Recovery with a Human Face
  • E-Discussion 2010-
  • About this e-discussion
  • Books
  • Recent Articles
  • Contact

Recovery with a Human Face

A discussion on alternatives for a socially-responsive crisis recovery
 

December 22nd, 2014

12/22/2014

 
Dear colleagues,

IMF policies restricting public spending in countries of West Africa led to the weakening of health care systems in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, which are currently struggling against Ebola, and may have contributed to the spread of the disease. Such is the claim made in an article, “The International Monetary Fund and the Ebola outbreak”, published by the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(14)70377-8/abstract

 The IMF denied the accusations in a statement it issued today:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2014/122214.htm

The BBC covered the Lancet report and the IMF’s response in its broadcasts today and has this item on its web site:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30575375

Peter Bakvis
ITUC/Global Unions – Washington Office
888 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 974-8120
E-mail: pbakvis@globalunions-us.org

December 19th, 2014

12/19/2014

 
Dear Esteemed Colleagues,

Please find below Third World Network's statement and input on the themes of multi-stakeholder partnerships, corporate accountability and public-private partnerships during the second informal discussion on the third UN Financing for Development conference.  

This session took place on 9-12 December at the UN headquarters in New York.

A second statement on trade and investment agreements was also submitted and delivered.  

Best regards,
Bhumika

Bhumika Muchhala 
Third World Network (TWN) - New York 
Email: bhumika@twnetwork.org and bhumika.muchhala@gmail.com 
Web: www.twn.my 

 _______________________________________

THIRD WORLD NETWORK

 
Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, Corporate Accountability and Public-Private Partnerships

In the context of the 3rd International Financing for Development Conference


In the context of the post-2015 development agenda, which includes the Financing for Development conference, the United Nations is witnessing the rise of a powerful multi-stakeholder partnerships paradigm.  This particular governance model, which embraces a voluntary (rather than legally binding) and responsibility-based (rather than commitment-based) “partnership” approach with the private sector, has been influencing the content and debates of the Rio+20 sustainable development conference, the Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals and currently, the Financing for Development process. 

This trend, which is in large part upheld by large Transnational Corporations and the governments invested in it, can be witnessed across almost every international institution in global governance, including the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and other multilateral and national development banks, as well as forums like the G20 and the World Economic Forum.

In the Sustainable Development Goals final text, partnerships are referred to in Goal 17, within targets 17.1 and 17.2 which are titled “multi-stakeholder partnerships.”  Both targets allude to only a bare bones formulation of what these partnerships will entail, such as “mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of sustainable development goals in all countries, particularly developing countries” and “encourage and promote effective public, public-private, and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of  partnerships.” There is virtually nothing with regard to accountability, oversight and governance over the said partnerships.

The UN must ensure that multi-stakeholder partnerships in the post-2015 context will be held accountable to delivering development results that are equitable and rights-based, aligned to national and local needs, and uphold an enabling international environment for development, as well as sustainable development, through an enhanced and strengthened global partnership for development.

In this spirit, multi-stakeholder partnerships should not replace the singular partnership which is articulated in both the Monterrey Consensus outcome document as well as in the Millennium Development Goals.  Indeed, the global partnership for development incorporates key elements under an international development cooperation framework that recognizes the critical importance of North-South cooperation and the global drivers and determinants that shape national policy space for development. 

Some key elements of a global partnership for development are:

  1. a development-oriented trade regime;
  2. facilitating external debt sustainability;
  3. regulating financial markets, including food and commodity price markets;
  4. affordable access to technology and medicines for developing countries;
  5. reforming the international monetary system; and,
  6. democratizing global economic governance, particularly in the international financial institutions.
The partnerships discourse in the Financing for Development conference must make due reference to the global partnership for development with a recognition that such a partnership is one that is principally between governments of developed and developing countries, with the developed countries taking the lead in providing resources and the means of implementation. It is imperative to re-capture the term with its original meaning and not allow it to be isolated only as partnerships with the private sector and other external stakeholders.

A.        Human Rights Council resolution for an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations

A historic and significant resolution to start a process for an international legally instrument on transnational corporations (TNCs) was adopted by the Human Rights Council in Geneva on 26 June 2014.  A result of mass mobilizations by civil society coalitions, the resolution A/HRC/26/L.22, “Elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on Transnational Corporations and other Business Enterprises with respect to Human Rights,” is a revival of previous efforts starting in the 1970s with discussions about a Code of Conduct for Transnational Corporations, and continuing into the late 1990s with the attempt to adopt the UN Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights.

