Author : Minouche Shafik
Date : January 26, 2009
In every economic crisis, it is the poor that suffer the most. Whether it is individuals or countries, they are the most vulnerable and lack the savings and the institutions to support them during difficult times. In past crises, we have focused too late on adverse effects on poor people. Can we do it differently this time
The current economic downturn, unlike the East Asia crisis, started in the richest countries and has now affected the major emerging markets. The effects on low income countries are being felt, not mainly through financial markets, but through the volatility of commodity prices, the decline in export volumes and remittances. Reporting from DFID's offices (Ethiopia, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan) indicate that in some cases poor households are taking children out of school to save money, and families, especially women and girls, are eating less or lower quality food, leading to concerns about malnutrition. Estimates are that the economic crisis has already put 100 million people back into poverty.
It is interesting to recall the lessons from previous shocks. During the recession of the 1980s, many developing countries embarked on structural adjustment programmes. While the economic reforms were often necessary, the awareness of the negative effects quickly became apparent and caused political problems in many countries and for the international financial institutions. The appeals for "adjustment with a human face" ensued and instruments such as Social Funds were established in many countries to cushion the effects through community development, skills training, and microfinance. While these Social Funds were often quite effective, they often took too long to establish and failed to play a truly countercyclical role in helping the poorest cope with economic adjustment.
For developing countries, this crisis started with the spike in food prices in early 2008. Interestingly, there was once again an appeal to create new institutions. The international response focused on a set of short term measures (food aid, social protection, input subsidies, etc.) and longer term measures (investment in research, infrastructure). But within months of agreement on this, food prices had started to fall and energy prices skyrocketed. Once again, there was a search for ways to alleviate the adverse effects. And once momentum on an international response coalesced, oil prices fell by two-thirds.
What lessons can we draw from these experiences? First, it is the nature of globalisation that there will be shocks. Those shocks may be food or fuel prices or credit squeezes or flights to quality, but they will come. Second, attempts to orchestrate a tailored response to protect the most vulnerable will almost always lag behind the need. This is inevitable given the long lead times required when new institutions are desired. Third, the best mechanisms are those that provide protection from any shock and use existing institutions and programmes to keep the most vulnerable above a minimum threshold.
Some countries have formal systems of social protection which can vary from reasonably good (Brazil, Ghana, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam), to limited (Uganda, Zambia, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Central Asia, Caribbean, Iraq) to still under preparation (Kenya, Sierra Leone, Cambodia). But in many countries there is no formal system and poor households rely on informal mechanisms such as remittances (Pakistan, China) or digging into modest savings (China), borrowing from moneylenders (Bangladesh), or drawing down on assets such as livestock (Tanzania) in order to cope. A good example of a well designed social protection scheme is Ethiopia's Productive Safety Net Programme, which provides cash and food transfers for over 7 million people. £13 ($18) per month pays for cash transfers to support an entire family. The overwhelming majority (84%) of households spend some or all of this cash on buying staple food, ensuring improved health and nutrition outcomes and protecting families from having to sell productive assets to pay for food. Over a quarter of recipients (28%) also use some of the funds to keep children in school. Cash is also used to settle health bills and to facilitate asset accumulation by many families, especially livestock purchases. The programme proved its value last year, protecting many families from high food prices and drought and enabling the government and donors to use the existing programme to extend the duration of assistance.
DFID does not see the money we have committed to social protection as a welfare programme, although clearly for some households it will provide this function. The real pay off from social protection is in protecting other investments we are making in development (Ravallion, 2008). There is strong evidence that economic shocks in poor countries cause rising infant mortality, falling school enrollment, and falls in nutrition levels (Ferreira and Schady, 2008). Severe malnutrition in early childhood often leads to stunted physical development and deficits in cognitive development - all of which reduce life chances and result in significant losses in life-time earnings (Alderman et al, 2006; Behrman et al, 2004). The costs of preventing such malnutrition can be very low because of recent technological advances - as noted in Josette Sheeran's January 8 contribution to Ideas4development.
In the months ahead, more poor countries need to be instituting social protection schemes to ensure that this economic crisis does not cause persistent poverty across generations and undermine recent progress, especially on education. When the Tequila crisis hit Mexico in 1994, it triggered the design of the famous PROGRESA programme which resulted in the establishment for the first time of an effective safety net for the country's poor. More countries should do the same and more donors should be allocating funding to social protection. Robert Zoellick has called on the US to pledge 0.7 per cent of its stimulus package to a vulnerability fund for developing countries, who cannot afford a fiscal stimulus, to help them manage the consequences of the crisis ("A Stimulus Package for the World", New York Times, 22 January 2009). Ideally we would create a shared funding mechanism that would send a strong signal that, alongside international policy coordination to protect the world's financial systems, we will work together to protect the poorest from the inevitable shocks that globalisation brings. Without that, we risk losing the international consensus around globalisation and the value of past and future investments in development.
- Comments RSS feed
-
Send this post to a friendSend this post
Date : April 14, 2010 06:38
"Sistemas deTrazabilidad " e incidencia en los costos de productores y consumidores ( prosumidores).
La produccion sostiene sus politicas innovadoras economicas a traves del valor agregado. dinamica sujeta a diversos factores que intervienen en la elaboracion y comercializacion de un producto.
En la busqueda de la utopia,las secuencias que marcaran las pautas son la practica de la justicia social.
Una de ellas es lograr que ese valor agregado que encarece. la canasta familiar y en algunas lamentables circunstancias dificulta la supervivencia de muchas personas disminuya para que su impacto colateral economico no tenga tal efecto.
La trazabilidad agropecuaria surgio como una respuesta a una compleja interactividad de "productores",con el empleo de una gama agroquimica, de una industria en experimentacion, tipificada por el desarrollo contemporaneo.
