Month: November 2016

by

Digital Divides

In 1980 the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) published “Many Voices One World” – known as the MacBride report written by the International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems. In short, this report aimed to analyze communication problems modern societies face and offer suggestions on how these problems could be diminished to further peace and human development. The report highlighted main functions of communication (p. 18):

    1. Spreading information
    2. Helping people be effective members of society
    3. Fostering individual and community activities
    4. Promoting debate and discussion,
    5. Fostering intellectual development
    6. Disseminating cultural and artistic products
    7. Entertainment
    8. Ensuring all persons, groups, and national have access to vital information

In relation to sustainable development, function 8 – ensuring equal access to information – is especially important. As the MacBride report suggests, there is a rapidly growing global inequality between those who have access to technology and communication systems and those who do not. This often falls long lines between the global north and global south. As Amanda pointed out in her post, in 2013 a staggering 1.2 billion people did not have access to electricity with 95% of those without electricity living in Saharan Africa and Asia. Amanda also pointed out that, according to the UN Broadband Commission, 57% of the world’s population does not have steady access to the internet.

On a domestic level in the United States, these inequalities exist as well. According to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) report “Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide,” minority and rural poor populations have less access to the internet than the white and urban affluent population. For example according to the NTIA, urban households with an annual income over $75,000 are 20 times more likely to have access to the internet than rural households and 9 times for likely to have a computer at home (Irving, Chart 1-2). In addition, those who identify as white are more likely to have access to the internet from home than those who identify as Black or HIspanic, regardless of where they live. In sum, NTIA’s report highlights the digital divide in America showing that, even though over time people are becoming more connected, minority groups, those with lower incomes, and rural populations are still lagging far behind.

As our in-class discussion revealed, an inclusive development strategy must incorporate solutions to this digital divide – on both the global and domestic level. This digital divide permeates every asset of society and acts as a hinderance for minority and disenfranchised groups. On the other hand, if closing the digital gap is at the forefront of development, technology can serve as a leveling factor for those groups. For example, with phone service and internet access, a farmer in a remote location can gain access to the market price of produce ensuring they’re making the most profit possible – elevating themselves economically in the long run. In addition, via the internet and other technological advances, persons with disabilities (PWD) may be able to gain an education and participate in society in ways they were previously excluded from. In sum, the digital divide between the technology haves and have nots is a crucial facet of development that is not only irresponsible but detrimental to overlook and must be incorporated into all strategies moving forward.

by

Smart Cities, Habitat III and New Urban Agenda

What is an inclusive city and does it relate to international development? Used by many organizations from the the World Bank and United Nations to the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the idea of the “inclusive city” is obviously an important concept in international development. The World Bank writes that the inclusive city provides “opportunities and better living conditions for all” and involves spatial, social, and economic factors. In addition, sustainable development goal (SDG) 11 is to “make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.” In short, the inclusive city is here to stay in policy and development practice.

A city can be un-inclusive on many levels. One way is by being spatially un-inclusive for people with disabilities (PWDs) – as described in Enabling Justice: Spatializing Disability in the Built Environment by Victor Santiago Pineda. Pineda’s main argument is that cities are often non inclusive to PWDs through the ways they conceptualize and distribute space (Pineda, p. 111). For example, stairs with no accessible alternatives to climbing an elevated surface exclude individuals that are physically handicapped from accessing that space. In the same way, cities that do not have audible crosswalks, prevent visually impaired citizens from crossing traffic safely.

In addition, cities can also be socially and economically un-inclusive to individuals living in slums. According to the Asian Development Bank in the report titled “Inclusive Cities”, the region had an “economic miracle” following World War 2 that resulted in a massive influx in investment and economic development. This “miracle” caused citizens to flood urban areas. Urban developments and city planners could not handle such a quick population boom and urban slums exploded. According to the ADB, the average proportion of urban dwellers living in slums ranges from 33.2% to 50% (p. 5).

Several of my classmates in their blog posts and during class discussion brought up the idea of a smart city that drives and attracts innovation. Smart cities draw young people and intellectual adults to a community that fosters intellectual development and can be at the forefront of creating inclusive cities. However, as the ADB highlighted (and several of my classmates), while smart cities and inclusive cities can – and often – do coincide, sometimes they do not. A city can be extremely inclusive and participatory for all people but not be a central hub for innovation and progress. On the other hand, a city can be the center of intellectual progress but physically be inaccessible to those with disabilities.

To address this discrepancy between inclusive and smart cities, Habitat III (the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development) created a plan of action called the New Urban Agenda (NUA). The NUA, introduces the concept of “Right to the City” meaning that each person must have equal access to all amenities – physical and intellectual – that a city has to offer. The Habitat III conference held in Quito, Ecuador on October 20, 2016 officially adopted the NUA marking a landslide victory for stakeholder groups that were previously excluded from safe and successful urban dwelling.  

by

Multistakeholder global governance

The internet is a transnational resource. Much like the ocean and the air we breathe, the internet is not created by any one nation, and cannot be disproportionately regulated by any one nation. Our anarchic world system, absent of international government, leads to complications regarding internet governance. What is more, the internet has a vast range of uses for all stakeholders. Students, governments, corporations, nonprofit organizations, and individuals are but a small list of the endless groups within society that all rely on the internet. However, lack of ownership over this infinite resource makes oversight and regulation complicated. This is why multistakeholder governance over the internet is crucial to ensuring that regulation of this recourse is inclusive and transparent, and collective responsibility, and effective decision-making and implementation are maintained.

Originally developed for US military purposes, the internet’s uses and accessibility have dramatically expanded and are continuing to do so. ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) oversees internet governance and assigns domain names and transport controls. This organization handles the maintenance of the central Internet address pools by authorizing domain name sales and handling registrations. It is run by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This is why the recent transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is so important. In 2013, Internet Society (IS) members demanded that IANA’s oversight role be distanced from the US government and oriented more towards the international, multistakeholder community. The US government responded positively, demonstrating a willingness to transition oversight to make it internationally equitable.

by

Intersectionality

Within the field of sustainable development, there are numerous documents and initiatives which overlap in their purpose. These intersections create a framework that communities around the globe can use to address the Grand Challenges we collectively face. In order to develop sustainable solutions to Grand Challenges, all sectors of society and all types of people must actively participate. The first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development recognized this in 1992, which led to the Major Groups framework. Now, nine groups including Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Non-Governmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Community and Farmers are encouraged to participate in discussions about development from which they were previously excluded. What is more, the role of multistakeholderism has gained notoriety because the Major Groups framework makes is possible for the many groups within society to all voice how Grand Challenges affect their specific communities. Therefore, the solutions that arise from a multistakeholder approach leads to more sustainable and inclusive solutions because this approach addresses the intersections within the development framework, and within the community that it seeks to impact.

One problem that I wish to point out is that the intersectionality of sustainable development and various stakeholder needs is not widely known among members of society that are not intellectually involved with development. Many people do not know what the SDGs are, much less how they address the needs of specific communities. What is more, the people who aren’t aware of these intersectionalites do not know that they are stakeholders. If an individual isn’t aware of the multistakeholder framework which exists to help achieve the SDGs, how would they be able to participate in the discussion or implementation of polities to do so? Local community leaders must be engaged in development and informed about intersectionality within the field in order to bring about policy changes that will have any impact.

 

by

Inclusive Education

 

Since nearly 10% of every country’s population of school-aged children are disabled, and 90% of disabled children are denied access to primary education, there are hundreds of millions of children across the globe who do not have the choice of an education – which restricts so many of their choices for the rest of their lives. While expanding access to education was already included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), improvements in this development area have been insufficient. Certain barriers that prevent children from accessing primary education restrict them from finding employment as adults, leading them into poverty and creating a vicious cycle. The impact of this cycle on MGOS, specifically PWD, is even worse. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seek to further the efforts of the MDGs in many development areas, including education.

The SDGs, in combination with other documents such as the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Model Policy for Inclusive ICTs in Education for Persons with Disabilities published by UNESCO, collectively address how to overcome obstacles that PWD face regarding access to education. SDG 4 addresses inclusive education, and specifically mentions PWD in targets 4.5 and 4.7a. The first of the aforementioned targets is aimed at equal access, and the later prioritizes upgrading educational facilities to accommodate disabilities. Both of these targets intend to make education more inclusive. In alignment with SDG 4, Article 24 of the CRPD is devoted to diminishing discrimination faced by PWD in the education system. Additionally, the Model Policy for Inclusive ICTs in Education for Persons with Disabilities addresses how to achieve equal access to education – both information and physical facilities.

The international framework mentioned above addresses how to overcome both the systemic obstacles to accessing education information, and the physical obstacles to accessing the educational environment. In order to achieve inclusive education, barriers to both of these areas need to be mitigated. UNESCO studied different approaches to inclusive education around the world to assess impact of different environments. Between special schools for PWD, special classes in integrated schools, or inclusive classes no one environment is proven to have better results. This is due to the fact that there are so many variables. The many kinds of disabilities present, the educational resources of the country in question, and the behavior of the teacher or other children in the class are all possible examples.

by

New Urban Agenda, SDG 11, and Smart Inclusive Cities

Emily draws attention to an interesting dichotomy in both our class discussion and the overall discussion over SDG 11: the difference in smart cities and inclusive cities. As we discussed in class, smart cities attract young people and intellectual adults into a space that provides resources for innovation and enables them to develop ideas and exist in a sustainable environment. Inclusive cities, as discussed in the Asian Development Bank’s article, have the resources which allow all members of society to participate – not only those who are intellectual. While smart cities and inclusive cities need not be mutually exclusive terms, one focuses more on innovation and progress, and the other focuses more on equal ability to participate.

