FUCK You All Mafakerz !
When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were first established nearly 15 years ago, the half-joke reminder among global health experts was that they needed to replace the “M” with a “B” when talking about financing – meaning the solutions required budgets in the order of billions rather than millions of dollars. Today, as the MDGs approach their 2015 deadline and the world negotiates a new global vision for sustainable development, the time has come to shift mindsets from “B” to “T”, since the next frontier is talking about trillions of dollars in required investment throughout the global economy.
To that end, members of the Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development have this week released a report distilling key financing challenges to be addressed in establishing a new generation of global development goals. The report, Paying for Zero: Global Development Finance and the Post-2015 Agenda, stresses the crucial complementary roles and opportunities for public, private and “blended” finance at the domestic and international levels. The word “zero” is used to signal a broad theme of transformation for sustainable development: eliminating extreme poverty, eliminating the most pernicious forms of inequality, and eliminating environmentally unsustainable economic activities.
Stressing ongoing generational shifts in the global development landscape, the report argues that ambitious post-2015 goals will require accompanying ambition and innovation in development finance.Watch Full Movie Online Streaming Online and Download
The conclusions tackle a wide range of issues, including:
- Development finance will increasingly be integrated across types. Flows from public finance will need to leverage additional private finance, and all forms of finance will need to adhere to common standards of transparency, measurement and reporting.
- As many developing countries continue to make long-term economic gains, the process of graduation from official development assistance (ODA) needs very careful consideration. For example, emerging lower-middle-income countries, especially those with large numbers of extreme poor, should not face a stark drop-off in access to external finance.
- It is crucial that the international community place special emphasis on protecting and enhancing properly-targeted ODA budgets. These will need to prioritize the poorest countries and programmes that most effectively reduce poverty. But even with complete success in eliminating extreme poverty by 2030, ODA will continue to play a crucial role tackling many deep global priorities through to 2030 and beyond.
- Improving the capacity of developing countries to mobilize their own resources should be an important element of ODA, without imposing unwanted conditionalities.
- Greatly enhanced instruments are needed to incentivize the amount and nature of required private finance post-2015. Big ticket investments in infrastructure, energy and agriculture will all require some degree of blending between public and private sources.
- Many of the infrastructure investments for sustainable development will be the same ones that determine the future of the world’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
The report’s release coincides with this week’s meetings of both the Intergovernmental Committee of Experts on Sustainable Development Financing and the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals at the UN Headquarters in New York. The Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development brings together a variety of eminent leaders and practitioners from public, private and non-profit sectors around the world. An earlier draft of the paper was circulated for public comment in January.
Author: John McArthur is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader and chair of the Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development.
Image: People walk past closed shops in a slum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, May 23, 2013. REUTERS/Pilar Olivares.
Brookings – Opinion | February 6, 2014
Amidst the growing global consensus around a target of “zero” extreme poverty for 2030, there is renewed debate around the role of official development assistance (ODA) and how much will be required to achieve the goal. The ideal way to assess this question would be through country-specific, bottom-up costing assessments that account for general equilibrium price dynamics and allow for the possibility of shocks, whether positive (e.g., technology) or negative (e.g., conflict or fuel price spikes). In the absence of such rigorous scenario-based analysis, some back-of-the-envelope calculations help inform the approximate orders of magnitude of aid required.
Two conceptually distinct approaches can help inform deliberations on the issue:
- The first is to estimate the cost of essential services for extremely poor people and the amount of public expenditure required to finance them.
- The second is to estimate the dollar value of the extreme poverty gap, i.e., the amount of transfers theoretically required to bring each person in the world up to a living standard of $1.25 a day.
1. Essential Services Budget GapWatch movie online The Transporter Refueled (2015)
A budget gap for basic services can be estimated through some simple arithmetic. Assume the following:
(1) A full package of basic public services for health, education, infrastructure, agriculture and public administration costs $200 per capita per year, including roughly $100-140 for Millennium Development Goal-type public investments (in line with the bottom-up estimates of the U.N. Millennium Project, 2005). [Read more…]
A plan without a budget is just a hallucination. My colleague Jasmine Whitbread, Chief Executive Officer of Save the Children International, cited this line in today’s televised Davos debate on the global agenda to end extreme poverty by 2030. A similar message was conveyed earlier in the day by Nigerian Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, who stressed the need to come to grips with financing amid the interwoven practicalities of tackling climate change and global development goals.