Cuando ScoringSystem pionero de la trazabilidad agropecuaria en el mundo, hace su lanzamiento se encuentra con las grandes dificultades que generan los paradigmas culturales y la actitud general de las empresas implementadoras de las BPs de "crear" sus propios sistemas de trazabilidad a traves de una costosa tecnologia que genero un valor agregado extraordinario a los consumidores de productos basicos.
Es fundamental reconocer que el uso y la innovacion de la tecnologia es libre, pero en la medida que esta evoluciona se establecen estandares internacionales para su uso,buscando el beneficio general.pues esto es en efecto la finalidad de la ciencia.
ScorinSystem se adelanto en la marcha de una empresa con CALIDAD DE RSE ScoringAg Es un sistema QUE REDUCE COSTOS De implementacion EN un 50% .con caracteristicas tecnicas propias y unicas de su invencion cumpliendo con toda la normatividad.para hablar de trazabilidad agropecuaria es necesario hacer referencia a ScoringAg.
ScoringAg es una solucion a multiples problemas tecno, socioeconomicos.Se recomienda que empresarios ,productores y comercializadores consulten y asesoren por nuestros representantes EN TODO EL PLANETA.
Date : April 13, 2010 05:27
Apreciada: Minouche shafik.
El "atesoramiento".es quizas uno de los aspectos mas " trascendentes en el desarrollo de los grupos etnicos y las sociedades desarrolladas".precedido por la organizacion y la claridad mental.
Cuando el "atesoramiento" es mal administrado ,carente de objetivos reales y beneficio comun a traves de la reinversion, las crisis economicas y el hambre fomentan el crimen hasta el "colapso". la economia de los nucleos sociales depende de la " fortaleza del tesoro" que comienza con los pequeños productores (ahorradores) a las grandes y megaempresas.(grandes capitalistas) conformando el capital privado, fuente del "tesoro nacional".
La solucion a las crisis economicas esta entonces en establecer las espectativas y garantias a los inversionistas y la vigilancia y el control a los proyectos de los gobiernos democraticos.
Cuando un pequeño ahorrador no sabe que hacer con su capital (estos suman muchisimos) ese capital pasa a ser un dinero improductible, incluso debajo del colchon.LO MISMO OCURRE CON LOS GRANDES CAPITALISTAS .
"El tesoro nacional"es otro gran problema por resolver. las naciones son pobres por que no saben administrar sus recursos economicos, y ademas ,se le suma la corrupcion administrativa con modalidades desconcertantes a causa de la indolencia social.
De una u otra forma los dos aspectos estan intimamente relacionados con el potencial que genera la reinversion.en una sinergia de caracter y vinculo fundamentalmente social.
Date : April 4, 2010 19:21
¿ Educamos o Reeducamos ? Con las grandes dificultades que esto significa.
Por ahora y prioritariamente tendremos que educar y reeducar.paralelamente a los programas selectivos en pro de las soluciones a los conflictos sociales
En un futuro solamente educar si así lo elegimos.
Es fundamental convertir la constitución política en los países democráticos en una verdadera doctrina, ya que en su ecencia es así. e implementarla en el pensum estudiantil desde su primer ciclo.con las particularidades en cada país.pero en principio siguiendo estándares internacionales establecidos para tal fin.
Es uno de los principales objetivos de la cohexistencia en democracia, enseñar el significado de la consciencia ciudadana y con ello sus derechos y obligaciones enmarcadas por la constitución.
Dejando la intervención y dirección legal a una capacitación especializada a través de las organizaciones estatales establecidas para tales funciones.
Mientras esto no ocurra siempre estaremos enfrentando el gran dilema de la indiferencia social y la política incluyente no sera mas que otra buena intención.con la gran carga que esto representa para la sociedad en general.
Atte. Thilo Fj Vottela Escaff.
Rodrigo Bonilla, Claire Pillet et Olivier Bonnet
Date : December 16, 2009 23:49
L'idée de M. Shafik qui consiste à encourager la création d'un "mécanisme de financement partagé" pour les plus pauvres nous semble tout à fait louable et très intéressante. Les plus pauvres, sans être les protagonistes d'un capitalisme international de plus en plus débridé, ont été et sont encore les principales victimes de ses effets. Que les pays riches, en parallèle de leur négociation concertée sur la protection des systèmes financiers mondiaux, mettent en place un 'filet de sécurité" permanent visant à protéger les plus pauvres des effets de la mondialisation, n'est qu'un juste retour des choses. En effet, comment les pays riches pourraient-ils justifier leur action commune en matière d'aide au développement - notamment par la mise en place des Objectifs du Millénaire pour le Développement (OMD) - et dans le même temps rester inactifs face à la mise à mort de ces mêmes objectifs par les effets d'une mondialisation dont ils sont les principaux acteurs ? Déjà, en 1958, Albert O. Hirschman évoquait l'idée d'un "fonds de répercussion" : "il faut en outre une assistance d'ordre général pour la balance des paiements, sous forme de crédits de réserve, puisqu'il est impossible d'estimer la rapidité avec laquelle les pressions subies par l'économie d'un pays au cours de son développement détermineront les transferts de ressources intérieurs adéquats."
L'introduction, par le biais de cette idée, de la notion de temps long nous semble tout à fait pertinente et intéressante. Prenons l'exemple des OMD : il n'est pas possible par exemple de réduire de moitié la proportion de la population dont le revenu est inférieur à un dollar par jour (Cible 1A de l'Objectif 1), d'éliminer les disparités entre les sexes dans les enseignements primaire et secondaire (Cible 3A de l'Objectif 3) ou de réduire l'appauvrissement de la diversité biologique et en ramener le taux à un niveau sensiblement plus bas d'ici à 2010 (Cible 7B de l'Objectif 7) en quelques mois. L'échelle temps est un facteur indispensable à la réussite de ce genre de projet et la création d'un "mécanisme de financement" permanent permet de répondre à ce besoin, là où les incessantes variations du marché international laissent peu de temps et peu de place pour les décisions élaborées sur le moyen terme, contextualisées, réfléchies, évaluées et réévaluées sur le terrain.
