Posts tagged ‘OECD’
UN: 25,000 people die of hunger every day
And we say terrorism is the biggest threat to the world …
GLOBAL HUNGER
- 1.02 billion people do not have enough to eat – more than the populations of USA, Canada and the European Union;
(Source: FAO news release, 19 June 2009) - The number of undernourished people in the world increased by 75 million in 2007 and 40 million in 2008, largely due to higher food prices;
(Source: FAO news release, 9 Dec 2008) - 907 million people in developing countries alone are hungry;
(Source: The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, 2008) - Asia and the Pacific region is home to over half the world’s population and nearly two thirds of the world’s hungry people;
(Source: The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, 2008) - More than 60 percent of chronically hungry people are women;
(Source: The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, 2006) - 65 percent of the world’s hungry live in only seven countries: India, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ethiopia.
(Source: The State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, 2008)
CHILD HUNGER
- Every six seconds a child dies because of hunger and related causes;
(Source: State of Food Insecurity in the World, FAO, 2004) - More than 70 percent of the world’s 146 million underweight children under age five years live in just 10 countries, with more than 50 per cent located in South Asia alone;
(Source: Progress for Children: A Report Card on Nutrition, UNICEF, 2006) - 10.9 million children under five die in developing countries each year. Malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60 percent of the deaths;
(Source: The State of the World’s Children, UNICEF, 2007) - The cost of undernutrition to national economic development is estimated at US$20-30 billion per annum;
(Source: Progress for Children: A Report Card on Nutrition, UNICEF, 2006) - One out of four children – roughly 146 million – in developing countries are underweight;
(Source: The State of the World’s Children, UNICEF, 2007) - Every year WFP feeds more than 20 million children in school feeding programmes in some 70 countries. In 2008, WFP fed a record 23 million children.
(Source: WFP School Feeding Unit)
MALNUTRITION
- It is estimated that 684,000 child deaths worldwide could be prevented by increasing access to vitamin A and zinc
(Source: WFP Annual Report 2007) - Undernutrition contributes to 53 percent of the 9.7 million deaths of children under five each year in developing countries. This means that one child dies every six seconds from malnutrition and related causes.
(Source: Under five deaths by cause, UNICEF, 2006) - Lack of Vitamin A kills a million infants a year
(Source: Vitamin and Mineral Deficiency, A Global Progress Report, UNICEF) - Iron deficiency is the most prevalent form of malnutrition worldwide, affecting an estimated 2 billion people.6 Eradicating iron deficiency can improve national productivity levels by as much as 20 percent.
(Source: World Health Organization, WHO Global Database on Anaemia) - Iron deficiency is impairing the mental development of 40-60 percent children in developing countries
(Source: Vitamin and Mineral Deficiency, A Global Progress Report, p2, UNICEF) - Vitamin A deficiency affects approximately 25 percent of the developing world’s pre-schoolers. It is associated with blindness, susceptibility to disease and higher mortality rates. It leads to the death of approximately 1-3 million children each year.
(Source: UN Standing Committee on Nutrition. World Nutrition Situation 5th report. 2005) - Iodine deficiency is the greatest single cause of mental retardation and brain damage. Worldwide, 1.9 billion people are at risk of iodine deficiency, which can easily be prevented by adding iodine to salt
(Source: UN Standing Committee on Nutrition. World Nutrition Situation 5th report. 2005) - WFP-supported deworming reached 10 million children in 2007
(Source: WFP Annual Performance Report 2007)
FOOD & HIV/AIDS
- In the countries most heavily affected, HIV has reduced life expectancy by more than 20 years, slowed economic growth, and deepened household poverty.
(Source: 2008 UNAIDS Global Report on the AIDS Epidemic) - In sub-Saharan Africa alone, the epidemic has orphaned nearly 12 million children aged under 18 years.
(Source: 2008 UNAIDS Global Report on the AIDS Epidemic). - WFP and UNAIDS project that it will cost on average US $0.70 cents per day to nutritionally support an AIDS patient and his/her family.
