Month: December 2016

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

Efforts towards tackling grand challenges are culminated in the creation of global frameworks. Examples of global frameworks include the Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda, and the Sendai Framework. These global frameworks aim to empower States into incorporating efforts domestically. However, because frameworks merely provide guidance to stakeholders on a specific issue, there is no legally binding obligation upon the Member State to incorporate the practices of global frameworks domestically. This proves to be problematic at the monitoring and implementation stage. This was increasingly true for the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s), a set of eight goals focused on addressing grand challenges including education and poverty eradication.

The MDG’s fell short of meeting its’ goals and therefore have received much criticism. In “MDGs After 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities,” Deepak Nayyar criticizes the effectiveness of the Millennium Development Goals, but also provides important imperatives regarding the succession of the MDG’s. Nayyar criticizes the MDG’s for their (1) multiplicity of objectives; (2) lack of specificity of objectives; and (3) misleading indicators. I found it especially interesting that the MDG targets were used a scale for assessing individual State performance, while they were meant to measure collective performance. This is precisely why the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda adopted specific goals, targets and indicators to inform stakeholders. Nayyar also addresses three important imperatives in exploring alternative constructs to the MDG’s. He notes that it is imperative that (1) there is structural flexibility at the national level; (2) there is cognition of inequality in any assessment of outcomes; and (3) the new MDG framework incorporates something on means rather than simply focus on ends.

The Sustainable Development Goals deliver upon Nayyar’s imperatives. While the SDG’s are an improvement on the broad themes of the MDG’s, the SDG’s are already facing criticism in regards to its’ monitoring and evaluation capabilities via the HLPF.

Monitoring and evaluation of international frameworks will continue to be problematic. It is increasingly difficult to monitor and evaluate the process toward eradicating global challenges, given the national differences and inequalities among nations, as well as the institutional hurdles. The HLPF will serve as a test for the implementation and monitoring of the SDG’s.

In my opinion, due to very nature of global frameworks, there will always be critics. These critics do not take into account the importance of an interconnected global world focused on tackling grand challenges. While, of course, improvements can always be made, the current trajectory toward inclusive sustainable development seems promising. This is evident in the shift from the MDG’s to the SDG’s.

 

 

by

Inclusive Education: Band-aids Now, Reconstruction Later

Despite serious progress made during the reign of the Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goal 4 was created to push forward to universalizing access to equal and sufficient education for all. Obviously, the world failed to meet the 2015 deadline of the Millennium Development Goal of achieving universal primary education. In 2013, the latest year for which the SDG website has verified data, fifty-nine million children of primary-school age were not attending school, nor were they being schooled in the home. The United Nations estimates that, among those fifty-nine million children, twenty percent of that group had dropped out. The Sustainable Development Goals clearly recognize that this gap must be closed, and I agree. The problem with the mission to universalize education is a mistake in prioritization for development organization. Many education-centric organizations focus on increasing the number of teachers in an area or founding new schools with inclusive language in their founding documents. These both are admirable goals but essentially incorrect. They are missions that seek a sustainable, long term improvement in infrastructure in the region while what children need is direct access to education as soon as possible. Target 4.c of SDG 4 says that the United Nations will “by 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries, especially least developed countries and Small Island developing States”.  The mistake here is that the UN and other Education NGOs are trying to build the infrastructure for a viable education system and ignoring those kids in primary education right now. By 2030 an eight-year-old girl in primary school will be a twenty-four-year-old adult who is surviving without furthering her education. She will have passed through the system without any aid from any of the frameworks we have covered in class.

When people in this class read about inclusive education, they think about young girls out of school or people suffering poverty who need to enter the work-force of their country without secondary education. These people are suffering, they do need help, but it is a little shocking to me that all of these genuinely admirable programs, no group seems to be focused on the kids in school today or the very recent graduates who need the help of programs to supplement their minimal education. Parents and older peers were the individuals who showed me the value of education; it surprises me that more groups do not try to duplicate that means of motivation.

by

Intersectionalities in Sustainable Development

Throughout the topic of sustainable development there exists many intersectionalities. However, before one can fully understand where these intersectionalities exist within the area of inclusive development, it is first important to understand what an intersectionality is. In a broad sense, an intersectionality, is a meeting point or a crossing point of two objects or concepts. However, this definition is exceedingly broad and does not directly speak to the issue at hand. Therefore, for the purpose of this reflection an intersectionality can be defined as the place at which two aspects of sustainable development cross or intersect. With these definitions established, one can next define what intersectionalities exist within the topic of sustainable development.

There are many intersectionalities that exist within the topic of sustainable development. Three of the most prominent ones explored by this class are: [1] gender and disability, [2] gender and development, and [3] youth and development. However, many other intersectionalities exist within the subject of sustainable development exists as well. These include: education and disability and education and poverty. Understanding the relationship between these variables, and many more like them, is absolutely critical to understanding how truly sustainable development can occur. For example, if one understands how addressing gender disparities can influence overall development or how gender inequities exist with sub-groups such as persons with disabilities, more efficient strategies can be developed. When these relationships are ignored; however, achieving sustainable development can be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Intersectionailites can also exist within different international agreements that address the issue of sustainable development. For example, internsectionalities exist exist between the SDGs and the CRPD in terms of inclusive education. Therefore, addressing distinct intersectionalities that exist within the topic of sustainable development is of the utmost importance.

Yet, as is discussed by Gabby in her blog post, adequate attention is not always given to these intersectionalitites. Even more troubling is that the intersectionalities that exist within sustainable development are not always understood. Instead of perceiving or addressing sustainable development as the complex web of overlapping issues that it is, some address sustainable development as a series of isolated issues that have no or minimal influence on each other. These patterns of thinking leads to ineffective strategies that do not adequately address many of the root issues associated with sustainable development. Only when the intersectionalities associated with sustainable development are fully addressed can true sustainable, inclusive development be achieved.

ICT(he) Future of Development
by

ICT(he) Future of Development

Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is an all-encompassing term that means pretty much what it says: technology that is used for sharing and/or receiving (i.e. communicating) information. This technology can be physical devices like radios, computers, phones, etc. but can also be less tangible like software, applications, networks, etc. Using ICTs in development is by no means a new concept and can actually be traced back to beginning of modern technological advances.

The Maitland Report (1984) was the first real document to recognize the power of ICTs to fuel economic growth and other development measures, as well as the huge discrepancies in global access to technology (with a focus on telephone lines at this point in time). Just over 10 years later, the report, “Falling Through the Net”, expanded these ideas to address how the spread of Internet access to the public was growing gaps between the rural and urban populations in America. These reports paved the way for past and current Internet governance forums that have been the main means international leaders have sought to address technological disparities and ensure that ICTs are unifying tools and not divisionary tools.

The aforementioned Maitland Report was drafted in response to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference held in Nairobi, Kenya in 1982. Coincidentally, or maybe as a result of, Kenya has been a regional leader in ICT and is increasingly becoming a global leader in this arena. A recent example of this is the use of the Kenyan application, Ushahidi, in the US elections to track violence and voter intimidation. An even more important example is the M-Pesa service that has completely changed the development game in Kenya and has inspired other countries in the region and around the world to do the same. M-Pesa, launched in 2007, is a mobile banking service that allows users to access their finances via their phone. Considering the exponential increase in mobile phone users in developing countries in the past decade, this service exemplifies the power of ICTs in development practices. The service was an answer to many concerns faced by Kenyan people, as well as others around the globe, in regards to financial concerns. These concerns include mistrust in banking systems, cash theft, obstacles in sending money to family in rural areas, and also the problem of time that most people in both the developing and developed world face. M-Pesa has allowed for persons who would generally not have access to strong banking institutions a space where they can participate in the same economic processes as the most elite in Kenya.

