Unit 4 AOS 1 Flashcards
What is the Realist argument for the debate relating to differing strategies for poverty alleviation?
- What- neo lib/Washington Consensus belief that market is major engine of growth t/f 4 free market + benefits of eco growth trickle down
- 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 is the cosmo argument relating to the debate about differing 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- What- Stockholm Consensus- est 8 principals 4 developing policy-making + based on premis WC = ‘outdated’ + responsible 4 inc inequality + enviro prob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 –> t/f Standard of Living b/c benefits trickle down
- People in poverty need situation improved - unethical not to use resources available which would rectify the situation
- How: policies such as resource exploitation (e.g. deforestation to sell timber or mining) OR promoting industries that allow for exports + minimal regulation of corporations/businesses
- who? IMF, WTO, TNCs
What is the cosmopolitan perspective on the debate sustainable development vs. economic growth?
- What -→ policies should consider inter and intra generational equity
- Why? resources are finite - so if resources are used all at once there is nothing left behind (e.g. timber or mining) + approaches preferencing economic growth are causing environmental damage which will significantly reduce food security/living conditions in the future
- Policies? SDGs + policies for keeping TNCs accountable
- Who? UN, Catholic Church (Laudato Si)
What is the realist perspective on the debate ODA vs. the self-interest of states?
What? States should give ODA in a way that serves their own interests
Why? States main obligation is to their own citizens + ODA is not the best way to combat poverty b/c it creates dependence + COVID/current economic situation means states cannot afford aid
If giving ODA it should be in a manner that benefits the state - better return from middle-income states, should include ties (e.g. using business from donor states) and potentially given as a loan
Who? Australia, USA (under Trump), China, UK (response to COVID-19 and cutting ODA)
What is the cosmopolitan perspective on the debate ODA vs. self-interest of states
What: Developed states should provide 0.7% of GNI in ODA annually w/ 0.15-0.2% allocated to LDCs and the ODA being untied and provided as grants not loans
Why? That is the volume of ODA required to meet the SDGs, LDCs are less capable of attracting FDI (only 1.9% of FDI allocated to LDCs cf. 53.6% to developing economies) + tying aid increases cost of project b/w 15 and 30%, ODA in the form of loans creates ‘debt traps’
Who? UN, UK (prior to COVID), Germany, Denmark
Examples of Cosmo responses to Development
- UN SDGs
- UK 2015-2020 ODA
Examples of Realist approaches to Development
- China
- UK post COVID
International Laws relating to Development
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
Millennium Declaration
Details of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Aim of law: between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. We resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive and sustained economic growth, shared prosperity and decent work for all, taking into account different levels of national development and capacities.
- Key provisions: 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators as ‘New Agenda’
- How it is enforced: Annual reporting and data collection
- Responses of other global actors to the law: all Member states of UN voted for, adoption by IMF, World Bank, WTO and TNCs (e.g. Phillip Morris, Nissan, Apple)
Strengths of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Unanimous acceptance and approval
- The Agenda defines development as holistic = poverty reduction + inequality + sustainability + economic growth.
- Agenda was negotiated by all countries (low-income, middle-income, land-locked developing countries [LLDCs], small island developing states [SIDS]) and incorporated all previous sustainable development initiatives relating to these countries.
- Gained support of TNCs and IMF
- It endorses the .7% GNI aid target of the OECD and the UN for developed countries and sets a further target of between .15 and .2% of Official Development Assistance to be set aside for least developed countries.
- It established a mechanism for follow-up and review of progress known as the Voluntary National Review supervised by the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) [paragraph 84) and which is to occur at least twice in the 15 years to 2030.
Weaknesses of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- Non-binding + not enforceable
- Too many goals and targets so has not resulted in sufficient focus (if everything is a priority nothing is a priority)
- Lack of progress - not on track to achieve any goals by 2030
- Only 35 out of 169 targets have sufficient data to track progress
- Only 6 out of 35 targets are moving at a rate that would result in 2030 achievement of target w/ 5 going backwards
Details of Millennium Declaration
nb MDGS are not in the law, they were developed afterwards in response to the law
- Aim of law = that every individual has the right to dignity, freedom, equality, a basic standard of living that includes freedom from hunger and violence, and encourages tolerance and solidarity
- Provisions = shared responsibility for:
Peace, Security and Disarmament
Development and Poverty Eradication
Protecting our Common Environment
Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance
Protecting the Vulnerable
Meeting the Special Needs of Africa
Strengthening the United Nations - Impact of law = reframed international definition of development, led to MDGs and eventually SDGs = time bound (for the first time), targets which are reported on annually = transparency
+ key developments in those areas - Lack of impact = did not lead to all OECD states accepting their responsibility = not providing 0.7% of GNI in ODA
What is the difference between realism and cosmopolitanism
Both = ethical schools of thought - attempt to answer the question of how states ought to act
BUT differ in how they see the construction of the world
Cosmo = single community
Realism = arena made up of individual states
T/F differ in what they see as the most important motive for action
Cosmo = common humanity
Realism = citizens
What is the difference b/w justice and ethics?
Both attempt to document morality
BUT justice seeks punishment when morals are breached WHEREAS ethics are attempts to address questions of morality to guide behaviour
States can have different ethics based on beliefs BUT justice is often enshrined in legal systems t/f membership of community (e.g. international community through ICC or UN) requires the state to agree to a defined set of morals that are enshrined in law