DevPolitics

Men as partners on gender equality

Yesterday, I attended a brown bag session by an NGO called MenEngagewhich is also presenting at the 53rd Session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)at the UN (2-13 March 2009). The organization "is a global alliance of NGOs and UN agencies that seeks to engage boys and men to achieve gender equality".

The refreshing part of this session was that the two representatives of MenEngage were both men. They have stressed their group's focus of viewing men in a positive light, such as partners instead of the problem, assets instead of obstacles. The notion of needing to "fix" men in order to achieve gender equality is indeed something that is prevalent in many discussions on the issue.

As examples of past interventions that have worked, the group noted addressing homophobia and gender diversity and linking these with behavior that leads to health issues, and questioning men and boys on manhood have showed significant behavioral change. Also, their survey results showed that division of labor led to life improvements for the whole household, such as better sex lives, less violence and overall happiness.

I was impressed by their comprehensive take on the issue, and their diplomatic skills in advocacy for policy change, but was drowning in the sea of partners and donors they have listed - Save the Children, CEDAW, WHO, SIDA, WHO, UNFPA, UNDP, UNIFEM, etc. They have noted that one of the challenges was coordination, such as MenEngage and a partner NGO requesting funding from the same donor - which is bound to happen despite efforts for fluid communication.

The Media and Gas Prices

Ever since Prof Gershman mentioned gas prices in class, I have been noticing how the media treats the subject. Mainstream newcasts, especially television, present the rising oil and gasoline prices as extreme economic hardship on Americans, associating them with higher prices across the board. The different proposals by the candidates for gas tax holidays, etc. all ignore the elephant in the room, which is the need for consumers to change their behavior. I realize that coming out in favor of higher gas prices would be political suicide, but are environmentalists and prominent realists not weighing in on this? I am not hearing much on the "other side" of this issue.

Food crisis and carbon trade

In the latest TIME magazine print version, Jackson Dykman provided us with good charts and trends to remind us about food security. Trends he have put in article are pretty gloomy for world population. Given the rise of biofuels and increasing meat consumption in the developing world, more and more crops go to produce ethanol or feed livestock rather than feeding people. it means situation in Burma may become even worser in the long-term and it is not in Burma's or its close neighbors ability to cope with that. in Burma or Myanmar as you may call it, cyclone caused disastrous effects killing 100 000 and leaving another 1.5 Million in an urgent need of relief. situation about Burma is really electrified, for better coverage, see NY times article and 'Burma's Second Agony' in the latest TIME issue. NYTimes article's URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/world/asia/10myanmar.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin. Argument here is to cut developed world's needs and try to provide developing world with the hope of catching up. Same to the situation with carbon emissions, as rising food prices are hitting developing world first and hardest, it is in developed world's responsibility to provide 'space' to develop for other nations. it may mean to cut off consumption of some products like livestock products, to review the way developed world have chosen for alternative energy. Biofuels can be a threat to developing nations when constant and often droughts and floods will reduce crops.
I feel like it would be another crisis that came from inability to mitigate the problem (not the crisis) timely. Developed world cannot just give it up to market's invisible hand now and wait till the crisis strikes hard to start acting. from this point, carbon emissions reduction should start as early as possible. And should it mean peaking emissions in 2012, let's peak it by 2012.

The Private Sector in Microfinance

The April 4th New York Times article on microfinance, “After Success, Problems for Microfinancing in Mexico,” addresses one of the central debates surrounding this growing industry: “How far should microfinance go toward becoming big business?” The article focuses on ‘Compartamos’, a once-nonprofit lending institution turned for-profit bank in Mexico.

In an address to the IPSA conference on the same day, María Otero, President and CEO of Acción International, described recent trends in microfinance and defined today’s microfinance as having a commercial foundation with private sector funding. While microfinance has expanded from extending microcredit to providing a range of financial services to the “unbankable poor”, it is still the marriage of finance and development concerns, and its goal is still to lift people out of poverty. There is, as Otero believes, an important role for private sector money in today’s microfinance industry—a distinct break from the traditional funding of microcredit through development assistance and one of its emerging debates.

At the center of this debate is an ethical question: should private banks and their investors make a profit off the world’s poor? Is Compartamos’s $80 million first-year profit justified because the now-public bank can provide capital to more poor borrowers? (In 2000, the year it went public, Compartamos extended loans to 60,000 borrowers, and by 2007, the number of loans had increased to 840,000.) The answer depends on its overall impact on microfinance clients.