M-Pesa is just one of many ICTs that have proven the power of these tools to transform societies. The growing literature and focus on ICTs in global development processes is promising for ensuring that these tools continue to close gaps and promote diverse participation.

by

Understanding Global Frameworks with Private International Law

I know that my work on this blog has referenced international law extensively, but I have included another version of my argument from my final paper here with the hope that any peers reading this will ask me questions that will help challenge my project’s validity. The efficacy of global frameworks relies on their being operational. The operation of all of these frameworks rely on understanding international law within their frameworks. The prohibitive complexity of private international law (PIL) has kept it from becoming involved to any significant degree in the mainstream discourse occurring at most of the more prominent conferences on international law, let alone international development. Diversity and ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals make it literally impossible for a conference to cover every issue. That being said, there are several forums in which PIL could be discussed as a relevant dimension where it has to this point been neglected to the detriment of each of these forums. For example, in the conversation concerning inclusive cities, PIL is fundamental to, but not included in, the topics covered. Individuals working with certain international corporations that have local offices in specific cities need to be able to interact legally with their employers. This is a major issue in cities which act as hubs of international trade and commerce. Often the corporations for which these individuals work are established in one country but open smaller offices all over the world. Occasionally these corporations are created as limited liability corporations of LLCs which add further separations between the employee and employer as legal entities. These barriers make the employee legally mute in many cases from making it legally impossible for him to interact with the real employing company. This can greatly complicate any employment-related cases which the employer wishes to try against the parent company or, theoretically, when the parent corporation looks to try a case against employees or a group of employees. Without an ability to navigate PIL effectively, these urban workers cannot interact legally with their employer, and they cannot have full access to justice.

This obstacle between employers and employees is also relevant to the High-level Political forum. Of their listed goals, Goal 9 codifies a commitment to “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”. The persistence of the aforementioned problem inhibits any international firm investing in physical infrastructure. It impedes any organization or individual seeking to invest in an industry in another country, and it impedes a worker from the industrializing country engaging legally with an industry that may have its headquarters on the other sides of national borders. The information barrier also acts as a disincentive to individuals or corporations which seek innovation through international cooperation. It is ironic that this forum based on international cooperation is another forum that fails to address a substantial impediment to international cooperation.

by

Grand Challenges

To build upon what other classmates have pointed out, when we talk about Grand Challenges we are referring to goals that are ambitious to say the least. Louis Branscomb defines them as “technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution” (Branscomb). Multidimensional, complex, and cross-cutting are all accurate ways in which other classmates have defined these challenges. Moreover, when we hear the word “challenge” in our academic setting, our automatic response is to focus on solutions. In the case of the global Grand Challenges, the innovations that result from brainstorming possible solutions also deserve recognition – even if the concrete answers haven’t been discovered. The White House highlights on their “21st Century Grand Challenges” webpage the caliber of science, technology, and innovation that are required to brainstorm solutions and “capture the public’s imagination.” This is one example of how Grand Challenges have acted as a catalyst for innovative ideas.

In an effort to overcome the challenges that face the globe, humanity has expanded our frontiers of knowledge. We have also been forced to collaborate with sectors of the population that do not always see eye-to-eye. Branscomb emphasizes the importance of intellectual curiosity in developing new ideas – and the Grand Challenges are often discussed as a framework to inspire innovation rather than issues to be resolved by a specific date. The MDGs and SDGs provide a perfect example of how the international community approaches Grand Challenges. The MDGs were the first step towards goals such as eradicating poverty and promoting environmental sustainability. However, there were details lacking in this framework. The SDGs serve as the replacement and have included a wealth of information that was lacking in the MDGs. This demonstrates how the development literature adapts over time in order to become more inclusive and to overcome some of the issues brought up within the Grand Challenges discourse. The intellectual environment that is created by the Grand Challenges allows for quicker, more effective ideas to develop over time.

