This September 2015 study from Global Financial Integrity found that nearly US$100 billion flowed illegally through Myanmar between 1960 and 2013— draining domestic resources, driving the underground economy, exacerbating inequality, and facilitating crime and corruption.
There have been numerous estimates of future poverty to 2030 based on projections of growth and inequality that rely on informed assumptions and guess work. With that method, no matter how carefully done, you’re almost certain to get it wrong. So Peter Edward and I decided to do something different: look back at growth and its distribution since 1990 and see what it would have taken to have ended global poverty by now based on the actual data.
The answer(s): a modest redistribution of growth over that period, akin to global philanthropy, could have ended $2-a-day poverty, and more substantial redistribution through welfare regimes could have ended $4-a-day poverty. But to end $10-a-day poverty would have required a different form of economic organization altogether.
The last few years have seen a sharp increase in development finance institutions’ (DFIs) annual financial commitments. This reflects an increased interest in, and funding for, private sector development by most European governments and multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and others. As a result, they are becoming major actors in the world of development finance.
DFIs lend and invest money – public money or publicly guaranteed money – to private sector companies operating in developing countries. The activity of DFIs has come under close scrutiny from several civil society organisations, including Eurodad, as well as think tanks and academics, investigating whether they are truly delivering development outcomes.
A profound change has taken hold in Africa over the last decade and half. So has a change in the world's perception of the continent. In 2000, The Economist magazine heralded Africa on its front page with a regrettable title: "The Helpless Continent." This is the world's premier economic newsmagazine that was established in 1843 with a mission "to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress." It took only a decade for ignorance to give way to intelligence. In 2011, the magazine sported a front page shouting aloud: "Africa Rising." Two years later its front page flagged an "Aspiring Africa."
Sharan Burrow, General Secretary International Trade Union Confederation said if followed up on, it has the potential to be the strongest agreement since the B20 and the L20 began working together as social partners with the G20.
In a remarkable essay on social movements in Latin America, published on ‘Upside Down World’ (http://upsidedownworld.org/main/index.php) Raul Zibechi states that social policies are ‘counter-insurgency policies, meant to tamp down on mass movement activity’.
It is not the first time I hear this. Many people think that most social policies are ‘assistentialist’, do not contribute to the constitution of social agents and only help to avoid revolutionary movements. This is far too generalizing. It explains why it is so difficult to put social justice on the agenda of leftwing social movements and parties.
I do not agree with this statement.
Ask small questions and you get small answers; ask BIG questions, and you start to see the BIG picture. The United Nations, big NGOs and huge corporations have lots of answers, but are they asking the right questions?
Right now the UN and co. are building up to telling the world that they can solve global poverty by 2030 with what is essentially business as usual – endless growth of the global economy, with some trickle-down to the poorest. But there’s a problem with this story; it’s irresistible, it’s glittery it’s loud… but it’s just not true.
As the dust settles on the recent July meetings in Geneva of the new UN Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) on transnational corporations and other business enterprises, which kicked off negotiations towards a treaty on this topic, there are some interesting developments to consider. These developments concern how the human rights narrative at the UN related to business activities might finally be shifting toward recognition and interaction with important traditional human rights principles.
For a brief ted-talk on social protection as social commons, with thanks to think-tanks.tv
The latest book by Naomi Klein is essentially a call to share the world’s resources, but its thesis on social transformation is missing a crucial factor: a profound awareness of the reality of hunger and life-threatening deprivation. While Pope Francis’ recent encyclical calls on us to prioritise this global emergency in our efforts to combat global warming, Mohammed Mesbahi proposes a people’s strategy for how we can finally end the moral outrage of extreme poverty amidst plenty.
1. More than 30 organizations comprise the UN Development System (UNDS). Virtually all are members of the UN Development Group (UNDG), but comprise a ‘system’ in name only since each operates autonomously. Many, therefore, set aside the word ‘system’ in favor of ‘family’, because the UN is, in that sense, a bit dysfunctional. Each organization guards its independence fiercely, even though most report to the General Assembly and many are under the authority of the Secretary General. Funding patterns are the prime cause of atomization. As core resources have stagnated, all UN organizations have pursued ‘extra-budgetary’ funding for operational activities, often from the same donors, in reality thus chasing what, in reality, are earmarked (specifically assigned) monies.*