Month: December 2018

by

Intersectionality in Development

Intersectionality is an analytic framework created by Black legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw that shows how interlocking systems of power can impact the most marginalized in a community. More specifically, Crenshaw explained how the combined effects of racism and sexism affected African-American women in the 1980’s. In other words, intersectionality shows how multiple identities can combine and determine how a person experiences oppression. These identities include those related to age, gender, race or ethnicity, economic status, and level of education. Moreover, intersectionality illustrates how different identities can overlap and ultimately impact inclusive sustainable development. Essentially, identities cannot be viewed in a vacuum because they all relate to and impact one another. In other words, carrying multiple intersectionalities may make more individuals vulnerable to environmental stressors than others. Recognizing intersectionality within inclusive sustainable development brings these challenges to the forefront of the conversations, while also encouraging strategy and policy makers to consider intersectional identity and the challenges that they face.

In the context of inclusive sustainable development, intersectional approaches are critical to developing programming and solutions to solve problems. Without recognizing the complexity of identity, creating viable solutions that benefit all is challenging. This can be exemplified when looking at the intersectionality of disability and gender. A woman with a disability in a country that has conservative gender role may not have the opportunity to go to school. If it does, she may face physical barriers to her education because the schools within her area are not disability inclusive. Ultimately, this individual is not only oppressed because of her gender, but is physically limited within schools because of her disability. Moreover, when looking at the UN Major Groups Framework, it is evident that there are groups formulated based off of identity. These groups represent women, children and youth, NGOs, and indigenous groups, to name a few. Yet, it is important to recognize that within these groups there are other compounding identities present. For example, among indigenous groups there are also indigenous people with disabilities, and of all ages and genders. Therefore, when considering inclusive sustainable development, it is critical to understand and provide for the complex intersectionality of identity.

by

The Global “Grand Challenge” of Inclusive Development

“Grand challenges” are defined as “technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution (Branscomb 2009). Although the world faces many “grand challenges,” there are individuals, organizations, and governments working tirelessly to make strides towards finding and implementing effective solutions. Tom Kalil of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology wrote that, “Grand Challenges can catalyze innovations that foster economic growth and job creation, spur the formation of multidisciplinary teams of researchers, encourage multi-sector collaborations, bring new expertise to bear on important problems, strengthen the “social contract” between science and society, and inspire the next generation…” (Pescovitz 2012). In this way, the concept of “grand challenges” should be looked at as an opportunity for the world to grow, advance, and innovate.

For the grand challenges of inclusive sustainable development in particular, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) partners with public and private actors to “bring in new voices to solve development problems” (USAID.gov). USAID and its partners launched ten grand challenges since 2011, including saving lives at birth, securing water for food, and creating hope in conflict. The initiative has since raised over $508 million in grants and assistance to fund over 450 innovations in 60 countries around the world (USAID.gov).

Two other examples of global initiatives taken to work towards grand challenges in inclusive sustainable development are the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The MDGs were created in 1990, and detailed eight goals such as reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, that leaders around the world can work towards (UN.org/milleniumgoals). The MDGs were important because they provided an organized set of goals with a timeline, that could be applied on a global scale. The SDGs built upon the MDGs in 2015, with a more expansive set of goals and more of a focus on inclusivity. In particular, the SDGs had more references to persons with disabilities than the MDGs (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/).

The development of the MDGs and SDGs show an advancement in the approach to development, as they represent a greater focus on international collaboration and using a multistakeholder approach to solving problems. In addition, while the MDGs focused on inclusivity, the subsequent SDGs became even more inclusive. The increasing emphasis on inclusivity shows that international development is moving in the right direction by recognizing that advancement means including everyone in society. If global approaches to development continue to focus on collaboration and inclusivity, there is a remarkable opportunity for the world to make greater and faster strides towards solving the “grand challenges” in inclusive sustainable development.

Resources:

A Focused Approach to Society’s Grand Challenges

White House’s Tom Kalil on “Grand Challenges”

https://www.usaid.gov/grandchallenges

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

by

ICTs and Inclusive Sustainable Development- Digital Divide(s)

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) play a crucial role in working towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The term digital divide refers to “the gap that exists between those with access to new technologies and those without” due to inequality in access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) (NTIA).

The Missing Link, also known as the Maitland Report, was published in January 1985 and “drew international attention to the huge imbalance in telephone access between developed and developing countries and concluded that this imbalance was intolerable.” Most notably, this report “underlined the direct correlation between the availability of, and access to, telecommunication infrastructure and a country’s economic growth, and it proposed concrete solutions to fix this missing link. The report advocates for an “expanded world telecommunications network” which would benefit both developing and developed countries. It outlines how this expanded network would increase the flow of information, trade, and make the world a better and safer place (NTIA).    

