I am often asked how “we” – development professionals and practitioners at large - can make a difference to social exclusion. It is an opportune day to reflect on this by thinking about a diverse group of historically excluded people. The focus of today’s International Day of Persons with Disabilities is appropriately on “Sustainable Development: The Promise of Technology.” Because the power of technology in rehabilitation and hence, for inclusion, is uncontested. Let me quickly add that technology is a necessary, but by no means a sufficient condition for enhancing the functional ability of persons with disabilities.
Technology attenuates many barriers that disability raises. It has changed the way persons with disabilities live, work and study. The seminal World Report on Disability emphasizes the role of technology for the inclusion of persons with disabilities in markets, in services and in physical, political and social spaces. It points out for instance, that assistive devices can substitute or supplement support services, possibly even reduce care costs. The National Long-Term Care Survey in the United States found that higher use of technology was associated with lower reported disability among older people. The fascinating Digital Accessible Information SYstem (DAISY) consortium of talking-book libraries aims to make all published information accessible to people with print-reading disabilities. And the examples could go on.
- International Day of Persons with Disabilities
- Social Development
- Information and Communication Technologies
- Middle East and North Africa
- Latin America & Caribbean
- Europe and Central Asia
- East Asia and Pacific
- South Asia
- The World Region
- Sri Lanka
At 23, starting graduate school for international relations, the prospect of taking economics frightened me. Having just spent my college career as a history major that marched for peace probably had something to do with it. There was also that time in 4th grade when I got a D in math, but we won’t go there.
Anyway, it was a very nice surprise when I found that the math and logic of economics made sense to me. I was proud of myself for “getting it.” And of course, for starting my own subscription to the Financial Times. Ah, the conspicuous consumption patterns of a newly-minted student of economics.
Roger Myerson, eminent theorist and winner of the Nobel in economics, brought his abiding interest in democratic decentralization and development to the World Bank recently. He was hosted by the Development Economics Vice Presidency as a visiting fellow and spent three weeks here writing, thinking and meeting with staff from the Global Practice groups, from the Research Group, and from the East Asia region.
As his main output, Professor Myerson wrote a paper titled ‘Local Foundations for Better Governance: A review of Ghazala Mansuri and Vijayendra Rao’s Localizing Development’. He presented highlights from the paper to a diverse group of Bank staff on November 13. The paper reflects on the theory and evidence for development strategies that are based on local community empowerment; it stresses that a key to viable democratic development in a nation is to increase the supply of leaders with good reputations for using public resources responsibly.
Sweety, Liza, Asad, Zulfikar and many others like them had a common dream – to have good careers and let their families have a better life. Realization of that dream should have been simple – incomes that matched their accumulation of skills and years of job experience. They however, found this hard to achieve because they did not have accreditation that could assure prospective employers that they could actually deliver. What was needed – for both sides in the employee-employer relationship – was a mechanism to open the pathway to professional empowerment. That mechanism came about in the form of the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) policy of the Government of Bangladesh. Sweety, Liza, Asad and Zulfikar can now proclaim to the world – openly and without reservation – that they possess skills and expertise certified by the Bangladesh Technical Education Board (BTEB).
Most countries in the world measure their poverty using an absolute threshold, or in other words, a fixed standard of what households should be able to count on in order to meet their basic needs. A few countries, however, have chosen to measure their poverty using a relative threshold, that is, a cutoff point in relation to the overall distribution of income or consumption in a country.
The chart above shows the differences between relative and absolute poverty headcount ratios for countries that have measured both. You can select other countries from the drop down list, but for example, you can see that Romania switched from measuring poverty in absolute terms to measuring poverty in relative terms in 2006. Absolute poverty headcount ratios steadily declined from 35.9% in 2000 to 13.8% in 2006. However, by relative measures, the national poverty headcount ratio in 2006 was 24.8%. This does not mean that poverty bumped up in 2006. These two numbers are simply not comparable, but what exactly do they both mean?
On November 12th in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh, twelve women who had received tubal ligations died. The tragic incident highlights the unfortunate reality that for many people around the world, hospitals and clinics may not satisfy the most basic assumption that visiting them will make you better. Equally worrying is the Indian government’s singular focus on increasing ‘institutional deliveries’ and family planning that led it to celebrate a surgeon who had performed 100,000 sterilizations, now spending no more than 4 minutes on each “case”.
- Urban Development
- Social Development
- Private Sector Development
- Labor and Social Protection
- Global Economy
- Climate Change
- Agriculture and Rural Development
- East Asia and Pacific
- South Asia
- Sri Lanka
While the world has seen a rapid reduction in extreme poverty in recent decades, the goal of ‘ending poverty’ by 2030 remains ambitious. The latest estimates show that 1 billion people (14.5% of the world’s population) lived below the $1.25 threshold in 2011. Projections until 2030 suggest that even under optimistic growth scenarios, the global poverty target may not be reached. The latest World Bank estimates show that if developing countries were to grow at the (rather unprecedentedly high) rates they achieved during the 2000’s the global poverty headcount could decline from 14.5% in 2011 to 4.9% in 2030 – short of ‘ending poverty’. These projections assume distribution-neutral growth – that every individual’s income within each country grows at the same rate, essentially keeping inequality unchanged. As in the past, overall growth will be an important driver of future poverty reduction, but the inclusiveness of growth will also matter.