All these efforts met with vigorous opposition from TNCs and their business associations, and thus all of the initiatives to hold corporations legally accountable ultimately failed. At the same time, many corporate actors have been successful in implementing public relations strategies that have helped to present business enterprises as good corporate citizens seeking dialogue with governments, the UN and decent concerned ‘stakeholders’, and able to implement environment, social and human rights standards through voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives.  The UN Global Compact and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights are prime examples of an allegedly pragmatic approach based on consensus, dialogue and partnership with the corporate sector.

The resolution adopted by the HRC in June was co-sponsored by Ecuador and South Africa, and also supported by Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela. In the vote on the resolution, 20 Members of the HRC supported the resolution, while 13 Members abstained, and 14 Members voted against it.  The delegation of Ecuador noted its conviction that the United Nations should continue to work on the issue of establishing binding international standards on the activities of TNCs. Ecuador’s statement underlined that the Guiding Principles are “not binding standards”, “are just a guide”, and thus “are not mandatory”.  

The delegation of South Africa noted that the government of South Africa holds a strong view that these entities, which are the primary drivers of globalization, cannot operate in a void. TNCs and other business enterprises often operate in an environment where appropriate national legislation to effectively regulate their operations, or mitigate the propensity for their violation of human rights, is either absent or very weak.

Experience shows that in countries of the North, where there are strong binding laws and regulations promulgated by national parliaments, the violations of human rights by corporations are significantly minimized. A universal regulatory framework in the form of a binding instrument to provide legal protections, effective remedies, as well as a range of other measures in quest for protections of victims, is desirable and imperative.

The future success and operationalisation of this treaty should be supported by the Financing for Development process here in New York.

B.        Key concerns with the partnerships governance model

  • The multi-stakeholder partnership model relies on the willingness of large corporations to report on their impact and voluntary commitments. This approach evades, or even subverts, the possibility of effective regulation of corporations by States, and instead reduces governments, especially in developing countries, to creators of an “enabling environment” for business (for example, through incentives and subsidies);
  •  
  • An imbalance is also established where States are the sole duty bearers to guarantee human rights in a vacuum where corporations have only a vague and voluntary responsibility.  This allows corporations to avoid sanctions for corporate abuses, which should be addressed by establishing a binding system of regulations, norms and a strong system of accountability for partnerships with private actors;
  •  
  • The promotion of voluntary corporate social responsibility initiatives ignores structural drivers of inequality and the need for redistributive policies in order to facilitate a genuine sustainable development trajectory;
  •  
  • There is a lack of clarity regarding the label “stakeholders” – which includes corporations and many “Non-Governmental Organisations” that represent corporate interests.  The very term “stakeholders” obscures the sharp power imbalances between various sectors and groups and the vast differences between their agendas.  It also promotes a depoliticized model of governance that negates the different interests and power structures inherent in the global economic system;
  •  
  • Armed by the investor-state dispute settlement clause in bilateral investment treaties as well as bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements, many multinational corporations have sued governments in closed-door arbitration tribunals for introducing or amending regulations and policies that reduce their profits or potential profits, even if state regulations are intended to secure economic and social rights and prevent environmental harm.  Multi-stakeholder partnerships in the Post-2015 development agenda needs to urgently address the threats posed by trade agreements and bilateral investment treaties to government regulations related to national development priorities, such as health and environment.
  •  
  • The role of transnational corporations vin the post-2015 agenda also needs to confront the controversial and much publicized issue of tax evasion and avoidance, including the use of offshore tax havens, transfer-mispricing and illicit financial flows from the South to the North.
 

C.        Some recommendations for a way forward

·         An intergovernmental governance framework for multi-stakeholder partnerships, rooted in the international human rights framework and existing obligations in all three dimensions of sustainable development (economic, social, environment).   

The central objective of the framework would be to ensureaccountability and ex-ante assessment of partnerships.  For this, there would need to be clear criterion, applied ex ante, to determine whether a specific private sector actor is fit for a partnership in pursuit of the post-2015 goals.  United Nations member states would be at the helm of formulating the framework, including the criterion, the oversight and monitoring process based on due diligence reporting and independent third-party evaluations.

As outlined in the statement of the Righting Finance Initiative, such criteria should examine, at the least:

1.      Whether the private actor has an evidence-based history or current status of abusing human rights or the environment, including in their cross-border activities;

2.      Whether the private actor has a proven track record (or the potential to) deliver on sustainable development, as articulated by the UN outcome by 2015;

3.      Whether the private actor has previous involvement in acts of corruption with government officials;

4.      Whether the private actor is fully transparent in its financial reporting and ensures that it is respecting existing tax responsibilities in all countries it operates, and not undermining sustainable development through tax avoidance; and,

5.      Implement a conflict of interest and public disclosure policy system-wide within the UN.  This would entail systematic impact assessments and independent evaluations of the UN’s relationships with businesses. 

One key objective would be to eliminate potential private donors whose activities are antithetical or contradictory to the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the SDG framework.

Such a framework could be situated within the High Level Political Forum (HLPF), which would re-structure the HLPF into a meaningful locus for accountability and governance in the post-2015 development agenda over the next 15 years.

The second key recommendation concerns the role of investors and corporations within the context of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism within trade and investment treaties.

·         The incorporation of partnerships in the third international Financing for Development conference must address the legal power of private investors and corporations ininvestor-state dispute settlement mechanisms under trade and investment treaties. 

While private investors and corporations have legally binding power over states, states currently only have recourse to voluntary and responsibility-based guidelines, such as the UN Business-Human Rights Guidelines, where all legally binding and accountable measures of governance over the private sector are precluded.

While several states have already taken measures to review their bilateral investment treaties in order to restore a balance in the role of foreign investors, more efforts are required.  Without a development-oriented regulatory framework and sustainable development national policies, the role of big corporations, whether in or out of partnerships, will not be a positive one.

D.        Concerns on Public-Private Partnerships

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) must not be endorsed at face value. Key concerns and risks must first be addressed through open and participatory intergovernmental discussion, not behind closed doors. Poorly designed PPPs can place disproportionate risks on the public partner and are less well suited to contribute to basic development needs that do not offer an economic return. 

Private sector financing is profit-oriented and not required to invest in social needs and global public goods. The public sector, whose crucial roles are to finance social needs towards poverty eradication and finance global public goods, thus remains the lynchpin of a global strategy for sustainable developmentfinancing. Private  finance is undeniably a part of the strategy, but should not be the core foundation.

Two central concerns of infrastructure-related PPPs are:

·         Costs and risks, particularly in the form of contingent explicit and implicit liabilities; and,

·         Socialization of costs while privatizing the benefits—thus exacerbating inequality in income and access to the very infrastructure services.

The developmental role of the state is critical.  This means that the state needs to be able to play a pro-active developmental role in the governance of the economy, the regulation of the market and in ensuring that economic growth creates decent work and translates into equality, opportunity and well-being through ensuring the economic and social rights of people, including women’s rights.

10 Recommendations on PPPs (particularly in infrastructure project financing):

(1)  Fiscal and public debt risks of PPPs are properly accounted for and placed under public scrutiny through mechanisms for participation and accountability;

(2)  Institutional and capacity pre-requirements for the success and effective functioning of PPPs should be in place before they are undertaken. Building competent and effective institutions for governance takes time and skills- training, which are often incompatible with the need to deliver quick public-private partnership deals;

(3)  Equity concerns should be addressed in distribution, access and affordability of infrastructure and services. Providing access alone has proven to be insufficient; it is equitable and affordable access that is an essential dimension to fight poverty;

(4)  Regulation and enforcement in infrastructure projects is necessary, particularly of laws, policies and safeguards to ensure the economic and social rights of people, including women’s rights, as well as environmental protection and sustainability.

Regulations include rules against tax evasion and tax loopholes.  For example, all firms involved should be required to disclose annual information related to taxes paid, profits made, sales, and information regarding beneficial ownership, including trusts, foundations and bank accounts.

