Month: December 2017

by

The first time I was exposed to the Sustainable Development Goals was while reading an article published in The Economist that was published in March of 2015. The article was titled “The 169 commandments”, and the overall tone of the article was rather negative toward the SDGs. This tone, and the stance The Economist took with regard to the SDGs, is the exact opposite of the “moonshot thinking” we were all encouraged to practice by Professor Cogburn.

One critique leveled at the SDGs by The Economist is that “Every lobby group has pitched in for its own special interest”, and as such the number of goals ballooned from the relatively modest ones set out in the MDGs. Rather than being a negative, the early engagement of “every lobby group” is what will make the SDGs successful. As USAID states on their website, “[Grand Challenges for Development] engage non-traditional solvers… around critical development problems in a variety ways through partnerships, prizes, challenge grant funding, crowdsourcing, and more to identify innovations that work.” This engagement with non-traditional solvers clearly took place early on in the formation of the SDGs if “every lobby group” had a chance to suggest ideas. Foundations, businesses, and academia can more fully and deeply participate in the SDGs given the range of development issues they cover.

An additional benefit of the wide range of issues covered by the SDGs is that even developed countries, like the United States, can benefit from them. Lewis Branscomb stated as much in 2009 in an article that defined grand challenges as “technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution.” Innovative solutions to some of the world’s most pressing issues can, and will, be found through the SDGs, and the United States can use some of those solutions to solve domestic issues. For example, solutions to Goal 6 “Clean Water and Sanitation” could hugely benefit the United States as the failure of clean water and sanitation systems in the U.S. have come to the fore of domestic politics recently.

by

Reaction and Global Strategies

The Great Recession caused not just a great loss of wealth for many people around the world, but led to political shifts which have steadily gained power in the decade since the recession. With increasingly right-wing governments in power in numerous influential states, we are seeing fundamental challenges to the networks of global governance and the international strategies which have defined the history of international cooperation in the post-WWII era. These challenges to the global framework of agreements reflects the ways in which national decisions can affect international politics, this time in ways which threaten to disrupt the basis of those politics.

Conservative American politics has always included a strange blend of isolationism and militarism which has generally created a distrust of the use of “soft power” and international agreements. With the election of Donald Trump, whose politics seem built as much on being anti-Obama as on any ideology, these Republican tendencies have been given substantial reign. It should be no surprise, then, that the United States is reneging on the Paris Accords and a host of other international agreements. This variability in executive policy makes it difficult to rely on the United States as a partner in international agreements, weakening the foundations of future accords, to say nothing of the open opposition evinced by Trump to trade agreements, treaties, and other underpinnings of the liberal world order. Without a change in national politics, the United States will cease to be a key actor in international politics.

by

Exclusion and the Problem of “Special Needs” Education

Most American children grew up familiar with the idea of a “special needs” class in their school. In such classes, children with disabilities are excluded from education with their peers, their needs managed by specially trained educators. This exclusion functions to keep children with disabilities away from their peers’ education, and it could be argued that the idea of the “special needs” class is not meant to give children with disabilities an education, but to isolate them so as to not distract other children from their education. This is an untenable paradigm if education is going to be used as a vehicle for development. This is perhaps more fundamental to creating inclusive education programs in the United States than promoting inclusive technologies and curricula. The entire paradigm of the school as a factory floor, promoting obedience to authority and a carefully managed system, cannot address the differing and more intensive demands of children with disabilities; achieving inclusive education in the United States must involve a fundamental shift in how education is viewed and designed.

