As seen in my blogs Observation of a IMF in Denial as to the Realities of the World and Dangers of Demand Driven Capacity Development, governments are doing an extremely lousy job at fulfilling their obligations to "protect" women and children under human rights standards -- in large part due to a true dedication from "everyone" to defend victims' rights.
One of the "fundamental" reasons that the "Revolution" for women's rights in the USA was no more "effective" or "holistic" than the "American Revolution" for men's rights almost two centuries before -- ask any Afro-American (or non-landowner in the 19th century) on the veracity of that statement. One of the fundamental problems in the USA today is the limit of its Constitution, which exists in part due to the fact that it is the 1st Constitution of its kind in existence -- the only other "experiment" with a "democratic" government model in Western societies was amongst the Greeks and Romans. In the past two centuries constitutions, as well as civil and human rights law, have advanced in theory. However, since the rhetoric in the political arena has been dominated by expansionism, imperialism, colonialism, and patriarchism since then, application of constitutions, as well as human rights standards of women's rights have not been implemented at national, nor international levels.
Nancy Birdsall, Founding President of the Center for Global Development, and panelist on the IMF session Collect More & Spend Better: The Role of Capacity Development, highlighted the issues from a macro-economic perspective, and the role that international organizations play in maintaining a status quo of "abuses of power" by governments towards their people in stating,
The problem in the aid community, especially, has when you resort to "capacity building" to improving individual's capacity or learning. Then you resort to training seminars and sitting fees, and so on... There is a difference in the way the IMF addresses the issue, and that it is demand driven. And, as a development person, I think it is worth saying that there is a big difference between finance ministries and central banks on the one hand and much of the rest of government, on the expenditure side, particularly, on the other hand.
In the sense that there is a strong political demand, from the top, in every developing countries it is important that the budget is managed appropriately; to avoid inflation, to avoid a situation where a country can't afford to borrow, etc. That makes a difference. And, that is behind the greater, I think, technical capacity, esprit de corp, a sort of culture, in the economic ministries, finance ministries and central banks makes it work in the IMF in a way it does not work in other ministries. Why? Because other ministries have capable people, they are filled increasingly over the decades with people who have the technical know-how, but they are operating in systems in which the incentives are not there. In which there are sometimes deep problems that arise out of the political environment, pressures, So just think about agricultural ministries filled with capable people who cannot be productive. The great example, Madame Lagarde mentioned doctors. We know from evidence, in India for example doctors who work in the private sector have clear performance metrics, do well on performance. You put those same doctors in the public sector system and there is a flat line in terms of relationship between capacity of the doctors, training, and outcomes in terms of the population...
... I worry about the push, particularly from the donors side and from the traditional western powers that is reflected in the oddest issue of increased domestic resource mobilization. The Managing Director mentioned, efficiency, that is not the same necessarily as "more." And, I hope we'll go back a little bit to the problem in many developing countries of reliance on consumption and indirect taxes, including the VAT -- maybe this is something that Vitor [Gaspar] is thinking more about.
Because it is very hard to achieve progressivity of any kind. And, so you have a sort of an equity issue. And if you just increase the VAT we now know, from very good evidence, across a number of developing countries, led by a colleague of mine Nora Lustig. That suggests that you have a group of people, not the very, very poor who receive cash feds first, but the next group who are certainly not middle class, who are very income insecure, in the informal sector, primary school graduates at the most. And, they are losing, they are being immiserized to some extent by the consumption taxes that they pay. In the rich countries, these people would not be in the tax net. And so those are just some of the things we should think about in the distinction between efficiency, more money, efficiency, and equity.
Unfortunately, Ms. Birdsall's assessment, of a higher level of effectiveness of managers in the IMF (as opposed to the effectiveness of managers in national institutions and ministries) to surmount challenges posed by antiquated bureaucratic systems, is up for debate. This is particularly true given the failure of the IMF to effectively predict the gravity of the events leading up to the financial crisis in 2008, and effectively incorporate "lessons learned" into their PPPs (Processes, Politicking, and Protections) since then. As Klaus Rudischhauser, Acting Director General of the European Commission (DG-DEVCO), another panelist, states in regards to domestic resource mobilization, "We all know what needs to be done. Now we must just do it" -further adding that "we need to take a holistic approach."
In the coming weeks, I will be examining the many issues, and "gaps" in international organizations, such as the IMF's and World Bank's perspectives towards gender -- a faulty, fractured perspective which is preventing government officials and their cronies from seeing the Big Picture -- a Big Picture, that as my mother would say, "would have bitten them in the nose, if it had been a snake."
And, a snake it is! A snake that networks, and winds throughout the corridors of power and corruption in Washington DC -- as well as many other power centers in the "civilized" world.
If public authorities and government really want to get serious in combating the "woes of the world" they will start examining the "networks of corruption" in the "corridors of power" amongst the various actors in the public and private sector. The House of Cards in Washington is not just some fictitious Hollywood invention, but something very real and tangible in the intrigue and decadence that dominates the political, economic, and social landscape in "the nation's capital"
(And my grammatical error in the spelling of capital vs. Capitol is intentional. Some of my ancestors laid down their lives for the principles of the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and to see it so terribly abused and trashed by the "powers that be" renders the "American Experiment" a failure and blithe upon the American people. The American government has only repeated the same tyranny and oppression they fled in Europe centuries ago.)
It shames me terribly to see my own compatriots complicit to the same type of activity which enable the rise of Nazism in Europe almost a century ago -- and for the same fundamental economic reasons -- dominance and exploitation of the powerful over the weak.