martes, 22 de enero de 2019

Irache Ros: "The future in hands of the Sustainable Development Goals"


Irache Ros Hueda 20/01/2019

The future in hands of the Sustainable Development Goals

Aid has always been important in order to provide help to poor and developing countries. However, after the Busan summit, the spotlight changed from aid to development. Since 2011, aid is used in order to improve development performance[1]. This meant that instead of focusing on the instruments, it was necessary to start thinking about what to do, the goal by itself, and thus, to focus on development.

To do so, multilateralism is crucial; donor countries align behind the same objectives and targets. “Over the past fifty years it [multilateral system] has proven to be resilient and responsive to changing development dynamics and urgent needs, a major source of development expertise and know-how, and a powerful channel for intermediating and allocating resources”[2].

The case of the United Nations and its Sustainable Development Goals as long-term sustainable development shows this change of mentality. Why are these goals so vital?

The development system can achieve resources in two different ways: from rich people (donations) and from government, both directed to poor individuals. These resources can be managed directly by the donor, or being transferred to the recipient country government, but also it can be channeled through other organizations from the donor country (NGOs), from the recipient country or international organizations[3].

The UN is the perfect example of multilateralism and international organization committed to development. During the UN Sustainable Development Conference that took place in Brazil in June 2012, countries agreed to create the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a replacement of the previous Millennium Declaration Goals (MDGs)[4]. The SGDs are composed by universal goals and target with the final aim of eradicating poverty as the greatest global challenge across the whole world, but also addressing all global challenges that affect the world nowadays.

The SDGs is composed by 17 goals[5], all related to thematic issues, “including water, energy, climate, oceans, urbanization, transport, science and technology”[6]. Among these objectives, there are ideas of universality and ambition. According to Angel Gurría, the OECD Secretary-General from 2006, “policies ranging from trade and investment to tax and fiscal transparency, corporate governance, climate change, resource security, and social policy have a profound impact on the prospects for achieving sustainable development objectives in a national and global context”[7].

 Figure 1. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals.
Source: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs

“Some key differences from the MDGs are that the SDGs build upon existing international commitments to health and education by committing to improving the quality, not only quantity of services”[8].

To do so, UN countries that are participating agreed on a common agenda: 2030 Agenda[9], targeting 169 countries. “The SDGs are expected to influence the domestic policies of all governments up to 2030 – in high, middle and low-income countries alike. They are to be based on the three pillars of sustainable social, economic and environmental development; and they are intended to achieve more inclusive and sustainable globalisation for all”[10].

The accomplishment of these SDGs is a great example of political compromise among a big amount of countries from different parts of the world and it can be seen as a new global partnership among all of them. Moreover, the UN will have a key role in order to coordinate the agenda and include all countries in it.

Nowadays, the UN is working in 165 countries with 131 govern teams and counts on 40 UN agencies. It is “a historic opportunity to address the world’s most pressing development problems for all countries and all people”[11]. The future of all depends on that.


[2] ClassReading 2: The Development Assistance Committee. http://www.oecd.org/dac/aid-architecture/OverviewChapter-MEP.pdf
[3] Freres, C. Class notes session 3.

Publicado por en 2 comentarios:

Carlos Quesada: "WANTING TO WANT"


Carlos Quesada 20/01/2019
WANTING TO WANT

January the 17th, I am running late through the streets of Madrid. I better hurry, I don’t want to arrive after Christian Freres does. Then, from the shadows I am ambushed by a nice girl wearing an NGO name tag around her neck. She wants me to contribute, “what for” I say, something just and wonderful for sure. She explains, I don’t understand. Indonesia, a volcano? Which island? Does it matter?

I need to go. I don’t have time. I do care. She is ready for any answer, but I leave her speechless. I am thinking about the blog entry we must write for class in the weekend. “Sorry, I don’t believe in cooperation.” I say.

Who among us has not find themselves in is the very same situation? Most, and yet the silent majority does not contribute. Why is that? My father says “I —unlike many— pay all my taxes, it is our government’s responsibility to help”. But how much does Spain really contribute? The answer is not much.

From the very beginning, 1981, when Spain was recognized as a donor country as opposed to a developing country, until 2004 the trend was upwards. Between 2004 and 2008 Spain’s ODA budget rose like never before. During that time, aid not only doubled in sheer numbers, but also was well regarded qualitatively and by the Spanish population and the international society[1]. Moreover, Spain was committed to the Millennium Development Goals MDG[2][3].

Then everything changed for the worse. Our country got hit critically hard during the 2008 Financial Crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that followed[4]. At that time the budget for ODA fell from 0,46% to 0,16% of the GDP OCDE. Spain is, to this day, still recovering.

People are still suffering, many without jobs and prospects for the future. The benefits of aid are hard to convey to the general public and they don’t translate very well into votes for the party that pushed an aid-centric agenda. The very vocal José Manual García-Margallo, Foreign Minister at the time, said bluntly in 2012 that cutting back on foreign aid was painful, but that it was much more painful having to close hospitals in Spain[5]. NGOs quickly jumped to criticize him[6], but to your local friendly unemployed neighbor Margallo has a point. And the same is true now with VOX. Should Spain help? Of course, but only once we are fine ourselves. Sadly, the national interest always weighs more[7] than the human interest does.

