Introduction:  The sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform and the resulting discharge of millions of gallons of crude oil into the sea demonstrated graphically the challenge of environmental protection in the ocean waters shared by Cuba and the United States.

While the quest for deepwater drilling of oil and gas may slow as a result of the latest calamity, it is unlikely to stop. It came as little surprise, for example, that Repsol recently announced plans to move forward with exploratory oil drilling in Cuban territorial waters later this year.

As Cuba continues to develop its deepwater oil and natural gas reserves, the consequence to the United States of a similar mishap occurring in Cuban waters moves from the theoretical to the actual. The sobering fact that a Cuban spill could foul hundreds of miles of American coastline and do profound harm to important marine habitats demands cooperative and proactive planning by Washington and Havana to minimize or avoid such a calamity. Also important is the planning necessary to prevent and, if necessary, respond to incidents arising from this country’s oil industry that, through the action of currents and wind, threaten Cuban waters and shorelines.

While Washington is working to prevent future disasters in U.S. waters like the Deepwater Horizon, its current policies foreclose the ability to respond effectively to future oil disasters—whether that disaster is caused by companies at work in Cuban waters, or is the result of companies operating in U.S. waters.

Downloads

• Download Map of the North Cuba Basin
• Download Full Paper

       

INTRODUCTION 

Last year, President Obama delivered the first step in his promise to reach out to the Cuban people and support their desire for freedom and self-determination. Premised on the belief that Cuban Americans are our best ambassadors for freedom in Cuba, the Obama administration lifted restrictions on travel and remittances by Cuban Americans. The pent-up demand for Cuban American contact with the island revealed itself: within three months of the new policy, 300,000 Cuban Americans traveled to Havana -- 50,000 more than for all of the previous year.  Experts estimate that over $600 million in annual remittances has flowed from the United States to Cuba in 2008 and 2009 and informal flows of consumer goods is expanding rapidly.

The administration’s new policy has the potential to create new conditions for change in Cuba. However, if U.S. policy is to be truly forward looking it must further expand its focus from the Castro government to the well-being of the Cuban people. Recent developments on the island, including the ongoing release of dozens of political prisoners, have helped create the right political moment to take action.  The administration should institute a cultural diplomacy strategy that authorizes a broad cross-section of American private citizens and civil society to travel to the island to engage Cuban society and share their experiences as citizens of a democratic country.  Reducing restrictions on people-to-people contact is not a “concession,” but a strategic tool to advance U.S. policy objectives to support the emergence of a Cuban nation in which the Cuban people determine their political and economic future.

The President has the authority to reinstate a wide range of “purposeful,” non-touristic travel to Cuba in order to implement a cultural diplomacy strategy. Under President Clinton, the Baltimore Orioles played baseball in Havana and in return the Cuban national team was invited to Baltimore. U.S. students studied abroad in Cuba and engaged in lively discussions with their fellow students and host families. U.S. religious groups provided food and medicines to community organizations, helping them assist their membership.  However, in 2004, such travel was curtailed, severely limiting U.S. insights about the needs, interests and organizational capacities of community groups and grassroots organizations. Today, visitors traveling under an educational license, for example, number a meager 2,000 annually.

Downloads

• Download Full Paper

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

Event Information

On July 30-31, 2004, more than 40 preeminent international leaders from the public, private, and non-profit sectors came together at the Aspen Institute to discuss "America's Role in the Fight Against Global Poverty" and to set out a forward-looking strategy for the United States.

Co-hosted by Richard C. Blum of Blum Capital Partners LP, the Brookings Institution's Poverty and Global Economy Initiative, the Aspen Institute, and Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, the group's aim was to explore the dilemma of global poverty from different perspectives, to disaggregate the seemingly intractable problem into more manageable challenges, and to identify key elements of an effective U.S. policy agenda.

With roundtable participants hailing from around the world and representing diverse experiences and approaches, the dialogue was as multifaceted as the challenge of poverty itself. Rather than simply summarize conference proceedings, this essay attempts to weave together the thoughtful exchanges, impassioned calls to action, fresh insights, and innovative ideas that characterized the discussion, and to set the stage for ongoing collaboration in the struggle for human dignity.

Helping to define the issues, share and encourage what works, and build the intellectual framework for such an enterprise will be the guiding mission of the Richard C. Blum Roundtable in the years ahead.


View the full report »
View the conference agenda »
View the participant list »

      

Event Information

From August 3 to 6, 2005, fifty preeminent international leaders from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors came together at the Aspen Institute for a roundtable, "The Private Sector in the Fight against Global Poverty."

The roundtable was hosted by Richard C. Blum of Blum Capital Partners and Strobe Talbott and Lael Brainard of the Brookings Institution, with the active support of honorary cochairs Walter Isaacson of the Aspen Institute and Mary Robinson of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative. By highlighting the power of the market to help achieve social and economic progress in the world's poorest nations, the roundtable's organizers hoped to galvanize the private, public, and nonprofit sectors to move beyond argument and analysis to action. Put simply, as Brookings president Strobe Talbott explained, the roundtable's work was "brainstorming with a purpose."

With experts hailing from around the world and representing diverse sectors and approaches, the dialogue was as multilayered as the challenge of poverty itself. Rather than summarize the conference proceedings, this essay weaves together the thoughtful observations, fresh insights, and innovative ideas that characterized the discussion. A companion volume, Transforming the Development Landscape: The Role of the Private Sector, contains papers by conference participants, providing in-depth analysis of each conference topic.

View the 2005 report » (PDF)
View the conference agenda »
View the list participants »

      

Event Information

Global poverty and climate change are two of the most pressing challenges for global policymakers today, and require policy prescriptions that address their interrelated issues. Effective climate solutions must empower development by improving livelihoods, health and economic prospects while poverty alleviation must become a central strategy for both mitigating emissions and reducing the poor’s vulnerability to climate change.

2008 Brookings Blum Roundtable: Related Materials
	Read the roundtable report - Double Jeopardy: What the Climate Crisis Means for the Poor? »  Read the related book »  Download the participant list » (PDF) Download the scene setter » (PDF) Download the full roundtable agenda » (PDF)

In its fifth annual gathering, led by Lael Brainard and co-chaired by Strobe Talbott and Richard C. Blum, the Brookings Blum Roundtable addressed the challenges of climate change and development and convened leaders from both the development and climate change communities from August 1-3, 2008, to discuss and debate policy ideas that could benefit both fronts. By examining common challenges—accountability, effective deployment of resources, agenda-setting, mobilizing the public and financial resources, and achieving scale and sustainability—the Roundtable established a solid foundation for collaboration among the climate change and development communities and fostered ideas for policy action.

Keynote Sessions

Keynote Panel: “Noble Nobels: Solutions to Save the Planet”

• Steven Chu, University of California, Berkeley
• Al Gore, Generation Investment Management; 45^th Vice President of the United States

Keynote Panel: Legal Empowerment of the Poor

• Mary Robinson, Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative
• Madeline Albright, The Albright Group; Former U.S. Secretary of State

Keynote Panel: “How Do We Achieve Climate Justice?”

• Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS and the Global Call to Action Against Poverty
• Mary Robinson, Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative
  
  

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

The context for aid is changing. Globalization has spurred economic convergence, upending the twentieth century economic balance and creating a smaller world where both problems and solutions spill across national borders more readily. This has given rise to a legion of new development actors, including emerging economies, NGOs, private businesses, and coordinating networks, who have brought fresh energy and resources to the field while rendering the prospect of genuine donor coordination ever more difficult. Global integration and competition for resources has raised the prominence of global public goods, whose equitable and sustainable provision requires international collective action. Meanwhile, poor countries are demanding a new form of partnership with the international community, built upon the principles of country ownership and mutual accountability.

2011 Brookings Blum Roundtable: Related Materials
	Read the roundtable report - Global Development Under Pressure »  Read the conference policy briefs »  Download the participant list » (PDF) Download the scene setter » (PDF) Download the full roundtable agenda » (PDF)

From G-20 meetings and the upcoming High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Korea to unfolding events in the Middle East and North Africa, leadership from the United States is crucial, placing pressure on the Obama administration to deliver on its promise of far-reaching reforms to U.S. global development efforts. And amidst this shifting global landscape is the issue of effectively communicating the importance of global development cooperation to both a national and global public, at a time when budget pressures are being felt across many of the world’s major economies

At the eighth annual Brookings Blum Roundtable, co-chaired by Kemal Derviş and Richard C. Blum, 50 thought-leaders in international development came together to discuss a new role for global development cooperation, one that employs inclusive and innovative approaches for tackling contemporary development problems and that leverages the resources of a large field of actors.

---

Roundtable Agenda

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Welcome: 8:40 a.m. – 9:00 a.m.
Open Remarks
• Richard C. Blum, Blum Capital Partners, LP and Founder of the Blum Center for 
Developing Economies at Berkeley
• Mark Suzman, Global Development Program, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Kemal Derviş, Global Economy and Development, Brookings

Statement of Purpose, Scene Setter, Comments on the Agenda
• Homi Kharas, Brookings

Session I: 9:00AM - 10:30AM
Reframing Development Cooperation
In almost any discussion of international development, foreign aid takes center stage. But while 
aid can certainly be a catalyst for development, it does not work in isolation. Participants will 
discuss the key objectives of development cooperation, consider what measures of development 
cooperation are most valuable for recipients, and explore an effective balance of roles and 
responsibilities - including both public and private players - in today’s evolving development 
landscape.

Moderator
• Walter Isaacson, Aspen Institute

Introductory Remarks
• Owen Barder, Center for Global Development
• Donald Kaberuka, African Development Bank Group
• Ananya Roy, University of California, Berkeley
• Elizabeth Littlefield, Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Session II: 10:50AM - 12:20PM
The G-20's Development Agenda
Last year’s G-20 meeting in Seoul marked the first time the group formally took up the issue of development. There they announced the Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth and the Multi-Year Action Plan for Development: two far-reaching policies which are expected to guide the G20’s future agenda. What is the G-20’s comparative advantage vis-à-vis development, and how can the group’s development efforts be strengthened and supported?

Moderator
• Mark Suzman, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Introductory Remarks
• Alan Hirsch, The Presidency, South Africa
• Suman Bery, International Growth Centre
• Homi Kharas, Brookings

Dinner Program: 6:00PM - 9:00PM
A Conversation with Al Gore and Mary Robinson
Topic: "Energy Security and Climate Justice"

Moderator
• Kemal Derviş, Global Economy and Development, Brookings

---

Thursday, August 4, 2012 

Session III: 9:00AM - 10:30AM 
The Road to Buscan
In November, participants from over 150 countries, including ministers of developing and developed countries, heads of bilateral and multilateral development institutions, and civil society representatives, will take part in the fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, South Korea. The forum is intended to take account of the development community’s progress in achieving greater impact through aid and to redefine the aid effectiveness agenda to adjust to a changing global landscape. What would constitute success or failure at Busan?

Moderator
• Raymond Offenheiser, Oxfam America

Introductory Remarks
• J. Brian Atwood, Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development, 
Development Assistance Committee 
• Wonhyuk Lim, Korean Development Institute
• Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, World Bank 
• Steven Radelet, U.S. Agency for International Development 

Session IV: 10:50AM - 12:20PM 
Lessons from the Middle East on Governance and Aid
Popular protests across the Middle East against authoritarian regimes have prompted reflection 
on the role of aid to non-democratic and poorly governed countries. Some critics believe that aid 
should only be given to relatively well-governed countries where it is more likely to be effective, 
but for others, this amounts to collective punishment for the people who suffer under such 
governments. Do aid allocation models need to change and what role can the development 
community now play in supporting peaceful, democratic reform in the Middle East?

Moderator
• Madeleine K. Albright, Albright Stonebridge Group

Introductory Remarks
• Ragui Assaad, University of Minnesota
• Sheila Herrling, Millennium Challenge Corporation
• Tarik Yousef, Silatech

Lunch Program: 12:30PM - 2:00PM
A Conversation with Thomas R. Nides, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources

Moderator
• Richard C. Blum, Blum Capital Partners, LP and Founder of the Blum Center for Developing Economies at Berkeley

---

Friday, August 5, 2012 

Session V: 9:00AM - 10:30AM
Implementing U.S. Development Reforms 
The end of 2010 saw the completion of two major policy reviews in Washington concerned with 
international development: the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development and the 
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. Progress on implementation has been 
significant in many respects and meager in others. Additionally, despite directives to deliver on 
many valuable priorities for improvement, essential components of fundamental reform are still 
in need of address. Casting a shadow across the exercise, or alternatively serving as a spur to 
focus, the budget environment has soured.

Moderator
• Jim Kolbe, German Marshall Fund of the United States

Introductory Remarks
• Rajiv Shah, U.S. Agency for International Development
• Samina Ahmed, International Crisis Group
• Robert Mosbacher, Jr., Mosbacher Energy Company

Session VI: 10:50AM - 12:20PM
Communicating Development Cooperation
Public interest in and support for aid matter. Yet in many aid giving countries, there is 
widespread cynicism as to what end aid programs serve and ignorance as to what activities they 
actually involve. What are the best examples of development efforts which have been 
communicated successfully and what can we learn from this to shore up support for 
development cooperation now and in the future?

Moderator 
• Liz Schrayer, U.S. Global Leadership Coalition

Introductory Remarks 
• Steven Kull, Program on International Policy Attitudes
• Joshua Bolten, ONE
• S. Shankar Sastry, University of California, Berkeley
• Jack Leslie, Weber Shandwick

Closing Remarks: 12:20PM- 12:30PM
• Richard C. Blum, Blum Capital Partners, LP and Founder of the Blum Center for 
Developing Economies at Berkeley
• Kemal Derviş, Global Economy and Development, Brookings

Public Event: 4:00PM - 5:30PM
Brookings and the Aspen Institute present “Development as National Security?”: A Conversation with Rajiv Shah, U.S. Agency for International Development; Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; Richard J. Danzig, Center for a New American Security; and Susan C. Schwab, University of Maryland.