(5)  Align private sector financing to developing countries investment and development priorities. Developing country ownership should be respected by aligning investments to national development strategies, including national industrial and agricultural policies and strategic priorities for scaling up the domestic private sector. A coherent framework that sets clear guidelines for alignment and ownership, and regular reporting on results have been recommended by many actors as a first step forward;

(6)  Make development outcomes the overriding criteria for project selection and evaluation. (One possible requirement could be that development outcomes are disclosed at the project, not the aggregate, level, which could improve accountability of public-private projects to affected communities);

(7)  Prioritise domestic MSMEs and companies over foreign companies. (This is essential for private investments to actually support the development of competitive and locally-owned private industry);

(8)  Compliance with international human, social and environmental standards. (Adherence to rights and standards must be ensured through regulatory systems and governance institutions, through third-party and independent monitoring, among other mechanisms);

(9)  Set higher standards for transparency of financial intermediary investments and review their use of investments. (Besides improved reporting by financial intermediaries to both governments and the public, criterion can be developed whereby public agencies only channel financing to intermediary institutions if the investment flows can be tracked and investigated); and,

(10) A broad range of financing forms from the public to the private exists, including a diversity of forms of association and partnership that are available for building and financing infrastructure. These various financing forms should be openly discussedwith the participation of affected communities and groups, where their distributional consequences are debated in transparent and open ways.+

December 12th, 2014

12/12/2014

 
Dear friends,

In 2014, the Ebola epidemic forced the world to recognize the urgent need to invest in public health. But this latest crisis is by no means new.  For decades, since the era of structural adjustment in the 1980s, orthodox fiscal policies have kept public health severely underfunded.  As a result, many national health systems could not properly develop in middle and low-income countries. Efforts to palliate the situation with quick fixes like small vertical programmes (e.g. immunization) have been insufficient to meet the health needs of populations. In many countries, health services were commercialized, and high private health expenditures and out-of-pocket payments became main causes of impoverishment and ultimately a lack of access to health care. Countries need investments in universal public health systems.

For the Universal Health Coverage Day next 12 December, we have released a new report: Addressing the Global Health Crisis: Universal Health Protection Policies
http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---soc_sec/documents/publication/wcms_325647.pdf

This policy paper: (i) examines the dimensions of the global health crisis based on severe deficits in health protection and limited access to health care; (ii) presents the extent of the health crisis at global, regional and national level as well as rural/urban divergences within countries and their root causes; (iii) suggests policy options to address the health protection crisis using the framework of national  social protection floors by focusing on inclusive legislation, adequate financing as well as making quality services available and providing financial protection; (iv) concludes that progressing towards universal health protection is possible by developing a three step approach that yields highest rates of returns in terms of sustainability, economic growth and equity. The Annexes present global data on total health expenditure, health coverage and skilled health workers for 171 countries.

Below a more descriptive summary, the press release:
http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_326227/lang--en/index.htm

Global health protection crisis leaves almost 40 per cent of the world’s population without any coverage New ILO study reveals large health coverage gaps, including in West African countries, where 80 per cent have no coverage.

GENEVA (ILO News) – An ILO study shows that 80 per cent of the population across 44 countries are without any health protection and are therefore deprived of the right to health. These countries include Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea and Sierra Leone. Globally, some 40 per cent of the population is excluded from social protection in health. 

The study “Addressing the Global Health Crisis: Universal Health Protection Policies ” says that similar major gaps also exist in Asia. In India, for example, more than 80 per cent of people lack health protection coverage. Other countries showing substantial coverage gaps include Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Haiti, Honduras, and Nepal. 

The report was issued to coincide with the Universal Health Coverage Day, which is observed on 12 December.

“Universal health protection is key to fighting poverty, reducing inequity and nurturing economic growth. Sustainable development with decent jobs for all requires investment in health protection – these linkages cannot be ignored in policy development,” said ILO Director-General Guy Ryder ahead of the universal day.

Barriers to health coverage

The ILO study points to high impoverishment due to private health spending as a barrier for accessing health care. In many countries, such as Sierra Leone, 75 per cent of total health expenditure comes from private resources in the form of out-of-pocket payments, which has led to deep impoverishment.

The extent of impoverishing out-of-pocket payments in a country increases with the level of the population living below the poverty line. “Thus, it is the poorest with the highest needs who suffer the most from having to pay out-of-pocket healthcare expenses,” explained Xenia Scheil-Adlung, Health Policy Coordinator at the ILO. 

Another major factor leading to the global health crisis concerns the shortage of health workers, who are often poorly paid. Globally, the ILO estimates that 10.3 million additional health workers are needed to close the current gaps and ensure the delivery of universal health care. In countries such as Haiti, Niger, Senegal and Sierra Leone, as many as 10,000 people have to rely on services provided by five or fewer health workers, whereas in a high-income country like Finland there are 269 health workers available for 10,000 people.

Rural areas most neglected

The study shows that 56 per cent of the global population living in rural areas do not have health protection coverage, compared to 22 per cent of the urban population.

“For decades, public health systems were underfunded and could not properly develop in middle and low income countries. Quick fixes like small vertical programmes – for example, immunization -- are insufficient. Countries need investments in universal health systems,” said Isabel Ortiz, Director of the ILO Social Protection Department. 

The highest inequities and disparities in coverage between rural and urban areas were found in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. 

Rural populations are also most affected by the lack of health workers. Seven million out of the total 10.3 million health workers who are missing globally are needed in these areas.

Overcoming the crisis

Since 2010, fiscal consolidation policies have stalled or even reversed steps towards universal health coverage by increasing the financial burden on private households, cutting back health services and cutting/capping wages of the health workforce. 

The study explains that overcoming the current global health crisis requires a policy shift towards universal health protection and points to ILO Recommendation 202 concerning national floors of social protection  as a useful tool for achieving that goal.

Investment in health systems leads to sustained economic growth, increased productivity and wellbeing for populations, a reason why countries like Benin, Gabon, China, the Philippines or the United States have expanded health coverage in recent years. In Thailand, the introduction of universal health protection has led to economic gains of as much as 1.2 times the original investment.

The ILO study  shows that irrespective of a country’s level of income, it is possible to move towards universal health protection. A precondition for such a move is that countries are committed to fully implementing rights to health, minimizing impoverishing out-of-pocket payments and ensuring sufficient numbers of skilled, decently paid health workers.

Isabel Ortiz
Director Social Protection
International Labour Organization (ILO)
4 Route des Morillons
CH-1211 Geneva 22 Switzerland
Tel. +41.22.799.6226; ortizi@ilo.org
Visit www.social-protection.org  

December 08th, 2014

12/8/2014

0 Comments

 
Dear colleagues,

The need to increase investment in infrastructure is rapidly emerging as a key priority in international financial bodies and institutions, such as the Group of 20, and calculations place developing countries infrastructure spending needs in the range of the hundreds of billions.

While the scale of interventions needed seems to inevitably call for greater involvement of so far untapped financial market sources of funding (e.g. mutual funds, pension funds), working with institutional financiers may carry equal or even greater risks to public finance and its equitable distribution as publicly-funded projects do. The potential of the contractual arrangements required to effect financial firms’ funding to transfer risks to the taxpayers and consumers in the host countries calls for caution. In fact, because of the inherent complexity of such negotiations and agreements and loopholes that allow them to skip budget processes, accountability and monitoring face additional challenges.

In a chapter contributed to a recently-published book, RBW Project Director, Aldo Caliari, focuses on the governance safeguards needed to ensure infrastructure finance is done in ways that do not worsen inequality and protects consumers and taxpayers in host countries. Addressing the fiscal and debt risks of relying on institutional investors to finance infrastructure, he argues for strong checks and balances to ensure a fair distribution of risks and protection of the poorest and most vulnerable.

The book, “Infrastructure: for people or for profit? The crucial role of responsible and democratic governance,” was recently published by the Heinrich Boell Foundation and the Latin American Network on Debt, Development and Rights. It includes perspectives by think tank, civil society and grassroots movements representatives from all parts of the world.

In a prologue to the book, former Colombia Finance Minister and UN Under Secretary General Jose Antonio Ocampo said “The analyses and case studies in this publication . . . remind us that it will be essential to have laws and regulations that implement principles of responsible investment in infrastructure (including in the areas of human rights, gender, environment). These laws and regulations should help realize the commitment to democratic, participatory and accountable governance.”

Download book.

Aldo Caliari
Director
Rethinking Bretton Woods Project
Center of Concern

0 Comments

December 05th, 2014

12/5/2014

 
Dear friends

Today ILO released the Global Wage Report 2014/15. It presents both the latest trends in average wages and an analysis of the role of wages in income inequality.
http://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/global-wage-report/2014/lang--en/index.htm?shared_from=media-mail

This ILO flagship report was produced by a large team of world experts under the direction of Philippe Marcadent, Patrick Belser, Kristen Sobeck and ultimately Sandra Polaski, ILO's Deputy Director General.  The  focus on inequality will make it interesting for many.