The challenge for the world in this regard is that the nature of global development finance has changed tremendously over the past two decades. Targeted aid flows have increased, prompting tremendous breakthroughs in such areas as health and education. Meanwhile many developing countries have experienced long-term economic growth and thereby transitioned to more market-based financing mechanisms. Innovations have empowered many new sources of finance to contribute to global development. Government, business and civil society are increasingly seen as necessary partners for promoting prosperity and sustainability.
A new generation of global priorities requires a renewed strategy for global development finance. Recognizing the complexity, many colleagues and I in the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Poverty and Sustainable Development have been working to distill some key issues to be addressed to underpin success after the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire at the end of next year.
This week we are circulating a working draft paper for feedback. Entitled “Paying for Zero: Global Development Finance and the Post-2015 Agenda”, the draft is shared to invite comments, and is not yet meant for quotation. It is intended as a contribution to ongoing global deliberations regarding the composition of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda.
Below is an excerpt from the draft’s concluding section. We look forward to comments and suggestions from all those who are interested.
“Financing a post-2015 sustainable development agenda will require policy-makers and publics to consolidate and bolster the key components of the current system that already work well, while addressing key constraints. At the same time they should expand the system to include a more nuanced and layered approach to match the evolving set of needs and actors around the world.
“We conclude with four key points:
- Transparency and accountability towards results must be a centrepiece of post-2015 finance. All stakeholders, public and private, must commit to common standards anchored in forthright reporting and measurement of transactions, beneficiaries and impacts.
- The ambition of ending extreme poverty by 2030 should not be confused with ending ODA by 2030. The needs for ODA go well beyond US$ 1.25/day poverty and even a fully successful extreme poverty agenda will likely require targeted support beyond 2030. Moreover, well targeted ODA is catalytic for mobilizing broader private sector investments. A dollar of ODA is typically the hardest dollar of development finance to mobilize. Even if required aid volumes might look smaller than complementary private volumes, ongoing political diligence will be required to ensure ODA is adequate to the post-2015 challenge.
- Greatly enhanced instruments are needed to accompany and incentivize the amount and nature of private finance that will be required to achieve a post-2015 sustainable development agenda. The biggest ticket investments are in infrastructure, energy and agriculture, all of which will typically require some degree of “blending,” whether in the form of risk guarantees, advantageous long-term borrowing structures or other appropriate structures. Many of these will also be the same investments that determine the future of the world’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
- Private sector actors have a major role to play in partnering with government and civil society to ensure a suitably ambitious and fair approach to mobilizing post-2015 private development finance. Private investors need to know that policymakers are keen to create the incentives that will mobilize the needed long-term investments. Policy-makers need to fulfil their mandates in serving the public trust. And publics need to know that the gains will be widely and equitably shared, towards a sustainably prosperous global future for all.”
John McArthur is a Senior Fellow at the United Nations Foundation and a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader. He is participating in the Annual Meeting 2014 in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland.
Image: Ethiopian farmers Mandefro Tesfaye and Tayto Mesfin collect wheat. REUTERS/Barry Malone
All opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Economic Forum Blog is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around the key topics that shape global, regional and industry agendas.
If global development targets followed a National Football League format, we would be approaching the two-minute warning. December 31, 2015, marks the final deadline for the Millennium Development Goals, the global anti-poverty targets that have mobilized an unprecedented generational success in tackling extreme poverty around the world, most notably the burdens of disease in the poorest countries. We are now facing the final moment to bend the relevant curves of progress. For decision makers, 2013 is the real 2015. [Read more…]
The final installment of my 3-part series at OpenCanada.org.
Canada’s next generation global development efforts will draw from much more than public sector action. Governments matter, but their matrix of responsibilities is shifting, both within and across countries. To map out a way forward, Canada needs an organized national conversation across key stakeholders, aligned to the “post-2015” global development debates already underway. Such an effort can develop a common understanding of the global challenges at hand, and then strategize as to how Canadians might best collaborate to help address them. This needs to be done in the context of a rapidly shifting global environment. And it could practice implementing through goal-oriented collaboration starting today. The following outlines some thoughts as to how this could happen. [Read more…]
The next installment of my 3-part series at OpenCanada.org
It would be a mistake to view Canada’s aid history in partisan terms. Despite ever-present debate at the policy margins, there has been no systematic difference between Conservative and Liberal governments’ respective investment levels or approaches to global development. Today, the most fundamental problem is that Canada’s aid policy and national political conversation remain too disconnected from objective standards of global need and responsibility.
