commentary by knk -
According to the New York Times, a U.S. "federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that the United States discriminates against the blind because the country’s paper currency is the same size regardless of a bill’s value."
This decision says a lot about the quality of care and amount of attention the U.S. society pays to even the smallest cultural group, as the blind could be termed. It also says more about how this group is using the U.S. judicial system to make sure its rights and voice is heard.
If the U.S. goes through with changing all its currency to make sure the blind are taken into account, we would be witnessing a very good example of a society shifting and molding according to higher values of equitable cultural integration.
5/9/08
Fair Trade Cities Initiatives Prove How Much Power Local Municapilities/Counties Can Have on Social/Sustainability Issues
Communication from Oxfam SF Action Corps-
What: World Fair Trade Day
When: This Saturday, May 10th, from 11 am- 4 pm
Where: Dolores Park in San Francisco
Why: Mayor and Board of Supervisors to Declare San Francisco a Fair Trade City,
live music and performances, community speakers, yummy fairly traded treats,
and more!
This event will feature speakers from the Mayor’s Office, the Board of
Supervisors, the Department of the Environment and the Bay Area Fair Trade
Coalition and highlight the broad community support for fair trade in San
Francisco and the cities achievement of the national guidelines to be
recognized as a Fair Trade City.
Entertainment will be provided by the Bayonics hip hop group, a Senegalese
dance troupe and local DJs. Free samples from Adina World Beat Beverages and
other local Fair Trade Certified retailers and licensees.
We will also join other Fair Trade cities around the country in attempting to
break the Guiness Book World Record for “World’s Largest Coffee Break –
Fair Trade Style” and invite attendees to bring along a Fair Trade coffee
from one of the many neighborhood businesses offering this option to help us
break the record.
More Info at: Bay Area Fair Trade Coalition
5/8/08
The New Philanthropy and Development Aid
Raj M. Desai, Visiting Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Wolfensohn Center for Development
Homi Kharas, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Wolfensohn Center for Development
A Communication from: The Brookings Institution
April 24, 2008 —
Two annual spring gatherings that shape the agenda for foreign aid have just been held. One of these is well known and was widely reported on while the other was largely ignored. Unfortunately, the world has gotten it backwards. The meeting that no one cared about is the one that offers the greatest hope for ending global poverty.
The Joint Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF met on Sunday, April 13 in Washington, D.C. In their communiqué, finance ministers noted that “most sub-Saharan African countries are off-track to meet the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals]… we urge donors, including the World Bank Group, to increase their support for the poorest countries’ own development priorities.” During the meetings, donors such as the US, Japan, and the EU were encouraged to “harmonize” their development activities in poor nations.
A few days earlier in California’s Silicon Valley, as it has for the past seven years, the Global Philanthropy Forum held its own annual gathering. This community of donors and social investors committed to international causes aims to promote a new kind of global philanthropy that often blurs the line between “non-profit” and “for-profit” approaches. True to many of their Silicon Valley roots, this new generation of philanthropists uses new technologies to link donors and recipients together, to provide better access to information (whether about microcredit availability or rainfall forecasts), and to build social networks in poor communities.
Approximately 800 press credentials were issued for the World Bank-IMF “Spring Meetings,” as they are called. A Nexis search yields over 400 news articles reporting on the meetings. Meanwhile, at the Global Philanthropy Forum few, if any, members of the press were on hand; Nexis turns up not a single major news story on the proceedings (although one blogger did report on the forum’s discussions).
This lopsidedness is unfortunate. In fact, the attendees who came to Silicon Valley last week will likely give more aid to world’s poor this year than the institutions that convened the Spring Meetings. In 2006, the IMF and World Bank disbursed about $24 billion in loans and credits, not counting debt relief. In the same year, American foundations, charities, and philanthropies gave almost $34 billion to international causes. The best hope for the world’s poor lies in the ability of private aid givers to transform the current system of foreign aid, and to develop partnerships with the public sector, to advance the common good.
The private sector has grown from a small player in development assistance to a major, dynamic force, but the world has little noticed. Since 1998 international giving by US-based corporate and independent foundations has doubled. Giving from “mega-charities” such as the Gates, Ford, and Hewlett foundations has been rising steadily but small foundations actually contribute twice as much, and their giving is growing even faster.
More importantly, there is reason to believe that private aid is more effective than official development assistance, and that larger portions of private aid reach the poor. The allocation of private aid is less likely to be based on geo-strategic considerations, and more according to the actual needs of recipients. Because it deals directly with NGOs and civil society, private aid can avoid the corruption associated with developing country governments. Smaller portions of private aid are spent on overhead and administrative costs, and on “technical assistance”—money that often funds contractors and consultants in rich countries.