Martin Ravallion et Shaohua Chen, dans un article commun intitulé "The impact of the global financial crisis on the world's poorest", nous expliquent que la pauvreté dans les pays en développement tendait à diminuer avant la crise économique mondiale de 2008. Ils projettent qu'en 2010, 73 millions de personnes supplémentaires vivront avec moins de 1,25 dollars par jour et 91 millions de personnes supplémentaires vivront avec moins de 2 dollars par jour. Dans la mesure où ce sont les pays riches qui financent les politiques de développement international, la dialectique effets de la mondialisation/aide au développement se pose alors d'une autre manière : quel intérêt - en termes de rentabilité - cela représente-il pour les pays riches de financer des projets qui échoueront sous les effets de cette mondialisation ? Fait-on face à une attitude schizophrène de la part des pays financeurs ou s'inscrivent-ils dans une démarche fataliste qui consistent à (faire) subir et à réparer dans une sorte de cercle infernal de la culpabilisation.
Quels sacrifices sont prêts à consentir les pays riches ? A la lecture de La Haine de l'Occident de Jean Ziegler, il apparaît que la voix des peuples du Sud est souvent malmenée sous le joug des décisions des grandes puissances internationales et des réseaux financiers internationaux. Ziegler nous explique comment Pascal Lamy, Directeur général de l'Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC) exerce des pressions sur les pays africains producteurs de coton. Si le Mali refuse de signer l'accord proposé par l'OMC - qui, il le sait, favorise les producteurs américains largement subventionnés par l'Etat fédéral -, l'OMC, main dans la main avec le Fonds Monétaire International (FMI), qui "règne en maître sur leur économie", "refuse le refinancement de la dette" et "exige la privatisation de la filière du coton."
Est-ce que finalement, accepter la proposition de M. Shafik et créer un "filet de sécurité" collectif et permanent ne consisterait-il pas à dédouaner les pays riches de leur devoir d'aide à l'égard des pays en développement ? Leur soif de réparation serait ainsi comblée par un filet de protection mondiale, sans que les problèmes de fond soient réfléchis pour tout autant. Dans quelle mesure ces propositions ne sont-elles en réalité que des palliatifs a posteriori au lieu d’être de véritables remèdes ? Dans quelle mesure ne visent-elles pas les conséquences néfastes d’un problème et non pas le problème en soi ?
Après la crise de 2008, nous avons assisté à une vague de propositions au niveau de plusieurs instances, prônant plus de régulation et plus de prévention, afin d’éviter une nouvelle crise. Les membres du G20, affirmant de grandes mesures pour réguler la finance internationale, ont posé comme objectif certain de faire évoluer la situation. Cela dit, dans les points 12 et 13 de la déclaration du sommet du G20 du 15 novembre à Washington D.C., les membres précisent le cadre dans lequel les réformes de régulation et prévention devront s’opérer:
"Nous considérons que ces réformes ne seront efficaces que si elles sont fondées sur les principes du libre-marché, de l’état de droit, du respect de la propriété privée, de l'ouverture des échanges et des investissements, de la concurrence entre les marchés et des systèmes financiers efficaces et régulés de manière adéquate. Il est nécessaire d’éviter toute régulation excessive, ce qui affecterait la croissance économique et exacerberait la contraction des flux financiers. Et ceci aussi dans les pays en développement. (…) On souligne l’importance fondamentale de rejeter le protectionnisme et la fermeture des frontières économiques dans ces temps d’incertitude financière."
Il semble curieux qu’après une crise d’une telle ampleur, les critiques du système au sein duquel elle s’est développé soient totalement absentes du débat. Nous l'avons mentionné, en soumettant les pays pauvres aux flux économiques mondialisés, on les expose aux aléas des crises. De nombreuses analyses convergent vers l'idée que la croissance n'est pas une condition suffisante pour réduire les inégalités et ne permet pas la satisfaction des besoins dits essentiels. Aider les pays pauvres apparaît comme une façon de réparer leur insertion, à certains égards forcée, à un modèle économique auquel ils sont loin d’être adaptés. Cependant, il est à noter que "le rythme de développement est celui que se forgent les Etats eux-mêmes, du fait de leur choix, de leurs contraintes." Dans l'histoire des économies développées, le besoin financier pour le développement n'a jamais été programmé. Et lorsqu’il s’agit d’investir en des projets à long terme, on oublie que certains processus, tels que la scolarisation, l’éradication de l’alphabétisation, l’avènement de la démocratie, furent des processus centenaires dans les pays développés.
Mis à part ces contradictions d’ordre général, qui méritent d’être présentées, il convient aussi de s’attarder sur certains points des mesures proposées par M. Shafik en termes de système de protection sociale.
1/ La première interrogation, extrêmement pratique, touche à l’identification des programmes susceptibles de bénéficier de la manne des fonds de vulnérabilité.
On l’aura compris, les priorités seraient données aux “filets de sécurité” déjà mentionnés par Mme Shafik (visant essentiellement à un soutien de la consommation des produits de base, l’alimentation, la santé et l’éducation), à des projets d’infrastructures à la fois gages de productivité à venir et synonymes d’un maintien de l’emploi, et au secteur privé, en particulier les petites et moyennes entreprises et les instituts de micro-finance.
Mais c’est finalement l’éternelle question de l’évaluation, celle des besoins de financement minimum, qui vient se poser. Comment jauger de l’impact d’un programme, comment prendre en compte les effets de seuil dans l’optique optique de limiter le nombre de familles menacées de retomber sous le seuil de pauvreté ?
On ne commentera pas ici le postulat selon lequel les dispositifs éligibles, ou les niveaux de financement, ne recherchent qu’à gérer les effets les plus visibles des crises. Il semble assez clair que les enjeux derrière la constitution de ces fonds sont tels qu’il n’est pas envisagé aujourd’hui de doter les instruments de protection sociale d’objectifs plus ambitieux : par exemple une régulation plus systématique des inégalités économiques et sociales dans un pays considérés, plus coûteuse mais aux impacts potentiellement plus bénéfiques sur le développement et la préservation des investissements en matière de développement.
