfully facilitated the disbursement of some $525 billion to businesses. The banks disbursed the money in loans to companies hit by the ravages of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Many of these lenders- including Bank of America Corp, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, are now preparing for- possibly- years of regulatory assessment for their role in dishing out these monies. According to industry insiders, government watchdogs, and securities filings, it's time for these financial giants to face some questions. According to Vivian Merker, who works as a management consultant at Oliver Wyman (a financial services firm), "The banking giants are bracing for many years of requests by regulators. In fact, there is much reputational risk touching on PPP fraud. It doesn't matter much that the banks followed all the right protocols that the program required." "As such," she concludes, " the sense of anxiety is getting higher."

Interestingly, the banks that the US government contracted in the program issued over 5.2 million loans. The government was to repay the money on the condition that borrowers genuinely demonstrated a financial need. Moreover, the beneficiaries were expected to use a significant portion of the funds to make payroll. But immediately after the program rolled out, there were reports of borrower-fraud. The Small Business Administration ( SBA) oversaw the program that started in April 2020. Consequently, by the close of 2020, the US Department of Justice had charged 82 people in court (These were associated with 56 of those cases). The amount involved was $ 250 million worth of loans. The Project on Government Oversight reported this.

Despite this, it's instructive to note that the lender-burden (thus far) is mainly administrative. A prominent attorney who regularly advises top banks on compliance matters said that most clients were responding to no less than 20 law enforcement subpoenas weekly. They were actively producing documents and availing employees for interviews. Regardless, the greatest worry is that the lenders will encounter legal challenges regarding PPP. According to those familiar with the matter and public statements, this has led to investor warnings, internal compliance reviews, and the sale of loan portfolios.

Indeed, no less than 4 banks have issued shareholder filings warning investors about PPP regulatory as well as legal risk. For instance, in its July filing, the Bank of America admitted that its role in the government stimulus programs and proceedings" has led to litigation and class actions." However, a spokesperson, Bill Halldin ( of the Bank of America), said that the bank was fully cooperating with government inquiries.

Insider sources have warned against some likely hazards, including potential violations of the "first-come, first-served program's rules. Other issues include the disadvantages faced by women and minority-owned businesses, maintenance of proper documentation (particularly on loan forgiveness applications), and adherence to the broader rules of the "know your customer" ilk. The experts believe that these factors led to numerous fraud cases within the program. In March 2020, Congress passed the Stimulus Cares Act involving some $ 2.2 trillion. The $350 billion doled out as PPP loans were part of these. In fact, the stimulus pot later increased.

At first, the banks feared taking too much liability when some wanted the money processing regime's fast-tracking. This was even though the banks would earn as much as 5% in origination fees on government-guaranteed loans. At that time, the government also assured the banks that they would not be accountable if the borrowers broke the disbursement rules.

In October, a Congressional report revealed that certain lenders (including PNP Financial Services Group, Trust Financial Corp, and JP Morgan had processed excessive PPP loans for wealthy customers (this was done some 2-4 times faster than the speed taken to disburse smaller loans for people who needed it most). Further, some banks went ahead to limit their PPP loan programs to current customers.

The report said that such decisions had "an adverse effect on minority and women-owned businesses since they're less likely to be in a pre-existing relationship with banks." Interestingly, the US Federal Reserve data subsequently corroborated the damning report from Congress.