(Source: Cost of Nutritional Support for HIV/AIDS Projects, WFP, July 2008) - Assistance for orphans and vulnerable children is estimated at US$0.31 per day.
(Source: Cost of Nutritional Support for HIV/AIDS Projects, WFP, July 2008)
AID SPENDING
- In a 1970 UN Resolution, most industrialised nations committed themselves to tackling global poverty by spending 0.7 percent of their national incomes on international aid by 1975. Only Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark regularly meet his target
(Source: DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) facts map, 2006-2007) - The 22 member countries of the OECD Development Assistance Committee, the world’s major donors, provided USD 103.9 billion in aid in 2006 – down by 5.1 percent from 2005
(Source: OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007) - The largest donors were the United States (US$24 billion), Japan (US$18 billion), the United Kingdom (US$13 billion), Germany and France (US$12 billion each), the Netherlands (nearly US$6 billion), Spain and Italy (just over US$4 billion each) representing 80 percent of the total
(Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007)
Millennium Development Goals, by Joseph S. Yu, IBON Foundation, Inc.
15 Oct 2004: At the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on September 2000, member nations endorsed the Millennium Declaration, a vision of a “more peaceful, prosperous and just world.� Central to this vision was their commitment to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which aim to address the growing problem of global poverty. They also define the responsibilities of organizations, donors, and governments directly involved in the fight to eliminate global poverty.
The fight to end poverty is urgent as the problem has reached crisis proportions. Some 18 million deaths annually — accounting for one-third of all human deaths — are due to poverty-related causes such as diarrhea, tuberculosis, pneumonia, measles, malaria, perinatal and maternal conditions, which are easily preventable. [2]Â UN figures show that since the 1990s, the number of people living in extreme poverty has increased by almost 100 million.
The commitment to the Goals has resulted in donors focusing more strongly on poverty elimination and increased efforts to improve aid effectiveness and strengthen partnerships of North and South countries in pursuit of the MDGs.
However, there remain serious differences in the comprehension of the problem of poverty, the analysis and understanding of the causes and conditions of poverty, and strategies for poverty eradication. These differences affect the evaluation of the implementation of the MDGs and their achievements, as well as defining priorities for action. [1]  Â
COMPREHENDING POVERTY
In measuring poverty and in setting poverty reduction targets, the UN uses the World Bank’s (WB) poverty lines of the proportion of the population living on less than $2 and $1 a day. The $1 a day level is generally used for the least developed countries, primarily African, while the $2-per-day measure is used for middle income economies such as those of East Asia and Latin America.
But critics feel the WB’s poverty line manipulates poverty figures. Michel Chossudovsky, for instance, says that those whose per capita incomes are above $1 a day are classified as “non-poor.� This allows the Bank to claim that global poverty is actually going down and that the “free market� reforms it espouses along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are working. Thus, increases in per capita income are seen as indicators that poverty levels are going down. [3]
The Bank’s poverty line also fails to capture extreme global resource inequalities.
For instance, the HDR estimates that the richest 1% of the world’s people receives as much income as the poorest 57 percent. In fact, the net worth of the world’s ten richest people (at $217 million in 2003) is 320 times greater than the combined national income of Sierra Leone, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Burundi, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Chad, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Tanzania, Benin, Rwanda and Guinea ($67.9 billion in 2001 representing 304 million people). [Forbes.com] and [4]
Inequality within nations is also growing — even within rich countries such as the United States and the European nations. For instance, the richest 1% of US households own 38% of all that country’s wealth. [5]
THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The Millennium Development Goals are specific commitments to reverse the spread of poverty by 2015. They are backed by an action plan with 18 quantifiable targets on combating poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women. (See Box)
| Box. Millennium Development Goals
By 2015 all 191 United Nations Member States have pledged to:
|
The Goals reaffirm the International Development Targets (IDTs) originally proposed and agreed to in 1996 by developed country ministers at the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) without representatives from developing countries. [2]Â The DAC is a forum for consultation among 21 donor countries, together with the European Commission, on how to increase the level and effectiveness of aid flows to recipient countries.