On ne poussera pas non plus avant l’argumentation selon laquelle les coûts et les effets des instruments de protection sociale (quelle que soit l’option choisie, gestion de crise ou régulation permanente des inégalités) seraient bien différents selon qu’on soit parvenu ou non à réduire le risque et l’ampleur des crises.
2/ Par contre, nous noterons bien qu’à l’opposé d’une démarche compliquée qui partirait d’une délicate évaluation des besoins de financement, les propositions qui ont été émises sont fondées sur une enveloppe globale, que les futurs coordinateurs de ce financement auront à charge de ventiler entre les différents pays et leurs programmes.
A quoi, en définitive, correspondent les 0,7% des plans de relance ? La question porte tant sur le mode de calcul que sur une interrogation de la correspondance du résultat avec les futurs besoins de financement.
Une goutte d’eau dans la mer, une mesure symbolique ou un réel soutien pour passer les prochaines turbulences de l’économie mondialisée ?
Sans être en réelle mesure de juger des évolutions tendancielles des montants et du contenu de l’APD en provenance des pays de l’OCDE, en particulier depuis l’éclatement de la crise, nous serons par contre tentés de rapprocher deux montants en valeur absolue :
.ceux des 0,7% des plans de relance appelés pour les fonds de vulnérabilités
.et ceux qui séparent l’APD globale réelle de ses objectifs officiels (les fameux “autres” 0,7%).
3/ Une autre question pratique porte sur les modalités du choix entre les différents programmes de protection sociale. Mme Safik souligne à juste titre l’hétérogénéité (en termes d’impact et de maturité) de ces instruments à travers le monde.
L’intérêt est double : il s’agit de maintenir le plus possible de famille au dessus du seuil de pauvreté et de “protéger d'autres investissements engagés dans le développement”. C’est fort légitime mais souligne la difficulté de ce genre d’exercice.
Comment en effet “qualifier” un programme pour un financement sans pour autant interférer d’une manière ou d’une autre avec la primauté des Etats dans la conception et la gestion de leur “filets de sécurité” ? N’en arriverait-t-on pas in fine à l’application d’un certain principe de conditionnalité ?
Et dans ce cas, que faire pour les pays les moins avancés, les plus fragiles et ceux qui n’ont pas pu ou su mettre en place de dispositif efficace de protection sociale ? Ils n’en sont pas moins exposés aux aléas de l’économie mondiale.
Sans pousser jusqu’à la caricature, on pourrait dire que cette proposition nécessaire “d’aider les pauvres” n’ira pas sans poser de question concernant les plus pauvres des pauvres.
4/ La question de la gestion du ou des fonds de vulnérabilité a sans doutes dû être faire l’objet de discussion. Robert Zoellick lui-même dans son discours d’octobre 2009 devant le conseil des gouverneurs des gouverneurs de la Banque Mondiale reconnaissait volontiers que “trop souvent, l’aide bilatérale concentre ses ressources sur des secteurs et des pays particuliers” et militait ainsi pour une approche multilatérale et globale. C’est la une problématique de gouvernance mondiale dont la solution dépasse largement la seule question de la lutte contre les effets des crises économiques.
Download associated file(s):
Date : September 6, 2009 04:13
POVERTY ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO PROSPERITY EVERYWHERE.
About 2 trillion stimulus package had been drawn up by all countries put together to combat the ongoing financial crisis, which by now has started showing signs of recovery.
As in any crisis, poor are the segment which suffer the most and when recovery takes place they are the one who do not find a place in the recovery chart.
Authentic datas are yet to be made available as to what was the share out of 2 trillion, which directly targets the reovery of the deprived. Equally important is what was the shrinkage in economic assistance for the less privilaged, due to the current crisis.
The opinion makers of the world are not the poor. Slogans for inclusive growth are available in plenty the world over. Several Poverty Alleviation Programmes (PAP) are in place supported by rich funding agencies.
It is time the world should think in terms of Prosperity Introduction Programme (PIP), rather than mere PAP.
Date : August 28, 2009 02:04
The big problem here is the way to attack the poverty, not is the pay in money the inequity lived for the poor people, is necessary make big changes in the flow of capitals. Change the focus of the economic politics for the poor people, making new mechanisms for creation of employs and new structures for generation of capital in small scale in the poor belts of the countries. If necessary make new networks of social capital and remake the human capital of this people, some poor people have knowledge of one or more handcrafts but never use that for don't have market for our products. This people don't need one dollar for day for live, need work, for have sure our food for the rest of our lives, work in unqualified employs, or in the adequate for our capacities, but employ don't money, the money just make one food for short time, the employ change our perception of life, now are consumers, don't dependants, are adults dons child's of the national protectionist systems. the function of the national state is make the big structure for create this mechanisms, create employs, create social capital networks, teach in handcrafts and make markets, and over all this reduce the transfer tax in the production process for increase the guarantee of next production. In the last years assist for the most big transfer of resources of the farming to the city, now see the transfer of the city to the financial corp. Now need transfer resources other time to the towns and the poor people for creation of new consumers for the big capitals. Thanks for create this space for the knowledge.
