Month: December 2016

by

Development Theory

Development theory is a difficult subject, because it is oftentimes purely subjective.  It is a concept that’s difficult to define, in terms of what it is and where we draw the line of whether a country is developed or underdeveloped.  Furthermore, the question of who gets the authority to make these decisions arises.

There are a lot of academic voices in this field, one being Amartya Sen.  His piece called “Development as Freedom,” is one of the most well-known development theories.  He explains that human rights and freedoms go hand in hand in the process of developing a country, and that freedoms are needed before any development will occur.  His theories were considered controversial, because before Sen most development practitioners pushed the idea that economic stimulation was the right way to go about development.  According to Sen, creating personal and human freedoms paves the way for development to thrive.  More specifically, he says for development to happen we need to provide social and economic freedoms, and political and civil rights.  In underdeveloped countries, missing freedoms that we see affecting the development process may include lack of representation in government for multiple voices to be heard, or lack of access to health care and education, for example.  Furthermore, since all freedoms are generally interconnected, people must have the rights to basic freedoms if they also hope to gain civil and political rights like the aforementioned examples of health and education.  A strong interconnected web of such freedoms can build each other up.

Sen argues that democratic governments speed up development because more voices are heard, so decisions are better informed and serve society in a more efficient and positive way.  I believe Sen’s definition would be appreciated by the UN, especially in the current context of pushing for multistakeholderism and focusing on the intersectionality of development. Traditionally, development levels were measured by per capita income.  The reason to look at many intersecting factors is because, while a family may earn more than the poverty line, the infrastructure someone is surrounded by that they use to access society may be lacking, which is half the battle of development.

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance

In this week’s class we discussed the fact that no one “owns” the internet and because it is used by people all over the world and surpasses the level of any nation state, its governance is quite complicated. With the internet, states are able to interact in a global sphere but without the guidance or rules that come with an all-encompassing governing body. Although the internet originated in the United States through DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), they only owned the infrastructure not the protocols. The internet was initially designed as and intended to be a research and military communication mechanism that could withstand a nuclear attack. However, after the National Science Foundation invested in the internet, its use rapidly expanded and it became internationally commercialized with the help of companies. Naturally, the more people that used the internet, the more valuable it became to everyone as a global resource, but still a lack of internet governance was evident. “Internet governance is the development and application by Governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet” (Class Notes). In 1992, a movement started to institutionalize the process in a way that would provide private governance of the internet rather than by a government. This also internationalized the internet further. Now in every country you can determine who owns the telecom infrastructure but the internet remains unowned. In 1998, a nonprofit organization called ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) was set up in California as a major experiment in internet governance. It was a stable and secure regime with all stakeholders having a role to play and serving its purpose, but it didn’t go far enough in further developing the internet, so there remained pressure to create new forces and a multistakeholder system (Internet Society).

After the 2005 Summit in Tunis, the WSIS attempted to tackle this challenge by creating a multistakeholder organization called the IGF (Internet Governance Forum). The IGF “serves to bring people together from various stakeholder groups as equals, in discussions on public policy issues relating to the Internet. While there is no negotiated outcome, the IGF informs and inspires those with policy-making power in both the public and private sectors” (IGF). It was initially given a five year mandate and was renewed after the first. Now, the IGF continues to thrive with its persistent governing structure as a multistakeholder advisory group and has established dynamic coalitions that discuss and share information and best practices with one another. Therefore, to date the IGF has been the most successful creation for instilling “ a common understanding of how to maximize Internet opportunities and address risks and challenges that arise” (IGF).

by

Bridging the Digital Divides

The MacBride Commission Report titled “Many Voices One World” sponsored by UNESCO found that a majority of modern communication problems exist between the global North and South as a result of an imbalance in access to telecommunication technologies and as a result, an imbalance of media (often favoring the North) which then impacts how we perceive the information we have access to. 

