I've been at Davos since the weekend, talking with people about this year's theme of "Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild." We've discussed topics ranging from sustainability to social welfare to global risk management. But one topic in particular has weighed heavily on everyone's mind during nearly every session: the tragedy in Haiti.
The recovery effort there has driven everyone to focus on discussing these issues not just from a theoretical perch, but from a perspective of how they affect real people's lives - people who are struggling just to make it through the day.
It has also shown just how interconnected everyone is. More than ever, all of us are global citizens. No matter where you live, what happens anywhere in the world has an impact on you, whether it's outsourcing to India, emissions in China or the terrible humanitarian crisis in Haiti.
One concern I've heard expressed repeatedly about the earthquake is that with so much money flowing from so many fronts to aid the search and recovery effort, will there be enough aid for the process of rebuilding Haiti's infrastructure, a project that many estimate could take a decade or more? We've seen in New Orleans how much progress can slow once the camera crews go home and the star-studded benefits stop.
This question also got me thinking about a larger issue: What is the future for the ever-growing number of failed states? There are now 39 of them in the world in regions like the Caribbean, Africa and the Middle East. These are places with little or no infrastructure, unstable governments and dysfunctional economies. When one considers that the G20 nations make up 85 percent of global GDP, that means the remaining 170 plus comprise only 15 percent. Perhaps there is a need for a new model of what a state is, as it's unlikely that most of these small states will ever be able to compete successfully on their own. Think about how ineffective the U.S. would be if it were 50 independent states.
The world is trying to help these failed states get on their feet. But it may be that there simply aren't enough resources to go around.
To that end, I've been thinking about what the business world can do. After speaking on panels about gender parity, I'm more convinced than ever that the answer is to provide more opportunities to women. It's certainly no coincidence that nearly every failed state on the list is a traditionally patriarchal society.
Studies have repeatedly found that when women hold assets or gain incomes, family money is more likely to be spent on nutrition, medicine and housing, and consequently children are healthier and better educated. We've also found that when we give women in emerging markets opportunities to run their own businesses, they gain a newfound confidence that is contagious and quickly passed on to friends, family and neighbors, who start to think "If she can do it, why can't I?"
Even more importantly, these benefits accrue to the next generation. Lower education and employment rates for women and girls have been estimated to hold down GDP by one to two percentage points annually. Without this kind of inside-out economic development, I'm not sure there's any amount of aid that can bring these failed states into the developed world.
One thing I am sure of is that we've run out of time to wait.
Tabby Biddle: How Changing Gender Roles Are Affecting Marriages
World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness Report
World Economic Forum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gates Makes $10 Billion Vaccines Pledge
Davos honors Brazil's president for his leadership
Every time these numbers appear online, the sexist masses start to holler and scream. I believe it was Joseph Lowery who remarked on MLK Jr. day that the guy with his foot on your chest holding you down doesn't get to define the terms of your liberation from oppression.
Uhm, excuse me for pointing this out but can you please explain this comment? I do not see any "traditional Matriarchal societies" ruling countries. So your comment is a bit lame at best.
Actually it is nothing more than an male trying to play feminist theology and doing a rather poor job of it.
Double bah and please go back to making tupperware. A very nice product and unlike this essay it is a good use of time.
But yes, it is high time that the voices and concerns of women in the developing world were given their fair share of influence in shaping economic assistance programs.
Really? Or is it just that, with more education for women, birth control access, and less requirements for physical labor to make money, women in first world countries have less financial need for men? To tell a woman in Ethiopia, whose livlihood is subsistence farming, that she'd be better off with no husband and less children is hilarious. Until she can make a decent living as a computer programmer, you're WAY off base at guessing what kind of assistance she might benefit from.
While I always applaud efforts at promoting education access for women in particular, insisting that children should be at school and not financially providing for the family only makes sense if the economy can support it. If education won't significatly improve your daughter's life (i.e., girls grow up to become farmers in your community), losing her potential income might seem like too great a risk to the family as a whole. It's not that "the patriarchy" is keeping these women down, it's that each family makes a calculated decision as to how much they can safely invest in thier children's education. It's too easy to just sit back and say, "stop having babies, and send your daughters to school" when it's not YOUR family who might lose half of their food budget as a result.
I'm completely confused at your "no husband or children" comment. Do you envision empowerment to be some sort of uberfeminist western threat?
And I have to tell you, not everybody will be a computer programmer. That's not what empowerment means. Women can stay in the village and work on their own business. They just need to be taught what to do. This is a global economy. There are products that can easily be made in villages in Africa and sold in shops in America. But if a woman is unable to control her own reproduction, has no access to healthcare, and is threatened with violence, then she's not going to survive, much less succeed.
Except that it is....