Date : August 28, 2009 01:43
"No basta con levantar al débil, hay que sostenerlo después" dijo William Shakespeare, y para mi esta es y debe ser la base de los programas de asistencia social. Lo primero que debemos comprender es que en un mundo globalizado todo esta interconectado y el hambre y la pobreza de las masas afectan directamente a los grandes capitales, la ausencia de consumidores con efectivo en sus bolsillos claramente reduce los campos de mercado de las grandes transnacionales, quienes si en verdad desean sobrevivir a la crisis deben invertir capitales en dar empleo a esas masas de pobres, no debemos crear cifras mágicas de reducción del numero de pobres por que reciben $75 pesos mexicanos a la semana para comprarse un kilo de tortillas de maíz al día, que cuesta 9.50, y comer tortillas con sal y chile, debemos crear productores de capitales, ya sea por la inversión directa en generación de empleos para esas masas no calificadas (y sobra decir que algunos muy calificados también pertenecemos a la masa empobrecida) sino que también debemos buscar la manera de convertirlos en productores, que puedan generar sus propios capitales mediante la enseñanza de oficios, y la búsqueda de mercados para los productos de dichos oficios. Los ilusorios microcreditos poco tienen de realistas y son sumamente dificiles de obtener en México. Es necesario entonces romper el ciclo de la pobreza, reducir la taza de transferencia de capitales al estado, mientras los gobiernos conservan reservas la población se muere de hambre, ese capital debe invertirse en generación de empleos, en la creación de flujos de capital que reducen en consumo. Es bastante simple en un hogar pobre si se tiene guardado el dinero de la universidad de un hijo, y se cae en desgracia se usa el dinero para sobrevivir para poder luego recavar nuevamente lo necesario para la universidad. los países pobres debemos responder de igual manera a la crisis, sacar la alcancía y usarla para salir de apuros, y luego volver a recavar, no se le puede pedir al pueblo una mayor transferencia con nuevos impuestos pues solo aumentaríamos el numero de pobres, necesitamos crear mecanismos de salida, invertir en infraestructura, en generación de redes de capital social, en investigación social enfocada a generar alternativas de desarrollo y no solo en ciencia dura. Es necesario priorizar y poner por delante a los pobres, pues es de ellos de donde proviene el consumo en masa, consumo que finalmente es el que reactiva a la economía.
Date : May 4, 2009 18:58
Très brillante intervention en faveur des pauvres et futures pauvres de la planète. Je pense aussi comme vous que les plans de relance devraient comprendre un programme d'aide sociale pour les pays pauvres.
Robert Zoellick a été génereux, 0.7%, c'est une belle somme d'argent. N'oublions pas que si cela était appliqué, cet argent sera aussi depensé dans les pays riches par l'achat de certaines fournitures necessaires.
Jonathan M. White, GMF Economic Policy
Date : February 23, 2009 23:04
We need to magnify social protection by making aid more predictable. Minouche Shafik provides us with a compelling case for increasing investments in social protection programs. Owen's point about child mortality, life expectancy, and primary education indicators failing to bounce back after economic growth returns only reinforces the urgent need to focus on these vital social investments. It would seem that there is a benefit to making these kinds of investments now rather than letting the poor fall further behind and having to make even bigger investments down the road to left them back out of poverty.
The confluence of food, fuel, and credit crises and their impact on the poor merits a thoughtful reevaluation of aid program design and allocation decisions. We are less prepared to meet the needs of the poor in the face of these global "shocks." But, just looking at aid alone, it is often volatile and pro-cyclical (Bulir and Hamann 2006; Pallage and Robe 2001). Historically, aid flows are more volatile compared to other macroeconomic variables, such as public sector revenues, consumption, and Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Aid volatility can cause disruptions in inflation, real exchange rates and fiscal policy, resulting in economic decline and social dislocations. As Homi Kharas points out in his recent study Measuring the Cost of Aid Volatility, (see attachment), these so-called "aid shocks" in developing countries have triggered disruptions equivalent to the magnitude of the income shocks endured by developed countries during the two World Wars, the Great Depression, and the Spanish Civil War.
Food aid has been found to be countercyclical in countries that have the greatest need. In other words, in the most urgent situations, food aid is acting like a safety net to the poor and an automatic stabilizer more broadly for the economy. Food aid can alleviate budget pressures that accompany economic weakness. The sale of food aid locally generates revenue for counterpart funds, which in turn can be channeled into schools and health care. However, in most countries, food aid tends not to be countercyclical (Gupta, Clements, and Tiongson 2003) and under current conditions, efforts to smooth consumption across the developing world have become increasingly complicated.
DFID, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the World Food Program, and other donors have shown leadership by ensuring greater aid predictability through longer-term commitments. New innovative approaches such as the "Purchase for Progress" initiative recognize the need to build local food production capacity and provide predictability by guaranteeing longer term purchase agreements. Combined with knowledge of local conditions and local partnerships, aid can contribute to strengthening the social fabric of communities and mitigate the risk of conflict.
But, aid can also unintentionally exacerbate social tensions, inequalities, and power struggles. Most donors are aware of "fragility" and how vulnerable certain countries are to sudden changes in aid. Some donors such as the World Bank see the need to better understand the social dynamics, local politics, and conflict realities and avoid "overly technical" approaches, especially in fragile and conflict-affected states. At the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Accra, donors made fresh commitments to longer-term financing for fragile states. The current crisis provides an opportunity to not only rethink the value of social protection schemes, but also the need to make aid more predictable - which would significantly amplify social protection in the developing world.
Date : February 11, 2009 15:53
Doomsday! Today or Tomorrow?
For the rich countries, Doomsday will be tomorrow.
For the poor countries, Doomsday is today, and everyday!
The rich countries, comprising less than 1.4 billion people, were represented in The World Economic Forum, January, 2009, in Davos. The wealthiest people and corporations, and governments, in the world, gathered to discuss solutions to the failing world economy. Many of them, who were interviewed on CNN, and BBC, were convinced that they were the best people to lead everybody out of the financial crises, and to reorganize capitalism. They recognised that free market capitalism in general, and their banks in particular, were to blame for the present and future crises. But they were convinced that free market capitalism is best, and must be mended. Everything will be OK! They could not accept that the system was unjustifiable and unsustainable. They did accept that innovation today will solve the problems of tomorrow. They considered that the biggest threats to prosperity in the future were the rising population, and atmospheric pollution, leading to dramatic climate change: all of which would peak in 2050 - doomsday tomorrow! At that time, the world population is predicted to be 9 billion; the atmospheric pollution to be 650 parts per million; climate change turning farm lands into deserts; oceans flooding coast lands up to 100 metres; fuel oils exhausted, forests destroyed, farm lands exhausted, unable to produce enough food.