In most countries, the distribution of wages and paid employment has been a key factor in recent inequality trends.  In developed economies where inequality increased most, this was frequently due to a combination of more wage inequality and job losses. In Spain and the United States, the two countries where this inequality between the top and bottom 10 per cent increased most, changes in the distribution of wages and job losses accounted for 90 per cent of the increase in inequality in Spain and 140 per cent of the increase in the United States. In developed countries where household income inequality increased, other income sources offset about one-third of the increase in inequality due to changes in wages and employment. A number of emerging and developing economies experienced declines in inequality. In these countries, a more equitable distribution of wages and paid employment was a predominant factor. In Argentina and Brazil, where inequality fell most, changes in the distribution of wages and paid employment accounted for 87 per cent of the decade-long reduction in top–bottom inequality in Argentina, as they did for 72 per cent in Brazil.

The growing gap between wages and productivity has translated into a declining share of GDP going to labour while an increasing share goes to capital, especially in developed economies. This trend means that workers and their households are getting a smaller share of economic growth while the owners of capital are benefitting more.

This highlights the importance of labour market institutions and policies – including minimum wages and collective bargaining – that have an effect on income distribution. They should be combined with other measures to reduce inquality, such as fiscal redistribution through taxes and social protection systems.

Coordinated strategies are also needed at the international level, given that many countries try to increase exports by repressing wages or reducing social benefits. Stagnant wage growth lowers demand, holds down economic growth, and increases the risk of deflation.

ILO: Wage Growth Remains Below Pre-Crisis Level  

The International Labor Organization's newest research shows real wage growth in developed economies is flat and global wage growth is mainly due to emerging economies.

The report says global wage growth is one percent below the 3 percent rate experienced before the global economic crisis of 2008.  It says wage growth has slowed to nearly zero in the developed economies in the last two years.  

In contrast, emerging economies, like China and other Asian nations, are seeing wages grow by 6 percent.  Eastern Europe and Central Asia did almost as well.

Despite this progress, the ILO report says rich nation wages are still about three times higher than in the poorer countries.  It says workers in developed countries earn on average $3,000 a month compared to $1,000 a month in developing nations.

ILO’s Deputy Director-General for Policy, Sandra Polaski, says wages affect inequality differently in different economies.

“The report shows that in many countries, wages represent the largest source of income for households with at least one member of working age.  In developed economies, wages account for about 60 to 80 percent of total income before households pay taxes.  In emerging and developing economies, wages are about 30 to 60 percent of total household income.  This reflects the fact that self-employment is more significant in most developing and emerging economies and more significant share of total income of households," said Polaski.

In most nations with growing inequality, such as in the United States and Spain, the report says changes in wages and employment are the dominant factors.  And, the converse is true.  The report says in countries such as Brazil, Argentina and Russia, wages and increased employment have been a driving force in reducing inequality.

The ILO believes minimum wage policies can play a strong role in addressing poverty and inequality.  Polaski disagrees with conservative critics who say higher minimum wages mean fewer jobs.

“What the evidence shows is that increases in minimum wages in the order of magnitude that we actually see, whether in the U.S. or in other economies, in fact do not have that negative effect on employment," she said. "Instead, employers find ways of making up through increases in productivity, better work organization, etc., find ways of making up the added cost on the wage side to be able to maintain their cost structure at an acceptable level."

The International Labor Organization says the weakening of collective bargaining in many countries has eroded wages.  The report says labor productivity continues to outstrip wage growth in developed economies.   As a consequence, it says workers and their households are benefiting less from economic growth while the owners of capital are benefiting more.

A survey of 38 countries shows the wage gap between women and men not only persists, but widens as women move up on the pay scale ladder. It says women continue to earn less because of discrimination though their education and experience may be the same as that of men.

From VOA: http://www.voanews.com/content/ilo-wage-growth-remains-below-pre-crisis-level/2546706.html

December 03rd, 2014

12/3/2014

 
The World Bank today issued the 2015 edition of its major policy research publication, the World Development Report (WDR), whose theme this year is “Mind, Society and Behavior”. The report claims that it “suggests ways of diagnosing and solving the psychological and social factors that influence development”.