A word of caution: private aid can make a difference, but it is by no means a panacea for all that ails the world’s poor. For all the amounts that have been granted, there has been little evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of private aid, and there are few examples of privately-funded programs being expanded in ways needed to make a dent in global poverty. The history of global charity has also had its share of scandals involving misappropriations of funds and theft. And the universe of foundations, charities, educational organizations, and private and voluntary organizations may be too crowded and too fragmented to make a real difference on a large scale.
But the new reality of aid is one where private aid will become a larger and larger share of total development assistance. Along with the proliferation of non-traditional aid agencies, the spread of private aid from individuals and from large and small foundations will make “harmonization” harder to achieve.
So what can private aid accomplish? In a nutshell, it can transform the effectiveness of global foreign aid by making it more competitive. For decades, poor developing nations have faced a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude from international financial institutions and official donors, and were forced to deal exclusively with a particular official bureaucracy on development projects. Private aid now can change all that by providing an alternative channel for development assistance. But to make this competition work, recipient countries must be free to choose whether aid is channeled through an official government project, or through a more efficient NGO provider. Recipients of aid must also be able to rely on “benchmarks” that compare the effectiveness of private and official aid programs.
A competitive aid system also requires a better understanding of what works and what doesn’t. Neither the “demand” side—what the priority needs of the underserved are—nor the “supply” side—who is doing what and for which communities—have been mapped out at the country level. Without that, it is inevitable that both public and private aid providers will fail to provide systemic change, and will fail to help poor nations develop their own capabilities, both of which are needed for sustained poverty reduction. These are the efforts to which the Development Committee and the Global Philanthropy Forum should dedicate themselves, not to the maintenance of the current inflexible foreign aid system, but to its modernization.
Homi Kharas, Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development, Wolfensohn Center for Development
A Communication from: The Brookings Institution
April 24, 2008 —
Two annual spring gatherings that shape the agenda for foreign aid have just been held. One of these is well known and was widely reported on while the other was largely ignored. Unfortunately, the world has gotten it backwards. The meeting that no one cared about is the one that offers the greatest hope for ending global poverty.
The Joint Development Committee of the World Bank and the IMF met on Sunday, April 13 in Washington, D.C. In their communiqué, finance ministers noted that “most sub-Saharan African countries are off-track to meet the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals]… we urge donors, including the World Bank Group, to increase their support for the poorest countries’ own development priorities.” During the meetings, donors such as the US, Japan, and the EU were encouraged to “harmonize” their development activities in poor nations.
A few days earlier in California’s Silicon Valley, as it has for the past seven years, the Global Philanthropy Forum held its own annual gathering. This community of donors and social investors committed to international causes aims to promote a new kind of global philanthropy that often blurs the line between “non-profit” and “for-profit” approaches. True to many of their Silicon Valley roots, this new generation of philanthropists uses new technologies to link donors and recipients together, to provide better access to information (whether about microcredit availability or rainfall forecasts), and to build social networks in poor communities.
Approximately 800 press credentials were issued for the World Bank-IMF “Spring Meetings,” as they are called. A Nexis search yields over 400 news articles reporting on the meetings. Meanwhile, at the Global Philanthropy Forum few, if any, members of the press were on hand; Nexis turns up not a single major news story on the proceedings (although one blogger did report on the forum’s discussions).
This lopsidedness is unfortunate. In fact, the attendees who came to Silicon Valley last week will likely give more aid to world’s poor this year than the institutions that convened the Spring Meetings. In 2006, the IMF and World Bank disbursed about $24 billion in loans and credits, not counting debt relief. In the same year, American foundations, charities, and philanthropies gave almost $34 billion to international causes. The best hope for the world’s poor lies in the ability of private aid givers to transform the current system of foreign aid, and to develop partnerships with the public sector, to advance the common good.
The private sector has grown from a small player in development assistance to a major, dynamic force, but the world has little noticed. Since 1998 international giving by US-based corporate and independent foundations has doubled. Giving from “mega-charities” such as the Gates, Ford, and Hewlett foundations has been rising steadily but small foundations actually contribute twice as much, and their giving is growing even faster.
More importantly, there is reason to believe that private aid is more effective than official development assistance, and that larger portions of private aid reach the poor. The allocation of private aid is less likely to be based on geo-strategic considerations, and more according to the actual needs of recipients. Because it deals directly with NGOs and civil society, private aid can avoid the corruption associated with developing country governments. Smaller portions of private aid are spent on overhead and administrative costs, and on “technical assistance”—money that often funds contractors and consultants in rich countries.
A word of caution: private aid can make a difference, but it is by no means a panacea for all that ails the world’s poor. For all the amounts that have been granted, there has been little evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of private aid, and there are few examples of privately-funded programs being expanded in ways needed to make a dent in global poverty. The history of global charity has also had its share of scandals involving misappropriations of funds and theft. And the universe of foundations, charities, educational organizations, and private and voluntary organizations may be too crowded and too fragmented to make a real difference on a large scale.