In response, the overarching goal of telecommunications policy is to ensure universal service and equal access to affordable telephone service in all communities as well as to ensure all communities are being reached with access to broadband for more and better communication. With digital divides, the issue is not just access to these technologies but also if there is access to broadband (high speed and quality) or to mobile access or just within the home, additional markers of truly equal access. The digital divide is defined by the regional, age, gender, and racial/ethnic divides in access to telecommunication technology. In addition, the divide includes access to broadband vs. narrowband, the knowledge divide regarding ICTs as well as a result of a lack of them, and a skill divide surrounding digital technologies.

This is alarming in that as shown through WSIS and its ancestor-documents, access to good ICTs is crucial for development, especially regarding the increase in access to information that they provide, not just at an economic level but at a social and political level as well. For example, in tying back to education, children with access and the ability to use computers and broadband Internet have an automatic increase in knowledge and accessibility to the world. In response, the main steps that can be taken are training of teachers on how to be able to teach students to use technology while also recognizing that children have skills that they are able to teach their teachers, using technology to build capacity. In an increasingly globalized world and a knowledge-based economy, as UNESCO has worked towards, it is crucial that we level the playing field by closing the digital divide.

Finally, an interesting aspect of closing the digital divide involves learning how to utilize cyberinfrastucture to its fullest potential. When we are able to fully understand and utilize the technology we have access to, we have the opportunity to work in global virtual teams across distance, time zones, and cultures. For inclusive sustainable development, this presents a wealth of opportunities from increased information on disabilities for diagnosis, treatment or coping, to increased collaboration among persons with disabilities as a stakeholder group, allowing for a more cohesive and beneficial representation at UN conferences and as a result, in official documents. As we continue to bridge the divide in a world where our lives are so closely intertwined with the digital, the possibilities are endless and exciting for development and beyond.

by

ICTs as a Tool for Accessibility

Out of the 1985 Maitland Report, the ITU identified the fundamental importance of ICTs, especially telephone access for social and development access for uses such as the need for bankers to assess credit, farmers to find the best price, and general back and forth communication. In the report, they called the lack of ICTs in developing countries the “missing link” for development. In framing the importance of ICTs in this manner, the report was troubling in that it saw the developed world as having it right without taking into account developing world-specific solutions, opening up the potential for leapfrogging or the skipping of important steps.

In response, NTIA’s Falling Through the Net document better outlined that people are falling through the net even in developed countries, looking at the US where huge discrepancies existed between rural and urban areas, old and young people, and based on education level, race, and ethnicity. The document outlined the key discrepancies while in response to the Maitland report noting that the developed world does not in fact have all of the answers.

Finally, in response, WSIS was convened organized by the ITU and convened by the UN first in 2003 and again in 2005 with the goal (and eventual results) of seeing less of a developed dominated process while still reinforcing that ICTs are critical to development. At WSIS + 10, ten years later, a significant amount of progress was identified regarding an increase in accessibility to telecommunications in development.

In tying ICTs to sustainable development, we don’t have to look far as there is a direct connection between WSIS, the SDGs, NUA, CRPD, and WSIS + 10, including an SDG matrix that outlines ICT related goals including a desire to make these conferences more accessible and making the internet more accessible for persons with disabilities. While there is still a long way to go for full inclusion of persons with disabilities, the opening of a conversation on how ICTs can be used for increased involvement such as through the use of screen readers on conference websites or opportunities for remote participation for those physically unable to navigate the conference space (for example by being unable to take a wheelchair and medical equipment on a plane), we see a crucial first step in bridging the inclusion and access gap with the help of ICTs.

by

Grand Challenges

The UN Grand Challenges are defined as “technically complex problems that have stubbornly defied solution.”  These challenges are large, complicated issues that have been plaguing society for years, and take an enormous amount of effort to begin to solve.  The needed solutions are often interdisciplinary in nature, and require not only strong effort, but collaboration from many different stakeholder groups.