An overview of the WDR 2015 is available here in seven languages, along with a link to the full 236-page report in English:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2015

Also today, the IMF published the December 2014 issue of its quarterly magazine “Finance & Development”, the main theme of which is “The Fight for Global Health”. This is the web link to the electronic version in English (other language versions – Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, Spanish – will be produced later):
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/12/index.htm

Peter Bakvis
ITUC/Global Unions – Washington Office
888 16th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 974-8120
E-mail: pbakvis@globalunions-us.org

December 02nd, 2014

12/2/2014

 
Dear Friends

UNCTAD's Least Developed Countries Report, 2014 was published last week. The complete Report can be found at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ldc2014_en.pdf, and the Overview at http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ldc2014overview_en.pdf. A brief summary of the Report's findings is below.

David Woodward
Senior Adviser, Division for Africa, Least Developed Countries and Special Programmes, UNCTAD

Least Developed Countries Report, 2014: Growth with Structural Transformation - a Post-2015 Agenda

The least developed countries (LDCs) are the battleground where the sustainable development goals (SDGs) will be won or lost. Global poverty was halved under the MDGs with a much smaller reduction in LDCs; but eradicating poverty means reducing it to zero everywhere, and it is in the LDCs that this will be most challenging.
 
To be successful, the Post-2015 Agenda must therefore learn from the "LDC paradox" - the failure of most LDCs to meet most of MDG targets, despite record economic growth since 2000. There are two reasons for this:

·        the failure of the international community to implement the global partnership for development foreseen in MDG 8; and

·        the inability of LDCs to translate economic growth into structural transformation of their economies and high-quality jobs.
 
Meeting the SDGs will require LDCs to go beyond economic growth - to complete a virtuous circle of sustainable economic and human development, by creating productive and remunerative employment to translate increased productive potential into incomes for poverty reduction and public revenues for essential public services. This requires structural transformation, combining increases in labour productivity within sectors, with a progressive shift of labour from low-productivity to high-productivity sectors and activities.  Without this, progress towards the SDGs will be inadequate and unsustainable.
 
To this end LDCR 2014 proposes a post-2015 development agenda for the LDCs. Based on the experiences of development success stories, the Report advocates development strategies based on

·        pragmatism, adapting policies and instruments to national circumstances and priorities;

·        a holistic approach, all policies forming part of a coherent overall vision;

·        gradual and strategic integration into the global economy;

·        a strong emphasis on rural development and rural economic diversification; and

·        plurality of financing, strategically combining public and private and domestic and foreign sources.
 
Domestically, LDCs should focus on:

·        resource mobilization, taking a strategic and selective approach to domestic and foreign investment, according to their particular advantages and disadvantages, and maximizing the development impact of ODA through labour-intensive methods and local procurement in infrastructure investment;

·        industrial policies on a dual track, not only developing sectors of current comparative advantage but also anticipating and promoting changes in comparative advantage, and encouraging innovation and enterprise - not "picking winners" but "picking possibles" and maximizing learning from commercial failures; and

·        supportive macroeconomic policies, ensuring credit for productive investment and strong and steady demand growth rather than over-emphasising inflation control.
 
Rural development is fundamental both to structural transformation and to poverty eradication, and can be promoted by exploiting the strong complementarities between agricultural upgrading and rural economic diversification. Rural electrification, taking advantage of the potential of small-scale renewable energy technologies, can be a major engine of rural development on the supply side, as can labour-intensive infrastructure investment on the demand side.
 
Achieving the SDGs will also require international measures as ambitious as the goals themselves, in terms of the quantity and quality of aid , trade, finance and technology transfers, to ensure a global economic environment conducive to LDCs' development, as well as a prompt, effective and equitable global response to climate change. Such measures should be included in the SDGs, and the international community should make a firm commitment to their implementation.

    This e-discussion is ongoing by email Apologies if late updates on this website...


    Moderator    

    Isabel Ortiz
    Director Social Protection ILO

    Picture
    Follow on Twitter 
    To join this e-discussion, send an email to: sympa@socpro.list.ilo.org
    with SUBSCRIBE recoveryhumanface in the subject 

    Archives

    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013

    Categories

    All


    This e-discussion is intended to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and to
    stimulate discussion; 
    the interpretations and p    ositions expressed by contributors do not reflect the policies of ILO. 

    “We, the Peoples” are the first words of the UN Charter. The UN was founded in 1945 and
    mandated to respond to the needs and rights of all persons, in every country of the world. In this spirit of social justice, a real world recovery means a recovery for all
    persons, not simply the recovery of a few economic indicators and
    companies.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.