Moderator
• Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Welcome and Introductions
• Kemal Derviş, Brookings

Hosts
• Richard C. Blum and Senator Dianne Feinstein

       

Event Information

Lifting an estimated 1.2 billion people from extreme poverty over the next generation will require robust and broadly-shared economic growth throughout the developing world that is sufficient to generate decent jobs for an ever-expanding global labor force. Innovative but affordable solutions must also be found to meet people’s demand for basic needs like food, housing, a quality education and access to energy resources. And major investments will still be required to effectively address global development challenges, such as climate change and child and maternal health.  On all these fronts, the private sector, from small- and medium-sized enterprises to major global corporations, must play a significant and expanded role.

On August 4-6, 2013, Brookings Global Economy and Development is hosting the tenth annual Brookings Blum Roundtable on Global Poverty in Aspen, Colorado. This year’s roundtable theme, “The Private Sector in the New Global Development Agenda,” brings together global leaders, entrepreneurs, practitioners and public intellectuals to discuss how the contribution of the private sector be enhanced in the push to end poverty over the next generation and how government work more effectively with the private sector to leverage its investments in developing countries. 

Tweets about "#Blum2013"

Roundtable Agenda

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Welcome: 8:40AM - 9:00AM MST
Brookings Welcome
• Strobe Talbott, Brookings

Opening Remarks
• Richard C. Blum, Blum Capital Partners, LP and Founder of 
the Blum Center for Developing Economies at UC Berkeley
• Julie Sunderland, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
• Kemal Derviş, Global Economy and Development, Brookings

Session I: 9:00AM - 10:30AM MST
Framing Session: Reimagining the Role of the Private Sector
In this opening discussion, participants will explore the overarching questions for the roundtable: How can the contribution of the private sector be enhanced in the push to end poverty over the next generation? What are the most effective mechanisms for strengthening private sector accountability? How can business practices and norms be encouraged that support sustainable development and job creation? How can business build trust in its contributions to sustainable development?

Moderator
• Nancy Birdsall, Center for Global Development

Introductory Remarks
• Homi Kharas, Brookings Institution
• Viswanathan Shankar, Standard Chartered Bank
• Shannon May, Bridge International Academies


Session II: 10:50AM - 12:20PM MST
Private Equity
Participants will explore the following questions for the roundtable: What are the constraints to higher levels of private equity in the developing world, including in non-traditional sectors? How can early-stage investments be promoted to improve deal flow? How can transaction costs and technical assistance costs be lowered?

Moderator
• Laura Tyson, University of California, Berkeley

Introductory Remarks
• Robert van Zwieten, Emerging Markets Private Equity Association
• Runa Alam, Development Partners International
• Vineet Rai, Aavishkaar

Dinner Program: 6:45PM - 9:15PM MST
Aspen Institute Madeleine K. Albright Global Development Lecture

Featuring
• Dr. Paul Farmer, Chief Strategist and Co-Founder, Partners in Health

---

Monday, August 5, 2013

Session III: 9:00AM - 10:30AM MST
Goods, Services and Jobs for the Poor
Participants will explore the following questions for the roundtable: In what areas are the most promising emerging business models that serve the poor arising? What are the major obstacles in creating and selling profitable, quality, and beneficial products to the poor and how can they be overcome? What common features distinguish successful and replicable solutions?

Moderator
• Mary Robinson, Mary Robinson Foundation

Introductory Remarks
• Ashish Karamchandani, Monitor Deloitte
• Chris Locke, GSMA
• Ajaita Shah, Frontier Markets
• Hubertus van der Vaart, SEAF

Session IV: 10:50AM - 12:20PM MST
Blended Finance
Participants will explore the following questions for the roundtable: Can standard models of blended finance deliver projects at a large enough scale? How can leverage be measured and incorporated into aid effectiveness measures? Should governments have explicit leverage targets to force change more rapidly and systematically?

Moderator
• Henrietta Fore, Holsman International

Introductory Remarks
• Elizabeth Littlefield, OPIC
• Ewen McDonald, AusAID
• Laurie Spengler, ShoreBank International 

---

Tuesday, August 6, 2013 

Session V: 9:00AM - 10:30AM MST
Unlocking Female Entrepreneurship
Participants will explore the following questions for the roundtable: How is the global landscape for female entrepreneurship changing? What types of interventions have the greatest ability to overturn barriers to female entrepreneurship in the developing world? Who, or what institutions, should lead efforts to advance this agenda? Can progress be made without a broader effort to end economic discrimination against women?

Moderator
• Smita Singh, Independent

Introductory Remarks
• Dina Powell, Goldman Sachs
• Carmen Niethammer, IFC
• Randall Kempner, ANDE

Session VI: 10:50AM - 12:20PM MST
U.S. Leadership and Resources to Engage The Private Sector
Participants will explore the following questions for the roundtable: How can U.S. foreign assistance be strengthened to more effectively promote the role of the private sector? How can U.S. diplomacy support private sector development in the emerging economies and multinational enterprises investing in the developing world? What can the US do to promote open innovation platforms?

Moderator
• George Ingram, Brookings

Introductory Remarks
• Sam Worthington, InterAction
• John Podesta, Center for American Progress
• Rajiv Shah, USAID

Closing Remarks
• Richard C. Blum, Blum Capital Partners, LP and Founder of the Blum Center for Developing Economies at Berkeley
• Kemal Derviş, Global Economy and Development, Brookings

Public Event: 4:30PM - 6:00PM MST
Brookings and the Aspen Institute Present: "America's Fiscal Health and its Implications for International Engagement"
Global Economy and Development at Brookings and the Aspen Institute will host the 66th U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development Rajiv Shah for a discussion on the current state of the U.S.'s fiscal health and its impact on American diplomatic and development priorities. Moderated by Ambassador Nicholas Burns, Director, Aspen Strategy Group.

Moderator
• Nicholas Burns, Director, Aspen Strategy Group

Panelists
• Condoleezza Rice, 66th United States Secretary of State
• Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

 

Event Materials

• BBR Participant List 2013_FINAL

       

       

In advance of President Obama’s trip to East Africa on July 23, the Africa Growth Initiative has prepared short travel companions on the economic environments in both Ethiopia and Kenya. The president’s visit to Kenya, one of the larger economies on the continent and a major driver of growth in the East Africa region, underlies the United States’ commitment to trade and investment on the continent. Below are key facts on Kenya’s economy to consider as President Obama travels to the region. Facts on Ethiopia can be found here.

Kenya enjoys middle-income status. Earlier this month the World Bank confirmed Kenya’s lower-middle-income country status according to their latest estimates of the gross national income per capita. This followed from the statistical reassessment of GDP figures that increased the size of its economy by 25 percent  ($53.3 billion up from $42.6 billion) last September, making it the continent’s ninth-biggest economy, accounting for over 2 percent of the continent’s GDP.

Kenya has undertaken initiatives to attract private sector investment. According to the late Brookings Senior Fellow Mwangi Kimenyi, the nation’s strong private sector evolved under relatively market-friendly policies for most of the post-independence era. Foreign direct investment is further expected to take the lead in growth acceleration, especially in the extractive sector if the newly discovered oil deposits are found to be commercially viable. Large-scale infrastructure projects, such as the Mombasa-Kigali standard-gauge railway and the Lamu Port and Southern Sudan and Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor, also incentivize private sector engagement. Kenya has been among the top recipients of external financing for infrastructure investment during 2009-2012, primarily led by Private Participation in Infrastructure (PPI) Financing.

Kenya was the first African country to build geothermal energy sources. Geothermal energy provides 51 percent of Kenya’s energy, allowing electricity bills to decrease by 30 percent since 2014 (World Bank).

Kenya acts as a hub for regional integration and the East African Community (EAC). Among the six Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) indicators of the African Development Bank, infrastructure and regional integration registered the score of 4.6 in Kenya, the second best in Africa. As a regional export and financial hub, Kenya plays a leading role in the EAC and regional integration. Two Kenyan cities, Nairobi and Mombasa, are the biggest city and port (respectively) between Cairo and Johannesburg, making Kenya the commercial and transportation hub of East Africa.

Kenya has experienced service-led growth over the last decade. Kenya’s market-based economy enjoys some of the strongest service-sector industries, including the financial and the information and communication technology sectors, which play key roles in economic transformation and job creation in Kenya. Besides, travel and tourism made up 12.1 percent of Kenya’s GDP in 2013, and the nation is frequently cited as one of the best tourist destinations in Africa.

More than two-thirds of the adult population engages in mobile commerce, making Kenya the world leader in mobile payments. At 86 percent mobile payments penetration among Kenyan households, M-Pesa is redefining the way Kenyans perform transactions and has also facilitated financial inclusion by promoting savings and financial transactions among the unbanked.

Nearly one out of every two women in Kenya is a member of a women’s saving group, which are voluntary groups formed to  help women overcome barriers to financial participation. Called chamas, these groups allow women to mobilize savings and collectively invest to improve their livelihoods by contributing a certain amount of money to a pooled fund.

Kenya has a thriving manufacturing sector. Kenya is slowly diversifying exports away from agricultural commodities and increasing value-added processing. In 2014, roughly 70 percent of Kenya’s exports to the U.S. were textile- and garment-based, in which the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) has played a key role. The recent extension of AGOA for another decade opens up further opportunities for growth and revival of the textile and apparel industry in Kenya.

Kenya’s well-diversified economy and sound economic reform program are important steps in its quest to reach emerging market status. However, the following key challenges could undermine economic development:

Youth in Kenya are experiencing much higher unemployment rates than the rest of the Kenyan population. Though Kenya boasts of its young, educated and English-speaking human resource pool (especially in the urban areas), it continues to struggle with high unemployment rate among young people, which is estimated to be double the national level of unemployment of 12.7.

Spatially unbalanced growth in the Kenyan economy continues to be evident. Kenya has made substantial progress towards achieving towards achieving the targets associated with the Millennium Development Goals, including child mortality and near universal primary school enrolment. However, it still has a long way to reach the set targets: Over 40 percent of its 44 million population continues to be extremely poor living on less than $1.25 a day, with women being particularly at risk.

Implementation challenges of fiscal decentralization remain. Under the new constitution, county governments are entitled to not less than 15 percent of the total national revenue collected by the Kenyan central government. This fiscal devolution can bolster social cohesion, by increasing accountability in the management of public resources, and improving the quality of services delivery. However, it is crucial that this devolution is implemented successfully with equitable access to resources to all parts of the country. AGI’s Kenya Devolution and Revenue Sharing Calculator serves as a web interactive allowing users to explore and adjust the government of Kenya’s allocation formula for revenue distribution to county governance structures.

Kenya’s infrastructure remains insufficiently developed in spite of the fact that over the last five years, nearly 27 percent of the national budget has been allocated to transport, energy, water and sanitation, and environment-related infrastructure. Kenya was a pioneer in the use of infrastructure bonds in Africa, with its first issuance in 2009 of a 12-year bond which raised $ 232.6 million but further substantial investment in infrastructure is critical to achieving  Kenya Vision 2030 to become a globally competitive country.

      

This post originally appeared in the opinion page of the Boston Globe on October 1, 2015.

As they ratchet up a campaign for backdoor access to information on iPhones and other devices with encryption, some law enforcement leaders paint a dark vision of technology. Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance suggests that passcodes on smartphones blocked identification of a murderer. British Prime Minister David Cameron sees a “safe haven” for terrorists “in dark places.” FBI Director James Comey alludes to phones buzzing devilish messages in the pockets of ISIS recruits and says widespread encryption “threatens to lead us to a very, very dark place.”

Sure, it’s the job of law enforcement officers to look on the dark side, and to focus on protecting people and catching criminals. But evil lies with terrorists and criminals — not the phones or apps they use. Cellphones are targets simply because they have become such rich new sources of evidence for law enforcement. Chief Justice John Roberts called them windows into our entire lives.

Comey acknowledges the benefits of strong encryption may outweigh the costs, but says “part of my job is make sure the debate is informed by a reasonable understanding of the costs.” Part of my job at the Commerce Department a few years ago was to make sure government debate on security and law enforcement issues was informed by a reasonable understanding of costs to security and privacy, innovation, economic growth, and democratic values in the world.

With backdoors, these costs are real. Leading cryptologists have detailed how backdoors would create “grave security risks.” Comey has suggested to Congress that tech companies can solve this problem if only they spend enough time on it. Yet no amount of magical thinking can undo the contradiction between promoting strong encryption as a defense against the barrage of identity theft, espionage, and other cybercrimes while opening up new vulnerabilities.

There is an acute need to strengthen data security everywhere, and no realistic way to leave a door open for good guys and democracies that have rigorous checks and balances but not for cybercriminals or authoritarian states.

Backdoors undermine not only security, but also the competitive position of US companies that are trying to strengthen global trust in their brands and correct perceptions of “direct access” for US intelligence and law enforcement left by the Snowden leaks.

If backdoors are adopted for US products, people intent on keeping information secure, whether for benign or nefarious reasons, will turn to alternatives like cheap burner phones, devices sold in other countries, and encryption applications.

The United States would face a choice of whether to join the ranks of countries that try to block devices and services. That dilemma shows another important cost of backdoors — they undermine America’s position in the world.

The United States has promoted technologies that help democratic activists avoid surveillance by repressive governments, objected to measures in India and China that imply backdoors or block imports of encrypted devices like Blackberries, and taken unprecedented steps to provide transparency and limits on foreign intelligence collection. If the United States adopts backdoor requirements, though, no matter how constrained by checks and balances, it will face cries of hypocrisy.

In the backdrop of President Obama’s discussions with Chinese President Xi Jinping about cybersecurity are concerns about Chinese measures that require “secure and controllable” information technology and assert “Internet sovereignty.” It is hard to picture our president making headway on such concerns if his own government is contemplating backdoors.

