AOS1 Unit 4 Flashcards
What is the Realist approach to differing strategies for poverty alleviation?
- What- neo lib/Washington Consensus belief that market is major engine of growth t/f 😊4 free market
- Who hold- B, IMF, US
- Aim 4 development- should be eco growth (b/c benefits trickle down + alleviate pov)
- How- trade lib, finance + investment
- WC policies (inc fiscal discipline aka low gov borrowing, tax reform (to inc tax base + reduce marginal tax- aim 2 inc incentive 4 inc earning), interest rate lib (market set), trade lib (reduce barries e.g. tariffs), privatization of state enterprises (e.g. hosp, pub transport), secure property rights, deregulation
What are the implications of realist approach to strategy for poverty alleviation?
- WC -> WTO support free trade (dec tariffs), IMF bailouts conditional on free market reform, belief that countries should specialise in goods/services w comparative advantage (may result in produce primary products ie ag only)
- Reduced gov spending on welfare -> inc pov
- Privatisation profit > ppl + wider social objectives
- Free trade x always benefit developing eco- inc dif 2 compete in high end production (b/c new industry x protected) focus on primary production (i.e. ag)
- Stilglitz’s arg- East Asia wary of IMF= successful development h/s Latin Am followed WC closely =X successful = ‘view that successful development requires infrastructure, social and pol stability + full employment’
What is the cosmo approach re strategies for poverty alleviation?
- What- Stockholm Consensus- est 8 principals 4 developing policy-making + based on premis WC = ‘outdated’ + responsible 4 inc inequality + enviro prob
- Principals- GDP growth needs to be focussed on to achieve societal objectives (imp health, edu, employment, security + consumption)
-> Needs to be inclusive/equitable (x leave behind group)- esp b/w wealth groups
-> Enviro stability =MUST
-> Balance b/w market, state + community + inc market regulation (t/f dif groups what equipped to e.g. state= hospital)
-> Social norms dictate what valued in development
-> Global policies imp 2 create framework 4 trade
-> LT macro stability imp t/f need to build pub infrastructure
What is the realist approach to eco growth v sustainable dev
(aka what should the priority of development policy be)
- What/Why- eco growth b/c allows community to inc consumption of g+ s + inc quantity b/c eco growth increases employment –> ult inc SOL
- Criticism- emits waste + uses resources (oft unsustainably)
What is the Cosmopolitan approach to eco growth v sustainable dev?
(aka what should the priority of development policy be)
- What- Sustainable dev- established in 1987 Brundtland Repot- belief eco dev necessary h/w X @ cost of future gens t/f need to reduce amount of nat resources + energy consumed p/unit of GDP
- Why- b/c impoverished com oft forced to exploit resources (e.g. timber) 2 inc exports/growth h/w curtails future eco potential (no timer left) t/f development takes into account enviro impacts LT + states ability to be self-sufficient
Criticism of cosmo approach of sustainable dev
- Belief eco growth required to respond to enviro degregation
- Put limits on developing world + condemns them to pov, inequity + subsitence existence- limits X applied to developed states during development
- Claimed SD is being used by developing states 2 continue power > developing states
What is the realist approach to ODA vs state self interest?
How much aid- determined by the population (b/c their taxes) t/f should be no externally set targets
Who to- aid should enhance the states NI t/f focus on those states which state has security interests (e.g. Pakistan for UK) or trade interests (e.g. China in pacific)
How- aid should be tied to the use of donor state’s companies or materials in order to ensure return investment
-should be in loans x grants (2 ensure $$ return e.g. C in Tonga –> 65% debt owed to C)
-Should be bi-lateral b/c enables greater control > $ spend + can apply conditions that meet states NI e.g. China make aid conditional on OCP
Ev for the effectiveness of SDGs
-Inc funding towards it- 2020 net ODA reached record high of 161bil (h/w still only reps 0.32% GNI of donor states) + inc climate funding 10% b/w 15-16 and 17-18 = 48.7bil
-Inc participation in organised pre-primary edu- inc. from 65% in ‘10 to 73% in ‘19
-More developing states using framework provided- 125 developing states formulating or implementing National Climate Adaption Plans
-118 countries by Ap 21 reported national and/or local disaster reduction strats
Ev for limited effectiveness of SDGs
-X on track for pov target- 119-124 mil ppl pushed into EP in ‘20 + predicted that 7% of pop will still be in EP by ‘30- first inc. in pov since 90’s
-Inc world hunger- in ‘14 = 607 undernourished vs 702-811mil in ‘20- C-19 push additional 70-161 mil ppl into state + 2.37 bil ppl w/o food or X able to eat a healthy balanced diet on reg basis
-Continued lack of progress in sanitation- 0.4% inc on 2000 base line –> 46% of ppl lack adequate sanitation + 26% lack safely managed clean drinking water
-Inc wealth inequities- Inc GINI in LDC + emerging markets by 6% + bribery 5x greater then in HIC (37.6% vs 7.2%)
-4bil ppl x covered by social protection –> inc in child labour= 160 mil + 1bil ppl live in slums while only 5 OECD countries reached 0.7% GNI in ODA
-Lack of reporting- only sufficient data for 35/169 –> 24 too slow, 5 backwards + 6 on track
SDG rate of progress
-SDG index revealed only 1.8% above 2015 level of progress = need 2.4% p/y t/f progress need to be inc 5+ x to reach goal = TOO SLOW
-Pandemic exacerbate existing inequalities t/f make progress slower/harder e.g. LDC receive 1.9% of FDI t/f lack fiscal space to implement emergency response + investment lead covid recovery t/f X expected to recover GDP p/cap till mid -21 in L.AM + S.S.AF vs mid-20 in developed ecos
-Lack of data inc difficulty to target financing- only 35/169 targets sufficient data
-Continued lack of funding- despite ODA being record high of 161bil in ‘20= only 0;32% GNI + only 5 states meet 0.7% target
Model ans for debate- obligation to AS + ref vs NI (inc boarder security) of states
OS- what debate about- whether states should focus on protecting the most vuln or ensuring nat security
1st stand point- Realist- 1st obligation = own NI > ref
- exemplar of 1st point- e.g. Is. Aus. Pol etc e.g. Is use of land mines to fortify boarder = protect jewish identity of state
2nd point of stand point 1- AS x have same rights as ref OR technicality of int law t/f x obligation to maintain rights
- exemplar of 2nd point- Aus Op sov boarder/Greek pushbacks
Ideally segue using exemplar to end pos- e.g. Cosmo argue that these policies are a clear violation of obligations under int law.
Outline 2nd viewpoint w focus on rationale- e.g. moral duty to help those in peril (i.e. ref + AS) despite potential neg consequences –> common humanity
- exemplar of 2nd view point- e.g. Jordon, Ger, Canada
Debate summed up- realists contend this approach has meant states gov X fulfilling its role in providing 4 it’s ppl h/w others praise 4 prioritising common humanity > costs
Model ans for debate- differing approaches regarding ref resettlement
OS- what about- whether ‘third states’ have a responsibility to accept ref from initial host
Why matter (basis for rationale later t/f IMP)- 86% of ref in developing states + 19.9/25.6mil ref deemed by UNHCR to be of concern
1st stand point (1)- Cosmo- ref resettlement prog should prioritise max no. of ref resettled –> developed states have greatest capacity to provide DSOL 4 ref w/o neg impacting own eco + red burden on developing
- Exemplar of 1.1- Can + eco benefit + edu + sense of belonging vs Jordon ( :( edu rates)
2nd stand point (1)- Realist- resettlement prog should prioritise NI t/f limit ref intake by inc screening (ensure security) + eco interests
- Exemplar- e.g. Aus offshore detention centres (Narua + Manus Is) ensure boarder security by claiming that was way to ‘we’re doing it [ref resettlement] in a way that is correct and appropriate and takes due concern for security, medical and other issues’ - i.e. dec ppl smugglers by never granting ref aus res
Debate summed up- predominance of realist view –> UN attempting to intro Global Compact on Ref; h/w x binding t/f in ‘18 less then 1% of ref needing resettlement recieved op
Model ans for debate- eco migrant vs ref
OS- What is the debate about- Who should be prioritised 4 migration
Cosmo view- alth. argue 4 common humanity + t/f ideally argue that rights be extended 2 all ppl advocate 4 ref > eco m b/c ref = more vulnerable + X able to be returned due to persecutation
Realist- Take migrants based on filling skill gaps b/c states eco priorities = 1. role
- Exemplar- 457 temp skilled visas add 9.7bil >50yrs
Cosmo 2- also argue that all migrants should have same rights e.g. access to edu/HC/workers rights b/c oft vuln to exploitation
-Exemplar- 2015 4 corners report found 7/11 systematically under paying int students
Summary- Realists priortise eco migrants b/c of eco benefits can bring + argue state responsibility to state t/f x extend social services to migrants
What is justice
Concept of moral rightness based on ethics, law, fairness + equity that seeks also to punish when said ethics are breached.
Extends to GP via int syst of justice e.g. ICC + ICJ which seek to uphold int law + deter violations
What is international law
Trad. only relates to states- body of rules est by customs or written legal arrangements that are accepted as binding upon int com
- Customarily applies to all UNGA res
-Written legal agreements e.g. treaties are only binding to those who ratify/consent
