Suchergebnisse

The AIDS epidemic will cause significant increases in illness and death in prime-age adults, which will manifest itself through negative social, economic and developmental impacts. The epidemic's economic impacts at the household level are decreased income, increased health-care costs, decreased productive capacity and changing expenditure patterns. Three coping strategies are observed: altering household composition; withdrawing savings or selling assets; and receiving assistance from other households. Following death, the impacts break out of the family into the community, primarily through orphaning. In the near future, the sheer number of orphans may overwhelm the capacity of existing community resources to cope. The distribution of the impacts of the AIDS epidemic falls unevenly among the genders. In Africa, women have higher infection rates and bear a disproportionate burden of the care of HIV-positive people. Orphaned girls are more vulnerable to exploitation. (SAJIA/DÜI)

The aim of this article is to support efforts to hold governments accountable for their commitments to respond to HIV and AIDS. It describes a new approach to ranking countries' responses in order to facilitate cross-country comparisons. The method uses the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment as its point of departure and was designed to rank countries in terms of their efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. Three indicators of the country response were analyzed: 1) prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) coverage; 2) antiretroviral (ARV) coverage; and 3) the ratio of orphans to non-orphans attending school. An assessment of this nature must acknowledge the unique situation of each country, depending on its infrastructure and access to resources. To account for these differences, a regression analysis with contextual control variables was carried out to identify the variation resulting from controllable factors. It is this variation which is used to examine countries' relative response to HIV as it considers what was actually achieved relative to what was expected given the context. The results highlight the efforts of not only some well-reputed, strong actors but also some unexpected front-runners. The results also point to a group of countries which are lagging behind in all regards. Comparisons between the three indicators show great variations in the focus of countries' efforts. Rating countries' relative response to HIV highlights countries that do well in spite of difficult circumstances. The article argues that these "relative overachievers" should be examined more closely so that lessons may be learnt from their efforts. The rating also draws attention to countries where the response is comparatively weak, and where governments, as lead actors in the AIDS partnership, bear the greatest responsibility. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to support efforts to hold governments accountable for their commitments to respond to HIV and AIDS. It describes a new approach to ranking countries' responses in order to facilitate cross-country comparisons. The method uses the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment as its point of departure and was designed to rank countries in terms of their efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. Three indicators of the country response were analyzed: 1) prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) coverage; 2) antiretroviral (ARV) coverage; and 3) the ratio of orphans to non-orphans attending school. An assessment of this nature must acknowledge the unique situation of each country, depending on its infrastructure and access to resources. To account for these differences, a regression analysis with contextual control variables was carried out to identify the variation resulting from controllable factors. It is this variation which is used to examine countries' relative response to HIV as it considers what was actually achieved relative to what was expected given the context. The results highlight the efforts of not only some well-reputed, strong actors but also some unexpected front-runners. The results also point to a group of countries which are lagging behind in all regards. Comparisons between the three indicators show great variations in the focus of countries' efforts. Rating countries' relative response to HIV highlights countries that do well in spite of difficult circumstances. The article argues that these "relative overachievers" should be examined more closely so that lessons may be learnt from their efforts. The rating also draws attention to countries where the response is comparatively weak, and where governments, as lead actors in the AIDS partnership, bear the greatest responsibility. Adapted from the source document.

The aim of this article is to support efforts to hold governments accountable for their commitments to respond to HIV and AIDS. It describes a new approach to ranking countries' responses in order to facilitate cross-country comparisons. The method uses the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS (UNGASS) Declaration of Commitment as its point of departure and was designed to rank countries in terms of their efforts to fight HIV and AIDS. Three indicators of the country response were analyzed: 1) prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) coverage; 2) antiretroviral (ARV) coverage; and 3) the ratio of orphans to non-orphans attending school. An assessment of this nature must acknowledge the unique situation of each country, depending on its infrastructure and access to resources. To account for these differences, a regression analysis with contextual control variables was carried out to identify the variation resulting from controllable factors. It is this variation which is used to examine countries' relative response to HIV as it considers what was actually achieved relative to what was expected given the context. The results highlight the efforts of not only some well-reputed, strong actors but also some unexpected front-runners. The results also point to a group of countries which are lagging behind in all regards. Comparisons between the three indicators show great variations in the focus of countries' efforts. Rating countries' relative response to HIV highlights countries that do well in spite of difficult circumstances. The article argues that these "relative overachievers" should be examined more closely so that lessons may be learnt from their efforts. The rating also draws attention to countries where the response is comparatively weak, and where governments, as lead actors in the AIDS partnership, bear the greatest responsibility. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractMotivationInvesting in girls' schooling in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) is seen as central to improving gender equity. It is argued that interventions to promote girls' enrolment are appropriate as girls face gendered barriers to school enrolment and completion and investing in girls' schooling has high economic and human development returns. But is this fair to boys and enough for girls?PurposeWe ask how appropriate it is to direct development assistance towards improving girls' school enrolment, compared to prioritizing schooling for both girls and boys, and addressing barriers to gender equality throughout the life course.Methods and approachWe frame the enquiry through a human development framework with three distinct but interdependent domains: protection of human development potential; realization of human development potential; and use of human development potential.Using publicly available data, we identify indicators that are likely to be correlated with the degree to which human development potential is protected, realized, and utilized in LMICs. We compare male and female outcomes on each of these indicators to assess gender parity at different life stages.FindingsIn most regions, girls are ahead of boys in both school enrolment and completion. Girls have better outcomes than boys in several other indicators in early life and childhood.In adolescence and adulthood, girls and women fall behind boys and men. This is especially apparent in workforce participation, in unemployment, in pay, and in share of unpaid care work and political participation, where women have less favourable outcomes than men. The bias against women is most marked in South Asia and sub‐Saharan Africa.Policy implicationsA focus on girls' schooling should be tempered by ensuring quality pre‐primary, primary, and secondary schooling for both boys and girls. At the same time, we must address causes of gender inequality, including labour market discrimination and social norms that justify the exclusion and exploitation of women and girls.