I want to propose that the majority of the world's population is already facing conditions of depletion and shortages and catastrophes and disaster - doomsday today!
The total world population at the end of 2008 is estimated to be 6.8 billion, of which 5.5 billion people are poor, trying to survive on less than $10 a day, and trying to obtain basic necessities. Many are failing. This is not surprising. A dollar a day will buy you a kilo of tomatoes, and with ten dollars you may get one meal a day. But no shelter, no heating, no utilities. Doomsday today!
In January 2009, the World Food Programme declared that 1 billion people are starving
.or as they said, 'going to bed each day hungry'. Many of these people will die soon! In the future, if the population did rise to 9 billion, as predicted, it would mean that even more people are poor and struggling, and starving, and dying prematurely.
The fact that the majority of the world's population is poor and undernourished means that they are subject to persistent disease. For example, the World Health Organisation's Health Report of 2008 estimates that there are 40 million with HIV/AIDS, and 500 million with malaria, as well 9 millions with TB.
At this time of financial crises in the rich countries, and the reduction of development aid, it is almost certain that health services for the poor will be withdrawn.The WHO in 2008 estimated that 60 million people die each year, many from diseases. For example, some 11million children die from malnutrition and diseases. 8.8 million people have TB and 2 million die in a year; 40 million live with HIV, and 3 million die from AIDS; 500 million have Malaria and 1 million die; across the world 13 million die from heart disease, and 7 million with lung diseases, often associated with smoking; and more than 2 million from diarrhoea. With the increasing rate of hunger and starvation and malnutrition, this number will almost certainly increase over the next two years, possibly to 1 billion. I wish to suggest that in the face of these latest figures, and the global impact of the financial crisis in 2007/08/09, the world's population will not increase significantly, and is just as likely to decline. The projections of a world population of 9 billion by 2050 are now unrealistic. They are based on the assumptions of continuing growth, and expanding development aid: both of which are incorrect.
The poor majority will have to confront lower incomes due to rising unemployment. There will be an increase in the numbers trying to live on $10 a day. Despite increasing farm production, they are facing rising food prices, and increasing hunger, and the spread of diseases. The numbers of starving people will increase to more than 1 billion. Doomsday today and every day! The World Food Programme and the United Nations declare that increases in starvation and malnutrition are the result of the increases in industrial farming, and the decline of food crops, and the subsequent rise in food prices. People are not starving because of overpopulation. They are starving because the international corporations who control farm production have decided that crops for industrial use are more profitable than for food. What is the point of growing food crops for the poor, when they cannot afford to pay for them? Farmers are funded to plant and harvest crops for the production of industrial products such as ethanol, textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, oils so as to maximize profits. At the same time land is being taken over by other international corporations [both private and state] across the globe to remove forests; mine the earth on a vast scale for minerals, removing soil and poisoning the land; construct large manufacturing units to make products for sale elsewhere. Resource exploitation and depletion is being carried out by these international capitalist corporations for the benefits of the rich/high income countries.
Ethics World 2008 informs us that often the local communities of indigenous peoples do not benefit from these capitalist projects, because the labour is imported, and all the profits are directed to the 'home office'.
A recent report by Transparency International [Feb 2009] has revealed that these corporations and their agents are busy corrupting their customers for preferential terms on multiple projects. For example, in Southern Asia and parts of Africa the shortages of water to drink, and for sanitation, for the poor are not caused by the lack of water resources, but by unfair distribution of water supplies to the wealthy as a result of bribery and corruption over water projects.
The wealthy corporations, and individuals, spend their time and money increasing their own advantages. They are not interested in alleviating poverty.
It is obvious that in areas where the total population exceeds the capacity of the land to support them, the people do not thrive, and will die. But these problems are being compounded by the effects of climate change e.g. areas in Africa, Australia, and South America, that were once wet, have become dry, and their grasslands have disappeared and farming has collapsed. New deserts have formed. Rivers that once flowed to the sea are drying up, depriving many communities of sources of water. Forests become tinder dry and burst into flames, destroying vast areas, as seen recently in Victoria, Australia and California, USA and Greece in Europe. Ironically, these effects have been generated as a result of excessive pollution in the rich countries of the world such as the USA, China, and the EU. The generation of excessive carbon dioxide, and other gases such as methane, chloroflourocarbons, and soots, cause heat retention in the atmosphere, and rising temperatures.
We have to conclude that the 1 billion starving today will soon become 2 billion, and all will soon die. Doomsday - tomorrow! Their deaths will be the result of the spread of industrial farming, and the impacts of climate change. They will die not as the result of their own actions but the changes generated by other people living on the other side of the world.
Our free market capitalist society enables the rich to prosper and most of them to live for more than 70 years. The poor majority struggle to survive, and 80% to die before 70. If the population balance is altered by starvation, disease, and calamity, and conflict, the projected increase will become decline! Doomsday - today! Tomorrow!
see 'Social Ecology- a new morality'
www.kelvynrichards.com
Date : February 6, 2009 08:05
Globalization has created a divide, which steepend more with time. It resulted in prosperity and poverty both side by side. This co existing contradictions , resulted into social problems like crime. Globalization is must required, but it should have been in coherent controlled manner. But in recent years, the development was rather exclusive in developing countries like India. The windfall foreign exchange reserves have made the goverments think of developing cities, and rural areas were forgotten.
The efforts of DFID in building rural communities(in third world countries) is a great step in the direction of inclusive growth. In developing countries the migration of rural poor to urban areas(where they turn more poor) is to be addressed. The fluctuating prices, lack of medical facilities, lack of education all make the weaker sections of society to wander around places. The bailouts, stimulous packages should also target these migrating groups. Because in this crisis situation , it is the rural communities that can provide livelihood to people.