Both the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11 include language that advocates smart and inclusive cities. Equal access to safe, affordable housing, transportation, and public spaces as well as cultural expression an economic growth are all topics prioritized by each of these documents. What is more, both of these documents emphasize the role of incorporating major groups and other stakeholders who have previously been left out of the development discourse. Specifically, persons with disabilities (PWD) are directly mentioned. SDG 11 target 11.2 advocates for equal access to transportation for PWD, and 11.7 addresses equal access to green and public spaces. The New Urban Agenda recognizes PWD twelve times throughout the entire document. Both of these documents together set up an international framework for developing sustainable, smart, and inclusive cities.

In Victor Pineda’s article Enabling Justice: Spatializing Disability in the Built Environment, he argues that people should reframe how they define disability when approaching development. According to Pineda, the legal definition of disability fails to consider the physical space in which people carry out our lives (113). By omitting the “philosophical preeminence of space” (113), the definition of disability does not accurately capture what it means for a person to be disabled. Having a disability alters and in many cases prevents PWD from accessing certain resources in their environment which others may find commonplace. Staircases and crosswalks are commonplace in an urban environment, yet these resources which are designed to enable people to share space, are not accessible for PWD. The international framework set up by SDG 11 and the NUA are set up to address the obstacles facing large portions of the population who are prevented from participating in urban life.

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

Many internationally agreed upon frameworks, projects, and development goals all went through a process of evaluation to determine whether or not they were efficient and capable to follow through on on their implementation tactics. High-level meetings are an example of how these developed ideas can be assured an opportunity to prove their efficacy. In this case, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and issues/strategies dealing with Persons with Disability were at the focal point of developing actions to improve the international community, both developing and developed countries. It is unfortunate that persons with disabilities still have to face obstacles in different aspects of their life.

The MDGs focus on a wide range of goals, from poverty rates, to health and education, and much more. However, a number of relevant stakeholders have not ensured that developing policies take into consideration the needs and benefits of all persons with disabilities. These people can include: women, children, indigenous people and the elderly. It is important to develop plans that are relevant to the changes that must occur by 2015 and beyond, but all of this should also take into consideration the numerous inhabitants that are around the world who suffer from certain disadvantages.

It is possible to do as much as we can for others, but, like many things in the world, certain limitations don’t allow for progress to occur. For example, poor, developing countries might not have the voice or effective government to carry out the essential tools to implement development goals. The MDGs faced shortcomings as well. They were able to catch the popular imagination of national governments, a wide range of institutions, and the international community that sought to reduce the amount of poverty around the globe, which was the main focus of the MDGs. The CRPD came up as a result of the international community and national governments not taking accountability for those that did not have the means to be heard (poor countries/people). There was so little attention in regards to their development that policies had to be made and implemented to assure this community the rights they have and deserve.

Human development is a valuable purpose to focus on. As Deepak Nayyar stated in the Post-2015 Development Agenda: people are not just beneficiaries of development. They are the ones that can empower the people to facilitate the implementation of policies and goals. That is why it is necessary to rethink, redesign and reformulate everything that has to do with international development to maintain the efficacy that it deserves.

by

Intersectionality in Sustainable Development

Intersectionality is at the crux of human identity and plays a large role in societal inequalities. Grand challenges such as digital inclusion, adequate access to healthcare, and achieving universal primary education which are the focus of today’s global frameworks, are essentially intersectional. It is this intersectionality and inextricability  that introduces added layers of nuance and complexity to these grand challenges in international development. Issues of international development affect all sectors of the population, and thus require frameworks such as the Major Groups Framework, that incorporate and support diverse groups of the international community.

The United Nations Sustainable Knowledge Platform explains how since the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, it was recognized that achieving sustainable development would require the active participation of all sectors of society and all types of people. Following this conference, the Major Groups Framework took shape and now currently consists of nine groups  including Women, Children and Youth, Indigenous Peoples, Non-Governmental Organizations, Local Authorities, Workers and Trade Unions, Business and Industry, Scientific and Technological Community and Farmers.  In addition, governments expanded participation and invited other stakeholders, including local communities, volunteer groups and foundations, migrants and families, as well as older persons and persons with disabilities, to participate in United Nations processes related to sustainable development. The Major Groups framework recognizes that each of these multi-stakeholder groupings are able to  provide new ideas, challenges and information in regards to how the world’s grand challenges affect their specific communities, thus utilizing the intersectionality of these global issues to  enrich the  debate.