In 1999, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, released a report titled Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. The NTIA is responsible for advising the President on policy issues regarding telecommunications and information. Falling Through the Net identified the digital divide as “one of America’s leading economic and civil issues.”

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) took place in two phases- the first in Geneva in 2003 and the second in Tunis in 2005. The first phase sought to “develop and foster a clear statement of political will and take concrete steps to establish the foundations for an Information Society for all,” whilst the second phase sought to put the plan that was developed in Geneva into motion. This Summit demonstrates the understanding amongst the international community that the digital divide is an issue and needs to be addressed.

The digital divide that still exists today is a Grand Challenge of inclusive sustainable development. Given the capacity that ICTs have to influence inclusive and sustainable development, it is imperative that we address this Grand Challenge of the digital divide so that the capacity that ICTs have to assist in affecting positive change can be realized. In order to meet the goals of the 2015-2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, information and communication technologies need to be available for all. Therefore, we need to close the digital divide, and increase equality in access to ICTs.

by

Efficacy of Global and Regional Frameworks

Frameworks are an important step to any project or goal that one is trying to accomplish. I have always found issue with international frameworks being effective. The problem with global frameworks is that the international order is in a state of anarchy. The United Nations is a great organization that tries to guide countries to do the right thing, but it has limited ability to hold a foreign government accountable for developmental goals.  While countries may sign onto or agree to follow a global or even regional framework, they could be doing it just to avoid falling under a bad light on the world stage.

The UNCRPD is a framework and convention that lays out what countries should do to ensure the successful inclusion of persons with disabilities. This something that countries can voluntarily sign onto. The United States, one of the greatest world powers, has not signed it. The efficacy of the framework is then called into question if a large power does not sign. My capstone project looks at the access to education for children with disabilities in Haiti. The country ratified the CRPD and the optional protocol in 2009 which allows the UNCRPD Committee in Geneva to make comments on their progress. The committee can make comments and suggestions, but they can not hold the Haitian Government accountable to the CRPD. Haiti may have signed the convention with every intention of fulfilling the commitments that they signed up for, but they have not made much progress in providing and inclusive environment for persons with disabilities. This could be because of changes in government, cultural friction,  lack of financial resources or technical ability to implement the new policies. No matter the reason, there is not a system international system in place that can truly hold the country accountable with any consequences or penalties if they do not implement policies related to the CRPD. Therefore, a global framework such as this can never been considered extremely effective.

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance- Live from the IGF

The multistakeholder approach to internet governance is “widely accepted as the optimal way to make policy decisions for a globally distributed network” (Internet Society). Multistakeholder decision-making is an essential component to achieving inclusive sustainable development because because as we have discussed throughout the semester, international cooperation is a key factor in solving the “Grand Challenge” of inclusive sustainable development. Multistakeholder Internet Governance allows for inclusiveness and transparency, effective decision-making and implementation, and collaboration (Internet Society).

The 13th annual Internet Governance Forum was hosted by the Government of France in Paris at the headquarters of UNESCO from November 12 to 14 of 2018.  The Internet Governance Forum aims to bring together a variety of stakeholder groups annually to discuss public policy issues regarding the Internet. Some of the key issues confronting the 13th annual IGF were gender and access, cyber security, and artificial intelligence. The Internet Governance Forum is a prime example of how important multistakeholder internet governance is, as it is a forum for a variety of stakeholders to come together and discuss best practices and a way forward in today’s digital world.

The session I tuned into from this year’s IGF was titled “Hack the Hate: Empower Society to Face Hate Speech.” I was intrigued by the title and found that it was especially important that this topic be discussed in today’s day and age. Increasingly, we are hearing stories of people using the internet- social media specifically- to spread messages of hate. While the advancements made regarding the Internet have opened the doors for many positive developments, there are undoubtedly consequences of it as well. This is why I was drawn to the IGF session addressing hate speech.

The session began with a discussion of the rise of hate crime statistics and the plummeting of the global peace index indicator that addresses the acceptance of the rights of others. The conversation revolved around what collaborative efforts are needed to mobilize civil society to ‘compete’ with those on the internet who are trying to spread hate, as well as education and and the longer term challenge of eradicating this issue. The theme and contents of this session are an example of why both the Internet Governance Form and multistakeholder internet governance are important- they allow for a variety of actors to come together and discuss how to solve the most pressing issues regarding the internet and our world today.