But the new reality of aid is one where private aid will become a larger and larger share of total development assistance. Along with the proliferation of non-traditional aid agencies, the spread of private aid from individuals and from large and small foundations will make “harmonization” harder to achieve.
So what can private aid accomplish? In a nutshell, it can transform the effectiveness of global foreign aid by making it more competitive. For decades, poor developing nations have faced a “take-it-or-leave-it” attitude from international financial institutions and official donors, and were forced to deal exclusively with a particular official bureaucracy on development projects. Private aid now can change all that by providing an alternative channel for development assistance. But to make this competition work, recipient countries must be free to choose whether aid is channeled through an official government project, or through a more efficient NGO provider. Recipients of aid must also be able to rely on “benchmarks” that compare the effectiveness of private and official aid programs.
A competitive aid system also requires a better understanding of what works and what doesn’t. Neither the “demand” side—what the priority needs of the underserved are—nor the “supply” side—who is doing what and for which communities—have been mapped out at the country level. Without that, it is inevitable that both public and private aid providers will fail to provide systemic change, and will fail to help poor nations develop their own capabilities, both of which are needed for sustained poverty reduction. These are the efforts to which the Development Committee and the Global Philanthropy Forum should dedicate themselves, not to the maintenance of the current inflexible foreign aid system, but to its modernization.
Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in Mexico
A Global Economy and Development and Wolfensohn Center for Development Event
A communication from: Brookings Institution
Event Summary
Despite a decade of macroeconomic stability, Mexico’s growth and productivity performance has been lackluster. A significant factor restricting the Mexican economic growth rate is a social policy that gives workers incentives to seek informal, low-productivity jobs and restricts firms from making strides in growth and investment opportunities.
Event Information
When
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Where
Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Directions
Contact: Brookings Office of Communications
E-mail: events@brookings.edu
Phone: 202.797.6105
Register Now
More Related Content »
On May 13, the Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings will host a discussion with Santiago Levy, Brookings nonresident senior fellow and former deputy minister of finance of Mexico. Levy, along with a panel of leading experts, will discuss his new book Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in Mexico (Brookings Institution Press, 2008). In 1997, Levy created Progresa-Oportunidades, an anti-poverty program, focusing on nutrition, health and education. The program has been replicated in over 25 countries and New York City and has helped more than five million families escape from poverty by means of cash transfers. In his book, Levy recommends that these social programs should not be eliminated, but rather improved so that productivity and real wages will increase for all workers and contribute to bringing Mexico’s poor out of poverty.
After the program, speakers will take audience questions. A reception will follow the event.
Participants
Introduction
Lael Brainard
Vice President and Director, Global Economy and Development
Moderator
Johannes F. Linn
Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center for Development
Panelists
Santiago Levy
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development
Jere Behrman
W.R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Economics and Director of the Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania
Nancy Birdsall
President, Center for Global Development
Francisco Ferreira
Lead Economist, Development Research Group, The World Bank
A communication from: Brookings Institution
Event Summary
Despite a decade of macroeconomic stability, Mexico’s growth and productivity performance has been lackluster. A significant factor restricting the Mexican economic growth rate is a social policy that gives workers incentives to seek informal, low-productivity jobs and restricts firms from making strides in growth and investment opportunities.
Event Information
When
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
Where
Saul/Zilkha Rooms
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Directions
Contact: Brookings Office of Communications
E-mail: events@brookings.edu
Phone: 202.797.6105
Register Now
More Related Content »
On May 13, the Wolfensohn Center for Development at Brookings will host a discussion with Santiago Levy, Brookings nonresident senior fellow and former deputy minister of finance of Mexico. Levy, along with a panel of leading experts, will discuss his new book Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes: Social Policy, Informality and Economic Growth in Mexico (Brookings Institution Press, 2008). In 1997, Levy created Progresa-Oportunidades, an anti-poverty program, focusing on nutrition, health and education. The program has been replicated in over 25 countries and New York City and has helped more than five million families escape from poverty by means of cash transfers. In his book, Levy recommends that these social programs should not be eliminated, but rather improved so that productivity and real wages will increase for all workers and contribute to bringing Mexico’s poor out of poverty.
After the program, speakers will take audience questions. A reception will follow the event.
Participants
Introduction
Lael Brainard
Vice President and Director, Global Economy and Development
Moderator
Johannes F. Linn
Executive Director, Wolfensohn Center for Development
Panelists
Santiago Levy
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Global Economy and Development
Jere Behrman
W.R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Economics and Director of the Population Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania
Nancy Birdsall
President, Center for Global Development
Francisco Ferreira
Lead Economist, Development Research Group, The World Bank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)