by

Grand Challenges

Grand challenges are complex societal problems that have yet to be solved and require science and technological innovations to understand them and find their solution. These challenges are not only ambitious goals but they are physically achievable within a desired timeline. Another term often used in relation is ‘moonshot thinking’ which refers to President Kennedy’s ambitious goal to send a man to moon. Solving a grand challenge requires moonshot thinking and multidisciplinary collaboration. Fundamental research is also critical to defining societal goals and finding their solutions. Branscomb argues that in particular two policies must be implemented in order to solve these grand challenges; promoting ‘Jeffersonian science’ and moving products of science into new industries. It is extremely important that schools encourage students to study science and engineering and that higher education devote more resources to laboratories that can produce valuable innovations. Some examples of the challenges that can be addressed with these changes include developing new energy sources, vaccinations, and curing cancer. Other grand challenges that have already been identified explicitly and are working to be achieved by the global community are the Sustainable Development Goals. An important quality that the SDGs have is their ability to capture the public’s imagination as they are intrinsically motivating. Recently, the global approach to development has changed to include more cross-national collaboration, research and innovation, and inclusivity. Although inclusivity is still an area that needs to be improved particularly in the context of language within the SDGs, more and more development goals and projects address and include people with disabilities. It is critical that persons with disabilities be included in development goals because it is estimated that they make up fifteen percent of the world’s population, eighty percent of which live in developing countries. Not including persons with disabilities when developing solutions to grand challenges in the development field would exclude one billion people from the potential benefits. The Sustainable Development Goal that I find to be the biggest challenge and most intriguing is goal thirteen, Climate Action. It is also important to note that these seventeen goals are all interdependent and in most cases, one cannot be achieved without the achievement of another. For example, goal seven, affordable and clean energy, must be part of the solution in order to address goal thirteen. Another important quality that the SDGs possess that motivates nations to finding solutions is it’s time frame. Fifteen years is a short enough time frame to keep the current global leaders engaged but is also long enough to make achieving these goals feasible.

by

Digital Divides: Addressing the Access Problem for PWDs

As technology has advanced over the years, it has become more affordable and accessible, yet a digital divide between the privileged and unprivileged. This digital divide has tangible consequences for those who do not have access. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center Report entitled “Digital differences,” one in five American adults does not use the internet.[1] Among this US population of those who do not use the internet are senior citizens, Non-English language speakers, adults with less than a high school education, those living in households earning less than $30,000 per year, and persons with disabilities.[2] Around 27% of adults in the United States live with a disability. Of that population, only 54% of adult persons with disabilities use the internet consistently, as opposed to 84% of Americans in general[3] The reasons for this discrepancy and multifarious. Disability, compounded with other factors that determine internet use such as old age, lack of education, and lower income results in a fundamentally underserved population in regards to access to ICTs. If people with disabilities are not included in the rapidly growing digital world economy, they could be left behind.

 

How can we expand access to ICTs for persons with disabilities? While this question is one that we are still struggling with today, there are many innovators and organizations working to make the internet and other technologies more accessible to persons with disabilities. One key opportunity for advancement is in the design of the technology itself. For some people with disabilities, barriers can appear in the design of software used for employment and education. To address this issue, some companies and innovators have developed assistive technologies designed to aid disabled persons’ successful interactions with technologies. In addition to developing assistive technologies, advocates for inclusion have promoted the idea of “universal design” as a standard for all technology design. This concept is the idea of shifting the audience in mind when designing technologies from the “average user” to all people. In promoting this idea, advocates are urging technology developers to cease ignoring the needs of PWDs in favor of catering technology to the average consumer. For advocates of the concept, its is possible to address both of these populations simultaneously so that there are little to no barriers to access in technologies. While assistive technologies will not solve the “digital divide” as a whole for persons with disabilities, a change in mindset within the technology sector to keep universal accessibility central to the design of ICTs is change that is necessary for the expansion of inclusivity.

[1] Pew Research Center

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Works Cited:

Zickuhr, Kathryn, and Aaron Smith. “Digital Differences.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. N. p., 2012. Web. 6 Dec. 2017.

by

Intersectionality of International Development

Intersectionality in international development is a gathering of different identities and actors to work together to tie together core concepts of development. This is essential for meeting the sustainable development goals before the year 2030 because with the inclusion of all of the concerned subjects of development, the interests of the entire population can be met. In the United Nations Major Groups Framework, there are nine categories that are represented in the decision making of the development policies. Having nine groups encompasses a majority of the groups affected, but these categories are also limiting in terms of who is represented.

