by

Efficacy of Global and Regional Frameworks

Although the Millennium Development Goals in a lot of ways were effective in setting the stage for global international development, there have still been many criticisms towards the true efficacy of the framework when put into action after the United Nations Millennium Summit in the year 2000. The MDGs were effective in the sense that they brought to international attention some of the major developmental issues existing in developing countries such as child mortality and starvation. Although the MDGs could be considered to be successful in the sense that some development goals, such as poverty levels, have seen improvement (with “the number of people living on less than $1.25 a day has been reduced from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million in 2015” (The Guardian)), one of the criticisms regarding the structure of the MDGs is the distance that exists between the theory and practice of this development framework (Trocaire Development Review 2005 11). For example, although foreign aid is aimed towards progressing the goals of developing communities, and promoting sustained development solutions, often time, governments as well as aid organizations can engage in wasteful spending or ineffective projects that do not fall in line with their original development goals. For these reasons, it has been concluded that there must be greater emphasis upon a more “meaningful partnership between donor agencies and recipient governments” (Trocaire Development Review 2005 11). A more meaningful partnership between actors may help to mitigate issues such as corruption (within the recipient government), as well as may help to improve a recipient government’s capacity building capabilities. Capacity building is an important element for developing country governments to be structured around, since having the capacity to address developmental issues within one’s territory will essentially decrease dependence on external aid.

Furthermore, one may also question the inclusivity of the MDGs as there were essentially no mentions, for example, of persons with disabilities. Total inclusion of all members of society is vital in reaching development goals since the foundation of development is to essentially improve the well-being and quality of life for all persons around the world, regardless of which “groups” they may belong to. All persons have the potential to contribute to growing and thriving communities, so it is key that all persons are provided with the equal capabilities to do so. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (or CRPD) was a monumental stepping stone for persons with disabilities in the way that it called for the international community to recognize the importance of including persons with disabilities in global development discourse and frameworks. The SDGs, adopted by the international community in 2015 is an indicator of the effects that the CRPD had upon the structure of global development goals as it saw the mention of including previously (more or less) ignored stakeholder groups.

by

Digital Divide(s)

The digital divide essentially refers to the socioeconomic gap that exists between those with access to the internet and those without. In the present day, it seems like a majority of people with frequent access to the internet would agree that the internet is incredibly convenient in allowing us a direct line of communication to friends and family at whatever time of the day, access to news in real-time, as well as enables us with access to almost any piece of information or knowledge that one could seek. Although access to the internet has been a widespread, global phenomenon, there still remains an astounding 4.2 billion people worldwide who still do not have frequent access to the internet (www.mic.com). Without access to the internet, many people essentially face an information gap in which they may not be able to take advantage of the same knowledge that those who do have access to the internet can take advantage of (thus potentially lowering their abilities for social and economic mobilization). One of the issues pertaining to infrequent access to the internet is that there are many who simply can not afford the technology required to connect to the internet (such as computers and smartphones), can not afford the internet connection itself, or may also just not be in a location where capturing internet connection is not possible (thus pointing to some of the bigger developmental issues that exist in the world such as economic inequalities, or insufficient telecommunication technologies).

In the year 1999, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a report called Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. The report essentially examined which American households had access to telecommunication technologies (such as the internet and telephones) as well as the households that did not. Overall, the report concluded that the digital divide seemed to be widening, particularly within groups such as “minorities, low-income persons, the less educated, and children of single-parent households, particularly when they reside in rural areas or central cities” (Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, Introduction). What is unfortunate about the situation is that often time, the groups with infrequent access to the internet seem to be the disadvantaged groups that may benefit from internet access the most, since the information available on the web can empower these groups with further economic opportunities such as job openings for low-income persons.

With that being said, it is important for governments worldwide to realize the vital role that telecommunications can have on the global population. Bridging this technology gap will require governments to invest in providing the infrastructure for internet connection if need be, as well as require the government to create policies that heighten the probability of disadvantaged groups to have access to the internet (such as instilling more affordable connection plans, or even providing more widespread public facilities that can provide internet access for little to no cost).

by

Multistakeholder Internet Governance and Sustainable Development

The internet itself is a fascinating commodity in that no one entity can really claim ownership over it. Multistakeholder internet governance, according to the Internet Governance Forum can essentially be thought of as a “multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance issues, such as the Internet’s sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development” (intgovforum.org). The Internet Governance Forum was established in 2006 and aims to facilitate public policy discussions – that are both productive and inclusive– regarding some of the issues surrounding internet governance. I think that it is important that the IGF encourages discussion that is inclusive of all stakeholders because it allows for multiple actors to have the ability to express their opinions and concern over the governance of a single resource that is shared by millions of communities all over the world.

The 2016 Internet Governance Forum (IGF): ‘Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth’, is currently being held in Jalisco, Mexico. According to the forum’s website, it looks like the discussions that have been held were in regards to maximizing internet opportunities, while also sharing opinions on different actor’s ideas of internet best practices. One aspect of the IGF’s website that I thought was a good compliment to their overall purpose, was that there is an option for people to submit their feedback on the conference directly to the IGF (which speaks to the inclusivity of all relevant actors having a voice in the IGF).

