Comments on: Leaving the Poorest to Pay http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/02/leaving-the-poorest-to-pay/ from the Global Economic Governance Programme at the University of Oxford Mon, 06 Dec 2010 15:39:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Maurizio Giuliano http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/02/leaving-the-poorest-to-pay/comment-page-1/#comment-6296 Maurizio Giuliano Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:42:16 +0000 http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/?p=204#comment-6296 Thanks Kevin ! It is about time someone demolishes the populist arguments of Dembisa Moyo and the like. How can we expect the world's private debt markets to finance development, when the capitalism of developed countries is the cause for Africa's state ? I think her book does not even deserve academic debate, since there is nothing academic in it. But from an advocacy perspective, academics do need to do something, or we'll have more and more of the world's average citizens believe in her views and affect the positions of their governments accordingly. Thanks Kevin !

It is about time someone demolishes the populist arguments of Dembisa Moyo and the like. How can we expect the world’s private debt markets to finance development, when the capitalism of developed countries is the cause for Africa’s state ?

I think her book does not even deserve academic debate, since there is nothing academic in it. But from an advocacy perspective, academics do need to do something, or we’ll have more and more of the world’s average citizens believe in her views and affect the positions of their governments accordingly.

]]> By: George Gelber http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/02/leaving-the-poorest-to-pay/comment-page-1/#comment-17 George Gelber Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:23:52 +0000 http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/?p=204#comment-17 You are absolutely right about the agenda of the G20. And also about the impact of the crisis on aid. At <a href="http://www.cafod.org.uk" rel="nofollow">CAFOD</a>, we have compared two scenarios of the aid budget of the UK (where we can continue to be reasonably hopeful about achieving the 0.7% target by the end of 2013). The no recession scenario assumes continued growth at the 1992-2007 annual rate of 2.8% and a pound valued at $2.00=£1.00. The recession scenario assumes negative growth of -1.7% in 2008 (confirmed) and -2.9% in 2009 followed by slow recovery and an average exchange rate of £1.00=$1.5. This gives a cumulative difference in aid over 7 years of £7 billion and, in dollars, $41 billion. A huge difference - and that's just one country which we assume won't cut its aid budget. You are absolutely right about the agenda of the G20. And also about the impact of the crisis on aid. At CAFOD, we have compared two scenarios of the aid budget of the UK (where we can continue to be reasonably hopeful about achieving the 0.7% target by the end of 2013). The no recession scenario assumes continued growth at the 1992-2007 annual rate of 2.8% and a pound valued at $2.00=£1.00. The recession scenario assumes negative growth of -1.7% in 2008 (confirmed) and -2.9% in 2009 followed by slow recovery and an average exchange rate of £1.00=$1.5. This gives a cumulative difference in aid over 7 years of £7 billion and, in dollars, $41 billion. A huge difference – and that’s just one country which we assume won’t cut its aid budget.

]]> By: max lawson http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/2009/02/leaving-the-poorest-to-pay/comment-page-1/#comment-15 max lawson Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:58:43 +0000 http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/blog/?p=204#comment-15 thanks for this kev really good stuff agree with everything as usual! madeline bunting did an excellent and scathing review of the moyo book yesterday- http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/14/aid-africa-dambisa-moyo I could not agree more that armchair cyncism is deeply dangerous at this time when G8 governments are looking for any excuse to cover up their appalling performance on delivering the aid the promised. Not least the Italians who are busy trying to redefine ODA (that old chestnut) to take into account lots of other dubious spending and boost their numbers. There is a direct link between aid sceptics and the failure of governments to deliver. Their arguments are guaranteed widespread publicity, no matter how flimsy their evidence. They are a great way to start or revive a career in development academia and sell a few books, but have really dangerous consequences in terms of undermining the case for aid and giving Governments cover. The idea of suggesting cold-turkey for Africa, although claimed by the left as well as the right, is in fact closest to the right wing philosophy that would see benefits cut to the poorest to enable them to 'stand on their own two feet'. thanks for this kev really good stuff agree with everything as usual!

madeline bunting did an excellent and scathing review of the moyo book yesterday- http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/feb/14/aid-africa-dambisa-moyo

I could not agree more that armchair cyncism is deeply dangerous at this time when G8 governments are looking for any excuse to cover up their appalling performance on delivering the aid the promised. Not least the Italians who are busy trying to redefine ODA (that old chestnut) to take into account lots of other dubious spending and boost their numbers.

There is a direct link between aid sceptics and the failure of governments to deliver. Their arguments are guaranteed widespread publicity, no matter how flimsy their evidence. They are a great way to start or revive a career in development academia and sell a few books, but have really dangerous consequences in terms of undermining the case for aid and giving Governments cover. The idea of suggesting cold-turkey for Africa, although claimed by the left as well as the right, is in fact closest to the right wing philosophy that would see benefits cut to the poorest to enable them to ‘stand on their own two feet’.

]]>