February 24 Robertson.docx

4 Pages
36 Views

Department
International Development and Globalization
Course Code
DVM2110
Professor
Sonia Gulati

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
Description
February 27, 2014 Robertson “MDGs and education” • Previous ideological differences between multilateral agencies in development have decreased and this compromise allows them to target one priority; poverty reduction. o Shift from GDP focus toward UNDPs Human Development Index  New debate about poverty took hold to make this possible; allows the right to claim that market-oriented policies aren’t inimical to the poor while the left can ring back redistribution and social justice.  Still, there is discrepancy; UN agencies speak in terms of inequality while BWI speaks of poverty—the latter frame the problem as a structural issue while the former think the problem is of individuals not well-adapted to the market. o Continued commitment to export-led development. o However, until 1990s, primary responsibility for fighting poverty rested with the developing country themselves, in their governments and citizens.  OECD’s paper set the agenda as the first attempt to put together int. development goals in the form of targets.  Contains clear specification of the risks and promises presented by globalisation and the need to meet the challenges implied by poverty and inequality at the global level.  Talks about power relations between donors and developing countries.  Reveals considerable history concealed in the emergence and specification of the MDGs. • MDGs o It is argued that the MDG is different from other approaches; although goals and targets are more political than technically determined. o They represent the confluence of a number of different streams emerging into a post 9.11 world; has stimulated fresh and radical rethinking of the purposes, strategies, funding, and delivery of aid. • International consensus on tackling poverty reduction; o MDGs are seen as a major step forward but also sometimes seen as a step sideways due to the minimal scope or a step backwards because it doesn’t cover human rights and other areas as targets. o They project different paradigms of development. o Different views of their relevance. o Set on assumptions that the trends from the 1970s and 1980s would continue until 2015, leaving out the impact of HIV/AIDS. • PRSPs o Set up by IMF and WB as a means of ensuring aid was more efficient in addressing poverty. o Made compulsive as countries required to ‘sign up’ for PRSPs in order to apply for financial aid from either organisation. o Five core principles;  Country-driven  Results-oriented  Comprehensive in recognising multinational nature of poverty  Partnership-oriented  Long-term perspective o Based on;  Comprehensive poverty diagnostics  Priorities for macro, structural, and social policies  Appropriate targets, indicators, and systems o However, t
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit