Female students from the University of Laos during a Library Week event on campus.
It’s not great to be young, said Chris Colfer, a 23-year-old American actor, singer, and author to Esquire magazine for their The Life of Man project.
It’s hard to disagree with Colfer. Youth are usually considered reckless, restless, and aimless. But in recent years things have changed. The change seemed more apparent last Sunday at the Social Good Summit, an annual event that celebrates technology and social action.
Alex Cobham and Andy Sumner bring us up to date on the techie-but-important debate over how to measure inequality
It’s about six months since we triggered a good wonk-tastic discussion here on Duncan’s blog on how to measure inequality. We proposed a new indicator and called it ‘the Palma’ after Chilean economist Gabriel Palma, on whose work it was based. We suggested the Palma would complement, or perhaps even replace the (in our view) less useful Gini index. Here we bring things up to date with a look at inequality in the post-2015 debate, and present some further findings on the relative merits of Gini and Palma, based on our new paper.
First, post-2015 and all that.
Last week the Center for Global Development held an event in Washington DC to discuss the best income inequality measures for post-2015, with both a technical panel (video) comparing alternative measures, including the median, the Palma, the Commitment to Equity indicator and a multidimensional approach.
There was also a ‘user’ panel (video) with wonks from the IADB, IMF, Oxfam, UNICEF and the World Bank, discussing the policy need and the scope for implementation. While panelists and other participants did not agree on the idea of a post-2015 inequality goal or target (surprise, surprise), there was near unanimity on the importance of measuring income inequality, and doing so better than we do now.
Do you believe that information & communication technologies and innovation can help end poverty in your country? Share your reflections and get your voice counted by policymakers and development professionals.
It is July 2012 and cattle farmers in Nicaragua are worried because Guatemala has enacted a series of laws that restrict beef trade. These so-called “non-tariff measures,” or NTMs, require that beef crossing the Guatemalan border meet stricter safety and labeling standards. The Guatemalan government argues that these measures protect the country’s consumers from health hazards. But the Nicaraguan farmers say they hurt business and unfairly shelter Guatemalan producers from competition.
This is just one example of the debates that arise in the food industry in Central America and elsewhere. While it is laudable and good policy for a government to use legitimate, non-trade related legislation to protect its citizens from certain risks, governments can also use these measures to protect domestic industry. Regardless of their intention, in an increasingly globalized, competitive world, non-tariff measures increase the cost of doing business, impact prices, affect the competitiveness of the private sector, and impact the overall welfare of the economy.
We could be the generation that puts an end to extreme poverty. This is a bold claim that often prompts raised eyebrows and murmurs of disbelief. But it is an idea that Save the Children, The World Bank, and others have been reiterating as we engage with the international process to define a new framework to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – a set of concrete human development targets that have united global efforts to fight poverty since 2002, and are set to expire in 2015.
But while ending extreme poverty is, of course, a laudable vision, is it a feasible proposition? Could we really be the generation that achieves it, finishing the job that the MDGs started?
Development economics has been rocked by three mini-revolutions in recent years. The materials, methods, and medium have all been transformed—making for what Michael Clemens and I call “the new transparency” in a new working paper, forthcoming in the journal World Economy. We use the controversy around the Millennium Villages Project (MVP) as a case study to explain what we mean.
A separate new book, The Idealist, by journalist Nina Munk, traces the trials and tribulations of the Millennium Villages. The account of the attempt to jump-start development in rural Africa has generated reviews in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The book jumps back and forth between a profile of Jeffrey Sachs, the project’s tireless promoter, and on-the-scene reporting at two Millennium Villages, which the author visited several times over six years. Munk’s narrative of good intentions stymied by the challenge of implementation makes for a gripping and heartbreaking read, particularly in the account of the site at Dertu, Kenya where ongoing drought overwhelmed the project’s efforts.
It seems that the mindset of my friends roughly reflects the views of youth worldwide. From Nepal to the United States, young people are increasingly mindful of how their behavior impacts the planet.
There is great diversity of needs among people with disabilities. Specific impairment may be linked to a physical, hearing, speech, visual or cognitive condition. And the reality is that almost everyone will face temporary or permanent disability at some point in life. This can be caused by a number of factors, ranging from disease, old age to accidents.
The World Bank Group (WBG) has established that its mission, endorsed by the governors of its client countries, is centered around the goals of sustainably ending extreme poverty and promoting shared prosperity. Extreme poverty is monitored by the percent of people living below the $1.25-a-day threshold. The Bank’s mission thus gives a clear message: Extreme poverty, hunger, destitution must come to an end.
To monitor progress in shared prosperity, the WBG will track the income growth of the bottom 40 percent of the population in each country. The clear signal the WBG wants to give is that the institutional mission is about reducing poverty, fostering growth and increasing equity, so we need to monitor what happens to welfare of the less well off in every country. Improving averages is not enough; a laser focus on those who are at the bottom of the distribution at all times, everywhere, is needed.
Mussarat Farida Begum runs a small teahouse in Garjon Bunia Bazaar, a rural community in Bangladesh. As part of a program which has helped Bangladesh reach more than 2 million low-income rural households and shops with electricity, she bought a solar home system for $457, initially paying $57, and borrowing the rest. She repays the loan in weekly installments with money she earns by keeping her now-lighted chai shop open after dark. Her business is booming and her family lives much more comfortably with their increased income. They now have electricity at home and their children can study at night.
Women like Mussarat are at the forefront of our efforts to secure development by tackling climate change. On the one hand, they are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of extreme events. But it is also women who can make a difference to change entrenched behaviors. It is their decisions as entrepreneurs, investors, consumers, farmers, and heads of households that can put our planet on a greener, more inclusive development trajectory.