.... which roughly corresponds to the G20 grouping. G20 established in 1999 compromising the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G7, plus Russian Federation, plus 12 other key countries. It gained momentum in 2008 when it started meeting at head of state level to respond to the massive financial crisis. Additional members of the G20: European Union Presidency European Central Bank Managing Director of the IMF President of the World Bank The Chairman of the Bank/Fund Development Committee UN Secretary General invited as an observor at the more recent meetings
The increase in official development assistance (ODA) in 2008 is another argument for seeing 2008 as the beginning of a new development cooperation phase. Total ODA reached app 120 billion US$ in 2010. Interestingly, this does not show ODA from the smaller OECD countries such as Republic of Korea; from the new member states of the European Union such as Poland, Hungary, the Baltics, and others. Nor does it reflect ODA from the so-called emerging donors, such as the BRICs and donors such as Venezuela, Malaysia, Singapore and others. For the emerging BRIC donors, there are new estimates from the OECD DAC that emerging donors are spending $15 billion. Country level estimates suggest China and India are spending $US 1 billion, South Africa 285 million and Brazil $85 million anually (Rowland 2008). These are rough estimates since formal reporting by these countries is not available and development aid is housed in different bodies, and uses different assessment systems. Private foundations are spending an estimated $3-5 billion annually. The combined rise of non-DAC donors and foundations has considerably changed the landscape – or politics - of development cooperation.
Health is one example of the fragmenting character of the new aid architecture – independent funds, bilaterals and private entities dwarf the core technical multilateral institution for health issues, the WHO, in terms of funding. Philanthropic foundations: there are currenty 120 special funds into which bilateral donors and foundations are contributing, partly fuelled by new rich. One example: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. While philanthropy can be welcomed from its intentions, it creates silos, does not underly the parliamentary processes applied to expenditures financed from tax revenues, and creates a sort of privatist donor community. In the recipient countries, it creates additional management issues and reinforces a silo and skewed approach to identifying priorities and planning for them. For comparison: the total of the UN regular budget for 2010-11 is US$ 5 billion plus US$9 billion extrabudgetary funds (UN Budget 2010-11 at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/64/6(INTRODUCTION)&refererence).
“ G 192” – the 192 member states of the UN – taken as a metaphor for the global community – which, in theory, is the more legitimate group to discuss and decide on global economic, social and political development policies. The UN General Assembly would be the venue for this. It can be remarked however, that governments do not necessarily represent peoples, and some analysts have proposed some type of global senate of parliamentarians.
Commonalities of the South and the North are expressed in research such as the Sarkosy Commission Report on human development, or the MDG Reports and HDRs examining some cities in “developed countries”. There is much South - South policy export, inter alia very visibly in the areas of social protection or in the movement for right to information. For examples from South Asia see A Bonnerjee and G Koehler, Hunger and food insecurity, Policy responses from the South. Forthcoming 2011. South-North policy export - Examples: Conditional Cash Transfer, modeled on Progresa and Oportunidades, introduced in the poorest boroughs in NY City; or the Grameen Bank model from Bangladesh, introduced in Chicago.
Recent encouraging developments at the UN include the rights-based agenda – examples include decisions of the governing bodies of the FAO and WHO, and the new proposal to create an international convention on social protection for all. A more rights-based understanding of the MDGs is also emerging, and the role of the OHCHR deserves special mention as the reports of the special rapporteurs/experts are well researched, independent but engaged and critical analyses, and becoming increasingly influential.