Furthermore, in regards to multistakeholder internet governance, NETMundial was a meeting held in Brazil in 2014 to discuss the principles of internet governance (including in relation to future international development). It is extraordinary to see that stakeholders from over 97 countries were able to participate in this forum. I think NETMundial was a good example of the importance in being inclusive of multiple voices in the discussion of development goals, as a means to gain the collective knowledge necessary to best approach development solutions. Within the forum’s outcome document, I think it is important to note that it explicitly mentions the idea that “persons with disabilities should enjoy full access to online resources Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information, technologies and systems on the internet” (NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement 4), thus emphasizing the need for inclusivity in all development goals.

by

Intersectionality Until it Hurts

Any development scholar, policy maker, parent, or elementary school student requires an understanding of intersectionality to develop an accurate understanding of almost any domestic or international problem. The interactions of different identities for a single person or a population shapes every behavior of that entity to some degree, and without an understanding of these identities it is impossible for an outsider to fully understand the entities motives or goals. While I cannot exaggerate the importance of keeping intersectionality at the front of your mind regardless of who you are, when intersectionality becomes an impediment to progress, it must be seen as an impediment.

Let me clarify what sounds like a harsh perspective with an example. The site that I propose in my website will only being available so a relatively limited number of people. First, use of the site will require access to electricity and internet. Anyone who cannot afford internet access or transport to a place with access, they cannot receive the project’s benefit. Additionally, limits to my personal knowledge will keep the site only in English, and only in written text. This will prevent any non-English speaker, anyone who is illiterate, and any blind person from accessing the site without help from another person.

These limitations are substantial. It can be argued that my project does not help those suffering from learning and seeing disabilities, or those people who lack literacy. I would not contest any of those criticisms, but I will advocate for the project for years, regardless. The goal of universalizing internet access and electricity is a central focus of the UN and other international organizations. There are plenty of people who can translate a text and there are organizations working to make websites accessible to those who are illiterate of living with impaired sight. They can be brought in to the project at a later date, but immediate implementation of the project can help some people today. To ask one method to solve even one issue for every person limits any actor from enacting a new idea sometimes regardless of its strength. It is imperative that an actor create this website and the accompanying profiles quickly. Any member of any of the aforementioned stake-holding groups has a clear incentive to create the site. It is important to understand that whomever creates the site will have control the accreditation system and the site’s access costs. Each group will benefit from the site to some degree regardless of who creates it, but the creator of the site will be able to use their control to make it disproportionately beneficial to their interests. Intersectionality should be incorporated into every project as soon as possible, but total intersectionality should not stop good policy from helping people in need. Intersectionality

by

SDG Overview and the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF)

Week three was an interesting lesson in the sense that I developed a deeper understanding of the multifaceted goals that drive the SDGs. Originally in the year 2000, the United Nations Millennium Summit adopted eight Millennium Development Goals  (MDGs) that were intended to be accomplished by 2015 through the international coalition of governments and organizations. Some of these goals included, for example, “ to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” and to “combat HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other diseases” (un.org). Though the MDGs did target very severe and widespread issues in developing countries, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (or SDGs) (which are essentially a continuation of the MDGs after 2015) appear to be better suited towards combatting a wider variety of development issues towards a more expansive audience world-wide. For example, because there are 17 goals rather than just 8, the 17 SDGs (with 169 targets)  seem to have a greater emphasis on the inclusivity of sustainable development activities in the realm of international development, since the global community seeks to promote the productivity of all citizens –and their institutions– in order to promote more sustainable and impactful development in all human development sectors. Unlike the MDGs, the SDGs  included 7 explicit mentions to persons with disabilities, 5 mentions to persons in vulnerable situations, ans well as 2 mentions of the importance of non-discrimination (Kumar, Vivekadhish 1). I think this was a massive improvement in the way the global community views international development since on the international front, there appears to be a better understanding on the social ideals that must be met in order to promote more holistic and inclusive development solutions.

The High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development Goals, according to their website is the “ United Nation’s central platform for follow-up and review of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and sustainable development goals”. In 2017, the HLPF will be convening under the Economic and Social Council under the theme of “eradicating poverty and promoting prosperity in a changing world”. It appears that the HLPF is working towards improving the efficiency of the SDGs as there will be a review of SDGs 1,2,3,5,9, 14 and 17.

by

What is Development?: Theoretical and Conceptual Approaches

The concept of development to me, appears to be a relatively broad term that can be inclusive of multiple facets depending on what a person may believe to constitute as development. For example, according to the Center for Global Development, it seems that before Amartya Sen’s multifaceted approach towards international development, levels of income use to be the main indicator when measuring levels of development. Since Amartya Sen’s work in the 1980s, it has become much more common ground to look at a variety of “quality of life” indicators to determine a more holistic view of development levels within a community (such as access to quality healthcare and education). Furthermore, another fascinating concept introduced by Amartya Sen in his book, Development as Freedom, is essentially the potential of freedoms such as economic and political freedoms, to provide individuals with greater access to the commodities that will enable an improved quality of life through greater capabilities for economic and social mobilities. The ability for social and economic mobilization appears to be one of the key influences on reaching sustainable development solutions and the foundations for capacity building when working for community improvement in the long-term.

Furthermore, one important idea that I was able to take away from the book, Why Nations Fail, is the idea of man-made political and economic institutions having an effect on the capabilities of a citizen’s economic success. It was interesting to realize that the inclusivity of a government in providing individuals with the equal opportunity for success is potentially one of the main determining factors in the degree of mobility that citizens have the right to take advantage of.

Finally, I believe that in development discourse, an important component to keep in mind is the promotion of sustainability and resilience in development solutions. Resilience according to USAID, is “the ability of people, households, communities, countries, and systems to mitigate, adapt to, and recover from shocks and stresses in a manner that reduces chronic vulnerability and facilitates inclusive growth” (Building Resilience to Recurrent Crisis 5). The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 is a good example of the discourse used for development solution resilience. For example, one aspect involved in promoting long-term effective development projects is engaging with the communities themselves as a means of capacity-building,  to ensure that communities will be more equipped to manage disasters and be able to mitigate some of their the long-term negative effects (Sendai Framework 19).

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.