The cornerstone of developing ideas that will help us overcome Grand Challenges is the marriage of science and policy. Public policies that steers scientific innovation in the direction of helping society overcome certain challenges is crucial to making progress overcoming any of the Grand Challenges. What is more, there are stakeholders beyond the government and the scientists that can benefit from the conversation in overcoming grand challenges. Therefore, both international multistakeholder cooperation and technological innovation are both necessary if the global society is to overcome the Grand Challenges.

by

Crossroads in Development

Intersectionality in international development is a largely feminist theory, originating in response to the lack of gender sensitivity and overall presence of gender-based inequalities in traditional development approaches. While its roots are in feminism, intersectionality can be and has been extended to cover a larger scope of development topics, including gender, disability, poverty, and age, among others. Basically, intersectionality in development is the idea that there are inevitably crossovers in who and what development agendas seek to address. No person or topic lives in a vacuum, and instead, our population is made up of unique individuals, each with their own complex identity. For example, one female can be hearing impaired and live in poverty, while another female might be visually impaired and homosexual; so while they may have similar gender concerns and even disability concerns, they could also have different disability, economic, and social concerns.

Recently, I have been interning at a development consulting firm on a project based in Ghana that seeks to address private-sector midwives in six of the ten regions in Ghana. While the project is mainly focused on providing these midwives with the business skills needed to run a successful clinic, we also partner with a national midwives association and work to build the capacity of this organization. As an intern with some experience and knowledge in the area of disability, one of my roles has been to support the incorporation of disability into the project. That being said, the concept of intersectionalities in development has been a recurring theme in my research; the intersection being between disability, poverty, and gender, with an added component of maternal concerns. While “general” gender inequalities have been addressed with greater effort and sensitivity in recent years, there remains little to be done for women with disabilities, especially in the area of sexual and reproductive health. I found that there are stigmas around the world that include the perception that PWDs can not have sex, should not have sex, and/or should not be parents. These stigmas contribute to the exclusion of PWDs from learning about sexual health and have led to many unplanned pregnancies, unsafe deliveries, and the spread of STIs, among other issues. This week, one of my supervisors was able to meet with a couple of the leading disabled persons organizations (DPOs) in Ghana to discuss potential training opportunities for midwives so as to provide better services for women with disabilities, among other discussion points. This type of discussion is promising for the future and shows that there is always room for improvement in various disciplines by recognizing and attempting to address intersectionalities in development.

When designing development frameworks, it is important to recognize these intersectionalities so as not to further marginalize populations by ignoring certain groups and/or by unknowingly using language that is too specific and leads to further exclusion. The best way to address these concerns is through discussion between relevant stakeholders, as can subtly be seen with the implementation of the UN Major Groups Framework and invitations to other relevant stakeholders.

 

by

Intersectionality

Intersectionality refers to the concept that social identities are overlapping, connected, and fall within systems of power, oppression, and discrimination. In other words, a person can be many things at once and each identity always has an “other” that it is pitted against and possibly discriminated against. In relation to inclusive sustainable development, intersectionality is key.Historically, vulnerable populations – like women, children, and persons with disabilities (PWDs) – have been excluded and absent from global development policy making it extremely difficult to elevate the groups that need it the most. My capstone on refugee menstrual health aims to highlight an intersectionality between global development and women’s health.

Recent policy and global frameworks – like the Major Groups Framework and the SDGs – have made great strides in the fight to make development much more inclusive of different intersectionalities. For example, the major groups included nine groups that were previously excluded from the decision-making process (women, children and youth, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, workers and trade unions, businesses and industry, scientific and technology community, and farmers). In addition, the SDGs are much more inclusive, describing a wide array of identity types in their indicators and sub-goals. The major groups framework allows many groups to have a say in the development decisions that directly affect their communities on the local level.

Despite the progress made to make development more intersections, there is still a major blind spot. For example, even though they make up about 15% of the world’s populations PWDs are still excluded as a major group and often struggle to literally get a seat at the table. As we’ve discussed this semester, PWDs face a very specific set of barriers in nearly every aspect of development from physical accessibility to cognitive accessibility. If these issues aren’t addressed and eradicated, development will never be fully inclusive. Any person can have a disability regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. it is one of the only identities that can transcend and cut across nearly every identity. If you’re alive, you could have a disability. Because PWDs are often excluded and made invisible, policy often lacks providing necessary and adequate support. Therefore, if the development community can make every single policy keeping in mind that PWDs will be affected, we are one step closer to creating a much more inclusive, sustainable world.

by

Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling of the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties arriving at consensus through a bottom-up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.” This sentiment is the best summary of the sentiments of the frameworks in this class regarding internet governance. Specifically, the Internet Governance Forum has epitomized the prioritization of uniting many varied stakeholders together to maintain the internet as open, resilient and secure.

