Thursday, 13 March 2014

Globalization, Global Governance and the Social Determinants of Health: A review of the linkages and agenda for action

This is an old report of a knowledge network part of the WHO commission.  However, in light of the recent report of the Oslo-Lancet Commission on Global Governance for Health, I think it is still a very good resource on the whole concept of global governance.

Globalization, Global Governance and the Social Determinants of Health:
A review of the linkages and agenda for action

WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health


As processes of globalization have accelerated in recent decades, there have been widespread ef- forts to develop appropriate forms of governance to deal effectively with emerging worldwide challenges. This paper reviews the existing evidence concerning the impacts of global governance on the social deter- minants of health (SDH). First, it documents the tran- sition taking place towards global governance related to the SDH in terms of institutional actors, and their relative roles, power and authority. Second, it assesses how emerging forms of global governance may be in- fluencing the SDH. How might various institutions, and the distribution and use of power and authority among them, affect the SDH? Third, this paper assess- es the quality of emerging forms of global governance against recognized “good governance” criteria. Fourth, it identifies how global governance can play a transfor- mational role in addressing the SDH.


Tuesday, 4 March 2014

IMF study finds inequality is damaging to economic growth

Find the original posting on Guardian website here.

Find the IMF discussion paper 'Redistribution, Inequality and Growth' here 


IMF study finds inequality is damaging to economic growth

International Monetary Fund paper dismisses rightwing argument that redistributing incomes is self-defeating
Economist Joseph Stiglitz
The IMF research backs Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz’s view that inequality is a drag on growth. Photograph: Murdo Macleod
The International Monetary Fund has backed economists who argue that inequality is a drag on growth in a discussion paper that has also dismissed rightwing theories that efforts to redistribute incomes are self-defeating.
The Washington-based organisation, which advises governments on sustainable growth, said countries with high levels of inequality suffered lower growth than nations that distributed incomes more evenly.
Backing analysis by the Keynesian economist and Nobel prizewinner Joseph Stiglitz, it warned that inequality can also make growth more volatile and create the unstable conditions for a sudden slowdown in GDP growth.
And in what is likely to be viewed as its most controversial conclusion, the IMF said analysis of various efforts to redistribute incomes showed they had a neutral effect on GDP growth. This last point is expected to dismay rightwing politicians who argue that overcoming inequality robs the rich of incentives to invest and the poor of incentives to work and is counter-productive.
The paper, written by Jonathan Ostry, the deputy head of the IMF's research department, and the economists Andrew Berg and Charalambos Tsangarides, comes after several years of heated debate over the path that developed and developing countries' economies have taken since the financial crash and whether their recoveries are sustainable.
Anti-poverty charity Oxfam welcomed the report, saying it shows "extreme inequality is damaging not only because it is morally unacceptable, but it's bad economics".
It added: "The IMF has debunked the old myth that redistribution is bad for growth and demolished the case for austerity. That redistribution efforts -essential to fight inequality- are good for growth is a welcome finding. Low tax and low public spending are clearly not the route to prosperity."
It is 18 months since the IMF published its controversial view that government cuts to public-sector spending were having a larger detrimental effect than previously thought. The paper, written by its chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, was incendiary and sparked denials in London and Brussels where calls for austerity were strongest.
Heated debate over Blanchard's analysis has continued ever since, with many economists claiming that assumptions used in the critique were flawed.
The authors of this latest report can expect the same backlash, especially in the US where the Tea Party has defended tax cuts for wealthy individuals and studies show most of the country's income growth since the crash has gone to the richest 1%.
Last year the UK's coalition government cut tax on incomes over £150,000 from 50p to 45p after a debate over the negative effects on growth of high taxes on wealthy individuals.
The French president, François Hollande, has come under severe criticism for raising the tax on incomes above €1m to 75% from business groups that claim it will hit GDP and discourage wealthy investors from staying in France.
The report's authors said the study, which excluded so-called market interference such as banker bonus caps and increases in welfare spending, showed the largest redistributions of income had negative effects on growth, but were offset by the benefits of lower inequality.
"We find that higher inequality seems to lower growth. Redistribution, in contrast, has a tiny and statistically insignificant (slightly negative) effect."
They said the traditional view that efforts to redistribute incomes would have a corresponding and most likely detrimental effect on growth was unfounded.
"Rather than a trade-off, the average result across the sample is a win-win situation, in which redistribution has an overall pro-growth effect, counting both potential negative direct effects and positive effects of the resulting lower inequality," they said.
In an interview later Ostry said it was his belief that the inclusion of higher welfare payments would only support the argument in favour of redistribution.