In the end, the president himself likely will have to decide where his administration comes out on backdoors. When he does, he will have to pick sides.

The choices are less stark than the law enforcement meme “going dark” implies. Even so, it may be, as Chief Justice Roberts has written, that “Cellphones have become important tools in facilitating coordination and communication among members of criminal enterprises” but “Privacy comes at a cost.” So do security and trust.

The time has come for the president to shut the door on backdoors and send a clear message to the world that American technology is a trusted instrument of freedom.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

It’s a fair question to ask: what was all the fuss about last October? The elections in Georgia and Azerbaijan came and went and the results were no surprise. Azerbaijani incumbent Ilham Aliyev won and Georgia's Mikhail Saakashvilli did not. The Azerbaijani elections were bogus; the Georgian elections were not. So what? Life goes on.

But perhaps it is not that simple. Most outside observers saw these elections as a barometer of democratic progress in a region where the West — and the U.S. in particular — has invested time, resources and effort over more than 20 years to help these countries to build a better future for themselves. As stakeholders in the democratic process in the South Caucasus since Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia gained their independence in 1991, Europe and the U.S. must fuss over the outcomes of the Azerbaijani and Georgian elections. 

Beyond Election Day

Evaluating these elections and their impact on the domestic social and political landscape as well as foreign relations requires, however, a focus on more than just election day. The excellent report from the European Stability Inititive on the election observation mission to Azerbaijan makes a strong case for not judging democratic progress based only on how the elections may appear to be conducted on election day.

The Georgian elections proved that post-Soviet governments could change, politicians could change and a European path be chosen. The Azerbaijani elections proved that a regime could “buy” favorable reports from short-term observers imported for election day, carry on with election rigging, continue human rights violations and ignore international criticism, whether from the Department of State or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s long-term observer mission.

Why the difference between the two neighboring countries? There are several reasons. First, Georgia’s generally free and fair 2012 parliamentary elections set a strong example for the 2013 presidential elections, and Georgia welcomed outside involvement and observation. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, prevented the visit of U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Democracy and Human Rights Tom Melia before its elections. Second, Georgian political parties, including the opposition, agreed on electoral ground rules. Third, the Georgian population demanded leadership change. Fourth, the outcome of elections in Georgia was accepted as a transparent way to — for the first time in modern Georgian history — transfer political legitimacy.

Test of Democratic Evolution

The real test of democratic evolution has to do with actions — over a period of months before and after election day — as well as rhetoric that affect the integrity of the elections. The pre- and post-election environments in Azerbaijan consist of continuing intimidation of the political opposition and independent NGO leadership, suppression of freedom of expression and official dismissal of any need to change. While Georgia had a pretty good pre-election period, the post-election period remains fraught with challenges to the effectiveness of Parliament and other fragile institutions, and whether the current government will pursue criminal charges against former President Saakashvili.

Is it Our Business?

There are different views regarding whether democratic evolution — in its broadest sense — is our (e.g. the West, U.S.) business at all. Who are we — despite our support for democratic change — with all our defects to establish standards for others to follow? At least for the short-term the Maidan events in Ukraine put this point into practical focus. If a country wants to be part of the West there are certain standards of economic and political reform that must be met as part of that association. In other words values matter. The traditional excuses of geopolitical importance or interests of energy security for failure to accept even the minimal international norms for treatment of a country’s own citizens are gone.

A major issue for the post-election period has become the choice between closer association with the EU or Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union. This choice really is about values that countries choose to be identified by. Armenia and Georgia made clear choices at Vilnius summit for the Eastern Partnership: Georgia and Moldova for the EU; Armenia for Eurasian Union. Ukraine was asked to make a decision but chose to walk the line between short-run financial expediency and a long-term commitment to a European future. Azerbaijan decided to choose none of the above; “neutrality” the regime called it. All the while proclaiming — along with its apologists in the West — the strategic importance of Azerbaijani energy for Europe’s future.

These countries can no longer talk their way around this or employ foreign surrogates to do this for them. Arguments for overlooking bogus elections, corruption and human rights abuses based on overriding strategic importance to the U.S. (e.g. war against terror, Northern Distribution Network, energy security) are excuses for inaction on the fundamental values that must be at the core of our relationships in the 21st century.

When countries like Azerbaijan fail to live up to these standards we do not walk away. Rather we continue to insist on solid, value-based behavior by those who profess they are partners with us. That means economic and political reforms to complete the transition from post-Soviet to 21st Century status. This requires observance of human rights, respect for freedom of expression, and release of political prisoners. It also requires a pattern of increasingly democratic elections. That’s why we need to care about elections in the south Caucasus.

We must congratulate Tbilisi on its accomplishments in the October electoral process. At the same time we must encourage the Georgian government to move along with strengthening institutions like Parliament and the judiciary so Georgia can avoid a political justice system.

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

Recent events in Ukraine have raised important questions about Russian ambitions in the former Soviet space and the future political perspectives of the countries caught between Russia and the European Union. These countries are facing substantial obstacles in their efforts to maintain balanced relations with the United States, the European Union and the Russian Federation because of increased Russian political, economic and military pressures. In Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing turmoil in the East threaten the Ukrainian government's ability to maintain its independence and the sovereignty of Ukraine. Georgia and Moldova have expressed their intention to sign Association Agreements with the European Union, but increasingly face the prospects of destabilizing Russian economic sanctions and even the possible rekindling of their “frozen conflicts” in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

On April 29, the Center on the United States and Europe at Brookings (CUSE) will host the ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine—Ambassadors Archil Gegeshidze, Olexander Motsyk and Igor Munteanu—as well as Eric Rubin, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, to discuss the dilemmas of these countries and possible solutions. Fiona Hill, director of CUSE, will introduce the speakers and moderate the discussion.

After opening remarks, panelists will take questions from the audience.

Audio

• A Discussion with the Ambassadors of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140429_ambassadors_transcript

       

       

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

The crisis over Iraq was the latest in a series of international security crises that demonstrated that the European Union has not yet emerged as unified actor on difficult global security issues. Yet since the Iraq crisis, the member states of Europe have shown a renewed interest in creating EU institutions capable of coherent action on controversial foreign policy issues, in articulating a distinct European strategy for promoting security and stability, and in establishing a European role in issues well beyond the European continent.

The Center on the United States and Europe's annual conference brought together renowned experts and policymakers from both sides of the Atlantic to examine Europe's Global Role. The first panel looked at the ongoing efforts by the United Kingdom to steer a course between and "Atlanticist" and "European" foreign policy; the second panel examined the European Union's efforts to manage its relationships with a proliferating number of candidates to the east—at the same time that it sorts out its own political future; and the last panel looked at the integration of a rising China into the international system, an extra-European issue on which the European Union and the United States have already shown signs of discord.

Welcome and Introduction:
Philip H. Gordon, Director, Center on the United States and Europe

Britain Between America and the European Union:
Philip H. Gordon

Panelists:
Anatol Lieven, Carnegie Endowment
Gerard Baker, The London Times
Charles Grant, Centre for European Reform

Where Does Europe End?
Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
John Bruton, EU Ambassador to the U.S.
Sylvie Goulard, Institut d'Etudes Politiques, Paris
Andrew Moravcsik, Princeton University
Vladimir Ryzhkov, Russian Duma

The Global Agenda:
James B. Steinberg, Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
R. Nicholas Burns , Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs
Jean-David Levitte, French Ambassador to the U.S.

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• annualconf20050511

       

The mayoral election in Baltimore has brought local economic development strategies to the forefront. In a city in which inequality—by income, by race, and between neighborhoods—has increased in the past five years, the candidates have made it clear that more action must be taken to close disparities and improve economic outcomes for all residents. In a podcast segment, I commend the much-needed focus on equity but argue that the mayoral candidates should not lose sight of another critical piece of the equity equation: economic growth. Citing lessons from my recent paper, I outline strategies that Baltimore’s presumptive leaders should pursue—as well as several they should abandon—to place the city’s residents on the path to a more prosperous, equitable future.

Listen to the full podcast segment here: 

       

On June 23, Brookings hosted the release of the Immigrants, Immigration Reform, and 2016 Election Survey, a joint project with the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI). The associated report entitled, How immigration and concern about cultural change are shaping the 2016 election finds an American public anxious and intensely divided on matters of immigration and cultural change at the forefront of the 2016 Election.

Dr. Robert Jones, CEO of PRRI, began the presentation by highlighting Americans’ feelings of anxiety and personal vulnerability. The poll found, no issue is more critical to Americans this election cycle than terrorism, with nearly seven in ten (66 percent) reporting that terrorism is a critical issue to them personally. And yet, Americans are sharply divided on questions of terrorism as it pertains to their personal safety. Six in ten (62 percent) Republicans report that they are at least somewhat worried about being personally affected by terrorism, while just 44 percent of Democrats say the same. 

On matters of cultural change, Jones painted a picture of a sharply divided America. Poll results indicate that a majority (55 percent) of Americans believe that the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence, while 44 percent disagree.  Responses illustrate a stark partisan divide:

74 percent of Republicans and 83 percent of Trump supporters believe that foreign influence over the American way of life needs to be curtailed.  Just 41 percent of Democrats agree, while a majority (56 percent) disagrees with this statement. Views among white Americans are sharply divided by social class, the report finds. While 68 percent of the white working class agrees that the American way of life needs to be protected, fewer than half (47 percent) of white college-educated Americans agree.

Jones identified Americans’ views on language and “reverse discrimination” as additional touchstones of cultural change. Americans are nearly evenly divided over how comfortable they feel when they encounter immigrants who do not speak English: 50 percent say this bothers them and 49 percent say it does not. 66 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Trump supporters express discomfort when coming into contact with immigrants who do not speak English; just 35 percent of Democrats say the same.

 

Americans split evenly on the question of whether discrimination against whites, or “reverse discrimination,” is as big of a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities (49 percent agree, 49 percent disagree). Once again, the partisan differences are considerable: 72 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Trump supporters agree that reverse discrimination is a problem, whereas more than two thirds (68 percent) of Democrats disagree.

On economic matters, survey results indicate that nearly seven in ten (69 percent) Americans support increasing the tax rate on wealthy Americans, defined as those earning over $250,000 a year. This represents a modest increase in the share of Americans who favor increasing the tax rate relative to 2012, but a dramatic increase in the number of Republicans who favor this position.

 

The share of  Republicans favoring increasing the tax rate on wealthy Americans jumped from 36 percent in 2012 to 54 percent in 2016—an 18 point increase. Democrats and Independents views on this position remained relatively constant, increasing from 80 to 84 percent and 61 to 68 percent approval respectively.

Finally, on matters of immigration, Americans are divided over whether immigrants are changing their communities for the better (50 percent) or for the worse (49 percent). Across party lines, however, Americans are more likely to think immigrants are changing American society as a whole than they are to think immigrants are changing the local community. This, Jones suggested, indicates that Americans’ views on immigration are motivated by partisan ideology more than by lived experience. 

At the conclusion of Dr. Jones’s presentation, Brookings senior fellow in Governance Studies, Dr. William Galston moderated a panel discussion of the poll’s findings. Karlyn Bowman, a senior fellow and research coordinator at the American Enterprise Institute, observed that cultural anxiety has long characterized Americans’ views on immigration. Never, Bowman remarked, has the share of Americans that favor immigrants outpaced the share of those who oppose immigrants. Turning to the results of the PRRI survey, Bowman highlighted the partisan divide influencing responses to the proposition that the United States place a temporary ban on Muslims. The strong level of Republican support for the proposal--64 percent support among Republicans--compared to just 23 percent support among Democrats has more to do with fear of terrorism than anxiety about immigration, she argued.

Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, remarked that many Americans feel that government should do more to ensure protection, prosperity, and security -- as evidenced by the large proportion of voters who feel that their way of life is under threat from terrorism (51%), crime (63%), or unemployment (65%).  In examining fractures within the Republican Party, Olsen considered the ways in which Trump voters differ from non-Trump voters, regardless of party affiliation. On questions of leadership, he suggested, the fact that 57% of all Republicans agree that we need a leader “willing to break some rules” is skewed by the high proportion of Trump supporters (72%) who agree with that statement. Indeed, just 49% of Republicans who did not vote for Trump agreed that the country needs a leader willing to break rules to set things right.

Joy Reid, National Correspondent at MSNBC, cited the survey’s findings that Americans are bitterly divided over whether American culture and way of life has changed for the better (49 percent) or the worse (50 percent) since the 1950s. More than two-thirds of Republicans (68 percent) and Donald Trump supporters (68 percent) believe the American way of life has changed for the worse since the 1950s. Connecting this nostalgia to survey results indicating anxiety about immigration and cultural change, Reid argued that culture—not economics—is the primary concern animating many Trump supporters.

       

Event Information

Register for the Event

With a number elections now underway in Europe and the United States, populist politicians are gaining support by tapping into frustration with the lingering effects of the global financial crisis and the eurocrisis, mounting fears of terrorism, concerns surrounding record levels of migration, and growing doubt over political elites’ abilities to address these and other crises. The global economic order is already beginning to be impacted by the mounting political pressure against it. Trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership that form the cornerstone of the global economic order have met with significant resistance. Brexit’s reverberations have already been felt in international markets. Fissures within the European Union and American anxiety towards a U.S. global role could have a pronounced impact on the international economic system.

On July 14, the Brookings Project on International Order and Strategy (IOS) hosted an event tied to the recent publication of Nonresident Senior Fellow Daniel Drezner’s new paper, “Five Known Unknowns about the Next Generation Global Political Economy.” The event was an opportunity to discuss the future of the global economic order given rising populism and discontent with globalization. Panelists included Nonresident Senior Fellow Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University; Caroline Atkinson, head of Google’s global public policy team and former White House deputy national security advisor for international economics; and David Wessel, director of the Brookings Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy.

Thomas Wright, director of IOS, provided brief opening remarks and moderated the discussion.

Video

• The future of the global economic order in an era of rising populism

Audio

• The future of the global economic order in an era of rising populism

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20160714_global_economic_order_transcript

       

Tom Mann and Anthony Corrado recently argued that campaign finance reform will likely have little effect on political polarization. Their new paper has sparked a host of debate over campaign finance, the strength of parties, and the ideological motivations of donors. Today, the Monkey Cage blog hosted Mann and Corrado’s response to a critique from Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner.

LaRaja and Schaffner argue that pumping more funding to parties and changing the rules to facilitate that practice will provide a respite from polarization; to argue their point, they examine polarization at the state legislative level. In their response, Mann and Corrado argue that the critique is off point, noting that “no causal link to campaign finance laws (and polarization) is demonstrated.” Ultimately, Mann and Corrado explain: “The link between party financial practices and regulatory regimes is often a matter of strategy than law, and the evidence offered in their (LaRaja and Schaffner) response certainly falls well short of making a case that greater party resources would reduce the polarization that undermines the capacity to govern.”

For more on this debate:

Read Mann and Corrado’s paper, “Party Polarization and Campaign Finance”

Read LaRaja and Schaffner’s critique, “Want to reduce polarization? Give Parties Money”

Read Mann and Corrado’s response, “Don’t expect campaign finance reform to reduce polarization”

And check out some other great research on Washington Post’s Monkey Cage Blog

      

One of the fundamental arguments in the “Political Realism” debate is whether or not strong political parties could make government work better. One way to assess party strength is to look at how much money parties can raise and spend.

In this vein, political scientists Ray LaRaja and Brian Schaffner have claimed that removing limits on party funding activity would make politics less polarized. I’ve been skeptical of this claim. In fact, in a short analysis, I found that the opposite is more likely the case—that states with limits on party fundraising appear to be less polarized, though I cautioned against inferring too much from this pattern.

LaRaja and Schaffner have now responded and previewed their forthcoming book, Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail, which will be out this fall from the University of Michigan Press. So, a response to their response is now in order.

I’ll start by granting a point of agreement: LaRaja and Schaffner note that I didn’t re-produce their analysis. I didn’t do this because, based on what they’ve written, it’s not clear exactly which states they consider to be “Parties Unlimited” and “Parties Limited” states. So, until they make their list public, it will be impossible to conduct a precise replication of their analysis.

The good news is they’ve promised to make their data public in the future. As they write in their recent post, “we will be posting all the data necessary to replicate (and challenge) our results upon publication of our book this fall, and we look forward to seeing what others find when they dig into the data.” They also note in their analysis that “11 states changed their laws on party limits during the period of our study (1993-2012).” Assembling this list, they note, was “possibly the most painstaking work we did on this book.” For now, their list of changes remains a well-kept secret, though the changes appear to be driving their analysis. So it will be good when all the relevant data and categorization choices are clear and on the table.

A lot depends on which states fall into which categories. But, there is a more fundamental question: does it make sense to dichotomize states into “Parties Unlimited” and “Parties Limited” states? States with limits vary considerably. Some states limit the money into parties, but allow unlimited flows to candidates; some states allow unlimited money into parties, but limit money from parties to candidates. Some limits are high, some are low. Some have exceptions for party-building activities. Rules vary between primary and general elections, as well.

Consider California. There are limits on how much parties can raise from individuals, but those limits are quite high (they are now at $35,200), and also only cover the party accounts that go to state candidates (so, for example, ballot measures are exempt or general party activities are exempted). California also has no limits on how much parties can transfer to candidates. So should California be a “limits” or “no limits” state? California also has the most polarized legislature, as measured by the distance between party medians. Depending on how you choose to classify states, you can get very different results, especially when you are only working with 20 states (LaRaja and Schaffner limit their claims to the 20 states with the most professionalized legislatures, as per the Squire Index).

LaRaja and Schaffner’s response presents a time series regression model to “calculate the predicted level of polarization over time in a state that limited party fundraising … and spending to on where those limits were removed.” But if states that removed limits became less polarized following the removal of those limits, why not tell us what those states were, and report the actual polarization trends in the states? Put another way: Why rely on model predictions when there are real world data? Grounding this debate in the trajectories of actual states would lend some realism to the claims. Then we could debate examples.

For example, as Thomas Mann and E.J. Dionne note in a recent Brookings paper, two of the states with no limits are Texas and North Carolina. As Mann and Dionne write, “The behavior of their legislatures in recent years cannot, on any plausible definition, be described as 'moderate.'” However, neither Texas nor North Carolina shows up as excessively polarized when polarization is merely a measure of voting patterns. Moreover, if parties are so pragmatic, why did the North Carolina Republican Party (which could raise and spend unlimited sums of money) fail to stop a takeover by multi-millionaire right-wing extremist Art Pope?

This takes us to questions of how party leaders actually behave. LaRaja and Shaffner show evidence in their response that parties give more money to moderate incumbents than to extreme incumbents. This should not be surprising. Presumably, moderate incumbents are more likely to be in competitive races, since moderates are more likely to represent competitive districts.

The more relevant question is what types of candidates parties recruit. Thankfully, we have answers to this courtesy of excellent work by David Broockman, Nicholas Carnes, Melody Crowder-Meyer, and Christopher Skovron, who surveyed 6,000 county-level political party leaders. They found that, “party leaders…use their influence to discourage moderates from seeking office: they strongly prefer candidates at least as ideologically polarized as their median party member. Republican party leaders show this preference especially.”

Their findings also reinforce something that should be apparent to students of polarization—that polarization is asymmetric. Republicans have moved far to the right. Democrats have mostly stayed in place. Let me quote Broockman et al.’s paper at further length, because the findings are extremely relevant to this debate:

“Republicans are much more likely to, unprompted, mention ideology as an important factor for candidates. Our evidence suggests that not only do Republicans care more about ideology, it is also readily accessible when they think of candidate recruitment. It seems likely, then, that Republicans are much more active in recruiting ideologically polarized candidates than Democrats are.”

“Democratic chairs are most inclined to support candidates who are middle-of-the-road or slightly left with respect to the party, while Republicans prefer candidates who espouse an ideology matching or more conservative than their party. In fact, while Democratic chairs are less likely to support very liberal candidates than those nearer to their party average, Republican chairs seem to give very conservative primary candidates the same boost that Democrats give to moderates.”

This does suggest that perhaps giving parties more money and therefore more control over candidates would produce moderation in blue states, but exacerbate polarization in red states. Unfortunately, there is nothing in LaRaja and Schaffner’s analysis that addresses this possibility.

The importance of recruitment also suggests that what we really want to know is who controls the actual recruitment mechanisms in the first place. It’s possible that states with limits might have strong party recruitment mechanisms. If what we really care about is the strength of party machines, why not try to measure that more directly?

LaRaja and Schaffner seem to envision parties being run by hard-headed pragmatists who can determine outcomes with money alone. They seem to assume that if parties can get billionaires to fund them, this will enable party leaders to support more moderate candidates. They seem to ignore that the billionaires may have a few ideas of their own about how they think government should be run (see, e.g. North Carolina).

This gets to a final point, about whether we ought to care if parties rely on small or large donors. LaRaja and Schaffner dismiss the case for small donors, noting that: “the endless romanticizing of small donors as being emblematic of American voters has no empirical grounding.” They go on to note that the ideological distribution of small donors and the ideological distribution of large donors “are nearly identical,” and therefore, “[p]utting more emphasis on ideological small donors may even make our politics worse as politicians streamline their messages to cater to this minority of individuals with more extreme views.”

Let’s grant that large and small donors have the same ideological distribution. If there is no difference, then there’s no reason to think that relying more on small donors would make politics any more extreme. However, since there are many more small donors than there are large donors, a small-donor matching system would allow less extreme candidates the ability to seek out less extreme donors from a larger population of potential donors. We know large donors are polarized, so relying more heavily on them doesn’t give parties much room to moderate. Of course, this presumes that large donors want to shape party positions. But that seems a safe bet.

There are also good (small-d) democratic reasons to support small-donor programs: they bring more participants into the political process; they orient politicians to think differently about whom they represent, and they probably make politics an attractive profession for a broader set of potential candidates. I’d even trade off some polarization for a small donor system. Fortunately, based on their data, it doesn’t appear that I’d even have to.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, polarization is a function of many, many things, and it’s hard to imagine how changing limits on what parties can raise and spend would have much of an influence given the many other factors. Consider this thoughtful systems map developed by the Hewlett Foundation to analyze American politics as a system: it describes multiple factors that might influence levels of polarization. Systems thinking warns us to be careful of putting too much focus on a single point of leverage without thinking about the larger systems dynamics. This is why many reform skeptics are cautious about unintended consequences—thinking about a single variable in the absence of a larger context usually has unexpected results.

Moreover, as Mann and Dionne explain, we need to be cautious of applying lessons from the states to Washington:

"The gridlock in Washington is a consequence of the ideological polarization of the parties buttressed by vast party networks, their strategic opposition to one another throughout the legislative process fueled by the intense competition for control of the White House and Congress, the prevalence of divided party government, and the asymmetry between the parties that leads Republicans to eschew negotiation and compromise."

"The situation in the states is dramatically different. Most now have unified party governments, and gridlock is the exception, not the rule. There is little evidence of moderation in the Republican- controlled states, whatever their campaign finance laws."

I’m sure we will continue this debate for many months to come, especially after the publication of Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail this fall. I’m glad that LaRaja and Schaffner are bringing valuable data to this important question. It’s certainly far from settled.

       

The rise of SuperPACs, the decision in Citizens United, and intensified polarization in Congress has ignited a flame under the already robust academic debate over the role of money in elections. Last week, Lee Drutman wrote an article for Vox outlining the recent contribution of Raymond J. La Raja and Brian Schaffner made to the debate with their book, Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail.

The crux of the book argues that allowing political parties to control more money, not less, is the key to reducing polarization. This runs counter to many pro-reform writings, focused chiefly on empowering small donors in order to counter big-money politics. La Raja and Schaffner counter this narrative, suggesting parties channel money to create moderation, rather than small donors, which are polarizing.

Drutman pushes back on both accounts by taking issue with some of the underlying assumptions in When Purists Prevail, including the weight they place on median voter theory and the extent parties will spend money on moderate candidates in primary elections. He marshals a host of recent research to support the critique, including: a recent Brookings paper on the strength of political parties, data on the power of outside money in congressional elections, and research showing moderate districts do not necessarily produce moderate candidates.

Click here to read the full article on Vox.

       

       

       

       

Ryan’s EITC is pro-mobility… but funding it may not be

Paul Ryan seems to be thinking seriously about the issues of poverty and social mobility. He is a reformer as well as an authentic conservative.

While his willingness to embrace EITC expansion is welcome, his proposed funding methods raise serious questions. Paying for anti-poverty programs by cutting anti-poverty programs runs the risk of being self-defeating. No doubt some of them are not working as intended. But reform is the answer, rather than abolition. Many of these programs help those in the deepest poverty - who in many cases are those least likely to benefit from welfare-to-work policies such as the EITC, according to recent research from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and from the National Poverty Center. 

Ryan's package is worthy of serious attention, not least from the perspective of social mobility. It is important, however, not to consider the impact of the EITC expansion alone, but also how - and by whom- it will be paid for. 

      

Executive Summary

At the invitation of President George W. Bush, the G20 leaders met on November 15, 2008, in Washington, DC, in response to the worldwide financial and economic crisis. With this summit meeting the reality of global governance shifted surprisingly quickly. Previously, major global economic, social and environmental issues were debated in the small, increasingly unrepresentative and often times ineffectual circle of G8 leaders. Now, there is a larger, much more legitimate summit group which can speak for over two-thirds of the world’s population and controls 90% of the world’s economy.

The successful first G20 Summit provides a platform on which President-elect Obama can build in forging an inclusive and cooperative approach for resolving the current financial and economic crisis. Rather than get embroiled in a debate about which country is in and which country is out of the summit, the new U.S. administration should take a lead in accepting the new summit framework for now and focus on the substantive issues. Aside from tackling the current crisis, future G20 summits should also drive the reform of the international financial institutions and address other major global concerns—climate change, poverty and health, and energy among others. With its diverse and representative membership of key countries and with a well-managed process of summit preparation and follow-up the new G20 governance structure would allow for a more inclusive deliberation and more effective response to today’s complex global challenges and opportunities.

Policy Brief #168

A Successful G20 Summit—A Giant Step Forward

Once announced, there was speculation that the G20 Summit would be at best a distraction and at worst a costly failure, with a lame duck U.S. president hobbled by a crisis-wracked economy and a president-elect impotently waiting at the sidelines, with European leaders bickering over seemingly arcane matters, and with the leaders of the emerging economies sitting on the fence, unwilling or unprepared to take responsibility for fixing problems not of their making.

As it turned out, the first G20 Summit was by most standards a success. It served as a platform for heads of state to address the current financial turmoil and the threats of the emerging economic crisis facing not only the U.S. and Europeans, but increasingly also the rest of the world. The communiqué unmistakably attributes blame for the crisis where it belongs—to the advanced countries. It lays out a set of principles and priorities for crisis management and an action plan for the next four months and beyond, and it promises to address the longer-term agenda of reform of the global financial system. Very importantly, it also commits the leaders to meet again in April 2009 under the G20 umbrella. This assures that the November G20 Summit was not a one-off event, but signified the beginning of a new way of managing the world economy. The U.S. Treasury, which apparently drove the decision to hold the G20 rather than a G8 summit and which led the brief preparation process, deserves credit for this outcome.