Acknowledging the inherent links between grand challenges leads to more effect policy frameworks and  overall progress. For example, the  WSIS-SDG Matrix draws direct linkages of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Action Lines with the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to continue strengthening the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for sustainable development. The matrix reflects the connections and relations of respective Action Line with the proposed SDGs and their targets. The goal of the matrix is to create a clear and direct link and an explicit connection between the key aim of the WSIS and the post 2015 development agenda, so as to contribute to the realization of the latter. When the inherent intersectionality of  global frameworks is utilized in the  design and execution of solutions for global goals, the potential for greater gains is multiplied, and duplicated efforts minimized.

by

Inclusive Education

Many of the shortcomings that countries are facing in providing educational opportunities  to their population stems from the fact that inclusive education is being thought of as a stand alone issue, rather than a impediment to the social and economic advancement of the country as a whole. The World Report on Disability estimates that there are between 93 and 150 million school-aged children with disabilities globally, amounting to at least 10% of each every country’s population. Many of these students are excluded from educational opportunities and do not complete primary education, which was priority outlined for all nations in the Millennium Development Goals.

The Model Policy for Inclusive ICTs in Education for Persons with Disabilities document published by UNESCO outlines how access to appropriate inclusive education is hindered by a multitude of barriers.  The document touches on physical barriers in learning environments, such as cases when content and materials are not accessible especially when material are not available in a student’s primary language,  “cognitive barriers for some learners with intellectual disabilities or specific learning problems,  didactical barriers where teachers lack the skills to facilitate inclusive education; and financial barriers relating to the cost of devices with assistive technology to provide access.” There are also detrimental effects on student’s ability to achieve the necessary basic skills for long-term social, economic and digital inclusion in society. This damage then snowballs as it limits their access to further educational opportunities, as well as employment. If 93 million people be unemployed, and did not have the proper training and education necessary to work, the  social and economic costs to society would be catastrophic. The active participation of  students with disabilities is essential to increase their participation in all spheres of society to inform decisions with their valuable  insights and contributions.

The active participation of  students with disabilities in inclusive education is cost-effective in the long-term as it contributes to the elimination of discrimination, promoting wider social inclusion. The UNESCO document notes how inclusive education initiatives for students with disabilities, are also  applicable to any students who are vulnerable to exclusion from any sector of education beyond those who may be identified as having learning difficulties or experiencing different forms of social disadvantage. Inclusive education policies stand to benefit not only student with disabilities, but also students excluded from classrooms on the basis on gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status and language, thus highlighting their importance as a policy priority at the local, national and international level.

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

Global frameworks represent grand challenges. The areas of focus that global frameworks such as WSIS+ 10 Outcome Document and the SDGs attempt to tackle are multidimensional, complex and far reaching issues that do not necessarily have a clear solution. Such technically complex societal problems can be addressed through a process of trial and error. If we take the example of the MDGS, we see how some of the Goals greatest strengths, were also its biggest sources of critique. With the expiration of the MDGs, the 15+ years of trial and error allowed for a  series of improvements to be made. Deepak Nayyar reflects on many of these potential areas for improvement in “The MDGs after 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities.”

One of the most common critiques that Nayyar identifies of the MDGs is that the goals specify an outcome, but then they do not set out the process which would make it possible for countries to realize the objective.  The lack of specificity in regards to means for achieving the goals stems from two issues. The UNDP recognizes that development is ‘characterized by specificities in time and in space,’ so outlining action items and coordinating  due dates for 193 countries seems impractical. The lack of specifying processes for achieving the goals may also be linked to the acceptance that each country may have its own idea of what the appropriate strategy of development would most effectively achieve the objective. Had the UN consulted its 193 members in outlining processes for achieving the goals it is likely  that a ‘political consensus on means would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible.’

Another critique suggests that the MDGs take a one size fits all approach to development, While the argument is a valid one, it takes the MDGs out of their stated context. The MDGS were meant ti be global norms, collective targets for the world as a whole, and countries were meant to contextualize the MDGs in terms of initial conditions and national priorities.There is a misunderstanding because global MDG targets are often used as a scale for assessing the performance of different regions or specific countries. In this context of course one could argue that targets may be set too high for some developing countries and too low for developed countries.

Although there may not be a  consensus on how to carry out a global development agenda, the MDGs are important in that they have imparted a focus to concerns about poverty and deprivation, as well as ‘galvanized support for the idea that it is imperative to improve the living conditions of such people in a stipulated time horizon.’ These initial frameworks have laid the groundwork for addressing the grand challenge of international development.