Inclusive innovation seeks to expand access to essential goods and services, thereby improving quality of life, and enhancing economic empowerment through knowledge creation, acquisition, adaption, absorption, and deployment efforts targeted directly at the needs of excluded populations. Inclusive innovation is of high relevance for the Chinese authorities, but the concept is new to the Chinese government from both conceptual and policy perspective. So far China has emphasized frontier innovation, yet has recognized the importance of inclusive innovation in addressing increasing disparity between the rich and poor. In China many efforts are being made in the domain of inclusive innovation, but there is no clear strategy and implementation plan. This report aims to help build awareness and set the stage for the potential implementation and operationalization of inclusive innovation policy in China and possibly in other countries. This report is presented in four Chapters and an Executive Summary. Chapter I presents the concept of inclusive innovation and why it is relevant for China. Chapter II discusses the current landscape for inclusive innovation in China. Chapter III presents international experience and examples. Chapter IV outlines some policy options for consideration by the Chinese authorities.
This paper analyzes how investment incentives may or may not be used to foster private investment, particularly in developing countries. As practitioners and policymakers can attest, political economy exerts a powerful influence on incentives. Many incentives especially generous ones have persisted because of lobbying by special interests and politicians' need to curry favor. Yet little research has been done on how political economy affects incentive policy. Second, the paper sheds light on the role that political economy plays in the popularity of incentives and the related shortcomings. Incentives are sometimes used to dole out favors to investors, so investors who benefit from incentives resist attempts to eliminate them. This paper suggests a way to tackle such problems. Third, the paper compiles good practices on managing and administering incentives in developing countries, drawing on government and private sector experiences. Finally, the paper provides policymakers with a framework for analyzing the efficacy of investment incentives based on the sector and level of development involved, and suggests reforms for moving toward best practice.
The Lebanon Economic Monitor provides an update on key economic developments and policies over the past six months. It also presents findings from recent World Bank work on Lebanon. It places them in a longer-term and global context, and assesses the implications of these developments and other changes in policy on the outlook for Lebanon. Lebanon continues to be impacted by the domestic political stalemate and regional turmoil, particularly along its border with Syria. Economic activity picked up in the second half of 2014. Stronger economic performance and lower oil prices pushed real GDP growth to an estimated 2.0 percent in 2014, compared to 0.9 percent in 2013. One-off cosmetic and unsustainable measures rather than policy actions helped improve the fiscal balance in 2014. We estimate the overall fiscal deficit to have declined by 2.3 percentage points. Declining imports lead an improvement in the current account balance. In 2014, a fall in merchandize imports induced a 4.4 pp reduction in the current account deficit to a still-elevated 22.2 percent of GDP. This trend is projected to continue in 2015 helped by falling oil prices and a depreciating euro, Headline inflation plummeted from 2.7 percent in 2013 to 1.9 percent in 2014 and is expected to remain tempered over the medium term. Lebanon s economy continues to be exposed to external shocks. The border with Syria is increasingly menacing as coordinated attacks by ISIS and Al Nusra are being launched more frequently from their bases in Syria. Inefficiencies in power generation impose sizable macroeconomic costs on Lebanon. The Lebanese electricity sector has been underperforming for decades with considerable socio-economic costs. The macroeconomic impact has been massive.
First in a series, which aims to analyze the recent economic and financial situation in Côte d'Ivoire, this report analyzes the main macroeconomic developments and structural policies of the country from 2013 until mid-2014. It also reflects on the underlying factors of the strong economic recovery in Côte d'Ivoire since the end of the post-election crisis, to assess the likelihood of sustained economic growth and significant poverty reduction in the country. Finally, the report analyzes the effects of declining oil prices and the appreciation of the dollar against the euro and the CFA franc on the Ivorian economy. This edition does not examine the impact of strong economic growth on the Ivoirian population's well-being indicators such as, poverty, employment and inequality. Within the scope of this report, the objective is to understand the factors contributing to the strong economic recovery in Côte d'Ivoire. This economic update is targeted toward a larger audience, in order to stimulate constructive debate on public policy in the country and between the country and its development partners.
This report highlights recent economic updates in Bangladesh as of April 2015. Economic growth in Bangladesh was gaining momentum in the first half of FY15. Capacity utilization improved and investments were showing some signs of recovery. This growth was also job-friendly. The 12-monthly-moving average inflation decelerated from 7.6 percent in February 2014 to 6.8 percent in February 2015. The resilience of the Bangladesh economy continues to be tested by faltering political stability, weak global markets, and structural constraints. These are inhibiting the economy s income growth as well as progress on shared prosperity. Despite the emergence of a $1.3 billion deficit in the current account in the first seven months of FY15, the surplus in the overall balance of payments has been sustained, leading to continued accumulation of official foreign exchange reserves to prevent nominal exchange rate appreciation. Reserves are at a comfortable level at over 6 months of imports of goods and services. Fiscal policy has remained consistent with macroeconomic stability. Tax revenue growth has been weaker than targeted while expenditure have also been short due as usual to an implementation shortfall. The projected recovery in global growth, particularly in the United States and the Euro Zone, and continued softness in international commodity prices, bode well for Bangladesh. The country will need to restore political stability and implement faster structural reforms to capitalize on these opportunities. The potential GDP growth rate is on a declining path due to declining labor force growth and stagnant productivity growth, as well as the rate of capital accumulation. Raising the low Female Labor Force Participation (FLFP) rate offers on opportunity to boost the economy s potential growth rate. Moving forward, the biggest challenge remains ensuring durable political stability. This is a precondition for accelerated, inclusive, and sustainable growth.
This report is intended to provide guidance on best practices in mining licensing, based on examples from low, middle and high income countries in Africa, Asia, North America, and South America. It is not a 'how-to guide' or a licensing implementation toolkit, but rather identifies certain common features of successful mining licensing regimes worldwide that other national or sub-national jurisdictions might usefully incorporate in new mining laws and regulations or revisions or existing ones. The case studies and other examples of good and bad practice are intended to provide a cross-section by geography and by income level, and they demonstrate that the prevalence of good and bad practices is not simply a function of income level. Tanzania, one of the poorest countries in the world, has in many respects a better licensing regime than either South Africa or the U.S. State of Wisconsin. In considering these complex issues, it has proven difficult to confine the discussion purely to questions of licensing. Discussion of licensing invariably invokes reference to overall policy and investment climate issues, environmental protection, labor law, taxation, national and sub-national jurisdiction, land tenure, and much more. This report makes no attempt to address all of these in detail but refers to them in reference to their interactions with and effect on, licensing itself. Far more detailed research on mineral policy, taxation, investment climate, and other issues has been carried out, some of it referred to in this report and cited in the footnotes and bibliography.
Public investment to facilitate growth and poverty reduction is paramount to Sudan's development challenge. The acute need for rebuilding the country's deteriorated infrastructure and service delivery framework underscores the importance of more active and effective public investment. The disproportional composition of the spending adjustment raises particular concern on pro-poor and public investment spending during the subsequent fiscal adjustment period expected to follow. Under the growing fiscal decentralization trend, the state governments have taken up the primary responsibility to provide basic public service deliveries to the poor; in such a decentralized constellation, reduced support from the federal budget could seriously jeopardize the provision of basic services at the state and locality level. In particular, public investment expenditure now has to effectively address service delivery needs and the broader development agenda, while at the same time the overall resource envelope is declining. This note is the result of a rapid assessment of Sudan's public investment portfolio in the context of the anticipated fiscal adjustment. It is not a full-fledged review on public investment projects or the public investment management system. The main scope of the assessment is: to quickly identify available information on public investment projects from existing sources; to provide an contextual overview of the overall public investment portfolio in light of the imminent needs for rationalizing the public investment portfolio; and to outline conceptual guidelines for public investment adjustments and to propose longer-term tasks to improve public investment management.
The Philippine economy recovered strongly from the global recession owing to a combination of transitory and permanent, as well as global and idiosyncratic factors. Similar to its regional peers, the recovery was partly driven by the rebound in global trade and domestic consumption linked to sharp increases in consumer confidence. In the Philippines, growth was also spurred by two domestic and temporary factors-continued fiscal policy easing and election-related spending-and a structural one, namely the acceleration in global outsourcing which benefited the country's business process outsourcing sector and associated sectors such as construction. The economy is projected to grow by 6.2 percent in 2010 and by 5 percent in 2011, with large but broadly balanced risks. While inflation expectations are under control, the prospects of large short-term capital inflows partly linked to renewed quantitative easing by key G7 central banks are complicating monetary policy at a time when the economy no longer needs accommodative monetary policy. The first budget of the Aquino government could be a turning point for the Philippines in the public finance area. The 2011 budget changes current dynamics in two critical areas: the (structural and cyclical) fiscal policy stance and the quality of public finances. This "reform budget" renews the fiscal consolidation effort-albeit modestly and contains significant reform measures aimed at improving spending efficiency, transparency and accountability of the budget. For the 2011 budget to indeed turn the country away from a weak fiscal position, inconsistent spending efficiency, and significant gaps in public expenditure and financial accountability, efforts initiated in this budget will have to both be sustained over time and expanded. Strengthening revenue mobilization-through a modern tax system with efficiency and equity at its core-would enable future budgets to scale up spending needed to generate inclusive growth.
The Thai economy runs on a single engine: external demand. The economic roller coaster since the onset of the global financial crisis can be overwhelmingly attributed to fluctuations in the output of three sectors most sensitive to external demand: manufacturing, logistics (transportation and storage), and tourism (hotels and restaurants). As global trade contracted between the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009, Thailand's real gross domestic product (GDP) fell 6.3 percent, before rebounding 6.9 percent through the end of 2009 on a revival in actual and expected external demand. At the end of 2009, real GDP was back to pre-crisis levels, as measured in seasonally adjusted terms. For 2009 as a whole, however, real GDP fell 2.2 percent. The dominance of sectors linked to external demand over Thailand's growth dynamics is not new. Both sets of sectors grew at about the same pace prior to the 1997 financial crisis. However, a structural break took place in the aftermath of the crisis, when sectors linked to external demand grew an average of 6.1 percent between 2001 and 2007 compared to a 4.3 percent growth rate of other sectors. While the sectors linked to external demand are expected to grow below the historical average in the near term due to lower growth in demand from advanced economies, a reversal of the structural change observed since 1998 is unlikely. This will require an acceleration of the growth of the sectors linked to domestic demand. But the constraints that limited the growth of these sectors in the past not only remain but have been compounded in the near term by the escalation of the political conflict. This will ensure that growth rates in sectors linked to domestic demand will also remain below their (already low) historical averages and the dominance of external demand on the economy will continue to increase.
The economic rebound in recent quarters has been stronger than expected and the economy is showing signs of overheating. These signs are show up in rising inflation, especially of those goods and services which are in strong demand, but cannot easily be imported or whose local supply cannot readily be increased to meet the growing demand. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth reached 20.8 percent year-on-year (yoy) in Q3, following an outturn of 17.3 percent in Q2. Growth for the year as a whole will likely hit 15 percent, if not more, up from 6.4 percent in 2010, and is being pushed by infrastructure spending as Mongolia develops its vast mineral wealth. Inflation continues its upward trend. The trade deficit is close to record levels (US$ 1.4 bn in September using 12-month rolling sums) driven by a surge in mining-related equipment and fuel imports. Exports are growing strongly too, driven by large coal shipments to China. The 2012 budget continues this fiscal expansion and targets a 74 percent increase in expenditures (mostly on wages and social transfers).
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
As much as COVID-19 is a health and economic crisis, at its core, it is also a governance crisis.
NDI President Derek Mitchell and new Director of Democratic Governance Kristen Sample delve into ways governments and the international community have risen (or not) to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Find us on: SoundCloud | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | Google Play
Derek Mitchell: As we all continue to shelter in place and respond to the colossal health and economic crisis that is COVID-19, we must not forget that at its core, pandemics are as much a result of governance failure as any failure of healthcare or health system. Since working to support democratic processes, institutions and governance around the world is what NDI does for a living, we thought it useful to delve into the role governance has played in the COVID-19 pandemic with NDI's experience in more than 50 countries around the world serving as a guide. Welcome to DemWorks. My name is Derek Mitchell, president of the National Democratic Institute. To discuss all this with me in this podcast, I'm joined by NDI's new director of democratic governance, Kristen Sample. Kristen Sample: Thank you so much Derek. DM: Kristen just joined us on March 1. She brings more than 20 years of democratic governance experience with her to NBI having advised and evaluated programs at UN Women, UN Democracy Fund, the Open Society Foundation, Global Partners, Governance and International IDEA. Kristen is an expert on countering corruption, legislative strengthening in the nexus of gender and politics and she has led projects focused on the impact of democratic reform on economic development and citizen security. At a moment when the global crisis in governance is at the center of international conversation, at least before the pandemic push pause, we are thrilled to have Kristen aboard to look at that issue with fresh creativity here at NBI. So welcome Kristen to your very first DemWorks podcast. KS: I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today on such important issues. DM: So we'll speak about the crisis of governance but also the pandemic factor as well. But I do want to start with this global governance crisis that has sort of preceded this. This is a broader overhang. We've seen all over the world popular demonstrations over the past year and more and everywhere from Moscow to Managua, to Hong Kong, to Khartoum, to Algeria, to Istanbul, to Paris. You can go on and on. And what it represents is a frustration with the quality of governance. Democracy somehow is not delivering for people. And I want to hear your thoughts on that. It's a moment of turmoil certainly. People will look at this and say, "Well, democracy is failing," but it's more than democracy that this is happening. It's a general quality of governance question that I think actually provides an opportunity. So let me just ask your thoughts on that first off, Kristen. KS: Yeah. Thanks so much for that question, Derek. I think that NDI, since we have officers or programs spanning every region of the world basically in more than 50 countries, we're in a very good position to be able to take the pulse of what's happening in the different countries. In fact, we have been conducting surveys every two weeks of our country programs to get a sense of what's happening on the ground and we've received some very interesting signals that I'm really happy to be able to share with you today. On the one side, we are saying that in many countries governments are responding very seriously, in very concerted ways to the health crisis. I mean in more than two thirds of the countries. The governments in the countries where we work are closing nonessential businesses in over 60%, they are communicating in ways, having very intensive communication campaigns that really are reaching all citizens. But when it comes to the democracy side, when it comes to implementing that response and pursuing a response that's consistent with democratic principles and norms and values and institutions, we are seeing some troubling developments at the same time. For instance, the number of governments by our account, over 40% of the governments in the countries where we work are declaring emergency powers and it's clear that this is an extraordinary situation that requires extraordinary measures, but in many cases these emergency powers are inconsistent with democratic principles. They are not linked to the crisis. There is no provision for legislative oversight or in many cases, these have no sunset class, so there's no time limit and these are simply open-ended. And link to that and linked in many cases to these emergency powers, emergency decrees, we're seeing an uptick also in threats to fundamental freedoms. For instance, nearly half of our countries are reporting that there are measures in place where governments are repressing non-state media who are critical of the government's response to the pandemic and that in some cases, again, almost 50% of our countries, there are measures in place where governments are limiting space for civil society to engage in political actions. Another factor that I'd like to highlight too is while we're all distracted by the pandemic and while people are at home and perhaps with less access to information and less direct contact with government, there are also signals that many governments are using this as an opportunity to diminish anti-corruption controls. So that means that in some cases economic response packages or healthcare delivery is taking place with less transparency and less openness, which as you can imagine is a risk in terms of making sure that those resources are actually getting where they need to be. And all of this, all of the stresses, the frustration and these concerns of course also have impacts when it comes to citizen trust, interpersonal trust citizen trust of the government and also we're seeing greater potential for civic unrest and a deteriorating security environment. So all together, I hate to start with such a