The world has made tremendous progress in reducing global extreme poverty - nearly 1.1 billion have escaped extreme poverty since 1990 - but there are still around 800 million people or one in ten people living on less than $1.90 a day today. This number is still unacceptably high, especially given the low standards of living implied by the international poverty line.
Historically, we know the importance of growth in driving poverty reduction. But current growth rates will not be enough to reach the 2030 goal- and we know that global growth forecasts are grim. Therefore we need to make what growth there is beneficial for the poor. To ensure this, we first need to know how growth has performed for the poor.
This is where shared prosperity comes in.
Família is often promoted as a model of good practice for social protection programmes in the developing world. As a Brazilian, in the short period of time that I’ve worked on international social protection, I’ve been surprised by how famous Bolsa Familia is around the world and how it has inspired similar programmes around the world. But, despite its great reputation internationally, in Brazil it is nowhere near as well regarded, and its future is uncertain.
Human Rights Expert has called on the international community to fight tax evasion and abolish tax havens that siphon off essential resources from human rights protection and global development.
“The United Nations must no longer tolerate the scandal of secrecy jurisdictions that facilitate tax evasion, corruption and money-laundering,” said the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order Alfred de Zayas to the General Assembly. Secrecy jurisdictions are also known as tax havens.
Taxation of multinational corporations is of utmost importance to developing countries, which on average generate around 10% of government revenues from this source. However, there are clear indications that the current international system is not working. One type of tax avoidance alone is currently costing developing countries between $70 billion and $120 billion per year. While often considered highly immoral, such international tax avoidance is often, technically speaking, legal.
The Third United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development and the alternative forums held by social organisations ended in the Ecuadorean capital with opposing visions regarding the future of cities and the fulfillment of rights in urban areas.
On Thursday Oct. 20, the representatives of 195 countries taking part in the Habitat III conference adopted the Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All, after four days of deliberations.
Read more: Governments and Civil Society disagree on future of cities
Does BRICS still offer an alternative model of development that can address the current global crisis? Is this grouping of the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa actually challenging the hegemony of the old powers for the benefit of the rest?
These were the main questions raised in the recently held two-day “People’s Forum on BRICS,” held in Goa on October 13 and 14, attended by more than 500 representatives of various mass organizations, people’s movements, community-based, and social justice groups from 10 countries and around 25 states in India.
Read more: The Rise of Chinese TNCs, BRICS and Current Global Challenges
Marking the beginning of new geopolitics in 2006, BRICS has managed to maintain its relevance on global matters. The BRICS coalition represents about 40 percent of the world’s population and 17 percent of world trade.
Troubled with widening inequality, each of the BRICS countries continue to lose revenue through tax evasion and avoidance practices. Global Financial Integrity reported that in 2013 alone, developing countries lost $1.1 trillion to illicit financial flows.
Illicit financial flows (IFFs) (or black money) are funds that are illegally earned, transferred and utilised and are exploited by corporates to move their profits to low tax jurisdictions (more popularly known as tax havens) requires concrete international and regional cooperation.
The 2016 annual meetings in Washington took place in a context of continued slow world economic growth and trade, with the IMF and World Bank presenting themselves as the saviours of the economic order by supporting increased global trade. Given memories of the IMF and Bank’s push for trade and growth in the 80s and 90s, many were wondering ‘trade and growth for whom?’ Certainly the unquestioning belief that the private sector will discover its development mandate and become instrumental in ensuring the SDGs are achieved was alive and well in DC during the week. President Kim’s curt dismissal of community concerns at the town hall meeting seemed to validate concerns raised by staff throughout his first five-year term about his competence and indicate that the Bank will continue to push its agenda with little concern for the opinions of the communities it is mandated to serve.
Read more: Bretton Woods (WB and IMF) annual meetings: an analysis
The South Centre recently published Research Paper No. 71: "Recovering Sovereignty Over Natural Resources: The Cases of Bolivia and Ecuador," authored by Humberto Campodonico.
This document analyzes the renegotiation process of oil and gas contracts in two Latin American countries, Bolivia and Ecuador, from 2003 to 2010 and the measures taken for sectorial policy reform in the hydrocarbon sector and our conclusions are that it has been favourable.
The challenge of transforming natural resource rich economies and moving away from heavy dependence on commodities is not a short-term process. In spite of the advances made by these economies, they still rely heavily on commodities, a process that will have bigger problems now that the super cycle of high commodity prices has come to an end.
‘Social Europe’ has followed a very bumpy road since the inception of the European Community. This is not only a consequence of the lack of competences at the European level, or the lack of ‘political will’ at the level of Heads of State and Governments, but also and mainly of the ideological tendencies that have permeated all policies for the past six decades.
Since the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, most social movements in Europe have been demanding a ‘social and democratic’ Europe. However, never has it been clarified what this could or should mean. Even today, there are no clear demands on what precisely the European Union should do or not do. This article is meant to shed some light on the past, the present and the possible future of ‘social Europe’.[1]
Read more: (Un?) socializing the European Union: a history of some ups and many downs
On Wednesday 21st September 2016, we heard the apparently joyous news that the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and World Bank had launched the Global Partnership for Universal Social Protection which “aims to make pensions, maternity, disability and child benefits, among others, available to all persons.” Does this send hope to developing countries that the World Bank is changing its approach to social protection, dropping its support for low budget, poverty targeted social assistance schemes and, instead, embracing inclusive lifecycle social protection while committing to realising the right to social security for all?
On Thursday 29th September 2016, we had our answer. In an article for the Guardian, Jim Yong Kim, the President of the World Bank, exhorted developing countries to implement conditional cash transfers (CCTs), the antithesis of universal social protection. CCTs target households living in poverty – rather than all persons – and, by using poor quality targeting methodologies such as the proxy means test, exclude the majority of their intended beneficiaries, while often causing division and conflict within communities. For example, Mexico’s famous Oportunidades programme has been found to have exclusion errors of around 70%, while the World Bank itself estimated exclusion errors of 93% in Indonesia’s Program Keluarga Harapan (PKH) CCT (Alatas et al 2014). And, as we should all know by now, there is no robust evidence on the value of implementing conditions, since all positive impacts on beneficiaries appear to come from the cash they receive (see this paper for further discussion).
Since CCTs are the World Bank’s social protection programme of choice, perhaps Jim Yong Kim was just showing consideration for his own staff. World Bank staff claim that their institution cannot give loans for unconditional programmes so entitlement schemes for all persons do not fit their business model. The last time the World Bank announced its support for universal social protection – in 2015 – we expressed our concern about the danger of unemployment for the World Bank’s social protection team and the need to provide them with a safety net (see blog by Nick Freeland). Kim’s support for CCTs is perhaps a signal that they are, in fact, in no immediate danger of losing their jobs. Indeed, like any good used car salesman, Kim used the Guardian interview to try and drum up business for his organisation: “We’re willing to provide financing for these conditional cash transfers,” he announced. There was no mention, though, of an offer to finance more effective, inclusive social protection schemes, of the type he appeared to agree with the ILO.
Read more: Universal social protection: the ILO attempt to persuade the World Bank