Many civil society organizations were therefore highly critical of the process of drafting the MDGs, as well as their content. The Goals were seen to avoid commitments to, and drew attention away from, critical structural issues for global economic justice. These included issues of debt cancellation, fair trade and equitable participation in global institutions which had been raised repeatedly in global UN conferences in the 1990s by both developing country governments and many participating civil society groups. [2]
Critics also see the Goals as being tremendously modest in their targets. For example, even if Goal 1, which seeks to reduce the proportion of people living on less than $1 a day by 2015, is achieved, there will still be an estimated 937 million people living in absolute poverty, a mere reduction of about 230 million (or less than 20%) in the numbers of people living in poverty between 2000 and 2015. [2]
Many developing countries also have insufficient resources to provide the necessary infrastructure and services to achieve even these modest goals. The UNDP and WB estimate that an additional $40 to $60 billion is needed to provide such infrastructure and services to needy countries. [2]
If OECD donor countries fulfilled their development assistance target of 0.7% of gross national product (GNP), then $195 billion would be added to the $58 billion total aid in 2002, which is only 0.23% weighted average of donor countries. [2] However, only an additional $18 billion were pledged by donor countries at the Monterey Financing for Development conference of the United Nations. [1]
In April 2003, the WB and the UNDP issued a memorandum outlining the “relationship� between the MDGs and Poverty Strategy Reduction Papers (PSRPs), stating that PSRPs “provide a key opportunity to mobilize national actors to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.� [10]
These Papers are a formal requirement for countries seeking assistance through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative or access to WB concessional lending. PRSPs are now being used by donors and multilateral agencies — including the UN — as guidelines for national development in low-income borrowing countries. [10]
But critics see PRSPs as actually being repackaged structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These Papers must be approved by the Board of Directors of the IMF and the WB. Thus, the two international financial institutions (IFIs) are able to influence the content of such Papers. [10]
A major reason for increasing global resource inequality is precisely corporate-led globalization: the liberalization, privatization and deregulation free-market policies espoused by the IMF, WB and the WTO to create new opportunities for profit-seeking transnational corporations.
For example, the WB’s water and sanitation loans prescribe privatization and full cost-recovery (collecting tariffs for the full cost of the operation and maintenance of the water utility’s service). In 2001 WB water and sanitation loans with increased cost recovery measures made up more than 80% of the approved loans. [6]
This has resulted in the poor being unable to afford potable water, particularly those outside the piped water system. In Ghana, after IMF and WB policies required a 95% increase in water fees in May 2001, three buckets of treated water cost a family almost 20% of the local minimum wage.
In South Africa, increased water fees led to cutting of water supply for people who were too poor to settle their accounts. A cholera epidemic subsequently broke out among them as they had no access to safe water. [6]
But if privatization means less access by the poor to water services, it has also created new profit opportunities for water multinationals. The largest of these are the French corporations Vivendi Universal and Suez. These companies capture nearly 40% of the existing water market share, providing water-related services to more than 200 million customers in 50 countries. [6]
IMF and WB structural adjustment programs have also required debtor countries to remove tariffs on agricultural imports as a condition for the release of funds. This has resulted in widespread dumping of agricultural products. A February 2003 report of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) found that the cost of production for a bushel of wheat in the US in 2000 was $6.24 while its export price was only $3.50. In 2001, US exporters dumped corn at 33% of production cost, soybeans at 29%, cotton at 57% and rice at 22 percent. [4]
IATP warned that these “below cost imports� drive farmers in underdeveloped countries out of their local markets, forcing them to abandon their lands in search of other employment. [4]
At the same time, the IMF and WB encourage developing countries to re-orient their agriculture sectors towards production for export markets of developed countries. This traps many small farmers in contract-growing schemes, which drive them to poverty as they have to answer for expensive inputs needed to grow these “cash crops.�
Perpetuating the Neo-liberal Framework
In recognition of the fundamental principle of collective responsibility in the Millennium Declaration, Goal 8 seeks to develop global partnerships for development. This goal includes targets for comprehensive approaches to address the debt problems of developing countries and the special needs of least-developed countries and landlocked states, as well as increasing development assistance for poverty reduction.