In her support of the expansion of microfinance into capital markets, Otero noted that the key to providing quality financial services is meeting the demand for making capital available, something that she says the development assistance institutions are not equipped to do.

Microlenders who criticize the entry of private capital into the microfinance industry (among them is Muhammad Yunus) believe that shifting the focus from alleviating poverty to returns on investment and profit jeopardizes this industry’s legitimacy.

Banks such as Compartamos operate on a market-oriented model that emphasizes investor returns and excludes borrowers from enjoying the bulk of the profits they generate. Annual interest rates of MFIs are commonly between 25% and 45%, but some (including that of Compartamos) are as high as 90%. In the case of higher-interest rate lenders, lower costs which are associated with the transition to for-profit status have benefited investors and not the bank’s clients, although a Compartamos co-executive says that their interest rate has decreased 30% over the past five years. Charging unnecessarily-high interest rates (those in the 80% to 90% range) is the sort of unethical practice that does not prioritize the alleviation of poverty.

It is also relevant to consider that private banking institutions want their clients to become more bankable and thus have a vested interest in facilitating their rise from poverty. In a true market environment, banks that charge the highest interest rates will be forced to reduce them to the market rate.

While it is not ethical for private banks or any profit-seeker to make a buck on the poor, the entry of the private sector into microfinance is both necessary and beneficial to the industry. Private sector involvement doesn’t necessarily mean that banks get a bigger slice of the pie, but that the pie has grown in size. More clients can access funds and other financial products because private sector involvement in the microfinance industry creates more investors. As one Compartamos co-executive says, “it is marvelous to have one million creditors.”

Analysis of Media Presentation: “In Rwanda, Bush Mourns Two Conflicts”

 

Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s article in the New York Times is centered on regret and belated shame, as well as powerful blanket statements. In February of this year, President George Bush visited the Kigali museum honoring the dead victims of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Stolberg reports Bush’ sorrow at the decision not to send U.S. troops to Darfur, which he claims was not in fact his decision at all, but rather that of the United Nations. “… And I’m well known to have spoken out about the slowness of the United Nations… particularly with people suffering,” Bush told reporters. Bush’ statements of regret are mirrored by past statements by former President Bill Clinton, who has said “… the U.S. just blew it in Rwanda”.

These statements regarding two very different human rights crises in developing countries are riddled with complexity. There is a very interesting case here of “That was really bad… but it wasn’t my fault”. Since when does Bush let his actions be curtailed by the United Nations? Obviously, he had his own reasons for not sending troops to Darfur.
Also, what, if anything, does Clinton’s comment mean, now that it is obviously too late to do anything about Rwanda? Could that be the real reason why he felt able to express it?

Both statements of remorse here seem too convenient, in the sense that they are given on behalf of the United States, yet detached from any sense of personal responsibility. This is not to say that Bush or Clinton were themselves at the root of these conflicts, but rather to point out that empty apologies in front of countless rows of skulls are just that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/africa/20prexy.html?scp=9&sq=rwanda&st=nyt

Why Bill Gates Hates My Book (analysis of media presentation of a development related issue)

(Writtten 2.18 but posted to the wrong blog)
William Easterly’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (2.12.08) is a response to reports that Bill Gates disagrees with Easterly’s criticism of international aid.  Their debate centers on the role of the capitalist corporation.  Gates thinks that corporations need more incentive (in the form of public awareness of corporate philanthropy) to serve the poor and Easterly discounts Gates’ “New-Age blend of market incentives and feel-good recognition” arguing that it hasn’t done that much good so far.  Easterly’s preferred solution is for corporations to continue to promote capitalist ventures in underdeveloped countries because the benefits trickle down to the poor.  My first question is- can’t we do both?  Are they mutually exclusive?  Do these guys really need to criticize the other in order to sell their brand of development?  Over the past few weeks we’ve read that countries and their problems are unique and that applying one panacea across the board shows that we are not recognizing these differences.  My second question is- is global engagement and education completely irrelevant?  Isn’t corporate marketing a great medium for teaching a large number of people about social issues?  The ever-skeptical Easterly is wrong to discount the impact that corporations can have by aligning themselves against a global problem.  Even if they are not sending bag loads of money, at least they are recognizing that there is more to the world than their bottom line and in so doing, they are helping to educate people.  What’s wrong with that?

Event FYI: An Evening with Dr. Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank

"AFRICA- The changing face: The face of the future"
An Evening with Dr. Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank
When: Monday, March 10, 2008 at 6pm, Where: Abbe-Bogen Faculty Lounge, Kaufman Management Center, 11th Floor, New York University, 44 West Fourth Street
RSVP at Africa.house@nyu.edu

The Linguistics of Development

On The Washington Post website, Kenyan journalist Njoroge Wachai wrote a piece on the applicability of the term "ethnic violence" to the current situation in Kenya. As a former linguistics major, I am very intrigued by the examination of how linguistics play into development, politics, human rights, etc. Word choice, while seemingly trivial, can soothe tensions or incite angry retaliation.

In this situation, Wachai reflects on Chairman of the U.S. House Sub-committee on Africa and Global Health Donayld Payne's statement from last month, in which he said that President Kibaki's administration is using the term "ethnic violence" too loosely.  Wachai calls for America to see the tribal-targeted violence for what it exactly is: ethnic violence by definition.

This topic brings up several important points:  Who decides the definitions of these terms?  What if there are grey areas?  When does "ethnic violence" become "genocide"?

These terms and word choices matter because of the implications behind them.  Newspaper headlines screaming "GENOCIDE!" will undoubtedly produce much stronger reactions than ones describing a civil war, which people are generally used to reading about. 

I have severely limited knowledge of the situation in Kenya.  However, I will say that I believe that with any conflict situation, it is important to recognize sources of bias.  Israel feels validated in bombing Gaza, and Palestinians feel validated in bombing Israel (I also hate referring to countries as unified and singular, but I am for the sake of simplicity).  Each side may cite the other's disregard for human rights, crimes against humanity, etc. 

Personally, I believe that blaming soon becomes a carousel of pointing fingers, leading nowhere.  In order to truly make progress, we must focus on establishing institutions in Kenya for accountability and human rights protection, for all citizens. 

.

Latest Issue of Foreign Policy

Sorry for the last minute posting. I came across the latest issue of Foreign Policy magazine and thought the feature article "21 Solutions to Save the World" nicely ties up most of the topics that we've covered this semester. FP gathered some of the world's leading thinkers to comment on the most pressing issues in int'l affairs/development.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=220

I particularly enjoyed Esther's Duflo's short piece on foreign aid, she wrote:

"The solution is an essential reform of how we allocate foreign aid. First, a substantial fraction of aid should be set aside to help countries experiment and evaluate solutions to the fundamental problems of their poorest citizens, using the same level of rigor as is used for testing new drugs. Most of the rest (excluding disaster relief) should be used to support the expansion of those projects that are proven to be effective. Poor countries demonstrating the will to implement projects placed on an approved list should be entitled to financial support and the required technical help to do so. Countries that want money to try something that is not on the list should be given access to pilotprogram financing, on the condition that their evaluation plans are sound, and that they accept strict monitoring of its implementation...."

Her perscription is not a panacea, but if more high-level policymakers used this as a guideline, I think less precious money will be wasted, more effective programs will be implemented, and more people who have been deprived of such services will be reached.

P.S. Have a great summer everyone!

Agrarian reform in Brazil

In the Economist this past week, there was an article that spoke directly to our conversation a few weeks back on agrarian reform. The article is called "This land is anti-capitalist land." The main idea in the article is that instead of attaching the local barons, as they usually do, the MST (Landless People's Movement) and other small farmers are going after the big businesses (brazilian and foeign), and the development model that they represent. In the last agrarian census done a decade ago, they foung that 1% of owners controlled 45% of the land. Land is a business, and the MST has now made that their central fight.

"Occupation provokes land reform." The MST has been pressuring the government since 1984, and has been relatively successful, especially with Lula has president. But at the same time, there are still 140,000 families encamped under plastic sheeting. The article states that the government is torn because it is also skeptical, like the MST, about big farming, but at the same time are extremely focused on the production of ethanol.

One of the more important pieces of this article is the credit it gives to the power of the MST and the claims they make on behalf of the small farmers and rural workers. Another important aspect is that it points out that one of the important steps in land reform are the guidelines of classifying land as productive. But what i found most fascinating is the separation that is made between land reform and the war the the MST is waging on corporate farming. It has become obvious that the movement can no longer just put pressure on the government, but must shift its energy to the people who own the 45% of the land.

The big questions this article brings up are focused around what a lot of us in class have been sharing all throughout the semester -- is economic development the development we really need and want? Do we need to look at more post-development/social justice practices to make sense of the development we envision? Agribusiness and corporate farming represent this economic development that leads to very little "good" in the world, whereas the MST is demanding post-development/social justice actions.