 

References

Internet Society. (n.d.). Internet Governance – Why the Multistakeholder Approach Works. Retrieved from https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2016/internet-governance-why-the-multistakeholder-approach-works/

by

Internet Governance and Sustainability

The World Wide Wide has been around for nearly 30 years.  While the internet has created extreme advances in connectivity, information sharing and access, it has also created many new problems and hurdles that the world has to overcome. There were no clear outlines or precedents as to how or who governs the internet and what exactly they are governing. I do agree that a multi stakeholder approach is the smartest and most effective way of approach internet governance. The Internet Society points to things like the wide impact and distributed range of people and interests decisions have, the overlapping rights and responsibilities across sectors and borders, different forms of expertise are needed and legitimacy and acceptance of decisions directly impact implementation. All of these make giving one single entity the governing power of the internet impossible. Within the multi stakeholder discussion persons with disabilities need to be included to ensure that this large, open and participative technology is easily accessible for all.

The inclusiveness of decision-making in regards to internet governance is necessary or else the trust in these technologies and those who regulate them will be threatened. This aligns with the importance of digital security and how the multi-stakeholder approach is more effective at ensuring the security. The internet is so vast and there are so many different actors that take part in it daily. It is impossible for one government or stakeholder to monitor everything in order to keep their people’s digital activity secure. As more and more individuals are gaining access to the internet and it is becoming ever more intertwined in people’s daily lives, the problem of security is only going to increase. Multi-stakeholder governance is the most effective way to keep up with security and maintain a collective responsibility for the safety of peoples information.

 

 

by

Digital Divides: Technology bridging the gap

The use of technology in the development sector is a very exciting and innovation is truly changing the way developmental agencies operate. The Maitland Commission is one of the first documents that pledged to bridge the imbalanced gap between developing and developed countries in terms of telecommunications. Today in developing countries almost everyone has access to a smart phone and can be connected to their neighbors and the global community with ease. During my time studying abroad in Kenya, I enjoyed the technological innovations such as MPESA that makes instant money transfers  fee free straight from your phone. This allows technology allows development agencies to transfer money to their beneficiaries, but allows the everyday person to make transactions with each other and business without the need for physical cash. I and almost everyone I knew in Kenya used MPESA on a daily basis. Due to this easy access to cash resources the economy is flowing much more fluidly and individuals can get assistance almost instantly. The access to telephones for almost everyone breaks down this digital divide.

Another form of technological innovation that I thought about while reading the assigned readings is block chain. Although block chain is not an ICT, the potential impact it has on the development sector is great. Interning at the World Food Programme, block chain is something that the organization has just started implementing to provide assistance more effective and efficiently to refugees around the world. It allows food recipients to be registered into databases by different features like finger prints. This means that the people who are supposed to receive the commodities will without a hitch and those who try to forge documents or collection cards will not be able to take away from the refugees that actually need it.  Innovations like these when used properly are what makes the world a much more equitable place and development more sustainable. Technology is rapidly changing and it is very exciting to see how innovation in the inclusive sustainable development front will push this sector forward in the coming years.

by

Inclusive Education:

This topic is something that I am very passionate about, so I thoroughly enjoyed the readings and in-class discussions. My capstone project is about access to education for children with disabilities, therefore it is interesting to draw comparisons and contrasts between my research and the assigned readings for class. The article “Comparison of Brunei Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes to Inclusive Education and Specific Disabilities,” highlights that inclusion for student’s with disabilities with low support needs was welcomed by the student teachers. When it came to students with high support needs teachers were not in favor of accommodating. This thinking seems to be similar in Haiti as well. The more support the student needs the less likely they will have any form of inclusion in the education system in Haiti. It is interesting to see that Brunei, which is a relatively wealthy country in comparison to Haiti, does not want to include those children in the schools.

I really enjoyed the main idea behind Richard Rieser’s article on “why inclusive education is the only educational philosophy and practice that makes sense in today’s world.” His argument that the world is a globalized community and each classroom has plenty of diversity, that inclusiveness is the only way to break down barriers and combat discriminatory attitudes. It is true that “inclusion” is such a buzzword in many realms of society today, especially education, but its not entirely clear to most what exactly inclusion means. The definition can change immensely depending on who is defining it. There is a giant push in many developing countries for free access to primary education, but children with disabilities are rarely mentioned. Even in cases like Haiti where they are mentioned, there is still little effort being made to provide them with an inclusive education or even access to education at all . The idea of inclusion could mean integration into mainstream schools or the restructuring of school systems to accommodate students with disabilities. I think how the student should be included should be looked at on a case by case basis.  The most important thing on the schools agenda should be how the child will learn and succeed the best. If that is through integration in the mainstream classroom with an aid or the student is placed in a separate school for children with similar disabilities. I do not believe there is one universal right way for an inclusive education because each student has such different needs.