For these rural sending children to schools is a luxury, which they can only dream. It India, a large number of tribal have no idea of education. Lot of effort is being put in primary education , both by the Government, NGOs and foreign institutions. But given the size of population, it requires much more.
In the present financial crisis where layoffs turned to be the buzz word, all companies are involved in reshaping and downsizing. This number will add to already huge figures of unemployment,mostly in urban areas. Countries like India have many lessons in this downturn. It is the time to develop core vlaues of its economy.
Rather than running for high class infrastructures, it is first necessary to develop basic necessities of rural poor. Recent schemes in India like Food For WOrk Program, Rural employee gaurantee scheme are all very good steps, which curtailed migration. It is the time to develop such type of more institutions and involve the society more into it. These bailouts should more be foccussed there. The stimulous packages should help rural people to set up small scale industries. This inturn will provide fuel to major industries. I feel, that the growth rocket should be fired from bottom not from Top.
Date : February 5, 2009 09:31
Minouche (full disclosure: she is my past and possible future boss!) makes a pretty compelling case for widespread use of social protection.
The recent paper by John Page and Jorge Saba Arbache reinforces this: they find that child mortality goes up when growth is low, but doesn't come back down when growth accelerates. Primary school completion rates and life expectancy similarly go down when growth is low but don't recover in periods of high growth. All this suggests that safety nets can have permanent benefits, as well as preventing temporary human suffering.
Minouche also says something I agree with and something I don't agree with.
Here is what I think is dead right:
"
attempts to orchestrate a tailored response to protect the most vulnerable will almost always lag behind the need."
This suggests the need for an automatic safety net response so that social protection kicks in automatically in the face of a shock. I would like to see social protection schemes become "demand led" - that is, donors would agree the entitlement criteria with governments, and if, in the face of an economic shock, there are more people who fall below that threshold, then the amount of funding from donors should automatically increase. This would help to make aid counter-cyclical, instead of pro-cyclical.
Here is what I don't agree with:
"DFID does not see the money we have committed to social protection as a welfare programme, although clearly for some households it will provide this function."
Why not? I think there is a strong case for having a permanent welfare programme, which transfers money from the rich to the poor. We should see aid not as a matter of temporary charity but the beginnings of a global system of social justice. (I wonder if Minouche's choice of words - attributing this view to "DFID" rather than herself, suggests that she secretly agrees?)
Date : February 4, 2009 16:51
Nous vivons désormais dans un système fondé sur la libre circulation des biens, des capitaux et des personnes, sur la concurrence et sur des avantages comparatifs évalués en termes monétaires : les banques sont l'instrument de la collecte de l'épargne, de sa transformation en capital et de sa réaffectation là où l'avantage comparatif est le plus grand et le rendement financier le plus élevé. Il est donc bien nécessaire d'éviter leur faillite globale, pour éviter un effondrement complet du système.
Mais il est tout aussi clair que le fonctionnement de ce système crée des inégalités croissantes, donc autant, voire plus de pauvreté que de richesse, et que ces inégalités se manifestent à tous les niveaux : entre continents, entre régions, entre pays, entre peuples, entre communautés et entre individus.
Si ce n'était qu'une question de difficulté dans la répartition des biens produits, on pourrait envisager de la traiter par des mécanismes compensateurs, des filets de sécurité, des transferts de ressources, jusqu'à ce que l'équilibre idéal et une répartition équitable soient réalisés. Cela s'est déjà fait, sous de multiples formes et avec un certain succès.
Mais aujourd'hui ce qui me paraît grave et fondamental, c'est que ce système débouche sur bien plus que la pauvreté, sur l'exclusion. Le pauvre n'y a plus aucune place, il est écarté de toute possibilité d'évoluer et d'améliorer son existence. Il est dépouillé des instruments qui assurent l'autonomie de ses concitoyens et n'est plus un être social au sens plein.
Ce qui doit donc nous inquiéter aussi, c'est la pauvreté qui se développe au coeur même du système, là où la richesse est la plus grande : car comment espérer réduire la pauvreté dans les pays en développement quand nous ne savons plus comment en triompher dans les pays les plus riches ? Et si nous n'y arrivons pas, devons-nous chercher la solution dans une hypothétique régulation du système ou dans sa complète remise en cause ?
Date : February 4, 2009 13:43
Social Protection can will need to play an important role in helping manage the finanical crises that has triggered a serious slowdown in economic growth. The unfolding global financial crises is spreading quickly [see IMF, World Economic Outlook Update, January 28, 2009 - which suggests global economic growth is now expected to slow from 2.5 per cent in 2008 to 0.5 per cent in 2009] and will inevitably affect - albeit with a lag - employment and wages in transition and developing countries, resulting in general reduction in earnings and in increased unemployment, underemployment and informality.
Minouche is correct to highlight that in past crises [East Asia crises 1997-98, and Mexican Peso Crises in the 1990s come to mind] we have focused too late on adverse effects on poor people, and to pose the question of whether we can do it differently this time? The answer is "Yes, we can" - but effective policy packages cannot be solely based on cash transfers to the poor, but will need to also incorporate a combination of active and passive labour market programmes. The actual mix of policies and programes will, however, need to distinguish measures that are applicable to middle income countries with favouable fiscal space and better institutional competencies [it is noteworthy that so far countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have reported an actual or forecasted drop in GDP growth and export demand], and measures that are applicable in low income countries which have fewer options and less comprehensive institutional competencies.
Past crises offer several lessons on the nature and magnitude of the expected impact on the labour market: (i) unemployment in countries with more formalised labour markets is likely to increase substantially; (ii) the brunt of adustment to the crises is likely to fall on wages; (iii) reduced laour demand in the dynamic sectors of the economy is likely to spur costly labour reallocation. The effects of these impacts will have considerable negative impacts on the welfare of those in poverty and those vulnerable to poverty. Evidence from the Asian crises demonstrated that poorest had to resort to changing their eating patterns, taking children out of school, and migration to urban centres of other countries. These impacts are more than likely to be repeated in this crises - where the ILO report [ILO 2009] that in 2008 we witnessed the largest increase in unemployment since 1998 - but vulnerability will be compounded by the loss of family income from the fall in remittances, and by the sharp decline in global demand for labour and reductions in migration as a coping mechanism.