This goal has particular importance as an advocacy platform for many civil society groups pushing to increase development aid to at least 0.7% of GNP. Goal 8 also provides room for pushing for debt cancellation and reform measures at the national and multilateral level to end the debt crisis worldwide.
However, the same goal remains hampered by “Post-Washington Consensus� prescriptions that perpetuate the neoliberal framework championed by the WB and the IMF.
The “Washington Consensus” refers to policy reforms (such as fiscal discipline, tax reforms and trade and investment liberalization) imposed on debtor countries in Latin America. When these neoliberal economic policies failed to address growing poverty and inequality, the IMF and WB deflected blame for their policy failures by attributing them to poor implementation and weak or corrupt institutions in debtor countries. They thus adopted a new focus on “good governanceâ€? in a “Post-Washington Consensusâ€? framework.
In general, “good governance� for donors means: public accountability and transparency, the rule of law, anti-corruption measures, decentralization and local government reform, democratic performance, juridical reform, social safety nets, a regulatory but lean state apparatus for efficient private markets, civil society participation in development and overall respect for human rights. In practice, however, donors have focused on “good governance� in the technical management of government resources and effective implementation of (often donor-directed) macro-economic and anti-poverty sector policies. [1]
Thus, the Millennium Declaration resolves “…to create an environment – at the national and global levels alike – which is conducive to development and to the elimination of poverty.� But this is followed by the statement that success in meeting the above objectives depends on good governance both nationally and internationally and on “transparency in the financial, monetary and trading systems.� The Declaration also states, “we are committed to an open, equitable, rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system.� [1]
The call for an “open, non-discriminatory multilateral trading and financial system� as realized through the WTO and the IMF have meant the imposition of free-market policies on developing countries. These policies forcibly dismantle mechanisms to support local capital and marginal economic sectors and consumers, since these are considered protectionist and discriminatory against multinational corporations.
The end result of this “good governance� is, for example, poor people in developing countries paying high rates for water provided by private concessionaires while transnational corporations extract profits from fragile southern economies.
Promoting Corporate Control
Goal 8 also promotes monopoly corporate control over technology, specifically in the pharmaceuticals and new technology sectors.
The goal calls for providing access to affordable, essential drugs in developing countries “in cooperation with pharmaceutical companies.� But the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires member-countries to implement patent protections. Thus, state-run and even local private companies in developing countries are prohibited from manufacturing generic copies of vital drugs.
The same goes for the target of making available new technologies, particularly in the information and communications sectors, “in cooperation with the private sector.� Developing countries cannot produce their own versions of computer software and hardware but must instead enter into expensive licensing agreements with transnational corporations.
The TRIPs Agreement has raised concerns over the centralization of control over multiple forms of intellectual property (knowledge and its products) in corporate hands.
One example is Brazil, where the state produces most of the AZT drugs used in AIDS treatment, cutting the rate of infection in half. It also exported drugs to South Africa. Thirty-nine pharmaceutical companies filed suit against the South African government to prevent this, but the suit had to be withdrawn due to widespread public outcry in 2001, with the companies forced to reduce prices on limited quantities of drugs provided in Third World countries. [7]
Although the Africa group and 16 other Third World countries issued the Doha Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, recognizing the right of member-governments to grant compulsory licenses to local drug firms to produce generic versions of drugs needed in emergency situations, it remains to be seen if the decision would be more generally applied. [7]
The US, whose pharmaceutical companies are among the biggest beneficiaries of TRIPs-required patents, has been trying to undermine this victory by coercing developing countries into giving up TRIPs Agreement flexibilities, particularly through bilateral agreements. Through these agreements, the US has succeeded in limiting compulsory licensing to a very restricted set of cases, making it almost impossible to undertake compulsory licensing in the private sector — even as healthcare provision is increasingly privatized. [8]
Thus, private health care providers, including nongovernment aid providers, employers and insurers, are prohibited from purchasing and distributing lower cost generic versions of essential medicines until patents expire. This results in less people being treated. [8]
TRIPs also hampers the development of late industrializing countries by preventing technology transfer. Japan, Korea, and the US itself are examples of countries that have succeeded in developing their industry sectors by copying technology. But under TRIPs, this would no longer be possible.