In international developmental organizations, the task of resolving international issues is a challenging one, and often the biggest difficulty is making sure that the interests of all concerned groups are met. By having nine groups, it limits the amount of actors present at the decision making table and makes it easier to pass unanimous actions. However, if there are people that are still not represented in the projects and who do not see the benefits of development, then the efficiency gained in having less actors leads to a loss of  effectiveness of the programs. The Major Groups Framework tried addressing these issues by including specific groups in the official language and keeping it open to “other stakeholders,” keeping it vague enough to include any multitude of groups. Another way that the UNMGF includes all of the groups is by jointly categorizing groups (i.e. instead of having a separate category for the LGBTQA community, they would be included under the nine groups that compose the UNMGF). The main issue with this is hierarchy, where some groups are given more importance than others, which causes political dissent among the different actors over who should be given priority in developmental issues.

This is still a major barrier to international development and is a main criticism of the way the system works, but it is critical to find a way to maintain intersectionality and efficiency in the global frameworks to find ways to meet the sustainable development goals before the 2030 deadline.

 

by

The Importance of Universally Accessible ICTs in Development

In an increasingly globalized world, Information and communications technology (ICTs) occupy an ever growing role in terms of development. While the importance of ICTs in everyday life has grown dramatically as the technology has modernizes and become more powerful, disparities exist in regards to who has access to these ICTs. In 1985, the Independent Commission for Worldwide Telecommunications Development, headed by Donald Maitland, first identified the existence of a disparity in terms of access to ICTs. The Maitland Commission Report identified an enormous imbalance in telephone access globally, largely between developed and developing countries. The commission asserted the existence of telecommunication infrastructure directly correlates with economic growth, underscoring the need to incorporate ICTs promotion and infrastructure into the larger paradigm surrounding development. While the Maitland Report was certainly influential as the first publication to highlight this disparity, The Falling Through the Net 1995 Report published by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the US Department of Commerce identified the existence of inequality of access to ICTs within an individual countries population. The survey identified large barriers to access in rural areas, and in central cities. The largest barrier to access identified in the report was poverty, with the nations poorest households in both rural and urban areas experiencing a lack of access to telephones, computers, and modems. In addition to poverty, other factors in determining access to ICTs are race and age. In the report, racial minorities, the youngest Americans, and older people all experienced barriers to access to ICTs.

Both the Maitland Report, as well as the Falling Through the Net reports highlight the need for focused efforts to expand access to ICTs on an international development scale, as well as domestically. In the years since the reports were published, the technologies themselves have changed, but the need for the expansion of access has only increased. While ICTs have certainly become more accessible since 1985, the consequences for access have become more severe for those who do not have access. In a digital age, crucial education services, employment opportunities, healthcare information, political participation processes, and countless other avenues for participation in economies rely on access to ICTs. Reducing inequality in development is inextricably linked to the establishment of accessible ICTs and inclusive access of ICTs should be a priority in both domestic and international development policy.

by

Global Strategic Frameworks and Development Goals

In 2001 the Millennium Development Goals were developed in order try and eliminate some of the world’s greatest problems such as inequality, poverty, hunger, and poor maternal health. While there was some success, critics call into question the effectiveness of the MDGs, as well as the effectiveness of global strategic frameworks. Critics argued that the MDGs (and most global strategic frameworks) employ broad goals that do not take into account national needs. Other critics argue that the MDGs employ a vertical approach that does not partner with local organizations or hold actors accountable. These critiques of the MDGs and global strategic frameworks are important because they highlight some of the problems associated with top down development. Global strategic frameworks have many limitations because they are usually general but the needs of countries are varied and diverse, especially when it comes to development. Some critics also view global strategic frameworks such as the MDGs as the Global North telling the Global South what to do, even though the Global North exploited the Global South during the colonial period. Global strategic frameworks are also hard to enact because they are not legally binding. Therefore, the amount that countries participate is up to them and some countries participate much more than others.

While global strategic frameworks have some limitations, they also provide many opportunities. Using a global strategic framework, countries can work together to try and solve problems. Through organizations like the UN, developing countries can participate in creating development initiatives and trying to resolve major global issues. Through global strategic frameworks different countries with different perspectives, but similar goals can share knowledge and best practices, and collaborate on different goals. In order to be more successful, global strategic frameworks should acknowledge critique and take into account the individualized needs of different countries, while still trying to realize their goals on a global scale. Countries can also adopt the spirits of international documents such as CEDAW and The CRPD. Through adopting the spirit of those documents, countries can attempt to make them a reality by enacting them. These documents outline specific goals to make the world a more accepting and inclusive place and by adopting them, countries can address the specific needs that exist within the country, while still participating in a global strategic framework. The more connected international conventions are to strategic global frameworks, the more successful they will be.

by

Addressing the Digital Divide(s)

ICTs are incredibly important because they factor into every facet of development. Without ICTs and technology, it is very difficult to make advancements and develop. In 1984 the Independent Commission for World Wide Communications Development published an important report known as the Maitland Commission Report or the Missing Link. The report found that ICTs were incredibly important in all aspects of life and development but there was a huge disparity in which countries had access to them. The report found that developed countries were far more likely to have access to ICTs than developing countries and that this difference contributed to differences in development. This disparity became known as a digital divide, which are still present in 2017.

In 1999 another report came out called Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. This report also examined ICTs and their connection to development, with focus on the internet. Similarly to The Missing Link, Falling Through the Net found that their was a large disparity between developed and developing countries in internet access. The same countries that did not have very much access to telecommunication in 1984 were the same countries who did not have much internet access in 1999. The lack of ICTs for developing countries becomes a sort of Catch-22 because countries cannot develop without ICTs but developed countries have the most access to ICTs. The access that developed countries have to ICTs allows them to pursue sustainable development and stay competitive, while developing countries are left behind.

The UN acknowledges the important role that ICTs play in development and therefore has held many conferences and forums to try and help close the digital divides. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was convened in 2003 and 2005 with the purpose of sharing information that would help close the digital divide. The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was created at the first WSIS in order for countries to share best practices and work together to better internet governance. These attempts to bridge the digital divide are important because for all countries to be able to participate in the SDGs, they must all have equal access to ICTs. IN 2017, there is an even greater focus on technology than there was when the Missing Link and Falling Through the Net were published. Almost every development initiative requires access to ICTs in some way. In order for developing countries to successfully develop, they must have access to ICTs and WSIS and the IGF will help with that access.

by

The Role of ICTs in Sustainable Development

ICTs or Information Communication Technology has a large role to play in inclusive sustainable development. In the Maitland Commission Report, it was found that ICTs were involved in every aspect of development, including health and agriculture. The World Summit on the Information Society (or WSIS) was convened in its two phases in 2003 and 2005 in order to develop a common information society and promote ICTs as enablers to development, as well as try and close some of the digital divides. The WSIS conference in particular shows how ICTs are connected to development, especially development initiatives of the UN such as the SDGs and MDGs. There is a WSIS-SDG matrix that shows how the goals of WSIS can be connected to each sustainable development goal and used to make the goal a reality. The matrix highlights the importance of ICTs in development and shows how they are related to every development goal. The matrix also shows what specific work has been with ICTs and how they connect to the SDGs. For example ICTs have been used to integrate refugees, to help women entrepreneurs, and to map data to allow internet connectivity at schools. These projects all directly connect to SDGs such as SDG 5, SDG 9, and SDG 4.

Not only do ICTs have a role making sustainable development a reality, they can also make sustainable development inclusive. ICTs can make it possible for marginalized populations to participate in development. One of the most clear examples of this is the example of education. SDG 4 is the goal of quality education for all. ICTs make it possible for students who may have trouble coming to the class room such as women or persons with disabilities able to learn and exchange ideas remotely. This dissemination of information that is made possible by ICTs is very critical to other goals as well. With ICTs public health information can be easily spread which relates to SDG 3. One of the recommendations that I make in my capstone project suggest that countries in Latin America develop hotlines and 24/7 television channels that are disability accessible in order to spread sexual and reproductive health information. This use of ICTs allow persons with disabilities to receive important information and know their rights without having to go to a health center or clinic. In this case, ICTs would further SDG 3 and help make reproductive services available to all by 2030.