Rich States and Poverty
English Essay on "Rich States and Poverty"
President George Bush has decided to attend the United Nations Development Finance Conference at Monterey, Mexico, next month. And that has enhanced the significance of the conference in view of the higher level representation from other countries, too, now expected. But the fear of the developing countries arid the few liberals among the donors is that his presence may only strengthen the resolve of major donors not to increase the total of their aid to the developing countries significantly. An understanding not to build pressure on the U.S. and other major donors to increase their aid in a big way appears to be one of the pre-conditions for Mr Bush attending the conference, and that was resolved at a preparatory meeting for the Mexico conference held in Washington recently. The major donors who have reduced their aid want the developing countries to mobilise their own resources, eliminate corruption and improve governance to make the best use of their resources and speed up their development instead of depending on enlarged external assistance. President Bush had said at the World Bank meeting last year: “A world in which some live in comfort and plenty, while half the human race lives on less than two dollars a day is neither just nor stable.” And while escalating his campaign against terrorism he has acknowledged absolute poverty, massive unemployment and gross social injustice as among the reasons for breeding terrorism. But he is not ready to follow up his rhetoric with adequate measures to eliminate the root causes of terrorism.educationsight.blogspot.com Nor is the richest country in the world ready to make more than its minimal contribution to fight the global poverty signified by half the people living on below two dollars a day.
Hi ambassador to the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development Sichan Siv says the summit is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen development efforts that build “stable, healthy, prosperous and secure societies throughout the world. He says potential investors look fist for fair regulatory stems, transparency and rule of law. Likewise we have found that official development assistance is more effective where the institutional element is strong. It has become clear tous that building these kind of institutions require new kinds of partnerships - we call them coalition of the willing’. They involve government, civil society and business.
While such rhetoric is excellent where is the follow-up action in reasonable measure by the US? It did not do much to step up its aid to the developing countries even during the most lasting economic boom in its recent history - in the 1990s.
The issue is, not to talk of the higher goals of developing countries and development experts, how to achieve the modest goal of halving poverty by the year 2015 as the UN Millennium session resolved? If the developed and developing countries do not take positive steps to move in that direction now that will be another UN goal which may become a mirage.
The means to achieve that goal are several. The vocal British chancellor of exchequer -Gordon Brown has called for Marshall Plan for developing countries. He has urged for a doubling of the aid to 50 billion dollars a year and to regulate capital flows. But that suggestion made during the World Bank IMF meeting in Washington last month was cold-shouldered by other donors. The World Bank now says meeting the millennial goals of the UN needs 40 to 60 billion additional aid for 15 years. It says the goal of halving poverty globally, and substantial improvement in health and education in developing countries by 2015 will not be attainable without such additional resources. The Bank says the developing countries too need reform their health, education and institutional policies to improve the effectiveness of development aid. And the president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn has also called for partnership in action between the developing countries and the donors.
Normally it should be the aim of the Monterey UN Development Finance Conference to find the means to increase the total of the aid so that the process of development of the poor countries could be speeded up. That is not what the conference is likely to do by the current indications in Washington and other Western capitals. So Aldo Caliari of the Centre of Concerns said after the preparatory conference in Washington last month” “Washington came with a willingness to preach but not to listen.” Washington blocked the language in the text of the preparatory meeting’s proposal that would have committed rich countries to the three-decade goal of 0.7 per cent of their gross national income as aid in place of the current 0.22 per cent on an average given by the donors now.
When the aid ‘target was fixed over 30 years ago the original goal was one per cent of the rich countries’ GNP as aid. And that was later reduced to 0.7 per cent. But even that goal has not been achieved by the richer among the donors while Norway and other Scandinavian countries exceeded the 0.7 percent target. The U.S. on its part never signed on to the 0.7 percent commitment and its contribution now is 0.1 per cent of its GNP a half of the average of other countries which is 0.22 percent. One of the suggestions made by a blue ribbon commission headed by a former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo in Washington for funding development was a global tax on carbon emissions, but such a broad-based levy had no takers. But while the donors call for reforms within developing countries for larger resource mobilization and better use of aid, some of the major problems which the developing countries face are external. They include recession in the developed countries which reduce the export of the developing countries, regional or international currency crisis.
Oil price booms which disrupt the economy of the importing countries’ economies, quota systems and high import tariff in the rich countries and the new challenges of globalization of the economy. Developing countries cannot find quick cures for such problems. When all the countries are exhorted to export more, and they have limited foreign exchange resources to import more, they are in serious trouble.
The International Conference on Poverty Reduction strategies held in Washington last month said: “Successful poverty reduction requires expanded market access for developing country products, reduced agricultural subsidies in developed countries and adequate foreign assistance.” All the three are proving to be too tough to achieve. We have seen the resistance in the US for letting in more of Pakistan’s textiles. The total now stands reduced to 142 million dollars while the expectation was for one to two billion dollars of additional exports from Pakistan. And while the IMF and the World Bank are able to strip away one agricultural subsidy after another in Pakistan, the US and Europe are too reluctant to do away with their agricultural subsidies. And increased foreign aid, except to meet the strategic needs of the US and Europe, is proving to be too tough to achieve as the richest country in the world is proving to be too tardy.