The Internet Governance Forum serves to bring together people from various stakeholder groups as equals. They focus on community leaders, NGO and corporate representatives, and governments. The Forum seeks to unite these dispirit entities in discussions on public policy issues relating to internet governance and the Internet as a tool. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes as of the end of 2016, it serves a purpose similar to the Sustainable Development goals by uniting those with policymaking power in both private and public sectors towards an end that benefits the world. The Internet Governance Forum facilitates a common understanding of how to optimize Internet opportunities while simultaneously addressing the risks and challenges inherent in reliance on internet use.

The Internet Governance Forum community holds an annual meeting to allow relevant stakeholders normally attended by over 2000 delegates. This meeting is intended to produce tangible outcomes through its scheduled activities. The IGF’s annual meeting is organized by the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG), which is intended to represent equally the interests of every stakeholder group. The MAG also encourages members of each group to see the other groups as equal partners. At the IGF’s annual meeting, delegates exchange information and best practices. The most recent meeting actually started on December 6th of this year in Guadalajara, Mexico. The IGF’s schedule focuses on best practices as well as other initiatives intended to facilitate general IGF community activities. This intersessional program was designed in accordance with a 2012 report recommending the development of additional tangible outputs to ‘enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy’.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/multistakeholder-1.pdf

by

Intersectionality in Sustainable Development

Intersectionality is the study of intersecting social identities – such as race, gender, social class, etc. As we highlighted in class, intersectionality exists among the Major Groups Framework. The nine major groups include: women, children, farmers, indigenous people, local authorities, businesses, civil society, and worker and trade unions. It is entirely plausible that intersectionalities among the Major Groups Framework exist. This is especially problematic because an individual has to separate their identity and choose their priorities due to a highly politicized process. It is even more challenging when intersectionalities exist that are not within the major groups framework. For example, persons with disabilities are not included in the framework. Therefore, if a disabled child was chosen as a representative of the children major group, he/she would have to separate his/her identity and choose their priorities. When viewed from this perspective, intersectionality is quite challenging. Further, as mentioned by several classmates, intersectionalites are not often not given enough attention or are often misunderstood. This is problematic because it has detrimental effects on development theory as a whole. As Ana mentioned in her post, inclusive sustainable development can only be achieved when intersectionalities are taken into account.

However, intersectionality can also be viewed as how frameworks and ideas correlate to one another. As such, intersectionality can also exist among global grand challenges within international frameworks. For example, the grand challenge of disaster risk management is tackled in the Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda, and the Sendai Framework. Specifically, The Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Framework, and the New Urban Agenda share a commitment to mainstreaming disaster risk management at all levels to reduce vulnerabilities, specifically in at-risk areas. Further, the Sendai Framework plays an important role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The integration of disaster risk into sustainable development planning is essential to the success of the SDG’s, the Sendai Framework, and Habitat III. All three international frameworks highlight the necessity of disaster risk management. Specifically, the SDG’s and the Sendai Framework highlight the importance of building resilience in vulnerable communities via education.

Specifically, in regards to the SDG’s, there are a total of 25 targets specifically related to disaster risk reduction in ten out the seventeen SDGs. Disaster risk intersects with the global challenges of poverty eradication, food security, education, inclusive cities, and climate change. As such, it is evident that building resilience to natural disaster is fundamental to achieving the grand challenges set forth in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

These global frameworks work in cohesion to reinforce the importance of the global grand challenge of disaster risk management in the international community. As such, when viewed from the perspective of global grand challenges, intersectionality is highly beneficial.