Within this emerging scenario, particular groups will be affected most by the crises - for example, the elderly, the young, unskilled and female workers and migrants. Thus social protection measures in both middle and low income countries, supported by international donors - like DFID - need, at a minimum, to incorporate three instruments: (i) policies to support employment earnings - such as active labour market measures - including temporary youth employment programmes, public works, micro-credit and payroll tax holidays that dampen the pace of formal sector job destruction; (ii) income maintenance interventions - such as cash transfers; (iii) non-cash family support interventions - such as social care services that focus on the elderly, the disabled and children.
When selecting Social Protection measures it is unlikely that cash transfer programmes [conditional or unconditional] on their own will be sufficient, and that a mix of policies and programmes will be necessary. At the same time, the crises is also an opportunity for international donors and governments to use the crises to introduce reforms to existing social protection measures and introduce new programmes that will help the poor and those vulnerable to poverty during non-crises. The challenge will be getting the policy mix right, and not to assume that what worked in 'normal' times might be the best option in the current crises. Cash transfers, on their own, are unlikely to suffice, and will probably need to be balanced with cost effective labour and employment and social care measures. The question then becomes not so much whether social protection measures are necessary in transition and developing countries. But, have we:
(i) Idenitified the right mix of policy and programmatic interventions [employment earnings, income maintenance, and social care] that will enable the poor, and those vulnerable to poverty, cope with the crises in middle and low income countries?
(ii) identified how programmes should be targeted?
(iii) identified the fiscal implications over the short and medium term, and how programmes will be financed?
(iv) Identified how the cost of programmes can be contained by appropriate and adequate design?
(v) the costs of inaction in terms of lost opportunities and human capital disinvestment?
These questions need to be addressed with haste if we are, as Minouche indicates, to do it differently this time and at the same time mitigate the risk of losing the international consensus around globalisation and the value of past and future investments in development.
Date : January 29, 2009 17:36
It is the declared policy of many of the governments of rich countries to alleviate poverty in the world.
During these current economic crises it has become clear that their policies are only to protect the rich.
The UN and all agencies have to work to persuade these countries to redistribure wealth from the minority to the majority: from the 10.2 million individuals who control 80% of global wealth to the 5.8 billion trying to survive on $10 a day.
The pictures and interviews from the World Economic Forum at Davos this week suggest that this will not happen. The so called business leaders of the world remain convinced that they will be able to lead us out of the crises[ and so maintain their elitism] by revitalising profit capitalism.
Is there no future in social enterprise for the poor majority? re-allocate money to allow people to develop projects for their own benefit and their communities?
please see my web site 'Social Ecology- a new morality...alternative choices' www.kelvynrichards.com
Date : January 29, 2009 08:30
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009 .
I know the DFID throught the project TA no 5794-REG -ADB from 1998 -2004 to 6 countries : Study the needs for health care and education for Ethnic minority in Mekong subregion. DFID is one of fundding organization .
At that time I worked as contact person from Vietnam to 4 ministries in Vietnam and RTI in USA .
Very glad to meet representative DFID in this forum .
I total agree that we have to pay special attention to social protection during global economic crisic,it happen now in the world .
In Vietnam , even the price for rice and energy are going down,but the people reduce to buy the goods for Lunar years. The payment for foods and travelling is down .
With idea stimulate the purchase power and social security about 1 millions poor families receive suport from government at least 100.000 VND/1 family for Lunar TET holidays ( 1 U S D = 17.000 VND, about 5000 VND /1 kg rice with normal quality ) .
All retired officials receive at least 100.000 VND / 1 persons.
Official with salary under 1600.000 VND / months will receive 4 months x 360.000 VND to support them in life .
Every family will have TET in all country - This is the SLOGAN
We -all know that 2009 will be difficult .We save money and reduce spend money .
The government have just establlish the FUND for unemployment and re-training . It will active at 2010 .
The standard for poor family in Vietnam : they have the living place and income 250.000 VND /1 person /1 month in city or 200.000 VND /1 person /1 month in rural area . The poor family receive support for health care and education services .
How it going to life we will follow .
Since 1 January 2009 e- government will be apply more . The ministry of education and training ( MOET )establish Internet net work in schools with help of VIETTEL military company . All this information infrastructure will help us follow : What will happen in grassroot -levels .
Recently , the government promise support 4% interest rate to the SME take the lending from the BANK . This money will take from 1 billions U SD for stimulate of demand . This support speciall help the import and exports enterprises.
Thank you
Date : January 28, 2009 08:37
In my humble opinion, globalization has brought about both a boon and a bane, the latter being the marginalization of particular groups. To some extent, the benefits of the internationalization have been excessively exaggerated as the common denominator for the development and welfare. What we must do now is to put aside these myths and learn to see the status quo as it is. As the author pointed out, it is the most vulnerable that bears the brunt of the unprecedented challenges of our time. Whether it is a climate or gender equality, education, hunger issues, the pains of the poor far exceeds that of the rich. It breaks my heart to witness the leaders of world's superpowers unable to deal with the root causes of the problems around the world. How can we secure the Middle East Peace without giving adequate aids to restore the utilities and rebuild the schools for both Palestinians and Israelites? How can we help the development of Africa to survive the historic financial crisis by setting out a mere portion for them out of this hefty 0.7%? This sounds too far-fetched. With the challenge seemingly unprecedented, what we need is a radical solution out of raw ideas from the international world bodies and it's due to this fact that the raison d'être of the UN is being tested for critical reasons. Just like the post in the blog by Josette Sheeran indicated, what we need is a smart bailout and to help the needy in a smart way, not just passing trillions of dollars to the failed CEOs of yesterday.
German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
Chinese
