Ahead of today's G20 Summit in South Korea, two issues stand out for those of us who take an interest in international development.
First, the concepts of fairness, balance, and the common good have experienced a welcome renaissance as world leaders have had to remind each other of these universal principles to avoid a potentially devastating escalation of their disagreements on currency values and trade imbalances.
Second, while it remains to be seen to what extent it will help to bring countries' contending economic strategies into line, this rediscovery of basic values comes just as the G20 is beginning to include international development issues in its deliberations. Naturally, it is my profound hope that the principles of fairness, balance and the common good which have become so popular with G20 leaders lately will also inform these discussions -- and not only those on issues like undervalued currencies, lopsided trade statistics or skewed consumption patterns however important they may be.
Unfortunately, the signs are decidedly mixed. On the one hand, the global repercussions of the financial and economic crises have clearly nourished an understanding of the true extent and consequences of our interdependence. At least for a moment, there seems to have been a consensus that a world that restricts the benefits of globalization to a few at the expense of many is neither fair nor stable; that one cannot address trade imbalances without addressing the development imbalances that underlie them; and that it is in everyone's interest to see the developing world graduate out of instability and economic dependence as soon as possible.
However, all these realizations have not yet led to the fundamentally different policies that are so urgently needed. In fact, in many G20 countries the crises, and particularly their effects on the world's poor, appear already all but forgotten and business and politics have resumed with little regard to the damage caused, the trust destroyed, and the lessons learned. Several G20 members have even used the economic upheavals as an excuse to tighten protectionist policies in direct contrast to their repeated pledges to keep markets open. As so often, developing countries have been among the primary victims.
This is deeply unfortunate as, in my view, the G20 states, both individually and collectively, are the natural drivers of development. They are, by definition, the countries with the capacity, resources, influence and, thus, the moral obligation and responsibility to help those less fortunate.
Many of them have only recently graduated into major economies and their developmental experiences are still fresh. These countries understand that the key to development is not charity but equitable, job creating, and ideally green economic growth fueled by investment in the productive sectors, agriculture, infrastructure, renewable energy, trade, knowledge and technical skills. They also appreciate that the most important sources of development finance must be domestic revenues and private sector investment and that aid's main value other than in meeting urgent humanitarian needs, is to increase capacities, reduce dependence upon external support, and to lubricate and leverage investment in the sources of growth and good governance.
It is thus encouraging that the development agenda proposed by the South Korean presidency speaks as much to these realities as to a new sense of partnership and genuine mutual accountability. The document, as far as it is known, covers all the right points, including the unblocking of existing initiatives and the need to complement the efforts of other actors such as the G8, the G77 and, of course, the United Nations. If the leaders assembled in Seoul decide to take it on with the same universal values in mind that they now invoke in the areas of trade and exchange rates, we will have gained much.
Having said all this, the implementation of the valuable ideas entailed in the Korean proposal should not be made dependent on the G20 taking them on as a group. While a renewed commitment to development by the world's most powerful group would certainly be a major step in the right direction and send an important political signal to developing countries, it is of course not enough on its own to overcome the immense challenges that these countries face. Nor does it necessarily invalidate some of the concerns raised regarding the G20's legitimacy and capacity.
What really counts is that each member of the group internalizes the concepts of fairness, balance, and the common good and adapts its behaviour accordingly. If the G20 setup can help them do so by playing to its unquestionable strengths of composition, reach and sheer economic prowess, this will be all the better and should not only be welcomed, but encouraged.
Kofi Annan is Chair of the Africa Progress Panel.
This is the conclusion that Martin Luther King reached shortly before his untimely death. He advocated providing the poor with a Basic Income Guarantee. This would completely replace welfare and food stamps and eliminate all the bureaucracies associated with providing the social safety net.
Getting the money to the individual citizens in undeveloped nations is nearly impossible. They lack the banking infrastructure for distributing and saving cash.
We are now at a miraculous point in human history. We now have the cellular technology for mobile banking. People can use their cell phones to transfer money between each others' accounts without being anywhere near a bank.
The secret is simply to remove the physical cash from the equation. Electronic cash has another advantage, besides being password protected and extremely difficult to steal through coercion. It can also be given a limited life span. Credits delivered to cell phone accessible bank accounts can be set to expire if not used. This means that we could provide the poor, everyone in fact, with a cell-phone based Basic Income Guarantee that is delivered directly to individuals for each second that their phone is on the grid. Since they have a limited lifespan, there is no inflation.
If we were to create a true "World Bank", we could end poverty.
http://define.com
and that we are lead by leaders who are corrupt, incompetent, or both?
“However, all these realizations have not yet led to”
those in power testing their own reasoning. David Cameron, lecturing Chinese graduates for example. Asked why he thought he was in a position to correct them, he didn’t even attempt to answer the question. He could have said: Why not list the ways, in which our actions and behaviour seem contradictory to you? Then we can maybe discover where we are both going wrong.
“protectionist policies”
When civilisation challenged the hunter-gather approach, some separated from the mainstream, to perpetuate that response. Which might be proven an effective sort-term strategy, if civilisation succumbs. Meantime, civilisation reached the next branch point. With some seeking to maintain a hierarchical structure that separates the “elite” from the many. But the only method of ensuring that segregation, is denial of the means to develop. By doing that, optimum potential of the whole is thwarted. Which, considering the way our environment functions, is fatal.
“those less fortunate”.
will be everyone. If we don’t get a handle on this soon.
“the world's most powerful group”
cannot provide a sustainable place for any, outside this world.
“What really counts is that each member of the group internalizes the concepts of ”
what the constricts of continuing life in the reality we actually inhabit, really demand of us.
The U.S. economy is being exposed as fraud and the Wall Street/City of London corporate empire are facing the reality that already global serfs low wages are being automaticly raised by the increase of their local currencies because Bernanke and the Federal Reserve is destroying the 'dollar' with quantativie easing.
So Wall Street/City of London has dispatched President Obama to stop these other countries from surpressing their currencies so the nominal values of a phony real estate bubble can reinflate.
However it will not work without MASSIVE STARVATION and death in huge swaths of the U.S. and global population.
So once again, Ben Bernanke is determined to bail out the banksters at the expense of the human population, even after 0% interest rates has rendered retirement income worthless.
The solution is the only solution that has always been there:
1. Financial Oligarchs be placed into RECEIVERSHIP/BANKRUPTCY along with the banksters.
2. Bretton-Woods fixed-exchange rates (not dollar pegs) to end all speculation of currencies.
3. Global effort to develop infrastructure in water systems, hi-speed rail, with vision of NASA future.
With respect. Jane Roberts
The world is changing as far as investments. The United States government is cutting back because of the failed investments in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus the ten thousand cuts around the world from poor investments that have harmed the US economy. Because of that the US will be investing in the USA and as some call it setting up trade barriers on slave labor, bribe taxes and government supported raw materials shipped as finished products to the USA. Free trade will become equal trade. This is to build jobs in America so Americans can again afford the American dream. This will also cut the amount of money China and India will have because it will equalize the trade between the nations, they will no longer have the wealth of America to spend.
The future of investment is not bleak. Instead it will be from trading companies set up by stock purchases. The investors, unlike a government will expect a well run operation and profits. There will be money to loan, but in the future you will be competing with American growth for that money.
Pathetic feeling for you isn't it.
I don't begrudge Rockerfeller but you lis should go after your own first and see how far you get.
FAT CHANCE that ever happens.