But even when Spain does help, which is under the umbrella of the organizations we partake in, like the World Bank or the IMF, it is not clear that aid aids. Not even for AIDS. In words of the World Bank: “Foreign aid in different times and different places has […] been highly effective, totally ineffective, and everything in between.”[8]. How can we go on to defend ODA against our people’s wishes?

Foreign aid is a controversial topic, for sure, and one where the population is wildly undereducated on. We should aim to first create a will to help and focus on discrete projects where Spaniards can see the returns of their investment. Just bragging about numbers, as was the case with 2016 Cuba’s debt relief[9][10] that helped embellish the numbers does not help. In fact, it does the opposite, as we now are set to believe the government is doing all they can to help developing countries. We need to foster an atmosphere that wants to help. It may not be the best way to actually help, but it is the best shot to ensure that Spain continues and expands its ODA in the years to come.

January the 20th, the essay is due in a few hours and I am pondering on this and other topics. I am walking back home, when again, the kindest name tag in the city blocks my way. But this time I am prepared, I wave and with her same smile, wink an eye and nod: “I’m already in!”




Other references:
“25 años de debates sobre el Desarrollo y la cooperación Internacional”, Conferencia pronunciada con motive del 25 aniversario del Instituto Hegoa

[1] Martínez, P., & Martínez, I. (2012). Cooperación española: De los límites estructurales a la
irrelevancia política. Papeles 2015 y más, nº 9.
[4] Belda, S., & Boni, A. (2014). Más allá del debate de la financiación: Aprendizajes de la
cooperación no gubernamental para una visión política de la cooperación al desarrollo.
Revista de Economía Mundial, nº 36, 25-47
[9] Oxfam Intermón. (2018). Realidad de la Ayuda. Cambio de tendencia, pero sin apuesta sustancial
por parte del gobierno
[10] Sogge, D. (2015). Los donantes se ayudan a sí mismos. Cuadernos 2015 y más, nº 6

Publicado por en 2 comentarios:

Manuel García: "Trade as a path to prosperity"


Manuel García Ruiz. 20/01/2019

Trade as a path to prosperity

Trade as a proportion of global GDP has approximately doubled since 1975. Markets for goods and services have become increasingly integrated through a fall in trade barriers. But trade is not an end in itself. People measure the value of trade by the extent to which it delivers better livelihoods, through higher incomes, greater choice, and a more sustainable future, among other benefits. For the extreme poor living on less than $1.25 a day, the central value of trade is its potential to help transform their lives and those of their families. In this way, there is no doubt that the integration of global markets through trade openness has made a contribution to poverty reduction[1]. The number of people living in extreme poverty around the world has fallen by around one billion since 1990.

In 2011, around one billion people remained in extreme poverty (just under 15 percent of the world’s population). The World Bank Group[2] has always considered trade as a key activity in Development Cooperation[3] and has adopted the goal of reducing this figure to less than 3 percent by 2030.

The relationship between trade openness and poverty reduction[4] is more complex than that. There are a number of channels through which trade openness affects poverty: economic growth and macroeconomic stability, impacts on households and markets, changes in employment and impact on government revenues. In each of these, trade can be a key driver of poverty reduction, although potential risks exist and need to be taken into account.

Opening up to trade affects the return to investment. Countries that have pursued growth based upon the domestic market alone have typically been unable to sustain growth for long. The integration of developing countries into the global economy has also generated new sources of demand for other developing countries, with South-South[5] trade between developing countries increasing from 8 percent of world trade to around 25 percent today. Trade also supports growth by giving firms access to inputs that can help boost productivity, but are not available domestically.

The World Bank’s goal is to increase the income growth of the poorest population in each country (according to the countries where people suffering extreme poverty are a large part of its population) to ensure that economic gains benefit the near-poor and lower-middle income groups. Of course, in many countries, and in particular in the poorest countries, 40% or more of the population live on incomes that are below the extreme poverty line[6].

Figure 1. Population shares and total numbers of people in extreme poverty.
Source: Figure 1 from: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/worldbankandwto15_e.pdf  (data from 2015)

To the extent that increased trade is associated with economic growth, it is likely to be associated with improvements in the standard of living for the bottom 40%. While a rise in average income does not necessarily result in a rise in income in the disadvantaged population, it is well-established that economic growth often leads to poverty reduction. Since the bottom 40% are in most countries more similar to people at the average income than to the extreme poor, the link between economic growth and outcomes of the bottom 40% is likely to be even stronger than the link between growth and reduced poverty.

The benefits of greater trade cooperation[7] to the bottom 40% depend, in part, on the skill intensity of the products favoured by trade. If a country’s comparative advantage lies in goods that are relatively intensive in less-skilled labor, increased trade is likely to benefit the bottom 40% relatively more. If a country specializes in technology or high-skill intensive products, then trade can in principle place downward pressure on the wages of the bottom 40%.

[2] World Bank Group and World Trade Organization, 2015. The Role of Trade in Ending Poverty. World Trade Organization: Geneva.
[3] ClassReading2: Alonso and Glennie (2015): http://archive.ipu.org/splz-e/nairobi16/policy-brief.pdf  
[6] World Bank Group and World Trade Organization, 2015. The Role of Trade in Ending Poverty. World Trade Organization: Geneva.

Publicado por en 2 comentarios:
Suscribirse a: Comentarios (Atom)