A Long Debate over Global Governance Reform Short-circuited

With this successful summit a number of unresolved issues in global governance were pushed aside virtually overnight:

• The embarrassing efforts of past G8 summits to reach out to the leaders of emerging market economies with ad hoc invitations to join as part-time guests or through the well-meaning expedient of the “Heiligendamm Process”—under which a G8+5 process was to be institutionalized—were overtaken by the fact of the G20 summit.
• A seemingly endless debate among experts about what is the optimal size and composition for an expanded summit—G13, G14, G16, G20, etc. —was pragmatically resolved by accepting the format of the already existing G20 of finance ministers and central bank presidents, which has functioned well since 1999. With this, the Pandora’s Box of country selection remained mercifully closed. This is a major accomplishment, which is vitally important to preserve at this time.
• The idea of a “League of Democracies” as an alternative to the G8 and G20 summits, which had been debated in the U.S. election, was pushed aside by the hard reality of a financial crisis that made it clear that all the key economic players had to sit at the table, irrespective of political regime.
• Finally, the debate about whether the leaders of the industrial world would ever be willing to sit down with their peers from the emerging market economies as equals was short circuited by the picture of the U.S. president at lunch during the G20 Summit, flanked by the presidents of two of the major emerging economies, Brazil and China. This photograph perhaps best defines the new reality of global governance in the 21st Century.

Is the G20 Summit Here to Stay?

The communiqué of the November 15, 2008 Summit locked in the next G20 summit and hence ordained a sequel that appears to have enshrined the G20 as the new format to address the current global financial and economic crisis over the coming months and perhaps years. Much, of course, depends on the views of the new U.S. administration, but the November 2008 Summit has paved the way for President Obama and his team to move swiftly beyond the traditional G8 and to continue the G20 format.

In principle there is nothing wrong with exploring options for further change. However at this juncture, we strongly believe that it is best for the new U.S. administration to focus its attention on making the G20 summit format work, in terms of its ability to address the immediate crisis, and in terms of subsequently dealing with other pressing problems, such as global warming and global poverty. There may be a need to fine-tune size and composition, but more fundamental changes, in our view, can and should wait for later since arguments about composition and size—who is in and who is out—could quickly overwhelm a serious discussion of pressing substantive issues. Instead, the next G20 Summit in the United Kingdom on April 2, 2009 should stay with the standard G20 membership and get on with the important business of solving the world’s huge financial and economic problems.

One change, however, would be desirable: At the Washington Summit in November 2008 two representatives for each country were seated at the table, usually the country’s leader and finance minister. There may have been good reasons for this practice under the current circumstances, since leaders may have felt more comfortable with having the experts at their side during intense discussions of how to respond to the financial and economic crisis. In general, however, a table of 40 chairs undoubtedly is less conducive to an open and informal discussion than a table half that size. From our experience, a table of 20 can support a solid debate as long as the format is one of open give and take, rather than a delivery of scripted speeches. This is not the case for a table with 40 participants. The G8 format of leaders only at the table, with prior preparation by ministers who do not then participate in the leaders level summits, should definitely be preserved. To do otherwise would dilute the opportunity for informal discussion among leaders, which is the vital core of summit dynamics.

What Will Happen to the G8 Summit and to the G7 and G20 Meetings of Finance Ministers?

As the world’s financial storm gathered speed and intensity in recent months, the inadequacy of the traditional forums of industrial countries—the G8 group of leaders and the G7 group of finance ministers—became obvious. Does this mean that the G8 and G7 are a matter of the past? Most likely not. We would expect these forums to continue to meet for some time to come, playing a role as caucus for industrial countries. In any event, the G20 finance ministers will take on an enhanced role, since it will be the forum at which minister-level experts will lay the ground on key issues of global financial and economic management to ensure that they are effectively addressed at summit level by their leaders. The G20 Summit of November 15 was prepared by a meeting of G20 finance ministers in this fashion.

It may well be that the dynamics of interactions within the G20 will cause coalitions to be formed, shifting over time as issues and interests change. This could at times and on some issues involve a coalition of traditional G7 members. However, with increasing frequency, we would expect that some industrial countries would temporarily team-up with emerging market country members, for example on agricultural trade policies, where a coalition of Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Canada might align itself to challenge the agricultural protection policies of Europe, Japan and the United States. Or in the area of energy, a coalition among producer states, such as Indonesia, Mexico, Russia and Saudi Arabia might debate the merits of a stable energy supply and demand regime with an alliance among energy users, such as China, Europe, Japan, South Africa and the United States. It is this potential for multiple, overlapping and shifting alliances, which creates the opportunities for building trust, forcing trade-offs and forging cross-issue compromises that makes the G20 summit such an exciting opportunity.

What Should Be the Agenda of Future G20 Summits?

The communiqué of the November 2008 G20 Summit identified three main agenda items for the April 2009 follow-up summit: (1) A list of key issues for the containment of the current global financial and economic crisis; (2) a set of issues for the prevention of future global financial crises, including the reform of the international financial institutions, especially the IMF and World Bank; and (3) a push toward the successful conclusion of the Doha Round of WTO trade negotiations.

The first item is obviously a critical one if the G20 is to demonstrate its ability to help address the current crisis in a meaningful way. The second item is also important and timely. The experience with reform of the global financial institutions in the last few years has demonstrated that serious governance changes in these institutions will have to be driven by a summit-level group that is as inclusive as the G20. We would hope that Prime Minister Gordon Brown, as chair—with his exceptional economic expertise and experience in the international institutions, especially the IMF—will be able to forge a consensus at the April 2 summit in regard to reform of the international financial institutions. The third agenda item is also important, since the Doha Round is at a critical stage and its successful conclusion would send a powerful signal that the world community recognizes the importance of open trade relations in a time of crisis, when the natural tendency may be to revert to a protectionist stance.

However, we believe three additional topics should be added to the agenda for the April 2009 G20 Summit:

• First, there should be an explicit commitment to make the G20 forum a long-term feature of global governance, even as the group may wish to note that its size and composition is not written in stone, but subject to change as circumstances change.
• Second, the communiqué of the November summit stated that the G20 countries are “committed to addressing other critical challenges such as energy security and climate change, food security, the rule of law, and the fight against terrorism, poverty and disease”. This needs to be acted upon. These issues cannot be left off the table, even as the global financial and economic crisis rages. If anything, the crisis reinforces some of the key challenges which arise in these other areas and offers opportunities for a timely response. The U.K.-hosted summit should launch a G20 initiative to develop framework ideas for the post-Kyoto climate change agreement at Copenhagen.
• Third, assuming the April 2009 summit commits itself—as it should—to a continuation of the G20 summit format into the future, it must begin to address the question of how the summit process should be managed. We explore some of the possible options next.

How Should the G20 Summit Process Be Managed?

So far the G7, G8 and G20 forums have been supported by a loose organizational infrastructure. For each group the country holding the rotating year-long presidency of the forum takes over the secretariat function while a team of senior officials (the so-called “sherpas”) from each country meets during the course of the year to prepare the agenda and the communiqué for leaders and ministers. This organization has the advantage of avoiding a costly and rigid bureaucracy. It also fosters a growing level of trust and mutual understanding among the sherpas.

The problem with this approach has been two-fold: First, it led to discontinuities in focus and organization and in the monitoring of implementation. For the G20 of finance ministers, this problem was addressed in part by the introduction of a “troika” system, under with the immediate past and future G20 presidencies would work systematically with the current G20 presidency to shape the agenda and manage the preparation process. Second, particularly for the countries in the G20 with lesser administrative capacity, the responsibility for running the secretariat for a year during their country’s presidency imposed a heavy burden.

For the G20 summit, these problems will be amplified, not least because these summits will require first-rate preparation for very visible and high-level events. In addition, as the agenda of the G20 summit broadens over time, the burden of preparing a consistent multi-year agenda based on strong technical work will be such that it cannot be effectively handled when passed on year to year from one secretariat in one country to another secretariat in another country, especially when multiple ministries have to be engaged in each country. It is for this reason that the time may have come to explore setting up a very small permanent secretariat in support of the G20 summit.

The secretariat should only provide technical and logistical support for the political leadership of the troika of presidencies and for the sherpa process, but should not run the summit. That is the job of the host member governments. They must continue to run the summits, lead the preparations and drive the follow-up. The troika process will help strengthen the capacity of national governments to shoulder these burdens. Summits are the creatures of national government authorities where they have primacy, and this must remain so, even as the new summits become larger, more complex and more important.

Implications for the Obama Administration

The November 2008 G20 Summit opened a welcome and long-overdue opportunity for a dramatic and lasting change in global governance. It will be critical that the leaders of the G20 countries make the most of this opportunity at the next G20 Summit on April 2. The presence of U.S. President Obama will be a powerful signal that the United States is ready to push and where necessary lead the movement for global change. President-elect Obama’s vision of inclusion and openness and his approach to governing, which favors innovative and far-reaching pragmatic responses to key national and global challenges, make him a great candidate for this role.

We would hope that President Obama would make clear early on that:

• He supports the G20 summit as the appropriate apex institution of global governance for now;
• He may wish to discuss how to fine-tune the summit’s composition for enhanced credibility and effectiveness but without fundamentally questioning the G20 framework;
• He supports cooperative solutions to the current financial crisis along with a serious restructuring of the global financial institutions;
• He will look to the G20 summit as the right forum to address other pressing global issues, such as climate change, energy, poverty and health; and
• He is ready to explore an innovative approach to effectively manage the G20 summit process.

These steps would help ensure that the great promise of the November 2008 G20 Summit is translated into a deep and essential change in global governance. This change will allow the world to move from a governance system that continues to be dominated by the transatlantic powers of the 20th century to one which reflects the fundamentally different global economic and political realities of the 21st century. It would usher in a framework of deliberation, consultation and decision making that would make it possible to address the great global challenges and opportunities that we face today in a more effective and legitimate manner.

Downloads

• Download

      

Executive Summary
In order to realize the world’s commitment to ensuring education for all by 2015, important innovations and reforms will be needed in the governance and financing of global education. In 2008, Presidential Candidate Barack Obama committed to making sure that every child has the chance to learn by creating a Global Fund for Education. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has recently called for a new architecture of global cooperation that requires institutions to “combine the efficiency and capacity for action with inclusiveness.” A new Global Fund for Education should be an independent and inclusive multi-stakeholder institution that builds upon existing institutions and supports country-driven solutions. It must be capable of mobilizing the approximately $7 billion annually still needed to achieve education for all, while holding all stakeholders accountable for achieving results with these resources.

None of these objectives will be achieved without a major rethinking of the global education architecture and an evolution of current mechanisms for financing education. More than 75 million children remain out of primary school, and only 53 of the 171 countries with available data have achieved gender parity in primary and secondary education. Achieving these two Millennium Development Goals, and the broader Education for All Goals set out by 164 countries, will require more capable international institutions. A Global Fund for Education that links funding to performance, that ensures a greater share of resources reach schools and that coordinates the efforts of diverse stakeholders is essential to putting these goals within reach.

In order to realize President Obama’s vision for creating a Global Fund for Education, significant leadership by the United States on global education will be needed in the coming year. A clear commitment by the United States to leverage the contributions of other nations and work together to support country-driven strategies through a Global Fund for Education could catalyze unprecedented international energy around achieving education for all.

Policy Brief #169

Learning from Existing and Innovative Mechanisms

The Global Fund for Education should reflect an evolution of the successful elements of existing multilateral mechanisms. Seven years ago, the Fast Track Initiative (FTI) was launched as the primary financing vehicle for achieving education for all. Working with key donors and international institutions, the FTI was supposed to mobilize the resources needed to close the massive education-financing gap. Housed within the World Bank, the FTI has not yet been able to build a strong public brand, engage the support of a number of leading donors or mobilize adequate resources from major donor countries.

The FTI has not been capable of generating resources on a scale consistent with its founding vision of achieving universal education for all. Although the FTI initially focused on expanding bilateral investments in education, in 2003 it created a multilateral Catalytic Fund to mobilize additional resources with an early focus on countries without major bilateral donors. In 2006, the FTI’s multilateral Catalytic Fund represented approximately 2% of aid commitments to basic education. Although the number of countries contributing to the Catalytic Fund has increased in recent years, many of the biggest donors are still not participating, and just three countries accounted for over 70% of total pledges in 2008. As a result, the FTI faces a shortfall of $1.2 billion for the coming year, which is more than all the money it has received from donors in the last six years. Although many countries endorsed by the FTI have experienced increases in bilateral basic education funding, their share of overall assistance focused on basic education has not increased, a fact that makes it hard to rule out the possibility that overall aid trends were largely responsible for that growth.

The FTI has recently undertaken a set of internal governance reforms designed to improve its performance, but these changes alone are unlikely to overcome some of the structural challenges it still faces. Without independent capacity for action, more inclusive governance, greater attention to conflict-affected countries and stronger accountability for results the FTI will not be able to mobilize sufficient resources or deliver the results that it was set up to achieve. At the same time, the FTI’s model of requiring and supporting the development of comprehensive national education strategies and seeking to align donor funding around these strategies should be incorporated in any evolution to a Global Fund for Education. Similarly, the FTI’s ambition of aligning bilateral flows along with multilateral funding remains an important objective to ensure that all types of donor funding are being fully leveraged.

A Global Fund for Education should also draw on the successful experience of other innovative global development financing mechanisms. Among the most successful of these new institutions is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM). Since its inception, the GFATM has generated commitments of over $20 billion and is now the leading source of external financing for tuberculosis and malaria. One of the keys to the GFATM’s success in resource mobilization has been the strong engagement of both civil society and developing countries as full partners with donors in its governance. Civil society representatives and developing countries have equal standing in decision-making at the global level within the GFATM. As a result, civil society stakeholders have been at the center of the largely successful drive for resource mobilization for the Fund and partner countries are more invested in its success.

Toward a Global Fund for Education

The core mission of the Global Fund for Education should be to mobilize the financing needed to achieve universal quality education. Linking successful early learning with meaningful opportunities for secondary education, the Global Fund for Education should maintain a focus on achieving universal quality basic education for all while also supporting early childhood learning and secondary schooling as part of a comprehensive approach to education. The GFE should be guided by a set of core principles, focused on key objectives, and reflect an evolution of existing mechanisms:

1. Independent Capacity for Action

Independence from any other international institution will be essential to establish the public profile necessary to succeed in this resource mobilization challenge. The independence of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has been a key to its success, while the lack of independence of the FTI has been a primary obstacle to its ability to mobilize sufficient resources. An independent Global Fund for Education should still leverage the expertise and commitment of other international institutions, such as UNESCO, UNICEF and the World Bank. Technical experts from these institutions can play an important role in supporting countries both in the development of national strategies and in the effective implementation of these strategies.