Mean while; Mexico, until recently one of the poorest countries, has been able to make notable progress in the social sector following the’ reduction of its population growth. While 70 per cent of the women now used contraceptive devices only nine per cent say they do not have access to contraceptives.
Its population of 102 million is growing now by 1.38 per cent a year in place of 3.3 per cent in the early 1970s Couples have now 3.3 children on an average instead of 7 children in the early 1970s and life expectancy has soared to 75 from 60 in 1974. The demographic shift has made Mexico a developed nation, despite being Catholic, says the Financial Times of London. Clearly more and more emphasis is being laid now on developing countries making their own determined efforts to reduce and eliminate their poverty and start social backwardness.
Hi ambassador to the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development Sichan Siv says the summit is a tremendous opportunity to strengthen development efforts that build “stable, healthy, prosperous and secure societies throughout the world. He says potential investors look fist for fair regulatory stems, transparency and rule of law. Likewise we have found that official development assistance is more effective where the institutional element is strong. It has become clear tous that building these kind of institutions require new kinds of partnerships - we call them coalition of the willing’. They involve government, civil society and business.
While such rhetoric is excellent where is the follow-up action in reasonable measure by the US? It did not do much to step up its aid to the developing countries even during the most lasting economic boom in its recent history - in the 1990s.
The issue is, not to talk of the higher goals of developing countries and development experts, how to achieve the modest goal of halving poverty by the year 2015 as the UN Millennium session resolved? If the developed and developing countries do not take positive steps to move in that direction now that will be another UN goal which may become a mirage.
The means to achieve that goal are several. The vocal British chancellor of exchequer -Gordon Brown has called for Marshall Plan for developing countries. He has urged for a doubling of the aid to 50 billion dollars a year and to regulate capital flows. But that suggestion made during the World Bank IMF meeting in Washington last month was cold-shouldered by other donors. The World Bank now says meeting the millennial goals of the UN needs 40 to 60 billion additional aid for 15 years. It says the goal of halving poverty globally, and substantial improvement in health and education in developing countries by 2015 will not be attainable without such additional resources. The Bank says the developing countries too need reform their health, education and institutional policies to improve the effectiveness of development aid. And the president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn has also called for partnership in action between the developing countries and the donors.
Normally it should be the aim of the Monterey UN Development Finance Conference to find the means to increase the total of the aid so that the process of development of the poor countries could be speeded up. That is not what the conference is likely to do by the current indications in Washington and other Western capitals. So Aldo Caliari of the Centre of Concerns said after the preparatory conference in Washington last month” “Washington came with a willingness to preach but not to listen.” Washington blocked the language in the text of the preparatory meeting’s proposal that would have committed rich countries to the three-decade goal of 0.7 per cent of their gross national income as aid in place of the current 0.22 per cent on an average given by the donors now.
When the aid ‘target was fixed over 30 years ago the original goal was one per cent of the rich countries’ GNP as aid. And that was later reduced to 0.7 per cent. But even that goal has not been achieved by the richer among the donors while Norway and other Scandinavian countries exceeded the 0.7 percent target. The U.S. on its part never signed on to the 0.7 percent commitment and its contribution now is 0.1 per cent of its GNP a half of the average of other countries which is 0.22 percent. One of the suggestions made by a blue ribbon commission headed by a former president of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo in Washington for funding development was a global tax on carbon emissions, but such a broad-based levy had no takers. But while the donors call for reforms within developing countries for larger resource mobilization and better use of aid, some of the major problems which the developing countries face are external. They include recession in the developed countries which reduce the export of the developing countries, regional or international currency crisis.
Oil price booms which disrupt the economy of the importing countries’ economies, quota systems and high import tariff in the rich countries and the new challenges of globalization of the economy. Developing countries cannot find quick cures for such problems. When all the countries are exhorted to export more, and they have limited foreign exchange resources to import more, they are in serious trouble.
The International Conference on Poverty Reduction strategies held in Washington last month said: “Successful poverty reduction requires expanded market access for developing country products, reduced agricultural subsidies in developed countries and adequate foreign assistance.” All the three are proving to be too tough to achieve. We have seen the resistance in the US for letting in more of Pakistan’s textiles. The total now stands reduced to 142 million dollars while the expectation was for one to two billion dollars of additional exports from Pakistan. And while the IMF and the World Bank are able to strip away one agricultural subsidy after another in Pakistan, the US and Europe are too reluctant to do away with their agricultural subsidies. And increased foreign aid, except to meet the strategic needs of the US and Europe, is proving to be too tough to achieve as the richest country in the world is proving to be too tardy.
Mean while; Mexico, until recently one of the poorest countries, has been able to make notable progress in the social sector following the’ reduction of its population growth. While 70 per cent of the women now used contraceptive devices only nine per cent say they do not have access to contraceptives.
Its population of 102 million is growing now by 1.38 per cent a year in place of 3.3 per cent in the early 1970s Couples have now 3.3 children on an average instead of 7 children in the early 1970s and life expectancy has soared to 75 from 60 in 1974. The demographic shift has made Mexico a developed nation, despite being Catholic, says the Financial Times of London. Clearly more and more emphasis is being laid now on developing countries making their own determined efforts to reduce and eliminate their poverty and start social backwardness.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete