Of Currency Wars and Capital Controls Emmanuel Yujuico, the author of IPE Zone , states an article by Yilmaz Akyuz on the pit falls of international capital flows for Least Developed Countries (LDCs). You can read the full paper here but Yujuico remarked that, “It begs the question of who beggars which neighbours. It kind of beggars belief that we are still in roughly the same place as were when the G20 processes started in being rather more interested in apportioning blame than in devising mutually acceptable solutions.” An interesting read–both Akyuz’s paper and Yujuico’s remarks for any on in International Political Economy (IPE) and/or International Development.
DFID call’s Malawi’s bluff Matt Collin from Aid Thoughts digs deeper into the recent ending of DFID budget support to Malawi. He claims’s that it is more than just the failure of the Malawian government to reform but more to shift the authoritarian rule. Collin thinks Malawi may not be the winner here, but neither will DFID, which is never one that will completely shuts of the tap. Hmmm. Several points here: Should donors use budget support? Should donors wave “carrot and sticks” to non-democratic governments?
Drought is[a] Life of Death Issue in [the] Horn of Africa A more poignant link about the sudden (well it was predicted) famine in East Africa. Already, the UK is leading the charge, despite its own economic woes at home. The question really is not just getting all to contribute, but how this was not prevented in the first place?
1th July 2011: Philp Davies questions why the UK is set on the 0.7% aid target This is more of a House of Commons parliamentary debate than a link actually. However, it again touches on the touchy 0.7%/GNI aid target that is 41 years old and counting, but which the UK is still stuck to committing, again dspite its debt and deficit. Andrew Mitchell gives his rebuttal, “My hon. Friend is right to this extent: we could spend this hard-earned budget twice over, because there is need that we could satisfactorily address. But the world, many years ago, settled on a figure of 0.7%, and all of us have made a promise to stand by that commitment and the Government are absolutely right, even in these difficult economic circumstances, not to seek to balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.” No mention of the fact that aid effectiveness and transformational development is the key, no mention of how much of the 0.7% will go to multilateral and bilateral aid. I may sound like person chanting, but read the previous posts, here, here, , here and my Global Politics Magazine article.
Manoeuvring at the Margins: Constraints Faced by Small States in International Trade Negotiations Ngaire Woods, Carolyn Deere-Birkbeck and Emily Jones write a fascinating book for the Commonwealth Secretariat on the challenges and possibilities that small states face in trade negotiations. A must read for any student of IPE.
World Bank Flash: A More Open, Transparent and Accountable World Bank The World Bank Group is trying to become even more transparency by releasing its data through advert-sounding sites like Mapping for Results and AidFlows. Transparency, in the orthodox rationale, is good–everyone gets to see how well the Bank is actually performing now. In the IPE perspective however, this world of data could be shaped via the actions of the Bank’s “principals” or shareholders as seen in the Principal-Agent Model. This formation of open data could also grant the Bank more legitimacy and autonomy. See Clegg, L., 2010, “Our Dream is a World full of Poverty Indicators: The US, the World Bank, and the Power of Numbers”, New Political Economy, 15(4), p..473-492.
The EU’s multi-annual financial framework post-2013: options for EU development cooperation My beloved Oversea’s Development Institute has a report out by Mikaela Gavas, Svea Koch, Oladiran Bello, Jeske van Seters and Mark Furness on the future of EU aid. While this is not my areas of expertise, EU aid remain contentious area for many, especially UK parliamentarians, as a large part of it is not poverty-focused and the UK gives just a bit more to the EU than evne the World Bank’s International Development Association (IDA).
Whither the post-2015 agenda? Mark Tran wrote and article in the Guardian’s Global Development section, paints thoughts about what the next set of global development targets should be. Please. No on real understood the MDGs at all (except some like one of the authors, Jan Vandemoortele). And you’re already thinking about post 2015? Anyway, the MDGs were such because of political reasons. You can’t include say the term “human rights” in a global development goal as that would upset people. It’s just like what Richard Jolly remarked the concept of the Human Development Report. The annual report had a caveat saying it was “independent of the [views of the UNDP] administrator” less certain nations saw the theme as a criticism of them. See p.130 of this interview.
IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde Proposes Appointment of Mr. David Lipton as First Deputy Managing Director and Mr. Min Zhu as Deputy Managing Director Last but not least, here’s the official mention that new IMF Managing Director is appointing a Chinese national, Mr. Min Zhu as the Fund’s Deputy Managing Director (third in command). The rise of the East?