2. Inclusive Governance

Inclusive governance will be critical to building a multi-stakeholder constituency that is committed to mobilizing resources. Developing countries, civil society and donor countries should be equal partners in a system in which there is equal representation and the support of each constituency is necessary for major decisions. Such a requirement in the governance structure of the GFE will not only strengthen the internal decision-making process by subjecting it to the scrutiny of diverse perspectives but will also provide external legitimacy and increase the effectiveness of its implementation efforts. Without such inclusiveness, the Global Fund for Education will not be able to succeed in either mobilizing donors to make education a top priority nor in ensuring that these resources are being well-spent in partner countries.

3. Country-Driven Solutions

Developing countries should set the agenda for the best approach for themselves through the development of comprehensive national education strategies. The Global Fund for Education should build on the FTI’s ambition of aligning donor investments around comprehensive national education plans that reflect country-driven solutions. In order to ensure that strategies are truly national—not simply government plans—the Global Fund for Education should mandate that civil society and other non-governmental stakeholders are full partners in the development of these strategies at the national level. Just as inclusive participation at the global level supports effective resource mobilization, ensuring full participation at the national-level supports effective implementation by diverse stakeholders.

4. Accountability for Results

Accountability must be central to the design of the Global Fund for Education. Systems to ensure financial accountability and that money actually reaches the school level and helps students learn are essential to the effectiveness of the Fund. Performance-based disbursement, which connects continued funding with demonstrated results, is the best way to create incentives for recipient countries to deliver on promised results. In addition, key indicators including gains in enrollment, gender equity and student learning outcomes should be included among performance measures. Utilizing improved measures for assessing student learning will be critical to improving completion rates and maximizing the development gains from education. In order to ensure some reasonable predictability of financing, countries that show strong performance should be eligible for extensions of funding over significant periods.

5. Focus on Low-Income and Conflict-Affected States

Given the inevitable limits on the resources of the Global Fund for Education, it is important to establish an allocation principle for distributing funding. First, the eligibility for funding should be limited to low-income countries, or those countries that are eligible for funding under the World Bank’s IDA window. Second, there should be special attention to the challenges of states currently experiencing or emerging from conflict and mechanisms to ensure support for education in these states. Third, the GFE should prioritize those countries categorized as least-developed and that have the most limited national resources. Finally, funding should generally be linked to the level of effort by national governments in supporting education.

6. Leverage and Align Donor Resources

The Global Fund for Education holds enormous promise for mobilizing funding from a diverse array of donors. Just as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria has leveraged a two-to-one match of U.S. resources from the rest of the world, the Global Fund for Education could similarly leverage global resources for education. In order to ensure adequate incentives for countries to contribute their fair share, donor board seats should be allocated and adjusted with reference to donor contributions. In addition, there should be a regularized replenishment process built into the initial design that is linked to the overall resource needs for universal education and that encourages long-term commitments by donors. The GFE should also be committed to providing multiple channels for donor assistance, both bilateral and multilateral, as long as these funds are truly aligned with national strategies. While there is a clear need to expand multilateral financing for education far beyond what has been possible to date, it is also important that ongoing bilateral commitments are much better integrated with the objectives of national education strategies.

A Global Fund for Education holds the key to delivering on the world’s commitment to education for all by 2015. Evolving current mechanisms into a more independent, inclusive, and accountable institution can catalyze the resources and performance needed to achieve universal education. Since education is one of the most leveraged of all development investments, establishing a Global Fund for Education would make a major contribution to reducing global poverty, empowering women, and promoting economic growth in low-income countries around the world.

Downloads

• Download

      

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In November 2008, President George W. Bush convened the first G-20 summit in Washington to address the worst global financial economic crisis since the Great Depression. This summit provided a long-overdue opportunity for a dramatic and lasting change in global governance. This was followed by the election of Barack Obama, who had campaigned on a distinctly different foreign policy platform compared with his Republican rival, Senator John McCain. These two events were no mere coincidence.

The global crisis has moved the United States, along with the rest of the world, toward a new global economic order, with the G-20 summit as one of the principal manifestations of the new global governance system. Of course, movement toward this new economic arrangement and progress toward reformed global governance are not inevitable. It will take a clear and sustained commitment to a new set of values and strong leadership, especially from President Obama and the United States, to ensure that the G-20 summit is not a short-lived exception to what had been a long-standing stalemate in global governance reform. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms. Whether or not this happens will depend to a significant extent on the direction chosen by President Obama.

The president’s vision of inclusion and openness and his approach to governing, which favors innovative and far-reaching pragmatic responses to key national and global challenges, make him a great candidate for this role. In due course the G-20 summit can also serve as a platform for addressing other pressing global issues, including trade, climate change, energy and food security and reform of global institutions. To achieve such an outcome, President Obama and other world leaders need to demonstrate a clear vision and strong leadership starting at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh and beyond.

“Old Economic Order” versus “New Economic Order”

From recent debates on foreign policy and global governance, we have identified two different perspectives or sets of principles underlying the approaches toward U.S. and global foreign policy. Table 1 summarizes the key elements of what we call the “Old Economic Order” in juxtaposition to the “New Economic Order.”

Table 1: Old versus New Economic Order

(Note: This table is adapted from one first presented by the authors in a seminar at the IMF in June 2007. See www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2007/glb/bl030607.pdf )

In the Old Order, the nation state is the point of departure, stressing the importance of sovereignty and national interest as the key principles driving a unilateral and assertive foreign policy. In contrast, the New Order’s starting point considers that we live in a global society, where interdependency and recognition of common interests are the key principles to be pursued in reciprocal relations and with mutual respect across borders. Under the Old Order the rules of national power politics prevail, as competing blocs and fixed alliances strive for predominance, with “hard power” if necessary. Instead, the New Order operates on the basis of a new multilateralism, which builds on the prevalence of global networks in all spheres of life and multiple coalitions across borders, where bargaining for compromise and the tools of “soft power” prevail. Finally, the Old Order promotes the notion that a single economic and political model should prevail, while the New Order accepts that different economic and political models coexist and compete side by side.

In the most simple terms, the Old Order broadly reflects the principles underlying the foreign policy agenda of the Bush administration and Senator John McCain’s presidential platform, while the New Order approximates those underpinning the platform of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and of his administration’s foreign policy stance. Key elements of the Old Order (except the last one) have also been attributed to the current foreign policy approach of Russia, while New Order principles can be ascribed to the European Union.

In fact, what is reflected in these two approaches is the difference between twentieth-century principles of foreign policy versus principles appropriate to today’s realities. We believe there are three interrelated sets of drivers of change that necessitate moving from the Old Order to the New Order. These drivers include the changing global demographic and economic balance, emerging global threats and the need for a more effective global governance system.

Drivers of Change

The first driver of change is the shifting global demographic and economic balance. By 2050, the world population is projected to reach 9.1 billion, up from 6.4 billion today, with the increase occurring almost entirely in today’s developing countries. China is widely predicted to be the largest economy in the early 2040s, with the U.S. economy in second place and India’s in third. Other emerging market economies, including Brazil, Indonesia and Russia, will be important economic players, while individual European countries will recede in importance. Continental Eurasia will be the new hub of global integration as China, India, Russia, the European Union and the Middle East’s energy-producing countries knit their economies ever closer together. The United States will remain a superpower, but only one among others. Together, the major world powers will have to confront the fact that people in poorer and weaker states will feel left behind. Simultaneously, cross-border networks—economic and political, public and private, elite and grassroots, legitimate and illegitimate—will continue to grow and will weaken the traditional hold states have over the economic, financial, social and political actions of their citizens. These networks will create bonds that will either reinforce or undermine global stability.

The second driver of change is a set of emerging global threats:

• The current financial and economic crisis—triggered by poor macroeconomic management and lax financial regulation—reflects the realities of long-term financial imbalances among key economies. It proves the difficulties of managing a highly interdependent global financial system in the absence of agreed-upon global financial surveillance, supervision and regulation. It is likely that risks of global financial stress will continue in the coming decades.
• Global disparities will increase as the rich and the rapidly growing economies do well, while many poor and stagnating countries are left behind. There is potential for rising disparities within countries, too. These inequities will reinforce risks of domestic and cross-border conflict and terrorism. At the same time, the United States and other industrialized countries face a progressive loss of traditional industries, jobs and wages. Aging populations and overburdened pension systems will challenge their fiscal stability and may lead to groundswells of anti-globalization sentiments.
• Rising food and energy prices, environmental threats and the risks of global epidemics—reinforced by population pressures—particularly affect the poorest countries.
• Growing global interdependencies across borders and sectoral lines mean that individual countries can no longer address these threats alone and that a global response has to be coordinated across sectors.

The third driver of change is the growing and widespread recognition that the current system of global governance has become increasingly fragmented, ineffective, outdated and resistant to change. This systemic weakness is reflected in the persistent stalemate on many of the pressing global issues—most notably the Doha trade round—but also on global poverty, climate change and the risk of pandemics. Moreover, global institutions have become unrepresentative in the face of the changed global economic and political balances. Hence their legitimacy is suffering badly, and yet there is stalemate in the reform of individual international organizations.

Together, these three factors have made the principles of the Old Order irrelevant and strongly point in the direction of a New Order. They represent the new reality for governments, citizens and international institutions and force them to adopt new principles and reform existing institutions.

While the drivers are strong and the new global reality is seemingly unassailable, change is not inevitable. Old habits die hard. In the United States, traditions of self-reliance and “exceptionalism” continue to shape Americans’ views of the rest of the world. At the same time, the widespread belief in the virtues of unfettered markets and low taxes, the influence of special interests for protection (agriculture, labor, old industry, banking) and the prevailing fractiousness of political decision-making may well undermine President Obama’s efforts to move toward a new global paradigm. Compounding the entrenchment of the Old Order, new nations that are still recovering from centuries of colonialism—facing economic and political instability and wishing to catch up with the successful industrial countries—are lured to a strong sovereign nation state, unfettered control over their borders and their citizens, and a confrontational approach to foreign policy. Even the much admired willingness of the Europeans to give up sovereignty in favor of supranational institutions has its limits, not least when it comes to giving up their prerogatives of dominating the governing boards of the international financial institutions and other global forums.

Leadership, conviction and persistence will be required among many actors on the global stage to ensure there is progress toward effective reform of global institutions. This potential for change is exemplified by the recent emergence of the G-20 summit as a vehicle for global governance.

The G-20 Summit—Origins, Options and Obstacles

Origins. The G-20 summit had its origins in the annual meetings of the G7—the leaders of a group of seven major Western industrial countries who gathered annually starting in the 1970s, initially to enhance economic and financial policy coordination in reaction to a major financial crisis. After the break-up of the Soviet Union, the G8 was formed by the addition of the Russian Federation. The G8 increasingly became preoccupied with global economic and political issues—in effect assuming the role of a global steering group. But widespread criticism began to mount about its role. The G8 summits were seen as ritualistic in process, ineffective in impact and increasingly unrepresentative in the face of global population and economic shifts, and hence lacking in legitimacy as a global steering group. The onset of the global financial crisis in mid-2008 pushed President George W. Bush into convening the G-20 Summit on November 15, 2008.

The ministerial-level G-20 was first created in the aftermath of the 1997-98 East Asia financial crisis. By convening representatives from 10 industrialized economies and 10 emerging market economies, the G-20 presented a much more geographically and culturally diverse group than the G8. With about 90 percent of the world’s economy and two thirds of the world’s population, the G-20 is also much more representative than the G8. Emerging market economies have been fully engaged in managing the proceedings of the meetings of G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors. It is therefore not surprising that there had been persistent calls by some experts and politicians for using the G-20 as a platform to replace the G8. While moving from G8 to G-20 summit might not create an optimal global steering group, it is a pragmatic and effective step, especially in response to crisis.

Options. Will the G-20 be a short-lived experiment or will it prove an effective tool of global governance? Various options are under debate among experts and practitioners. One possibility is to return to the G8 summits like the one Italy hosted in 2009 and Canada plans to host in 2010. There is concern that the G-20 format is too unwieldy for effective exchanges among the key players. Hence, there will be continuing debates about reducing the size of the summit to somewhere between thirteen and sixteen members, as reflected in the recent proposal by the French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, to create a G14. However, there are pressures to expand the number of participants to include more countries and to expand regional representation. Then there are proposals to develop a constituency-based approach to membership, with universal participation as in the case of the international financial institutions. Further, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and a United Nations Commission chaired by Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz propose to establish an Economic Security Council at the UN.

None of these options will likely materialize in the foreseeable future. Instead there are two probable outcomes: The first is the continuation of the G-20 summit with a gradually expanding mandate beyond the current crisis. For this to be successful, it is critical that the G-20 format proves its effectiveness in the coming months and years. This outcome has three requirements: that the number of participants does not expand; that participants focus on a limited number of action items; and that a small but effective secretariat is established to support and monitor the G-20 summit with logistics and technical expertise.

The most likely alternative to the G-20 summit is what is frequently referred to as “variable geometry.” Under this scenario, selected world leaders would convene on specific topics in shifting constellations, with participation of the most important actors decided separately for each topic. For example, the G-20 might continue to meet on global financial and economic matters for some time to come, while different groups would convene for action on climate change, nuclear proliferation or other topics. Support for this plan appears to be emerging from the Obama administration. It co-convened the summit on climate change at the tail-end of the 2009 G8 Summit, hosts the September 2009 G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh and has called for a summit on nuclear non-proliferation in the spring of 2010. The challenge for summits of “variable geometry” is the ever-shifting number and composition of participants, the difficulty of systematic organization and follow-up and continuing debates about who would convene the summits, when, and with what participation.