Works Referenced:

Educational Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: The Experience of
a University Student in Brunei, F.S. Haq , Asian Journal of University Education

Richard Rieser, “Disability, Human Rights, and Inclusive Education, and
Why Inclusive is the Only Educational Philosophy and Practice that Makes
Sense in Today’s World,” Gill Richards, Felicity Armstrong (eds), Teaching
and Learning in Diverse Classrooms: Key Issues for New Teachers
(Routledge, 2011), Ch. 14.

 

by

13th Annual Internet Governance Forum

The Internet Governance Forum is an international forum that brings together various stakeholder groups from the public and private sectors to discuss policy issues relating to the Internet. The 13thannual IGF was hosted by the Government of France at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France this year. This year’s theme centered around “The Internet of Trust.” In addition to hosting the IGF, President Macron announced it to be International Digital Week in France, which included the Peace Forum and the GovTech convention. From discussions on cybersecurity to those on refugee issues, the IGF introduced conversations on multiple subjects. Although I experienced some technical difficulties, I was able to learn more about refugee access to internet through the session on “Refugees digital rights: Necessities and needs.” In some regions, especially those who host large refugee populations, there are restrictive data policies that restrict access. Not only do these restrict access to the Internet, these policies affect a refugee’s ability to access digital learning opportunities and connect with family members. In an evolving technical society, it was interesting to hear the attendees talk about the need to emphasize a refugees human right to digital access.

The IGF is an innovative forum for many reasons. All individuals are representing themselves, not their organizations, which allows individuals to rely on their own expertise rather than being limited by the scope of their organization. It also encourages more open dialogue because there are no negotiations for an “outcome document” similar to other large-scale international forums. In addition, the IGF has a Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). The MAG was established by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in order to advise on the programming and schedule of the IGF. 55 members from governments, the private sector, and civil society organizations are elected into the MAG and participate in face-to-face meetings up to three times a year. Dialogues are also open to former IGF host countries and representations of intergovernmental organizations. Essentially, the MAG acts as a governance mechanism for the IGF. The IGF also has dynamic coalitions that focus on specific key issues regarding internet governance. The dynamic coalitions first emerged at the first IGF meeting in Athens in 2006. These coalitions are informal, issue-specific groups with members from different stakeholder groups.

One of the most interesting innovations to me is the development of regional IGF’s. These regional forums host discussions that are focused on the issues discussed at the IGF, but are more country or region specific. Because of the regional IGF’s, more individuals are able to participation in these conversations because they are easier to access. Today, there are more than 110 regional IGFs located in all 5 UN regions.

by

Opportunities and Limitations in Global Strategic Frameworks

Global Strategic Frameworks such as the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals can be instrumental in the international community’s efforts to work towards solving some of the grand challenges that are faced by the developing world. However, it is important to recognize and learn from their limitations.

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which ran from 2000 to 2015 posed a grand challenge to the international development community to solve the issues which were recognized as grand challenges. While the MDGs were successful in that they had clearly defined targets and indicators and were quantifiable and measurable, they had many shortcomings. The eight MDGs- to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; to achieve universal primary education; to promote gender equality and empower women; to reduce child mortality; to improve maternal health; to combat HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases; to ensure environmental sustainability; and to develop a global partnership for development- lacked specificity and attainable short-term goals. They were also marked by a Western bias and assumed that one size fits all when it comes to international development, which, as we have discussed throughout this course, could not be further from the truth. The MDGs failed to take varying cultural contexts into consideration as a result of this assumption. Finally, one of the most notable shortcomings of the MDGs, especially for the context of this course, was the lack of mention of persons with disabilities in any of the MDGs.

Though the MDGs had many limitations, this provided opportunities for the international community to improve upon them. This paved the way to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are set to run from 2015 until 2030. Some of the most prominent differences between the MDGs and the SDGs are that the SDGs contain 11 specific references to persons with disabilities, language on vulnerable populations, and a focus on sustainable development ‘for all.’ There are undoubtedly limitations that exist within the SDGs, though I do not think we will get a firm grasp on those until further into the Sustainable Development Agenda. I believe that it is most important to recognize that no global strategic framework is going to be perfect and solve all of the world’s most pressing challenges. However, they do provide opportunities for the international community to come together to work towards addressing these challenges.