While different organizations have different definitions, the general consensus is that problems like providing clean water, increasing literacy rates, finding cures to cancer, solving hunger, and solving AIDS comprise some of the world’s “Grand Challenges.”  Many agree that these goals are ambitious, but are achievable after a lot of collaboration.

Development practitioners have come to the consensus solving these problems will require non-traditional actors to step in, including people from the fields of science and technology, since the problems are so complex in nature.  In my opinion, this approach has fostered communication between many different stakeholders and fostered innovation, leading to discoveries that may not have been previously made.

Branscomb explains this idea using cancer research as an example.  He says this disease is a long-term and pervasive issue, and through slowly chipping away at the problem from different angles they have made discoveries and improvements in multiple sectors, such as genetics, surgeries, and more.  He says if the research done were narrower and focused in scope, and did not look at the problem from a holistic standpoint, progress may have been slower.

The UN is one of the most important stakeholders that has contributed to work on the Grand Challenges.  They drafted the Millennial Development Goals in 2000, which include: eradicating extreme hunger and poverty, achieving universal primary education, promoting gender equality and empowering women, reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, combatting HIV/aids, Malaria and other diseases, ensuring environmental sustainability, and developing a global partnership for development.

A huge improvement made since then in working on such Grand Challenges was learning to include persons with disabilities.  Around 15% of the world’s population lives with a disability, and the MDGs hardly addressed that problem.  The 2015 SGDs are much more inclusive, and have worked to give everybody a seat at the table of development in the hopes of speeding up the process.

by

Persons With Disabilities as a “Major Group”

In my blog post on the SDGs and HLPF, I mentioned that they claimed to be the most inclusive and interactive UN conference and explained why this was not in fact the truth as it heavily excluded persons with disabilities through the use of the major groups framework. As discouraging as that truth is, hope, opportunity and true inclusion arose from Habitat III and the development of the New Urban Agenda.

A “smart city” is defined, as a city that is sustainable and recognizes everyone’s equal right to it, meaning that a city should allow for equal access to all to enjoy the full benefits of the city such as through accessibility. While most UN documents would stop here, defining this statement alone as inclusion, the NUA takes it further, explicitly stating that with 15% of each country’s population living with a disability, a city should be fully accessible in order to be smart and sustainable. In a huge success for persons with disabilities, the NUA includes fifteen references to persons with disabilities including an entire standalone paragraph on their inclusion in cities.

In addition, the most important step the NUA takes for persons with disabilities is in introducing them as a “major group”, allowing for full participation in the monitoring and implantation of the NUA. “Major group” is in quotes because persons with disabilities were not named as a tenth group but still, introduced under the title “other stakeholders” allowing for their direct involvement along groups like the aging and elderly, another group making up a large population of the world and in need of representation. From this exciting and important inclusion, the Persons with Disabilities Partner Constituency Group (PWD-PCG) and the Disability Inclusive Development (DID) Collaboratory were formed as a platform for a network of stakeholders to organize for representation under the NUA.

With this exciting right to participation and a dramatic increase in access to the discussion through the extension of a metaphorical seat at the table comes the responsibility to organize and participate. While this can be overwhelming and difficult to do, the DID Collaboratory provides a crucial platform for doing so and even with the challenges, this increase in access, participation, and representation is what the disability community has long advocated for.

Above all else, the main takeaway from the NUA is the power of individual stakeholders coming together to represent true inclusion. With this inclusion, we are one step closer to achieving truly inclusive and as a result, sustainable development.

 

by

Visibility, Validation, Inclusion & Implementation

The overarching framework for inclusive education is SDG 4, the goal to “ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning” by 2030. More specific to our continued commitment to education inclusive of persons with disabilities is Article 24 of the CRPD. Article 24 reads that “States parties recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to education” and outlines a set of standards for meeting this goal such as ensuring that students with disabilities are not separated from their peers on the basis of disability and that equal and inclusive education begins at the primary level continuing on for the rest of a person’s life whether through traditional or trade/skill-based education.