I. Key Trends
The lack of partisan dynamics is reflected in aggregate budgets alone. Canada’s aid levels were consistent at nearly 0.5 percent of national income throughout the Liberal and Conservative governments of the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s, it was a Liberal government that oversaw the largest aid cutbacks in the country’s history, down to 0.22 percent in 2001, before joining a global trend to rebuild over the 2000s. The current Conservative government continued the upward course, reaching 0.33 percent in 2010 (adjusting for the accounting tricks of debt relief), before signaling plans to taper off to 0.25 percent in 2015.
Beneath these numbers, three recent trends stand out: [Read more…]
I have a new post at OpenCanada.org, the first of a 3-part series that aims to help kick start a new Canadian conversation around how the country approaches foreign aid over the coming generation. Please feel encouraged to share comments directly!
Canada’s foreign aid conversation is lost. The recently announced merger of CIDA into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade prompted a spate of agitated commentary across the country. But the public debates underscored the extent to which an institutional tail is wagging the policy dog. The issues to be resolved are much more fundamental than problems of bureaucratic org charts. They require systematic and robust thinking, rather than the loose commentary commonly trotted out during moments of sporadic media debate.
Most significantly, there is one central question that needs to be flipped on its head. Instead of becoming stuck in the supply-driven query, “How should Canada’s foreign aid structures be improved?” the country needs to start with a demand-driven approach, mapping out the nature and scale of the global development challenge, and then asking how Canada can best organize itself to help to tackle the problems at hand.
To that end, this post marks the start of a three-part series. To help set the stage, below we start by unpacking some of the most common misconceptions around foreign aid. The second installment provides some historical context for the current debates, and some recent assessments of global need. The third proposes a way forward, not just for the Canadian government, but for the range of key constituencies that will be essential for moving Canada’s national development strategy forward.
Yesterday The Globe and Mail published a short piece I recently wrote on the importance of boosting African smallholder agriculture as a key element of any global effort to end extreme poverty. The Globe ran the piece under the title, “To end poverty worldwide, fix African agriculture first.” This reproduced a post I wrote originally for the ForumBlog a couple of weeks ago, under the title “Ending extreme poverty in Africa by 2030.” Full text pasted below.
To end poverty worldwide, fix African agriculture first
The public chorus to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030 now includes US President Barack Obama, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and Bono. The backdrop is extremely promising since the developing world has already cut the share of people living below US$1.25 a day by half since 1990. At a consistent rate of progress, the other half could well cross the line in another 20 years too.
But, as my colleague Laurence Chandy and Brookings co-authors have recently pointed out, the distance to crossing the US$ 1.25 line varies tremendously by region. Most of China has already crossed the US$ 1.25 threshold and India has a huge share of its population poised to make the leap next. Sub-Saharan Africa has the farthest to go, despite recent progress, since a large proportion of its population still lives so far below US$ 1.25 per day, often at half that level of income.
Most of Africa’s poorest people live on small farms in rural areas, so those places will likely form the final frontier of the global quest to end extreme poverty. Although fast-growing cities have gained attention for their role in fighting poverty, including in the World Bank’s latest Global Monitoring Report, it is increases in rural productivity, especially agriculture, that are typically a fundamental driver of the urbanization process.
There are grounds for optimism. Growing academic evidence highlights agriculture’s unique role in helping to reduce extreme poverty. For example, an important 2011 paper by economists Luc Christiaensen, Lionel Demery and Jesper Kuhl shows that agriculture is roughly three times more effective at reducing extreme poverty than non-agricultural sectors.
There has also been a global renaissance of attention on the need for an African Green Revolution, driven by both public and private investments in a manner that respects local community structures. The World Economic Forum’s Grow Africa initiative, which convened last week in Cape Town, offers a potential high-impact platform, bringing together investors and governments to launch practical joint strategies at scale.
Complementary investments in transport infrastructure, irrigation, farmer credit and input support systems (e.g. for fertilizer and seeds) were essential to Asia’s 20th century green revolutions that laid the foundation for that region’s subsequent economic breakthroughs. The same basic approach, updated for today’s social and environmental realities, can help to ensure Africa’s long-term economic success is equally, if not more, robust. The sooner the process starts, the faster the world gets to the finish line on extreme poverty.