Obstacles. As we look ahead, we see a number of challenges for the evolution of global summits beyond the G8, whether toward an effective G-20 or some alternative, especially summits of variable geometry. These challenges emanate from the diverging interests of four sets of players: the United States, Europe, the new emerging powers and the rest of the world.

For the foreseeable future, active U.S. leadership is needed to overcome inertia and collective action problems in addressing global challenges and breaking the stalemate in global governance reform. The Obama administration appears to strongly support a paradigm shift toward a new global order, but so far has not announced its position on summit modalities.

Europe is a key player and has proven a major obstacle to global governance reform as it continues to claim far too many chairs at the G-20 (and in other global forums and institutions) for its economic and demographic weight. In effect, Europeans can either retain their over-representation, which gives them a fragmented voice and weakens their influence while also weakening the global institutions; or they can bundle their votes, chairs and voice for greater impact and to ensure more effective international organizations. Unfortunately, the current stalemate on internal EU governance reform blocks any new European approach to global governance reform.

The new emerging powers, especially China, India and Brazil, will face the challenge of moving beyond their traditional role of the “excluded” and “representatives of the South.” They will need to accept co-responsibility for solving global problems and creating effective global governance institutions. They will have to look beyond issue-specific South-South coalitions to North-South coalitions where it is in their and the global interest (e.g., the push for international financial institution reform, for EU for consolidation, for the completion of the Doha Round, etc.). There are hopeful signs that this is beginning to happen. South Korea’s leadership of next year’s G-20 represents a critical test of whether the new powers are ready to participate and conduct a G-20 forum at the leaders’ level, not only ministerial.

Finally, there is the challenge of how to include the “excluded.” The G-20 is much more inclusive than the G8, but it still leaves out a majority of countries with a third of the world’s population. Options for associating the rest of the world with the summit include ad hoc outreach (as the G8 has done), expanding regional representation (as already practiced with the EU), introducing a constituency approach (as for the IFIs) and seeking a closer alignment with the UN (perhaps through an Economic Security Council). With the exception of the first two—which risk further expanding the number of participants at G-20 summits—none of the other options are likely to materialize soon. However, G-20 leaders will have to be sensitive to the needs of the “excluded” and ensure that the interests of the poorest countries are not neglected.

Conclusion

Great changes in the economic and political balance among countries, global threats and an antiquated global governance system confront the world community today. With the economic crisis as an immediate driver and a new U.S. president, the G-20 summit format has the potential to make a real shift in the global economic order in which a new set of values underpin the way countries and people cooperate across borders. To the extent that President Obama has articulated his vision of the global order and America’s role in it, we believe he is headed in the direction that stresses common interests in a global society, the need for multilateral action and understanding for alternative approaches to economic and political development. This is very promising. The effectiveness of the G-20 in addressing the global economic crisis could lay the foundation for a new global order and provide the impetus for the many other necessary global governance reforms.

However, Europe, China and India are also critical for progress. Moreover, if President Obama is believed to fail the test of competence at home or a major shock hits the United States, a reversal is possible in the U.S. In any case, significant changes in global governance will take time to transpire. We may well see a long period of transition with only gradual improvement in current institutions. In the meantime, pressures for increased regionalism, bilateral deals among the big players, geopolitical competition among power blocs and growing instability and threats from the “excluded” will undermine international cooperation and the whole idea of a global order.

The G-20 summit forum represents a great opportunity for world leaders to begin to put into action the principles of a new global order. It will allow them to address the immediate global financial and economic crisis in a collaborative spirit. And in due course the G-20 summit can also serve as a platform for addressing other pressing global issues, including trade, climate change, energy and food security, and reform of global institutions. To achieve such an outcome, President Obama and other world leaders need to demonstrate a clear vision and strong leadership at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh and beyond.

Downloads

• Download

      

Nearly eight years after a U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban regime, Afghanistan remains far from stable. As President Barack Obama considers alternatives to increasing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, his administration’s new counternarcotics strategy meshes well with counterinsurgency and state-building efforts in the country. It is a welcome break from previous ineffective and counterproductive policies. The effectiveness of the policy with respect to counternarcotics, counterinsurgency and state-building, however, will depend on the operationalization of the strategy. The details are not yet clear, but the strategy potentially faces many pitfalls.

Efforts to bankrupt the Taliban through eradication are futile and counterproductive since they cement the bonds between the population and the Taliban. But interdiction is very unlikely to bankrupt the Taliban either. Security needs to come first before any counternarcotics policy has a chance of being effective. Counterinsurgent forces can prevail against the Taliban, without shutting down the Taliban drug income, by adopting an appropriate strategy that provides security and rule of law to the population and by sufficiently beefing up their own resources vis-à-vis the Taliban. Rural development is a long term and multifaceted effort. Simplistic strategies that focus simply on price ratios or try to raise risk through “seed-burn-seed” approaches are ineffective. Wheat replacement strategy as a core of the alternative livelihoods effort is singularly inappropriate for Afghanistan. Shortcuts do not lead to sustainable policies that also mitigate conflict and enhance state-building.

The Obama administration will need to reduce expectations for quick fixes and present realistic timelines to Congress, the U.S. public and the international community for how long rural development and other counternarcotics policies in Afghanistan will take to show meaningful and sustainable progress that advances human security of the Afghan people, mitigates conflict and enhance state building. Unless this is conveyed, there is a real danger that even a well-designed counternarcotics policy will be prematurely and unfortunately discarded as ineffective.

The New Strategy in Afghanistan’s Context

In summer 2009, the Obama administration unveiled the outlines of a new counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan. The new policy represents a courageous break with previous misguided efforts there and thirty years of U.S. counternarcotics policies around the world. Instead of emphasizing premature eradication of poppy crops, the new policy centers on increased interdiction and rural development. This approach strongly enhances the new counterinsurgency policy focus on providing security to the rural population, instead of being preoccupied with the numbers of incapacitated Taliban and al Qaeda.

In Afghanistan, somewhere between a third and a half of its GDP comes from poppy cultivation and processing and much of the rest from foreign aid, so the illicit poppy economy determines the economic survival of a large segment of the population. This is true not only of the farmers who cultivate opium poppy frequently in the absence of viable legal and illegal economic alternatives. But, as a result of micro- and macro-economic spillovers and the acute paucity of legal economic activity, much of the economic life in large cities is also underpinned by the poppy economy. After a quarter century of intense poppy cultivation, the opium poppy economy is deeply entrenched in the socio-economic fabric of the society. Islamic prohibitions against opiates notwithstanding, the poppy economy inevitably underlies Afghanistan’s political arrangements and power relations. Profits from taxing poppy cultivation and protecting smuggling rings bring substantial income to the Taliban. A recent CRS report (August 2009) estimates the income at $70-$100 million per year, which accounts for perhaps as much as half of Taliban income. But many other actors in Afghanistan profit from the opium poppy economy in a similar way: former warlords cum government officials; members of Afghanistan’s police; tribal chiefs; and independent traffickers.

Moreover, the Taliban and many others who protect the opium poppy economy from efforts to suppress it derive much more than financial profits. Crucially, they also obtain political capital from populations dependent on poppy cultivation. Such political capital is a critical determinant of the success and sustainability of the insurgency since public support or at least acceptance are crucial enablers of an insurgency. Indeed, as I detail in my forthcoming book, Shooting Up: Counterinsurgency and the War on Drugs, along with providing order that the Afghan government is systematically unable to provide and capitalizing on Ghilzai Pashtun sentiments of being marginalized, protection of the poppy fields is at the core of the Taliban support. By not targeting the farmers, the new counternarcotics strategy is thus synchronized with the counterinsurgency efforts because it can deprive the Taliban of a key source of support. Its overall design also promises to lay the necessary groundwork for substantial reductions in the size and impacts of the illicit economy in Afghanistan.

However, while appropriate in its overall conception, the new strategy has pitfalls. Specifically how to operationalize interdiction and rural development will to a great extent determine the effectiveness of the strategy—not only with respect to the narrow goal of narcotics suppression, but also with respect to counterinsurgency and state-building. While many of the details still remain to be developed, some of those that have trickled out give reasons for concern.

Effects of Previous Eradication-Centered Policy

During the 2008-09 growing season, the area of cultivation in Afghanistan fell by 22% to 123,000 hectares and opium production fell by 10 percent to 6,900 metric tons (mt). Much of this decline in cultivation was driven by market forces largely unrelated to policy: After several years of massive overproduction in Afghanistan that surpassed the estimated global market for opiates by almost three times, opium prices were bound to decline. Even at 6,900 mt, production still remains twice as high as world demand, leading to speculation that someone somewhere is stockpiling opiates.

More significant, the persistence of high production betrays the ineffectiveness of simplistic policies, such as premature forced eradication before alternative livelihoods are in place, which since 2004 (until the new Obama strategy) was the core of the counternarcotics policy in Afghanistan. Policies that fail to address the complex and multiple structural drivers of cultivation and ignore the security and economic needs of the populations dependent on poppy cultivation generate vastly counterproductive effects with respect to not only counternarcotics efforts, but also counterinsurgency, stabilization and state building.

The eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar provides a telling example. For decades, Nangarhar has been one of the dominant sources of opium poppy. But over the past two years, as a result of governor Gul Agha Shirzai’s suppression efforts—including bans on cultivation, forced eradication, imprisonment of violators and claims that NATO would bomb the houses of those who cultivate poppy or keep opium—cultivation declined to very low numbers. This has been hailed as a major success to be emulated throughout Afghanistan.

In fact, the economic and security consequences were highly undesirable. The ban greatly impoverished many, causing household incomes to fall 90% for many and driving many into debt. As legal economic alternatives failed to materialize, many coped by resorting to crime, such as kidnapping and robberies. Others sought employment in the poppy fields of Helmand, yet others migrated to Pakistan where they frequently ended up recruited by the Taliban. The population became deeply alienated from the government, resorting to strikes and attacks on government forces. Districts that were economically hit especially severely, such as Khogiani, Achin and Shinwar, have become no-go zones for the Afghan government and NGOs. Although those tribal areas have historically been opposed to the Taliban, the Taliban mobilization there has taken off to an unprecedented degree. The populations began allowing the Taliban to cross over from Pakistan, and U.S. military personnel operating in that region indicate that intelligence provision to Afghan forces and NATO has almost dried up. Tribal elders who supported the ban became discredited, and the collapse of their legitimacy is providing an opportunity for the Taliban to insert itself into the decision-making structures of those areas. And all such previous bans in the province, including in 2005, turned out to be unsustainable in the absence of legal economic alternatives. Thus, after the 2005 ban, for example, poppy cultivation inevitably swung back.

The Ingredients of Success

Security
The prerequisite for success with respect to narcotics is security, i.e. sustained state control of territory. Without it, Afghanistan cannot be stabilized and the state strengthened; nor can counternarcotics policies be effective. Whether one adopts iron-fisted eradication or sustainable rural development as the core of a counternarcotics policy, security is essential. Without security first, counternarcotics efforts have not yet succeeded anywhere. Suppression without alternative livelihoods in place requires firm control of the entire territory to prevent illicit crop displacement and harsh suppression of the population dependent on illicit crops. Apart from being problematic with respect to human rights, this harsh approach is also very costly politically. Rural development requires security, otherwise investment will not come in, the population will not make risky long-term investments in legal crops and structural drivers of cultivation will not be effectively addressed. Development under a hail of bullets simply does not work, and in the context of insecurity, illicit economies persist and dominate.

Nor have counternarcotics policies, such as eradication or interdiction, succeeded in bankrupting or severely weakening any belligerent groups profiting from drugs anywhere in the world. Not in China, Thailand, Burma, Peru, Lebanon or even Colombia. Instead, they cement the bonds between marginalized populations dependent on illicit crops and belligerents plus severely reduce human intelligence flows to the counterinsurgent forces.

But counterinsurgent forces can prevail against insurgents and terrorists without stopping or reducing the terrorists’ drug-based financial inflows—either by increasing their own forces and resources vis-à-vis the belligerents or by adopting a smarter strategy that is either militarily more effective or wins the hearts and minds. This was the case in China, Thailand, Burma, and Peru where counterinsurgents succeeded without eradication. Evidence that counterinsurgent forces can prevail without bankrupting the belligerents through eradication also holds in the case of Colombia where the FARC has been weakened militarily not because of the aerial spraying of coca fields, but in spite of it. Today, more coca is grown there than at the beginning of Plan Colombia; but as a result of U.S. resources and training, Colombian forces were capable of greatly weakening the FARC even though forced eradication virtually eliminated human intelligence from the population to the government.

Interdiction with the Right Focus
The broad focus of the new counternarcotics strategy on interdiction is well placed, but interdiction’s effectiveness will depend on its objectives and execution. Just like eradication, interdiction will not succeed in bankrupting the Taliban. The Taliban has many other sources of income, including donations from Pakistan and the Middle East, taxation of legal economic activity, smuggling with legal goods, wildlife and illicit logging. In fact, it rebuilt itself in Pakistan between 2002 and 2004 without access to the poppy economy. Overall, drug interdiction has a very poor record in substantially curtailing belligerents’ income, with only a few successes registered in, for example, highly localized settings in Colombia and Peru.

Instead, the objective of the policy should be to reduce the coercive and corrupting power of organized crime groups. But achieving that requires a well-designed policy and a great deal of intelligence. Previous interdiction efforts in Afghanistan have in fact had the opposite effect: they eliminated small traders and consolidated the power of big traffickers, giving rise to the vertical integration of the industry. They also strengthened the bonds between some traffickers and the Taliban (although many traffickers continue to operate independently or are linked to the government).