Signed and ratified by 168 countries, the CRPD is a significant success for the disability community, specifically in the area of education with regards to the clear and extensive rights extended by Article 24. However, in many countries, such as South Africa, which ratified the CRPD in 2007, where 70% of students with disabilities are out of school entirely, international agreement and legislation are just the first steps with a significant amount of work still needed to “make the right real.” There are three steps that are crucial to making the right real: visibility, validation, and inclusion/implementation. In South Africa, visibility made possible by organizations like Disabled People South Africa allowed for validation through the passing of the CRPD and The White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a national policy, validating the experiences of persons with disabilities and essentially validating the truth that persons with disabilities should and will be treated equally.

South Africa has stopped at the last and most difficult step of inclusion and implementation, allowing the rights outlined in official policy to translate to the everyday lives of persons with disabilities. In order to achieve equal education as promised by SDG 4 and the CRPD, Article 24, South Africa must outline a plan for implementation that includes persons with disabilities at the forefront of the process. A model for such implementation can be found in Finland, another signatory to the CRPD and a country with one of the most inclusive education systems in the world.

Similarly to South Africa’s White Paper, Finland passed the Basic Education Act, extending similar rights to education. In doing so, the Finnish government also outlined a plan for its implementation in collaboration with persons with disabilities, introducing required teacher trainings, building accessibility requirements, increasing funding to special resources, and most importantly, noting that public authorities must hold the school system accountable, creating regular checkups on these standards for inclusive education.

In developing a similar model of accountability, South Africa and governments like it who have yet to see true education inclusion, have the opportunity to see success through inclusion and implementation.

by

When Intersectionality Isn’t Enough

The SDGs, a framework for sustainable development built out of the 2030 Agenda hope to achieve no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well=being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible and consumption, climate action, improved life below water and on land, peace, justice and strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals for all people by 2030.

The goals and their targets are optimistic and necessary for an improved, more sustainable world. If we collectively reach the outlined targets and with them, the goals, our planet and the life on it will certainly be happier and healthier. The High Level Political Forum designed to oversee the goals illustrates where some people and groups are excluded from the goals. The High-Level Political Forum claims to be the “most inclusive and participatory forum in the UN” in that it addresses a vast array of issues pertaining to all people and will meet every four years. However, this is not quite true.

The HLPF works under the major groups framework, allowing the nine major groups (women, children, farmers, indigenous peoples, local authorities, businesses, civil society, workers, and trade unions) to establish and maintain connection mechanisms to work together to ensure broad and balanced participation across regions and groups. At first glance, this appears to put the “inclusive” in inclusive sustainable development. Upon closer analysis, it becomes clear that this framework isn’t truly inclusive at all. With only nine major groups allowed in the highly politicized process of who gets to be involved and which organizations and individuals within the major groups get to be represented, people are left out of discussion on issues that directly impact them and an opportunity to advocate for themselves.

While they are able to participate under the clause of “other stakeholders,” one of the most important groups excluded from the major groups framework is persons with disabilities. The World Bank estimates that 15% of every country’s population is living with a disability. For such a large population with unique challenges and abilities, representation in the SDGs and HLPF (where it is currently notably lacking) is crucial and the common argument that representation as a major group is not necessary because of intersectionality across groups is not strong enough.

The HLPF platform allows for limited representation of the wide array of issues each major group faces. As a result, major groups tend to focus on issues that impact the totality of the group with little room for other needs. For example, a woman with a disability would have a difficult time finding representation of her needs as a person with disability among the “women” major group who may be focusing on issues related to sexism. Additionally, the same argument could be made (and as easily negated) for the other groups. For example, the women group may include farmers, making the group unnecessary. Certainly, intersectionality plays a key role among each group but it isn’t enough to rule out an entire major group.