Monday, 3 March 2014

Mental Disability, International Human Rights and the Capabilities Approach (Seminar, London, 2nd April 2014)

Mental Disability, International Human Rights and the Capabilities Approach: Searching for the Foundations

The Dickson Poon School of Law and the Institute of Pyschiatry

Wednesday, 2 April 2014 from 16:00 to 18:00 (BST)

London, United Kingdom



Date: Wednesday, 2 April 2014
Time: 16.00-18.00
Place: Strand Campus, Moot Court, Dickson Poon School of Law, London, SW1.18
Organisers: The Dickson Poon School of Law and the Institute of Psychiatry, as part of the Psychiatry/Law Seminar Series
The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is being increasingly emphasised by the WHO and other international organisations. This seminar will consider some of the fundamental issues raised by the Convention, particularly in the context of global mental health.
‘The Capabilities Approach and Health’, by Dr Sridhar Venkatapuram, Lecturer in Global Health and Philosophy, Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine.
Response by Professor Ricardo Araya, Professor of Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Centre for Global Mental Health.
Chair, Professor Genevra Richardson, Professor of Law, Dickson Poon School of Law.
 Please sign up via this link so that we have some idea of numbers.

Tuesday, 11 February 2014

Lancet Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health Report

Find the articles on theLancet.com here.


The Lancet—University of Oslo Commission on Global Governance for Health

The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change

Published February 11, 2014

Executive summary

Despite large gains in health over the past few decades, the distribution of health risks worldwide remains extremely and unacceptably uneven. Although the health sector has a crucial role in addressing health inequalities, its efforts often come into conflict with powerful global actors in pursuit of other interests such as protection of national security, safeguarding of sovereignty, or economic goals. This report examines power disparities and dynamics across a range of policy areas that affect health and that require improved global governance: economic crises and austerity measures, knowledge and intellectual property, foreign investment treaties, food security, transnational corporate activity, irregular migration, and violent conflict.

Comment

Protecting health: the global challenge for capitalism

Full Text | PDF

The political origins of health inequity: the perspective of the Youth Commission on Global Governance for Health

Full Text | PDF

The Lancet Commission

The political origins of health inequity: prospects for change

Full Text | PDF

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

2014 DEVEX CAREER FORUM

2014 DEVEX CAREER FORUM

MARCH 28 @ 1:00 PM - 6:00 PM

 | $49
Now in its sixth year, the Devex Career Forum will offer global development professionals the opportunity to network with recruiters from 60 of the world’s leading development agencies, as well as gain practical advice for their personal career development. This year we will have additional breakout sessions on everything from how to create a recruiter-ready CV to what trends are likely to impact development hiring in 2014.
You must apply to attend the Devex Career Forum. Applications are reviewed on a rolling basis, and we strongly encourage you to apply for a spot early before we reach capacity. 

Thursday, 23 January 2014

Fellowships for researching in the UK

Call for applications to Newton International Fellowships

A new round of Newton International Fellowships - an initiative to fund research collaborations and improve links between UK and overseas researchers - has now opened. The Newton International Fellowships are funded by the British Academy and the Royal Society and aim to attract the most promising early-career post-doctoral researchers from overseas in the fields of the humanities, the natural, physical and social sciences.

The Fellowships enable researchers to work for two years at a UK research institution with the aim of fostering long-term international collaborations. Newton Fellows will receive an allowance of £24,000 to cover subsistence and up to £8,000 to cover research expenses in each year of the Fellowship. A one-off relocation allowance of up to £2,000 is also available. In addition, Newton Fellows may be eligible for follow-up funding of up to £6,000 per annum for up to 10 years following completion of the Fellowship to support activities which will help build long-term links with the UK. The scheme is open to post-doctoral (and equivalent) early-career researchers working outside the UK who do not hold UK citizenship.

Applications are to be made via the Royal Society’s online application system which is available at
https://e-gap.royalsociety.org/ register through the online booking system by Friday 22 November.



The closing date for applications is Monday 10 March 2014. Further details are available from the Newton International Fellowships website: www.newtonfellowships.org

high interest loans being counted as foreign aid by European countries

find the original article here

 

European donors 'profiting from aid budgets' with high-interest loans

European Network on Debt and Development blames problem on ambiguous international rules and calls for urgent reform
Claire Provost  theguardian.com, Thursday 16 January 2014 18.17 GMT
European donors have been accused of profiting from their aid budgets, as an increasing amount of their money for the world's poorest countries is being given as loans – which have to be paid back with interest.
As budgets tighten, some EU states are using "ambiguous and outdated" international rules on what can count as official development assistance (ODA) to include high-interest loans to developing countries in their annual aid figures, said the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad).
Jeroen Kwakkenbos, policy and advocacy officer at Eurodad, said the rules needed urgent reform to prevent donors from counting loans with "usurious" conditions as aid. "Some European governments are interpreting vague aid rules as a licence to scale up profit-making loans under the guise of development co-operation," he said.
In a report published on Thursday, Eurodad said developing countries face interest payments of almost €600m (£499.8m) a year on these loans to Europe. Demanding developing countries spend large amounts of money repaying loans can reduce resources for health and education for desperately poor people, it warned.
The development assistance committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of rich countries defines what spending can count as ODA and publishes detailed statistics on its members aid. Loans are eligible to count as ODA if they are deemed "concessional in character" and include a grant element of at least 25%.
But Eurodad said the way concessionality was assessed allows donors to count high-interest loans as aid. The rules are "confusing and open to abuse", its report says, creating a situation where donors can borrow money on bond markets, lend it to developing countries at higher interest rates, and still count it as aid despite the fact that a profit is made.
Eurodad said the OECD must update its metrics to reflect today's context of low interest rates and use a more relevent reference rate, instead of the current 10%, to prevent donors from counting hard loans as aid.
With access to finance at low interest rates, donors can lend as ODA without any public subsidy, said Kwakkenbos. "This is seriously damaging the credibility of donor development co-operation," he argued.
Eurodad said "lax reporting" rules must also be overhauled to deduct interest payments from aid figures and only report the "grant element" of a loan as aid. The current reporting system creates a "distorted picture of donors' efforts", it said, by including interest payments as a footnoteand counting the entire value of a loan as aid regardless of whether its grant element is 26% or 99%.
The rules on ODA loans have come under heated criticism in recent years. Last year, former chairman of the DAC, Richard Manning, attacked the OECD's metrics for allowing loans with high-interest rates to count as aid. In a strongly worded letter to the Financial Times, he said the current rules are "encouraging finance ministries to get away with murder as they seek to massage reported aid upwards at minimum cost".
Kwakkenbos acknowledged that there are times when loans may be appropriate but the rules around ODA loans must be reformed. Lending should be allowed only when it can have a positive impact on development, he said. "We don't want a situation where donors are incentivised to give loans where grants are preferable."
Rich countries have doubled the amount of aid money they give as loans over the past decade reaching $16bn in 2011, while aid loans from multilateral development banks amounted to $42bn – twice as high as in 1995.
The UK deals in grants, although there have been discussions in recent months about whether to move into loans as well.
Eurodad warns the shift to loans could threaten the successes of debt relief initiatives over the past decade. "Lessons need to be drawn from the past on how careless lending and borrowing has caused numerous debt crises in developing countries since the 1980s," the report says.
In 2012 alone, developing countries paid €590m to Europe in interest on loans counted as aid, with three donors receiving 91% of this: France (€120m), Germany (€174m) and EU institutions (€248m).
Eurodad's report comes before a meeting in Paris later this month where donor governments will review the definition and reporting criteria of development aid. The DAC is considering ideas on whether to change the official ODA definition, with the aim of setting concrete proposals by late 2014.
In 2012, aid from the 27 EU countries dropped to 0.39% of EU gross national income (GNI) – its lowest level since 2007. It is expected to remain around 0.43% in 2013-14.
In response to a 2012 DAC survey, Germany said: "We consider loans to be concessional if they are offered to the borrower at a lower rate than the borrower would normally pay on the capital markets. It does not matter how the lower rate is attained ... and at what cost the lender himself has raised these funds from the market."
France also said it defined concessionality based to the borrower's access to the capital market, regardless of the cost to the lender.
An EU spokesman said: "Loans can under the right circumstances have a very positive impact and respond to a demand in partner countries." Lending at lower concessionality could help better-off countries raise resources for their increased investing needs, with concessional grant resources saved for least developed countries and social sectors, he added.