THE MDGs AND FIGHTING POVERTY IN THE PHILIPPINES
According to the Philippine Country Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals, the Arroyo administration has committed itself to pursue the war against poverty and unemployment.
Government figures show that the proportion of families with per capita incomes below the poverty threshold increased from 28.1% in 1997 to 28.4% in 2000, up by 0.3 percentage points. As a proportion to the population, poverty incidence was placed at 34.0% in 2000, a deterioration by 1.0 percentage point from 33.0% in 1997.
The Arroyo government said it would pursue the following core strategies:
- Macroeconomic stability with equitable growth based on free enterprise;
- Agricultural and fisheries modernization with social equity;
- Comprehensive human development and protecting the vulnerable; and
- Good governance and the rule of law. [9]
These strategies reflect the neo-liberal prescriptions of the IMF-WB-WTO and the “Post-Washington Consensus� which have resulted in major systemic crises in developing countries with devastating social and economic consequences for their citizens.
To support projected economic growth, for instance, government will implement policies to ensure macroeconomic stability and long-term industrial restructuring based on market reliance, privatization, and liberalization of trade and investments. [9]
It also calls for prudent spending to protect expenditures for “core priorities� such as education, training, health, agricultural modernization and technological progress, which are deemed “essential to poverty reduction and productivity growth.� [9]
But government’s implementation of privatization and liberalization policies mandated by the IMF and WB has resulted in declining spending for state-provided social services. Meanwhile, automatic appropriations for debt servicing ensure that expenditures for this budget item continue to account for the highest percentage of spending. (See Table 1)
| Table 1. Percent Distribution of National Government Expenditures, by Sectoral Classification | ||||||
| Economic Services | 18.65 | 18.97 | 16.95 | 14.07 | 13.69 | 16.466 |
| Social Services | 26.52 | 24.32 | 22.64 | 22.89 | 22.2 | 23.714 |
| Education | 19.11 | 16.99 | 16.86 | 17.04 | 16.06 | 17.212 |
| Health | 2.55 | 2.14 | 1.85 | 1.93 | 1.6 | 2.014 |
| Social Security | 4.16 | 3.97 | 3.68 | 3.71 | 4.33 | 3.97 |
| Housing | 0.7 | 1.22 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.518 |
| Defense | 5.68 | 5.31 | 5.07 | 5.26 | 4.98 | 5.26 |
| Public Services | 13.41 | 13.22 | 13.58 | 13.73 | 11.74 | 13.136 |
| Others | 17.43 | 17.55 | 17.06 | 19.01 | 18.95 | 18 |
| Debt Service (interest) | 18.31 | 20.65 | 24.73 | 25.05 | 28.43 | 23.434 |
| Source: PIDS Discussion Paper 2003-17 | ||||||
For example, government is implementing the Health Sector Reform Agenda, in line with the World Bank principle that public services are a barrier to the abolition of world poverty. Among the Agenda’s strategies are to corporatize government hospitals. This means that state-run hospitals would now have “fiscal autonomy,� meaning the freedom to raise and manage their own funds. But this would mean charging poor patients more for services that they had previously received for free or at subsidized rates, thus lessening their access to health services.
To address concerns over access of the poor to health services, government is also expanding coverage of the national health insurance system to eventually reach universal levels. Although this would allow the poor some level of coverage, it also encourages private investment in the health sector because investors are now assured of payment for services.
The implicit privatization of the sector can also be seen in the low allocations for health in the national budget. From 1999 to 2003, allocations for health averaged 2% of the total budget, while debt servicing accounted for an average of 23 percent. This makes it clear that government is reneging on its responsibility to provide health services to its people in favor of the private sector, creating a market for health services that can be exploited by corporations.
The lack of resources given to sustain disease control programs threatens the resurgence of diseases believed already eradicated, particularly among the poor. Polio, for instance, staged a comeback when three cases were reported in October 2001. The cases were attributed to the drop in immunization coverage. (Newsbreak 29 April 2002 p. 22)
The Arroyo administration is also implementing agriculture and fisheries modernization as a poverty reduction strategy. But “modernization� under the WTO’s free-trade framework means intensifying private-sector investments in the sector, further tariff liberalization and agricultural production for export. These are the policies that have helped drive farmers off their lands and further into poverty.
According to the latest government figures, more than 40% of rural families are poor. This has resulted in serious income disparities in rural areas. According to the 2000 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, the bottom 60% of rural families accounted for 30.3% of the total family income while the top 10% accounted for 32.8 percent.
Government’s plan to pursue “comprehensive human development� and “protecting the vulnerable� involves self-employment, livelihood and credit assistance programs to small entrepreneurs. But can these small businesses compete against the entry of large corporations in an increasingly liberalized environment?
As part of its program to ensure “good governance� and the “rule of law� the Arroyo government is implementing institutional and governance reforms. These entail coordinated efforts against graft and corruption as well as a “performance-based� and “results-oriented� bureaucracy. Strategies towards a better bureaucracy include reducing processing time of licenses and computerizing government processes and procurement to make them more efficient.
But in the context of government’s thrust to encourage more foreign investment, these moves seem set to be of more benefit to foreign investors. In fact, problems with government bureaucracy are among the hindrances to investment often cited by foreign chambers of commerce.
ACHIEVING THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The Millennium Development Goals are an expression of commitment to social, economic and cultural rights and define actions to enable the realization of these rights. If the Goals are to contribute to global poverty eradication, efforts to achieve them must be founded on strategies that empower and recognize the rights of all people, including and especially the poor. [2]
This requires adherence from all development players to a human rights framework. The two basic treaties that provide a foundation for human rights are the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These treaties cover rights such as the right to life, to work, to education, to achieve the highest standard of health, the right to social security and an adequate standard of living.
The UN has also developed a conceptual framework and content for the right to development, also known as the collective rights of peoples, communities and nations, mainly through its adoption of the Declaration on the Rights to Development in 1986. However, efforts to make this document a binding legal instrument have not been successful due to the lack of support and cooperation from North countries and IFIs such as the WB and IMF. [2]
UN human rights bodies have criticized these IFIs for insufficient attention to the adverse effects their structural adjustment programs (SAPs) and other economic and trade policy prescriptions have on the realization of economic and social rights. [2]
These IFIs, along with the Basel Committee (of the ten most powerful Central Bankers), the WTO and regional development banks such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are the central pillars in global economic governance.
The IFIs are also the primary institutions in the international aid regime, with an almost unquestioned role to define for all donors the legitimate terms of policy discourse with developing countries and effective strategies for the delivery of aid in relation to poverty reduction.
As a result, many donors, notably the European Commission, now focus their aid with a high degree of country selectivity based on country-’owned’ but WB/IMF-endorsed PRSPs and “certification of compliance� with WB/IMF policies for economic reform and good governance.
