The world is losing a winnable battle. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are on the verge of becoming “the epitaph for a world that might have been.” Can the patient be resuscitated?
Decisions made in the coming days would have a significant bearing on the answer. On Saturday, governments are to announce their funding pledges for the International Development Association (IDA), the branch of the World Bank Group that delivers finance to the world’s poorest countries (with annual per capita incomes below US$1,315). IDA replenishment happens every three years, which means that commitments made today span the critical investment period for salvaging the SDGs. Unfortunately, it is not looking good, with several key donors failing to pull their weight.
The 78 countries covered by the IDA are where the battle for the SDGs would be won or lost. Home to 500 million people surviving on less than US$2.15 per day, they account for about 70 percent of extreme poverty and more than 90 percent of world hunger. Worse, it is children who are on the front lines. In a recent ODI report, my coauthors and I estimate that about 257 million children in IDA-eligible countries are growing up hungry, with devastating consequences for their health and educational prospects.
Illustration: Mountain People
Recent setbacks have compounded already severe challenges, triggering major reversals. After being hit hard by the COVID-19 pandemic, IDA countries have been buffeted by post-pandemic economic slowdowns, rising food prices and surging public debt. More than half are falling further behind rich countries as global inequalities widen. Poverty reduction has slowed from an already inadequate pace and progress against hunger has stalled. Debt service is crowding out vital investment, with repayments now outweighing spending on health and basic education.
Against this bleak backdrop, access to affordable development finance has been shrinking. Real (inflation-adjusted) financial transfers to Africa from donors have fallen, and rising real interest rates have priced most IDA countries out of sovereign bond markets (or otherwise subjected them to punitively high borrowing costs).
The IDA is the single most powerful multilateral financial weapon in the anti-poverty arsenal. In the last fiscal year, it provided US$31 billion in support for member countries and was by far the largest source of development finance for Africa, which benefits from zero-interest grants, concessional loans repayable over 30 to 40 years, or both.
Such finance is an SDG lifeline, because it is overwhelmingly directed to areas with demonstrated benefits for the poor, such as social protection, investments in child and maternal health, and education. With a generous replenishment, the IDA could help lift millions out of extreme poverty, extend opportunities for improved health and learning, and support adaptation to climate change.
Moreover, for donors seeking value for money, the IDA has a unique advantage: Every US$1 received can deliver US$3.50. The IDA can leverage the World Bank’s AAA credit rating to secure low-interest financing by issuing bonds and lending the proceeds to developing countries. When donors deliver funds through bilateral aid programs or global health funds, the money that comes out mirrors the money that goes in. However, the IDA offers a much bigger bang for the buck.
The IDA also mitigates damaging international-aid practices. Currently, only about 8 percent of poverty-related development assistance is delivered through government budgets. The rest arrives through project funds controlled by donors, leading to fragmentation, weak coordination and high transaction costs for governments. Hence, Ethiopia had to manage 454 aid transactions for agriculture alone in 2021. By contrast, the IDA delivers support through national budgets for nationally owned programs, which is why governments across Africa strongly support it.
The World Bank has rightly made the case for a major IDA increase. Last year, World Bank president Ajay Banga called on donors to provide more than US$120 billion, which would make this replenishment “the biggest of all time.” Sadly, that ambition has faded, with current pledges implying a replenishment of less than US$105 billion — smaller than the previous one, in real terms.
While US President Joe Biden’s administration has announced an increased IDA commitment, and several smaller countries and new donors have also stepped up, some major G7 economies have stepped back. Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a summit aimed at creating a new global financial pact to tackle poverty and the climate crisis; but this year, he is set to cut France’s contribution to the IDA.
Equally disappointing is the UK, which was among the largest contributors to the IDA in the decade ending in 2022 — a legacy of former British prime minister Gordon Brown’s leadership. The picture changed dramatically in the last IDA replenishment, when the UK contribution was halved as Conservative governments took a wrecking ball to the aid budget.
This year’s replenishment gives the new Labour government an opportunity to start rebuilding Britain’s reputation as a “development superpower.” British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs David Lammy has promised a new era in which the UK would “use realist means to pursue progressive ends.” Reversing the Conservatives’ cuts with a 54 percent increase to the UK contribution (representing a commitment of US$2.2 billion) would certainly meet those criteria. And yet, the Treasury wants to cap any additional contribution at 20 to 40 percent.
That would be a travesty. While the Treasury is correct to say that it inherited a poisoned chalice of unsustainable public finance from its Conservative predecessors, it is wrong to suggest that the UK cannot afford to send a positive signal in the interest of international cooperation and its own soft power.
To make matters worse, the government has effectively shelved long-standing aid commitments by maintaining previous governments’ policy of subjecting them to impractical and implausible fiscal tests, one of which is to achieve a budget surplus (something that has happened only four times since 1971). There is nothing realistic or progressive about using implausible goals as a pretext to turn one’s back on the world’s poor. The UK should fully restore the IDA cuts made by the Conservative government.
The IDA might not be perfect, but it is the best tool that we have for restoring the hope that the SDGs once instilled. Governments should use it.
Kevin Watkins, a former CEO of Save the Children UK, is a visiting professor at the Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS