Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Original Title Page -- Original Copyright Page -- Contents -- Preface -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The Aid Process -- Introduction -- The Total Volume of Aid -- The Share Received by Different Countries -- How the Aid is Used -- Implementation and Follow-up -- Conclusion -- 3. Leverage -- Donor Self-interest -- The Interest of the Recipient -- Efficiency and Good Management -- Terms of Aid -- Multilateral and Bilateral Donors -- The Role of Technical Assistance -- The Merits and Demerits of Leverage -- Conclusion -- 4. Motives and Interests -- Politicians on the Donor Side -- Civil Servants on the Donor Side -- Politicians on the Recipient Side -- Civil Servants on the Recipient Side -- The Intermediaries -- Conclusion -- 5. The Problems of Foreign Aid -- Delay -- Lack of Results -- Inequitable Benefits -- Unwanted Side Effects -- Maintenance -- Profligate Use of Capital and Foreign Exchange -- Lack of Skilled Manpower -- The Formation of an Alien Elite -- Conclusion -- 6. Alternatives -- Trade -- Investment -- Migration -- Financing Recurrent Costs -- Financing Local Costs -- Programme not Project Aid -- Untying Aid -- Multilateral not Bilateral Aid -- Country or Sector Concentration -- Continuity within the Recipient Country -- Improved Project Identification and Preparation -- Use of Non-governmental Organisations -- Emphasis on Training -- Increasing Personal Contact -- Automatic Transfers -- 7. Conclusion -- Statistical Appendix -- Index.

AbstractThe World Economic Forum is a major player in global health governance, promoting the role of the private sector and specific public–private partnerships (PPPs). It exerts influence in three main ways: by exercising convening power, most notably in Davos where the most powerful representatives of the private sector meet with heads of governments and international organisations; by shaping ideas through its role as a think tank; by its engagement in PPPs, most recently as a founder member of CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations). But its organisational status is ambiguous, and it appears to lack accountability—even to its own members, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of such an influential organisation.

AbstractThe article critically analyses how the transformative ambition of the SDGs may be threatened in the process of moving from vision, through goals and targets to indicators. This is exemplified by a case study concerning sustainable agriculture, and most specifically indicator 2.4.1, where two contrasting approaches – industrial agriculture and agro‐ecology – stand in opposition, each with its associated discourse and interests. The process is analysed in great detail, noting the complex interplay of political and technical considerations. FAO has played a central role in establishing a compromise with regard to the wording of indicator 2.4.1 which papers over the disagreements and does not explicitly promote either of the two competing approaches. And the organisation has facilitated a technical process which, instead of one simple indicator, has led to a composite, multidimensional version with nine sub‐indicators, as a result of which it has been relegated to 'Tier III' status, implying that it will not be used for global monitoring purposes. The article concludes that – owing to a combination of political and technical factors – the transformative potential of the SDGs may, in this instance, be lost.

The major way in which IPES-Food seeks to achieve change is by preparing and widely disseminating reports on different aspects of the global food system, which are rigorous in both empirical and analytical terms. These reports are heavily critical of the productionist approach, demonstrating its negative impacts on the environment and human wellbeing. They use a political economy lens to analyse how powerful actors promote both this approach and the narrative that supports it. The five major reports so far published build on the work of the first, where a number of 'lock-ins' are identified, such as path dependency, export orientation, and the expectation of cheap food – as well as the fundamental 'concentration of power'. IPES-Food is well placed to have political impact; and there is room for the power analysis to be made still more comprehensive and theoretically rigorous, while ensuring that the reports are still widely read and cited.

The major way in which IPES-Food seeks to achieve change is by preparing and widely disseminating reports on different aspects of the global food system, which are rigorous in both empirical and analytical terms. These reports are heavily critical of the productionist approach, demonstrating its negative impacts on the environment and human wellbeing. They use a political economy lens to analyse how powerful actors promote both this approach and the narrative that supports it. The five major reports so far published build on the work of the first, where a number of 'lock-ins' are identified, such as path dependency, export orientation, and the expectation of cheap food – as well as the fundamental 'concentration of power'. IPES-Food is well placed to have political impact; and there is room for the power analysis to be made still more comprehensive and theoretically rigorous, while ensuring that the reports are still widely read and cited. ; International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (iPES Food)