Thus, there must be reforms of the multilateral system, and the IFIs in particular, to enhance democratic governance within a human rights framework. The Reality of Aid Project, which reviews poverty reduction and development assistance, offers the following recommendations in its 2004 report:
- The IFIs must no longer be allowed to assume an exclusive and authoritative “gatekeeper� role for policy advice on governance reforms and resource transfers in the aid regime.Northern donors have integrated the WB-defined “Post-Washington Consensus� framework into their aid policies. This influences their definitions of “good governance� in aid-dependent developing countries. It also means the WB has a near monopoly on official donor analysis and the extension of its assumptions to the donor community as a whole, enabling the Bank to validate its ideology and essentially discount the emergence of alternatives outside its paradigm.
The IFIs have thus diligently used their “gatekeeper� role to continue pushing their neo-liberal reform policies by allowing those countries that adhere to their policies to be the recipients of generous aid flows.
Recent focus on developing country ‘ownership’ of PSRPs (which define strategies to tackle poverty) has also consolidated the IMF and WB’s power over development options. The two IFIs have been able to position themselves as the arbiter of the content of PSRPs, since developing countries need ultimate approval and considerable support of the IMF-WB to develop poverty reduction strategies. This has sidelined the UNDP, which has more than a decade of experience formulating country planning frameworks with South countries.
- The IFIs must establish new and equitable partnerships with developing countries by abandoning their practice of externally imposed policy conditionalities and undertaking.Externally imposed conditionality clearly undermines democratic accountability by allowing policy to be determined in often secret talks between select government officials and WB-IMF representatives. This process does not allow policies to be subject to scrutiny by citizens and legislators.
Instead of dictating policy to developing countries, the IFIs must instead give support to national political processes for determining appropriate strategies for poverty reduction in relation to local economic, social, cultural, ecological and gender-equality circumstances.
- The decision-making processes of the IMF, WB and WTO must be reformed, democratized and brought within a new framework led by the United Nations, with limited mandates subject to a UN legally binding global human rights framework and the social values embodied in the MDGs.Civil society has long challenged the legitimacy of the IFIs in terms of their impact on governance and democratic accountability in the poorest countries. Twenty years of secret negotiations for structural reforms have removed domestic political checks and balances where citizens have a potential influence on public policy.
But reform of the IFIs must also go hand-in-hand with a strengthened role for the UN. The IFIs have assumed a dominant role in the international aid regime that goes into areas far beyond their mandate, into areas that were originally deemed the prerogative of the UN or its agencies or never before addressed on a global level.
These reforms would go a long way towards achievement of the MDGs vision of a world free from poverty. But reform of the existing multilateral system can only be achieved in the context of empowering poor South countries, which have the greatest stake in changing the existing order that perpetuates inequality and injustice.
Joseph S. Yu
Sources:
1. Tujan, Antonio Jr., “The Millennium Development Goals: Ending poverty or deodorizing neoliberal globalization?� presentation delivered at the IGNIS Conference “Whose Governance? Obstacles to the MDGs,� 20-21 September 2004;
2. Governance: Reclaiming the Concept from a Human Rights Perspective, The Reality of Aid 2004, edited by Randel, et al, Zed Books and IBON Books, pp. 4-34;
3. Chossudovsky, Michel, “The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order,� Global Outlook and IBON Books, Second Edition 2003;
4. Weissman, Robert, “Grotesque Inequality: Corporate Globalization and the Gap Between Rich and Poor,� Multinational Monitor, July/August 2003;
5. “The Wealth Divide: An interview with Edward Wolff,� Multinational Monitor, May 2003;
6. “Profit Streams: the World Bank and Greedy Water Companies,� Public Citizen, September 2002;
7. Peet, Richard, “Unholy Trinity: the IMF, World Bank and WTO,� Zed Books 2003;
8. Patents, Profits, Power and Poverty, Multinational Monitor, July/August 2003;
9. Philippine Country Progress Report on the Millenium Development Goals, January 2003, accessible at the UNDP website <www.undp.org>.
10. Bullard, Nicola, “The Millenium Development Goals and the Poverty Strategy Reduction Paper: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right,â€? accessible at www.focusweb.org/pdf/MDG-2003.pdfÂ
Credit: http://www.realityofaid.org/print.php?t=publications&i=18
Recent Comments