pessimistic view, but I think it is important again, through the networks that we have, the relationships that we have with political and civic actors on the ground, to convey the seriousness of the situation and to make sure that we're always communicating that well, this response requires really drastic measures. These measures need to be consonant of course, with the principles of democratic governance. DM: Right. It fits into this broader competition of narratives that occurred even before the pandemic began, where China or Russia saying, "Look, authoritarian governments are more efficient in providing services. We do this stuff better. Democracy is messy." And they're able, as you say, to take advantage of this moment when people are looking for strong central control to make that case and to both do that rhetorically but also through provision of services. And then it's not just those major countries. You'll have folks whether it's Hungary or Poland or you just go around the world, they're postponing elections. They are shutting down civil society, they're settling scores with adversaries. They're constraining public debate, saying that those things are luxuries during a time of crisis and that gives them an opportunity then as you said, for not just power grabs, but resource grabs and money grabs and they say, "Look, these are extraordinary times. They require extraordinary measures." And the concern is that these extraordinary measures will be permanent, that they'll say you need us to be surveilling people. So this is a challenge for certainly those who do democracy work and for folks inside these countries. But I think the broader question of security, we'll talk about that maybe a little bit later, but it's interesting what we're seeing on the ground as you say. You do a lot of work in the legislative sphere, you have a lot of background on that. How legislatures are particularly important. Civil society is too, but just focusing on legislature's role as a check and balance against executive overreach, can you talk about from the NDI experience or your other observation, how legislatures are being challenged, how they're dealing with this moment, how they're adapting to deal with the COVID-19 moment. KS: Yeah, absolutely. So I'm so glad you brought this point up. The first challenge that I'd highlight is this risk that the legislative branch is getting sidelined. In a crisis like this, the executive branch is generally front and center. Their role is clearly understood by citizens. Head of state might be the one out there doing daily press briefings or a health minister communicating medical reports. And there's this sense of emergency that as I sort of alluding to before, it seems to empower the executive branch. And unfortunately that seems to be, in many cases, at the expense of the legislative power. And additionally, another challenge and another reason that legislatures are perhaps getting crowded out or sidelined is simply that, the coronavirus, by it's dynamic, it's not socially compatible. And since parliaments are these multi-member bodies that have more diffuse operations, more diffuse leadership and that involve hundreds of different people, it's simply just a challenge to assemble a large group of people together, bring them together and keep them front and center in this crisis. So if that first challenge is making sure that people just keep in mind that legislatures matter and the legislatures are able to exert their rights and their authority, I'd say that the second challenge of course is just how do parliaments, legislatures operate in a virtual world. Politicians are by nature, they like to shake hands, they like to get out on the street, they need to be in touch with their constituents. And there are so many challenge involved in this current world that we have where we should all be social distancing. So looking across the world where we work, their parliaments are adopting different measures. Some of them are using social distancing restrictions like reducing the number of MPs in sessions. Others are moving to remote voting, remote deliberations. And then others are not meeting at all, which of course is quite terrible. And in those cases where legislatures have been dissolved or have been suspended for long periods of time. We are working too, as you were saying, as NDI closely with parliaments in a number of countries to try to do those adaptations to the rules of procedures so that they're able to continue meeting in session and continue deliberating and continuing exercising oversight. For instance, we have connected parliamentarians in Colombia with parliamentarians in Ecuador. We have virtual sessions to learn from Ecuador's experience in adopting a regulation for the implementation of virtual session and teleworking. So we are trying to connect parliamentarians across countries to understand how some parliaments have been moving forward in terms of remote procedures and how that's going for them. And two more challenges. One I'd highlight is that oversight role that we've been talking about. And from the same survey that we conducted with our country programs, we found that in 59% of the countries, checks and balances have been weakened, have deteriorated under the pandemic. And this is happening at such an unfortunate time when there's so many policy measures that need to be approved and put in place. If we just take the issue of debt policy for instance, I saw a statistic from the Westminster Foundation that more than 80 countries have already requested emergency aid from the IMF. I mean these countries are struggling of course to meet different types of fiscal obligations and they are desperate for cash in order to ramp up health services and put in place economic measures. And so these governments are taking on debt obligations, debt burns that are going to have far reaching impacts and long lasting impacts that should really be approved by the legislative branch and include monitoring and reporting. And that's not always the case in most of these instances. DM: So you just say it's a very dangerous time and folks are adapting procedurally, but there are really implications to this longterm, including for security. And I think we'll get to that after the break. For more than 35 years, NDI has been honored to work with courageous and committed pro-democracy activists and leaders around the world to help countries develop the institutions, practices and skills necessary for democracy's success. KS: Welcome back. Derek, I've heard you speak to the issue of authoritarian systems and how they're operating in this crisis and that the authoritarian nature in itself makes health crises more likely. And you've also said in some of your speeches and some of the conversations we've had that it's not a coincidence that the pandemic started in China and I'd really like to hear from your expertise, your deep background on China specifically. Can you explain to listeners why that is? Why there is that connection? DM: Well, as I said at the top, this is not just a health crisis, it's a governance crisis. It's a factor of governance both in the prevention of the pandemic and the response to it. We talked so far mostly about the response, how we're responding to the pandemic, but the core of the pandemic is a failure of governance. The difference between a local health crisis that is contained and a pandemic lies in the ability of a political system to respond to that early challenge quickly and effectively. And that requires both government and civic action. And if you're going to deal with this crisis early, it requires both. To do that, you have to act swiftly. You have to have widespread testing and contact tracing. You need critical support from citizens. In order to do all that and to ensure that that happens, you have to have basic civic trust. Closed societies routinely fail that test of having that civic trust and that rapid action for some very practical reasons. When a government suppresses a free flow of information, when it fails to empower independent civic institutions, when it's too insecure to convey bad news candidly, doesn't feel that it has a political legitimacy, therefore, it's insecure to convey bad news. When its data can't be trusted because it's opaque, when its officials are afraid to speak truth to power or communicate inconvenient truths to their superiors or act decisively, absent waiting for some strict orders from the very center and they can't move quickly, the result can be deadly. It turns what is a local health issue into a pandemic so it crosses borders. It becomes not just a problem for one country but for all others. So democratic governance is very, very practical and once again in this regard, transparent, accountable, inclusive, responsive, open governments is essential to crisis response but it's also essential to prevent the crisis from emerging to begin with. And it is a matter of national security. This highlights frankly what many of us have known all along, that this is not just nice but has very practical national security effects. And as we just talked earlier, the irony is that just as the world needs more open democratic societies to prevent future crises and deal with the current one, there are opportunistic politicians who are closing political and civic space. That I think is a very practical reason why that closed societies cause these pandemics. KS: I think that all of those points that you've been raising in terms of the threats and the vulnerabilities are so important for us to keep front and center. At the same time, here in NDI, as you know, is we're very keen to make sure that there are also opportunities to elevate the many examples around the world where governments are acting democratically and effectively in response to the crisis and they're framing and working with citizens in ways that are absolutely consistent with democratic values and principles. And so I do want to showcase some of those. I think it's received a lot of press around the world how New Zealand, for instance has reacted, and I read this week that New Zealand is perhaps one of the very first countries to have been able to successfully eliminate COVID. They have no new COVID cases. And it's a case that really stands out for the way that the prime minister has been able to deliver information in a very clear, compassionate, inclusive way, a way that's very grounded in science of course, and transparent. And at the same time where the legislature has had an important role developing a parliamentary select committee that's providing scrutiny of the government's response. The government has also been very affirmative there I think, in terms of issues of freedom of information and media freedom and has said that they would not slow down, for instance, their commitment to responding to requests for information during the crisis. So there's certainly the case of New Zealand, which is so interesting and it's shown such early success, but there are other places around the world too where specific measures taken by the government I think have been so positive and far reaching. Uruguay comes to mind for instance. We see so many cases where authoritarian leaders are using this crisis to be able to settle scores as you were saying, or to act in a very partisan fashion. But in Uruguay, the president convened all of the former presidential candidates to give a joint press conference to send a powerful message of unity and to show that across the party divide, they were working together to develop responses. Taiwan also really stands out for its cross party coordination, the transparent communications they've had, the very creative efforts that the government has put in place there, I think they've called it humor, not rumor. A campaign to share facts in real time to counter disinformation, to manage fear. So there aren't many cases out there as I was saying, of governments that are responding effectively and in ways that are building that citizen trust that you were mentioning. DM: Yes. And then a further one, another democracy that's a leading democracy, probably the first out of the gate is South Korea. They did exactly what was necessary. People are looking at that example, a democratic example. They didn't sacrifice rights at all. They obviously had very strong controls at times of the society, but it took very swift action. They did widespread testing, contact tracing and they worked with civil society and is shown over and over that civil society is probably one of the most important factors. It's not simply a government driven thing that makes a response success. Civil society serves as a very efficient force multiplier for government. We saw that in Katrina, hurricane Katrina. We see it's proved over and over that it really is effective in getting the word out and messaging. Ensuring is like in Taiwan through their civic tech community, they're sort of hackers. They're young citizens, who themselves in a voluntary fashion, formed a community. They were viewed as allies and partners not alienated from the government. And that partnership has been a success in Taiwan, has been a success in South Korea and is essential for a success. And that means that governments need to be open, need to be transparent, they need to see society as partners. So this is absolutely critical. KS: Yeah. And I just want to add on the South Korea example. I'm so glad you brought that up because South Korea held elections during the pandemic on April 15, they had national assembly lessons and they were actually able to organize those elections in a way that was seen as very transparent, that was very consistent with electoral integrity and they had higher levels of turnout than in previous elections, which is pretty amazing. And there's so many countries around the world that are facing elections in 2020. I think the way that South Korea was able to do it with a very intensive communication campaign as you were speaking again to their transparency of communication, they had expanded early voting measures in place. They had home voting, they had very comprehensive safeguards for people to be able to vote in person. So even organizing an election in a time that seems so difficult and so challenging, I think that as you were saying, democracies like South Korea are showing that there is a way forward. DM: Right. And I think we can learn some lessons from that as well. There are groups, including NDI has been at the center of this, of putting together documents that say here are the election integrity guidelines for this moment, that democracy should not be sacrificed at the alter of crisis response, that elections need to move forward if they can be done in the right way and if they need to be postponed, it's postponed within a certain timeframe and only during a period of high crisis. So there are principles here where democracy can continue to move forward. It makes the society stronger, it builds that civic trust that's important for crisis response. But we need to... You can walk and chew gum at the same time at this moment. So I'm glad we were able to talk about some of these democratic examples. KS: Absolutely. And I will be right back after this quick message. You can hear more from other democracy heroes by listening to our DemWorks podcast available on iTunes and SoundCloud. DM: Welcome back with Kristen Sample. Of course you're new to NDI, but you know NDI very well and it's a fundamental principle everywhere that nations will only succeed when societies are fully inclusive, where they don't leave anybody behind. They enable all to contribute equally. That means women, that means young people, that means traditionally marginalized groups, LGBT communities, et cetera. It's just plain logic that if you leave anybody behind, that you're not going to get the most out of your citizen when you're going to hold your country back, and yet we are witnessing negative impacts toward these populations during this COVID-19 moment. Kristen, can you speak to this, explain what's going on here and why it matters? KS: Sure, absolutely. I mean obviously this crisis isn't occurring in a vacuum. It's occurring in a context where across the world, across all countries, there are already this array of existing intersecting inequalities where some people were coming into this crisis already in a disadvantaged place. And then the pandemic itself has differentiated impacts that affect women and other marginalized groups disproportionately. I'll just give a few examples. I mean lockdown for women who are living in relationships of power imbalance and of abuse perhaps, lockdown for them means locked in, with an abusive partner. And for instance our survey of country offices that I was referring to previously, in 66% of our countries, there seems to be an increase in sexual and gender based violence since the pandemic. In 15% of those countries, it's a significant increase. Of course these women might be locked in in vulnerable situations and then at the same time have less access to government resources, government support. So that's one example. Others, people with disabilities for instance, who have always struggled to access health services, transportation in an equitable fashion, you can imagine that that lack of access and the differentiated impact of the pandemic on them is life threatening in some cases. There are digital divide concerns, people in rural areas or women, other marginalized groups who may have less access to information, to resources. There are real concerns also and cases around the world where this pandemic is being exploited by anti migrant hate groups for instance, who try to link movement and migration to the origin of the virus. Or in some cases, for instance in Africa and some of the countries where we work, media outlets are perpetuating stereotypes against people with albinism for instance, and placing the blame for the virus on them. So there are so many challenges around making sure that people have access to resources, people are safe and that we are able to convey and support a message of social cohesion and solidarity instead of the divisions that we're seeing pop up around the world. I think that in our case, for instance in Indiana, what we're trying to do is reinforce the need for inclusive decision-making, making sure for instance, that women are involved in decision making and other marginalized groups are involved in decision making and representation and in these deliberation bodies, making sure that the policymaking is taking into account these vulnerabilities and these different differentiated needs. And also the government messaging is inclusive, getting to everybody and it's supporting the social cohesion messaging and solidarity messages. DM: And again, this is critical for the crisis response, pandemic response. I mean COVID-19 doesn't discriminate. Whoever has it, whoever is vulnerable or subject will get it and it will spread to the society writ large. So if you're not inclusive, if you're excluding folks, if politicians then see that there is an opportunity here as some politicians will to divide and conquer, to play on fear. Or spoilers from the outside may see that there are opportunities if they're divided societies, to create tensions that then require or enable them to negotiate the deal that you want to make or promote corruption within the society. There are all kinds of ways this makes societies less stable, less secure, and affects the development and certainly the response to crises. So this is not just a nice thing, it's not just a human rights thing. This is fundamentally important to national security, international security and to everything that we're seeking to achieve through democracy. KS: Absolutely. And I think along the things I'd really like to hear from you too, Derek, in terms of how you see along the lines of this being an international crisis that includes the whole world, that joins us all although we are in very different places. How you see role NDI's role in supporting that cross border cooperation and solidarity and having the international community come together? DM: Given that authoritarians are claiming their model is unique for this moment, we have to be out there making our case. But in terms of our specific adaptations that we are doing, we are working in places like Ethiopia to ensure that the public opinion surveys are necessary invents of their postponed elections or continue forward, but can be done virtually. That we can adapt legislative rules of procedure in places that need it to allow for remote voting and continue the legislative process to ensure that election integrity is maintained. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain principles and established accepted international principles for when and how to postpone elections, how to hold them during moments of crisis. And we put together crisis response kits that can be used. It's called the practical toolkit for politicians during a pandemic that can help political parties figure out how to do crisis management or help the government put together crisis communication. So a lot of things that can be done internally and done across different countries that ensure the solidarity is still there, the momentum for democracy is still there. The expectation that democratic norms are sustained in this moment so that the headlines are not simply roll back authoritarian opportunism, that massive surveillance, all the things that people may succumb to because of fear during crisis, that there is an alternative voice and it says it doesn't have to be like that. Or if it does have to be like that now, it doesn't have to continue to be like that indefinitely and that there are some standards by which these things are being imposed. So that international norm setting at this moment, it's probably more important than ever to do and we are trying to do at national level. We're trying to do it across different countries to ensure that there is not a vacuum to which the authoritarian voice moves and has free open season for its own values. It goes across, I think, a lot of different countries. And Kristen, I'd be interested in your thoughts from your perspective of governance, how that's working. KS: I think that there's a real role for the international community to play. And I wanted to highlight that too in what you're saying because these challenges are so vast that clearly we have to work together on people to people exchanges and supporting lesson sharing. And so I do think that there's an absolute role for the international community playing in terms of getting out the messages of that democracy is not a luxury, it's not something that could be put into a coma or put on hold while we're all sheltering, that it's something that has to be reaffirmed on a daily basis. And so I do think that countries also have to, in addition to standing firm, standing on their own ground on democratic principles, they also have to be willing to promote and expand those democratic principles across borders, especially to counter those liberal influences that you were referring to earlier, that in some cases are, really transmitted and increased through disinformation campaigns or phony PR campaigns that need to be called out of course by all actors. DM: Thanks again, Kristen for joining me in conversation about how democracies can best meet the challenges of COVID and how NDI with its global partners are meeting the moment. KS: Thank you, Derek. DM: I'd also like to say thank you to our listeners. To learn more about NDI or to listen to other DemWorks podcasts, please visit our website at www.ndi.org. Thanks very much.
World map of Coronavirus (Covid-19)
19. Governance is Key During COVID-19? (w/ Kristen Sample) Posted 6 days ago
Democracy (General), COVID-19 Podcast NDI Listen democracy