A reorientation of the MDGs. Based on the UN outcome document of the high level meeting on the MDGs, Sept 2010. Also see Voipio and Koehler, Policy innovations in 2010, at www.networkideas.org
“ The mission of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is to protect and promote human rights for all. OHCHR aims to ensure implementation of universally recognized human rights norms, strengthen the United Nations human rights programme, and provide the United Nations treaty monitoring bodies and special mechanisms established by the Commission on Human Rights with the highest support.” Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: http://www.un-ngls.org/spip.php?page=article_s&id_article=827 Special Rapporteurs and independent experts are a „special procedures“ mechanism of the OHCHR. They are playing an increasingly prominent role and are moving from more legally-oriented themes to economic and social development. The list includes: on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (1982) on freedom of religion or belief (1986-) on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (1990-) on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (1993-) on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (1993-) on violence against women, its causes and consequences (1994-) on the independence of judges and lawyers (1994-) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (1995-) on the adverse effects of the illicit movement and dumping of toxic and dangerous products and wastes on the enjoyment of human rights (1995-) on the right to education (1998-) on the question of human rights and extreme poverty (1998-) on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living (2000-) on the right to food (2000-) on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (2002-) of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders (2000-) on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (2001-) of the Secretary-General on the human rights of internally displaced persons (2004-) on the human rights of migrants (1999-) on minority issues (2005-) on human rights and international solidarity (2005- on the effects of economic reform policies and foreign debt on the full enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (2000-) on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism (2005-) on trafficking in persons, especially in women and children (2004-) on human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises (2005-) international solidarity or minority issues in (2005) water and sanitation (2008) TNCs (2009). In 2010, there were 41 Special Procedures (33 thematic mandates and eight mandates relating to countries or territories) with currently 55 mandate holders. See OHCHR Facts and Figures 2010.
Source Seoul consensus 2010. G20 Seoul Summit. http://media.seoulsummit.kr/contents/dlobo/E3._ANNEX1.pdf In 2010, the G20, meeting in the Republic of Korea, adopted a development strategy. Interesting here the prominent role accorded to economic infrastructure, seen by many to have been neglected in the MDGs agenda. The points on job creation, human resource development and growth with reslilience - which is largely about social protection –can be seen as a deepening of the MDGs on employment, youth employment, and education. Finally food security has gained the prominence it deserves. However, the Seoul consensus is built on a ideology of private sector led growth, which surprises since the MICs among the G20 countries had growth strategies that relied heavily on the developmental state.
Some authors see a “development revolution” in the South (e.g. Hanlon et al 2010), given the broad range of policy innovations of the past few years. The rights-based decent work agenda is spreading more slowly, but social protection has seen a vast expansion in recent years– Brazil, Mexico, many African countries, China, Indonesia, Thailand, most of South Asia with India in a policy leader role – are cases in point.
Human development is meant in the broad and the deep sense.
These are examples for policies that would move in the direction of rights-based transformative policy formulation: - on overcoming income poverty …
... ensuring equitable access to all social services ...
... and overcoming social exclusion
At one time, the UN was “ahead of the curve” (Jolly et al/ UN history project). It needs to get there again by promoting transformational social justice values and project the same dynamic for progressive change for universal human rights that it displayed at its founding and when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was conceptualised and presented. In 2015, the MDG agenda will be reviewed and either extended, deepened or replaced. The innovations need to come from the South and build on the progressive, rights based policy orientation of many “developing countries”, to create a genuinely rights based agenda for global development in South and North. One will need to find a good multidimensional concept. Ideas to inject into the discussions – which need to be led by the South - include, inter alia: the notion of human security, building on the ideas of promoting freedom from fear and freedom from want, which evolved into key domains of human security – food and nutrition, income and employment, health, education, access to water and sanitation, political security, social inclusion – and a combination of objective factors of human security and subjective plane of perceptions; or the notion of “3-dimensional wellbeing” conceptualised at the IDS by Andy Sumner and Allister McGregor; or “ MDGs plus”; and others.
Gabriele Koehler SDL Lecture PowerPoint: Part 2
G 20 countries: <ul><li>Circa 90 per cent of global GNP </li></ul><ul><li>80 per cent of world trade </li></ul><ul><li>Two-thirds of the world's population. ( Source: http://www.g20.org/about_what_is_g20.aspx </li></ul>Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Dreams and nightmares: Nightmares <ul><li>New economic realities – poverty and vulnerability in South and North </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Losers of globalisation – the informal economy, the poor, migrants, the socially excluded, children, women, people with disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informal economy with ever increasing casualisation of labour in global and local production chains </li></ul></ul>
Dreams and nightmares: Nightmares <ul><li>New colonialism of the MICs – landgrab, collusion with corrupt governments – social and environmental sell-outs, ODA driven by security or commercial interests </li></ul><ul><li>G20 replacing “G192”, undermining the UN </li></ul>
Dreams and nightmares: “Dreams” <ul><ul><li>Recognition of commonalities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bargaining opportunity for lowest income countries – policy space and new sources of support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>South-South policy diffusion </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>North policy transfers </li></ul></ul>
Dreams and nightmares: Dreams <ul><li>Multilateral level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Orientation to human rights and a normative framework </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Emergence of rights oriented conventions and instruments in the UN context </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>right to food, FAO 2004, Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security - includes livelihoods and land reform </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>World Health Assembly 2008 - return to Alma Ata primary health care for all </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Global Social Floor Initiative since 2009 –striving for an ILO or UN Convention on Social Protection for all </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MDGs 2010 : more emphasis on equity, inclusion, human rights </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Special rapporteurs - experts of OHCHR combining the humanist with the intellectual </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
Dreams and nightmares – Dreams „ Millennium plus” <ul><li>attention to employment and decent work </li></ul><ul><li>push for social protection & the global social floor </li></ul><ul><li>emphasis on maternal and child health </li></ul><ul><li>attention to agriculture, rural development and the need for land reform </li></ul><ul><li>recognition of social exclusion with a new focus on equity policies </li></ul><ul><li>reference to tax reform for redistribution and to fund social policy </li></ul>
Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts of the OHCHR – themes <ul><ul><li>right to education; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>human rights and extreme poverty; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>right to food; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>right to adequate housing; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access to safe drinking water and sanitation ; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>against violence against women; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>physical and mental health; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>economic policies and debt; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TNCs; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and other substantive normative areas. </li></ul></ul>
Dreams and nightmares: Dreams G20 Seoul development consensus action points <ul><li>infrastructure, </li></ul><ul><li>private investment and job creation, </li></ul><ul><li>human resource development, </li></ul><ul><li>trade, </li></ul><ul><li>financial inclusion, </li></ul><ul><li>growth with resilience, </li></ul><ul><li>food security, </li></ul><ul><li>domestic resource mobilization, </li></ul><ul><li>knowledge sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Principles: </li></ul><ul><li>highlight human rights </li></ul><ul><li>but reliance on economic growth </li></ul>
Dreams and nightmares: Country level innovations: Dreams <ul><li>Dreams </li></ul><ul><li>Progressive, rights-based, universalistic policies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rights to education, health, school meals, food, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right to work – employment – decent work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right to information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Right to social protection </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rediscovery of the role of the state </li></ul>
The case for a bold vision: Ultimate reason for development cooperation <ul><li>Improve – enhance - transform - </li></ul><ul><ul><li>human development outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Social justice – </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Equitable inclusive human development </li></ul></ul>
The case for a bold vision: Rights-based approaches re income poverty <ul><li>Employment and decent work as the key response – development of services </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural development, land reform, and rural off-farm employment opportunities, access to agricultural inputs and to (micro)credit </li></ul><ul><li>Social protection as a support mechanism </li></ul><ul><li>Climate change mitigation action </li></ul>
The case for a bold vision: Rights-based approaches re equitable access to social services <ul><li>Ensure universal free services delivery </li></ul><ul><li>Equitable access to services, geographically and socially </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure equal quality of services – staffing, people skills and material resources </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure cultural sensitivity </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure transparent information </li></ul><ul><li>Enable inclusive and equitable participatory programming and participation </li></ul>
The case for a bold vision: Rights-based approaches re exclusion <ul><li>Address on-going exclusion and discrimination-affirmative action (reservation, representation, protective legislations, budget allocations) </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure compensatory/reparatory measures </li></ul><ul><li>Protect against violence </li></ul><ul><li>Address impunity </li></ul><ul><li>Support public education and behaviour change to address discrimination and exclusion </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure inclusive social services, including in emergencies and humanitarian crises </li></ul><ul><li>Change disparaging language and designations </li></ul><ul><li>Enable inclusive programming </li></ul>
The case for a bold vision: Next steps? <ul><li>Normative umbrella of international development cooperation: Universal Declaration of Human Rights </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recapture UN’s lead role in advocating for universal human rights and social justic e </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Influence the discussions on “post 2015” </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Make the dreams come true </li></ul></ul></ul>
References <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Jonnathan Glennie, 2011, The OECD should give up control of the aid agenda. Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/29/oecd-control-aid-agenda . 28 April 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Richard Jolly, Louis Emmerij, Thomas Weiss 2001, Ahead of the Curve? UN ideas and global challenges. Indiana University Press </li></ul><ul><li>Joseph Hanlon, Armando Barrientos, David Hulme, 2010, Just give money to the poor. The development revolution from the global South. Kumarian Press </li></ul><ul><li>Naila Kabeer, Can the MDGs provide a pathway to social justice. The challenge of intersecting inequalities. IDS and UN MDG Achievement Fund. 2010. www.ids.ac.uk </li></ul><ul><li>Gabriele Köhler, Development interventions: A parade of paradigms. In: Gabriele Köhler, Charles Gore et al, Questioning development. Essays in the theory, policies and practice of development interventions. Metropolis Verlag: Marburg 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>Gabriele Köhler, Policies towards social inclusion. Global Social Policy. April 2009: pp. 24-29, Sage publications </li></ul><ul><li>Robert Marten, Jan Martin Witte 2008, Transforming Development? The role of philanthropic foundations in international development cooperation. Global Public Policy Institute. GPPi Research Paper Series No. 10 (2008) www.gppi.net . Accessed 25 Nov 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Dane Rowlands 2008. Emerging Donors in International Development Assistance: A Synthesis Report. Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. Carleton University. http://www.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/12447280141Synthesis_Report.pdf . Accessed 25 Nov 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Andy Sumner 2010. GLOBAL POVERTY AND THE NEW BOTTOM BILLION: WHAT IF THREE-Quarters of the poor live in MIDDLE-INCOME COUNTRIES? WORKING PAPERIDS. www.ids.ac.uk </li></ul>
References <ul><li>UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Rethinking Poverty. Report on the World Social Situation 2010. United Nations, New York. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/2010.html </li></ul><ul><li>UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (1948) </li></ul><ul><li>UNICEF, Narrowing the gaps to meet the goals, Equity-focused approach to child survival and development. New York 7 September 2010. http://www.unicef.org/nutrition/index_55927.html </li></ul><ul><li>UN General Assembly. Declaration on the Right to Development. 4 December 1986, 97th plenary meeting. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/41/a41r128.htm </li></ul><ul><li>UNDP. Human Development Report 2010. www.undp.org </li></ul><ul><li>UNRISD, Combating Poverty and Inequality: Structural Change, Social Policy and Politics 2010. http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/(httpPublications)/BBA20D83E347DBAFC125778200440AA7?OpenDocument </li></ul><ul><li>UN General Assembly, Outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the 65 th session of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals. September 2010. A/64/L-72. www.un.org/MDGs </li></ul><ul><li>WHO, World Health Report 2008. Primary health care, now more than ever. www.who.int/whr/en </li></ul><ul><li>http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/independenceday.htm, accessed 22 Nov 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>www.worldmapper.org/posters/worldmapper_map213_ver5.pd, accessed 22 Nov 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.g20.org/about_what_is_g20.aspx, accessd 23 Nov 2010 </li></ul>