Consider this: By the time you had breakfast this morning, the world’s urban population grew by some 15,000 people. This number will increase to 180,000 people by the end of the day and to 1.3 million by the end of the week. On a planet with such a vast amount of space, this pace of urbanization is like crowding all of humanity into a country the size of France.
Cities are where most of the world’s population lives, where more and more of population growth will occur, and where most poverty will soon be located.
But why do so many people choose cities? Poor people constantly pour into Rio de Janeiro and Nairobi and Mumbai in search of something better. The poorest people who come to cities from other places aren’t irrational or mistaken. They flock to urban areas because cities offer advantages they couldn’t find elsewhere. The poverty rate among recent arrivals to big cities is higher than the poverty rate of long-term residents, which suggests that, over time, city dwellers’ fortunes can improve considerably.
October 16 is World Food Day, a day when people come together to declare their commitment to eradicate hunger within a lifetime.
Many school-age children across the globe depend on school feeding programs for morning and mid-day meals. School feeding programs incentivize parents to keep children in school and provide students the essential nutrients to stay healthy and able to learn.
Social protection programs are essential to creating resilient communities that can withstand crises, but they are also difficult to implement. Improving preparedness is an important task going forward.
Over at the IDS blog, Stephen Devereux outlined ten steps to the design and implementation of a national social protection (SP) programme. It's a useful list for SP practitioners and local policymakers – a ten-point check-list; an useful starting point. I found interesting in particular, the point on ‘needs assessments’:
Needs assessment: A social protection system should not be an off-the-shelf blueprint, but must be grounded in local analysis of social protection needs, which can be derived from national poverty surveys and other secondary sources. Who are the poor and food insecure? What are the drivers of poverty and vulnerability? By comparing the needs assessment with the policy mapping, a gaps analysis can be conducted that will inform the development of the social protection strategy.
Determining who the deserving beneficiaries are, and the value (in cash and/or kind) of the transfers is critical. At the very least, this calls for a reasonably sophisticated statistical capacity in the countries designing these policies for themselves, which poses a significant challenge.
Mongolia’s current economic situation is characterized by a combination of falling commodity prices and slowing growth. This heightens the need for the country’s social welfare system to protect the poor and the vulnerable from the threatened fall in incomes.
To assess how well the system is performing, it is necessary to consider Mongolia’s spending on social welfare - whether it is directed towards poor and vulnerable households, and if the benefits provide effective and adequate protection.
Next week, UNESCO will convene the world’s educational leaders in Incheon to set the agenda for educational development over the next 15 years. Those who think that’s mainly an agenda for the developing world should read our new report Universal Basic Skills - What Countries Stand to Gain. The report shows the scale of the effort that is ahead even for many of the wealthiest nations to develop the essential skills that can transform lives, generate prosperity and promote social inclusion. And with a new global metric of the quality of learning outcomes, the report demonstrates that the world is no longer divided between rich and well-educated countries and poor and badly educated ones.
As many middle-income countries are moving towards embracing cash transfers with or without co-responsibilities attached (and the recent hype of handing cash directly to the poor), there is an important wave of programs that provide “cash plus” intervention.