IMF staff discussion note finds inequality impedes growth, redistribution does not
Fund refuses to connect findings to its policies or lending programmes
Quasi-official policy paper examines fiscal policy tools to combat inequality, but not approved by board
NGO studies show inequality impacts political, social and democratic dimensions, not just growth
Please take a moment to read the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability." It's a frightening look at the future of our planet, based on the collective volunteer work of dozens of top scientists across fields synthesizing the findings of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles.
This report is the second of four that comprise the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). The first report released last November (which I wrote about here) establishes that warming of the climate is unequivocal and that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming. This newly released second report describes the impacts that climate change is already having on people, and is projected to have in the future. The third report, to be released in two weeks, will describe the actions people can take to slow climate change. A fourth report in October will provide an overall synthesis.
Study the past if you want to define the future … (Confucius)
Reflections on the commemorations of the First World War: Peace and Social Justice
‘Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice …’ (Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, 1919).
The end of the nineteenth century was a period of globalization, just like today. International trade and the financial sector were booming. Leaving apart the link between globalization, nationalism and war, I want to briefly focus on the lessons that were learnt in that period. These lessons remain highly relevant and useful today, but they are too often ignored.
In 2014, in Belgium and in other European countries the First World War is being commemorated, one century after its start. We should use this opportunity to look at all dimensions of its legacy, and up till now, this is not the case. One of the important lessons that were drawn from the murderous conflict 1914-1918 was this: peace is not possible without social justice.
For fifteen years, eight goals have represented the yardstick by which development is measured. These are the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in the United Nations Millennium Declaration at the beginning of the century, and represent a commitment to a noble new partnership to drastically reduce poverty worldwide. It is through this Declaration that all 193 member states of the United Nations and 23 organizations have agreed to achieve a set of eight goals by 2015.[1]
Now that we are rounding into the last year of the Declaration, the UN and other aid organizations are developing the post-2015 Development Agenda and asking the important question: “So now what?”
And the answer is self-sufficiency.
Read more: Post-2015 Development Agenda: Moving to Self-Sufficiency
This report by Eurodad member CNCD, in collaboration with several national NGO platforms and Eurodad, is part of the project “World-Wise Europe: A more coherent Europe for a fairer world”, which aims to strengthen public and political support for ensuring Policy Coherence for Development (PCD). The report includes case studies from Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia to illustrate the coherence between development cooperation and non-development policy areas. In addition, the report unites several national platforms of development NGOs, as well as Eurodad, who participated by developing general recommendations.
The case studies illustrate how uncoordinated policy formulation in non-development areas can end up contradicting and undermining development cooperation efforts.
The IMF has attracted plenty of favourable attention from unfamiliar places with two ‘staff papers’ (we’re enjoined to consider them as the personal opinions of the authors, not the IMF itself, an injunction that we all merrily ignore). The first argues that inequality reduces growth, while redistribution is an effective tool for reducing it; the second explains how governments should use taxes and public expenditure to achieve this goal.
Inequality campaigners are over-the-moon to have the IMF on their side. Oxfam International hails the IMF for “mashing myths and debunking dogma in economic policy,” while the Oxfam inequality guru, Nick Galasso, is fulsome in his praise of an “ideological sea change” at the Fund (“if If it sounds like I have a crush on the IMF’s Managing Director, Christian Lagarde…”).
But what tools does the IMF think we should use to shrink inequality?
Read more: IMF: to solve inequality, tax food, books and coffins
From Sharing the World's Resources:
What does it mean to be an internationalist today? This was the topic of a panel discussion and symposium held in October last year by the New Internationalist (NI) magazine to commemorate their 40th birthday. In a series of 5-minute opening talks, the 7 panellists each gave a perspective on how development and social change has evolved since the 1970s, and pointed the way forward for the global justice and environmental movements in the critical years ahead. All of the views expressed and the ensuing discussion was informative and persuasive, as can now be viewed on NI’s YouTube channel, but one submission had a particular resonance for us at STWR – that of Jonathan Glennie from the Overseas Development Institute who gave a pre-recorded video message from Colombia. - See more at: http://www.sharing.org/information-centre/blogs/radical-implications-%E2%80%98internationalising-our-minds%E2%80%99?dm_i=M4P,296FJ,9JNJFJ,8634O,1#sthash.XUXd4ZPB.dpuf
For a transcription of his presentation, see below:
Read more: The radical implications of being an internationalist
Report on the changes in global governance and the consequences for organisations like the IMF
When we tell the stories of our wealthiest men, we tend to tell the stories that are of no consequence: We repeat their names, which have generally remained constant for most of recent memory; we futilely recite the numbers of their net worth; and we mythologize the secrets to their success.
These stories are of no consequence for the simple fact that we are telling ourselves things that we either already know, or things we don’t need to know.
When we dwell on who the 10 Filipinos on Forbes magazine’s 2014 list of world billionaires are, we learn nothing of value. Henry Sy’s net worth is a few hundred million dollars lower this year, the Ayalas are mysteriously absent, the majority of the names are Chinese-Filipino. So what?
For another discussion on basic income: Francine Mestrum and Barb Jacobson from Basic income UK, published in The New Internationalist
And don't forget the article with pro's and contra's of basic income under 'research'
Trade agreements are a subject that can cause the eyes to glaze over, but we should all be paying attention. Right now, there are trade proposals in the works that threaten to put most Americans on the wrong side of globalization.