We have since seen an exciting increase in participation allowed for persons with disabilities as a stakeholder group with the introduction of the NUA but the main takeaway is still that development is not truly inclusive or sustainable if it does not include an active role for persons with disabilities and the large portion of the population they make up.

by

Grand Challenges as an Invitation

Based on a series of definitions across UN documents, government statements, and proposals by organizations to solve them, Grand Challenges are best defined as “multidimensional, multi-stakeholder, multidisciplinary longer-term problems without clear solutions.”

In name alone, Grand Challenges have the potential to feel overwhelming, like unsolvable problems that loom over us as a society but when we breakdown the meaning, there is potential for something so much more. While “grand” does signify something imposing in size, its definition also includes the word “magnificent.” “Challenge,” which feels like a synonym for problem is actually defined as ‘a call to take part or an invitation to engage in a contest.” In exploring these definitions, it becomes clear that we do not have to see the issues of our time as looming problems but rather, we can see them for what they are, an invitation to take part in a collaboration, in the solving of a difficult but magnificent challenge.

Grand Challenges frame ending Climate Change or finding a cure for the Zika Virus into an opportunity for collaboration on these puzzles across fields, groups, and differences. In exploring Grand Challenges of the past like the development of faster technology for connection among people or vaccines for illnesses like Polio, we are reminded of how achievable these goals are when viewed through this framework.

Even more exciting is the fact that we are seeing inclusion in these challenges at a rate faster than ever. Through the CRPD, we see a notable shift in development strategy, a pillar of Grand Challenge solutions, to take into account intersectionality. Under the umbrella of disability inclusive sustainable development, one of the biggest Grand Challenges is inclusion and implementation of rights granted through policy but not yet in practice.

Organizations across the world have come together to address this Challenge, again marking the value of multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder, multi-dimensional involvement and problem solving. One of the biggest answers to this specific Grand Challenge is the use of UN ESCAP’s Incheon Strategy out of the CRPD’s call to “make the right real.” Developed and advocated for by persons with and without disabilities for persons with disabilities, the Incheon strategy increases monitoring and reporting of rights at the regional level, allowing for policy and practice specific to the needs of the region. Through the collaboration promoted by the Grand Challenges framework, similar strategies can be adopted across the world in response to the need to “make the right real.”

 

by

Digital Divide(s)

With the revelation of the “missing link” by the Maitland Commission Report, immense concern arose for the staggering differences in access to telecommunications across the United States. This was intensified with the creation of the internet and faster, easier, global communication possibilities. In the late 1990s, the NTIA (National Telecommunications & Information Administration) determined there was a significant division between Americans that use the internet, the “haves,” and those that do not, the “have nots” (“Falling through the Net”). This dichotomy is referred to as the  “digital divide,” but it is not as clear a division between two groups as it may sound. There are evident divides between rural and urban areas, young and old age groups, certain racial and ethnic groups, and variances among education and income level. There are also many different ways in which people may be disadvantaged or unable to participate in the digital world. This can include differences in quality of digital connections and devices, the availability of technical assistance and training, and/or subscription-based content. Currently, the most widely discussed issue within the “digital divide” is the availability of quality access at an affordable cost (“Falling through the Net”). The policy driven programs of the NTIA emphasize this need to expand broadband Internet access and adoption in the United States. This also entails ensuring that the Internet maintains and improves its capabilities for continued innovation and economic growth. Increasing the spectrum of internet users is vital step in addressing and improving many of the nation’s most urgent needs, including education, public safety, and health care. The NTIA also represents the Executive Branch in international telecommunications and information policy activities which is important because the digital divide is not just a domestic issue. Now, it is also increasingly evident that huge  populations all over the world have been excluded from this ever-growing technological era due to inadequate resources and education and that the “digital divide” is actually widening (“Falling through the Net”). This is in part because some areas or countries are substantially more equipped to acquire and benefit from internet use than other developing places, and specific groups within populations require but are deprived of necessary assistance within the digital world.  Consequently, bridging the gap of the “digital divide” is a crucial component of achieving inclusive sustainable development and would help create greater economic equality, social mobility, informational capabilities,  and development as defined by Amartya Sen.