Large-scale interdiction that targets entire networks and seeks to eliminate local demand for opium from local traders, which some are arguing for, is extraordinarily resource-intensive given the structure of the Afghan opium industry. Prioritization will need to be given to devoting scarce resources to drug interdiction or directly to counterinsurgency. The odds of success are not high. But even if such an interdiction strategy did succeed in shutting down local demand, the policy would become counterproductive since in local settings its effects would approximate the effects of eradication, thus once again alienating the population. Such large-scale interdiction is thus not currently appropriate for Afghanistan.

But even the NATO-led selective interdiction of targeting designated Taliban-linked traffickers (the United States has identified fifty such traffickers) is not free from pitfalls. First, selective interdiction can actually provide opportunities for the Taliban to directly take over the trafficking role or strengthen the alliance between the remaining traffickers and the Taliban, thus achieving the opposite of what it aims for. In fact, interdiction measures in Peru and Colombia frequently resulted in tightening the belligerents-traffickers nexus and belligerents’ takeover of trafficking.

Second, uncalibrated interdiction can provoke intense turf wars among the remaining traffickers, thus intensifying violence in the country and muddling the battlefield picture by introducing a new form of conflict. Mexico provides a vivid example of such an undesirable outcome. In the Afghan tribal context, such turf wars can easily become tribal or ethnic warfare.

Third, such selective interdiction can also send the message that the best way to be a trafficker is to be a member of the Afghan government, thus perpetuating a sense of impunity and corruption and undermining long-term state building and legitimacy.

Finally, the effectiveness of interdiction is to a great extent dependent on the quality of rule of law in Afghanistan plus the capacity and quality of the justice and corrections systems, all of which are woefully lacking in Afghanistan and are deeply corrupt.

Comprehensive Rural Development
Rural development appropriately lies at the core of the new strategy because, despite the enormous challenges, it has the best chance to effectively and sustainably strengthen the Afghan state and reduce the narcotics economy. But for rural development to do that, it needs to be conceived as broad-based social and economic development that focuses on improvements in human capital—including health care and education—and addresses all of the structural drivers of opium poppy cultivation. In Afghanistan, these drivers include insecurity; lack of physical infrastructure (such as roads), electrification and irrigations systems; lack of microcredit; lack of processing facilities; and the absence of value-added chains and assured markets. They also include lack of land titles and, increasingly, the fact that land rent by sharecroppers has become dependent on opium poppy cultivation as land concentration has increased over the past eight years. Poppy cultivation and harvesting are also very labor-intensive, thus offering employment opportunities unparalleled in the context of Afghanistan’s economy.

The price-profitability of poppy in comparison to other crops is only one of the drivers and frequently not the most important one. Without other structural drivers being addressed, farmers will not switch to licit crops even if they fetch more money than the illicit ones. By the same token, however, farmers are frequently willing to sacrifice some profit and forgo illicit crop cultivation as long as the licit alternatives bring them sufficient income and address all of the structural drivers, including the insecurity to which farmers are exposed in illicit economies.

Unfortunately, the wheat distribution program that was the core of rural development in Afghanistan last year (and that is slated to be its key component this year) is likely to be woefully ineffective for several reasons. First, in 2008, the program was based solely on an unusually high price ratio of wheat to poppy, driven by poppy overproduction and a global shortage of wheat. However, this price ratio is unlikely to hold; Afghanistan’s wheat prices are dictated anyway by surrounding markets, such as Pakistan and Kazakhstan. Second, the program did nothing to address the structural drivers. In fact, it had counterproductive effects because the free distribution of wheat undermined local markets in seeds. Afghan farmers can obtain seeds; their challenge lies in how to obtain profit afterwards. Thus, some sold the wheat seed instead of cultivating it. Third, those who actually cultivated wheat frequently did so not for profit, but for subsistence to minimize costs of buying cereals on the market. In fact, because of land distribution issues, many Afghan farmers do not have access to enough land to cover even their subsistence needs with wheat monocropping. A key lesson from alternative development over the past thirty years is that monocropping substitution strategies are particularly ineffective. Fourth, if all of current poppy farmers switched to wheat cultivation, Afghanistan would experience a great increase in unemployment since wheat cultivation employs 88% less labor than poppy cultivation and harvesting do.

Instead of wheat, rural development in Afghanistan needs to emphasize diversified high-value, high-labor-intensive crops, such as fruits, vegetables and specialty items like saffron. Generating lasting off-farm income opportunities will also be important, but even more challenging than jump-starting legal agromarkets.

After eight years of underresourcing and neglecting agriculture development, the new counternarcotics policy’s focus on the farm is appropriate. But the new strategy needs to take care not to throw away the baby with the bath water. The effort still needs to include developing value-added chains and assured internal and external markets plus enabling sustained access to them. Once again, thirty years of history of alternative livelihoods show that without value-added chains and accessible markets even productive legal farms become unsustainable and farmers revert back to illicit crops.

Finally, rural development requires time. Perhaps in no country in the world since Mao wiped out poppy cultivation in China in the 1950s did counternarcotics efforts face such enormous challenges as they do in Afghanistan—in terms of the scale of the illicit economy, its centrality to the overall economy of the country and hence its vast marco- and micro-economic and political effects, the underdevelopment of the country and its human capital and the paucity of viable economic alternatives. Even under much more auspicious circumstances along all the above dimensions, counternarcotics rural development in Thailand took thirty years.

Conclusion

Clearly, there is a need to quickly bring some economic, social and rule of law improvements to the lives of the Afghan people. Without such quick, visible and sustainable change, it will become impossible to rebuild the confidence of the Afghan people in the future, harness their remaining aspirations and to persuade them that the central state with support of the international community is preferable to the Taliban or local warlord- or tribal-based fiefdoms. But there is an equal need to urge strategic patience in the United States—both for counterinsurgency and for counternarcotics.

Eradication can be a part of the mix of counternarcotics policies, but should only be adopted in areas that are free of violent conflict and where sufficient legal economic alternatives are available to the population. Interdiction needs to focus on reducing the coercive and corrupting power of crime groups. Before interdiction measures are undertaken, an analysis of second and third- order effects needs to be conducted. It needs to be carefully calibrated with the strength of law enforcement in Afghanistan to avoid provoking dangerous turf wars, ethnic violence and cementing the relationship between the Taliban and the traffickers. It also needs to target top traffickers linked to the Afghan government. Interdiction needs to encompass building the justice and corrections system in Afghanistan and broad rule of law efforts. Rural development needs to address all structural drivers of poppy cultivation. It needs to focus not only on the farm, but also on value-added chains and assured markets. It needs to emphasize diversified high-value, high-labor intensive crops, and not center on wheat.

Evaluations of counternarcotics policies need to back away from simplistic and inappropriate measures, such as the numbers of hectares eradicated or traffickers caught. Instead, the measures need to encompass the complexity of the issue, including, size of areas cultivated with licit as well as illicit crops, human development indexes, levels of education, the number of resource-poor farmers dependent on illicit crops for basic subsistence or vulnerable to poverty-driven participation in illicit economies, food security, availability of legal microcredit, prevalence of land titles and accessibility of land, infrastructure density and cost of infrastructure use (such as road tolls), availability of non-belligerent dispute resolution and arbitrage mechanisms, quality of property rights, prevalence of value-added chains, and accessibility of markets. The United States and its allies must reduce public expectations for quick fixes and dedicate increased resources to rural development for a long time. Although U.S. forces do not need to stay in Afghanistan for decades, economic development will take that long.

Downloads

• Download

      

This is the third in a series of reports on the demographic and political dynamics under way in key “battleground” states, deemed to be crucial in deciding the 2008 election. As part of the Metropolitan Policy Program’s Blueprint for American Prosperity, this series will provide an electoral component to the initiative’s analysis of and prescriptions for bolstering the health and vitality of America’s metropolitan areas, the engines of the U.S. economy. This report focuses on three major battleground states in the Midwest—Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri—and finds that:

Ohio, Michigan and Missouri all feature eligible voter populations dominated by white working class voters. However, this profile is changing, albeit more slowly than in faster-growing states like Colorado or Arizona, as the white working class declines and white college graduates and minorities, especially Hispanics, increase. The largest effects are in these states’ major metropolitan areas— Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati in Ohio: Detroit in Michigan; and St. Louis and Kansas City in Missouri— especially in their suburbs.

In Ohio, these trends could have their strongest impact in the fast-growing and Democratic-trending Columbus metro, where Democrats will seek to tip the entire metro in their favor by expanding their margin in Franklin County and reducing their deficit in the suburbs. The trends could also have big impacts in the Cleveland metro (especially its suburbs), in the Cincinnati metro (especially Hamilton County) and in the mediumsized metros of the Northeast (Akron, Canton, and Youngstown). Overall, the GOP will be looking to maintain their support among the declining white working class, especially among whites with some college, who have been trending Democratic. Also critical to their prospects is whether the growing white college-educated group will continue its movement toward the Democrats.

In Michigan, these trends will likely determine whether the fast-growing and populous Detroit suburbs continue shifting toward the Democrats, a development which would tip the Detroit metro (44 percent of the statewide vote) even farther in the direction of the Democrats. The trends will also have a big impact on whether the GOP can continue their hold on the conservative and growing Southwest region of the state that includes the Grand Rapids metro. The GOP will seek to increase its support among white college graduates, who gave the GOP relatively strong support in 2004, but have been trending toward the Democrats long term.

In Missouri, these trends will have their strongest impact on the two big metros of Democratic-trending St. Louis (38 percent of the vote)—especially its suburbs— and GOP-trending Kansas City (20 percent of the statewide vote). The Democrats need a large increase in their margins out of these two metros to have a chance of taking the state, while the GOP simply needs to hold the line. The trends will also have a significant impact on the conservative and growing Southwest region, the bulwark of GOP support in the state, where the Republicans will look to generate even higher support levels. The GOP will try to maintain its support from the strongly pro-GOP white college graduate group, which has been increasing its share of voters as it has trended Republican.

These large, modestly growing states in the heartland of the United States will play a pivotal roll in November’s election. Though experiencing smaller demographic shifts than many other states, they are each changing in ways that underscore the contested status of their combined 48 Electoral College votes in this year’s presidential contest.



Table Of Contents:
Executive Summary » 
Introduction and Data Sources and Definitions » 
Ohio » 
Michigan » 
Missouri » 
Endnotes »

Downloads

• Download

       

Nearly a week after the death of 18 year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., protests continue in the 21,000-person suburban community on St. Louis’ north side and around the nation.

Amid the social media and news coverage of the community’s response to the police shooting of the unarmed teenager, a picture of Ferguson and its history has emerged.

The New York Times and others have described the deep-seated racial tensions and inequalities that have long plagued the St. Louis region, as well as the dramatic demographic transformation of Ferguson from a largely white suburban enclave (it was 85 percent white as recently as 1980) to a predominantly black community (it was 67 percent black by 2008-2012).

But Ferguson has also been home to dramatic economic changes in recent years. The city’s unemployment rate rose from roughly 7 percent in 2000 to over 13 percent in 2010-12. For those residents who were employed, inflation-adjusted average earnings fell by one-third. The number of households using federal Housing Choice Vouchers climbed from roughly 300 in 2000 to more than 800 by the end of the decade.

Amid these changes, poverty skyrocketed. Between 2000 and 2010-2012, Ferguson’s poor population doubled. By the end of that period, roughly one in four residents lived below the federal poverty line ($23,492 for a family of four in 2012), and 44 percent fell below twice that level.

These changes affected neighborhoods throughout Ferguson. At the start of the 2000s, the five census tracts that fall within Ferguson’s border registered poverty rates ranging between 4 and 16 percent. However, by 2008-2012 almost all of Ferguson’s neighborhoods had poverty rates at or above the 20 percent threshold at which the negative effects of concentrated poverty begin to emerge. (One Ferguson tract had a poverty rate of 13.1 percent in 2008-2012, while the remaining tracts fell between 19.8 and 33.3 percent.)

Census Tract-Level Poverty Rates in St. Louis County, 2000

Census Tract-Level Poverty Rates in St. Louis County, 2008-2012

As dramatic as the growth in economic disadvantage has been in this community, Ferguson is not alone.

Within the nation’s 100 largest metro areas, the number of suburban neighborhoods where more than 20 percent of residents live below the federal poverty line more than doubled between 2000 and 2008-2012. Almost every major metro area saw suburban poverty not only grow during the 2000s but also become more concentrated in high-poverty neighborhoods. By 2008-2012, 38 percent of poor residents in the suburbs lived in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 20 percent or higher. For poor black residents in those communities, the figure was 53 percent.

Like Ferguson, many of these changing suburban communities are home to out-of-step power structures, where the leadership class, including the police force, does not reflect the rapid demographic changes that have reshaped these places.

Suburban areas with growing poverty are also frequently characterized by many small, fragmented municipalities; Ferguson is just one of 91 jurisdictions in St. Louis County. This often translates into inadequate resources and capacity to respond to growing needs and can complicate efforts to connect residents with economic opportunities that offer a path out of poverty.

And as concentrated poverty climbs in communities like Ferguson, they find themselves especially ill-equipped to deal with impacts such as poorer education and health outcomes, and higher crime rates. In an article for Salon, Brittney Cooper writes about the outpouring of anger from the community, “Violence is the effect, not the cause of the concentrated poverty that locks that many poor people up together with no conceivable way out and no productive way to channel their rage at having an existence that is adjacent to the American dream.” 

None of this means that there are 1,000 Fergusons-in-waiting, but it should underscore the fact that there are a growing number of communities across the country facing similar, if quieter, deep challenges every day.

A previous version of this post misstated the Ferguson unemployment rate in 2000. It has since been corrected.

       

Event Information

As the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria continues to rise, there is a pressing need for new drugs to combat infections by these organisms. However, research and development in this area has slowed, creating a public health concern that we lack the drugs necessary to treat multi-drug resistant infections. Challenges to promoting antibacterial drug development may be scientific, methodological, regulatory, or economic in nature.

On Wednesday, May 9, 2012, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform convened an expert workshop, "Facilitating Antibacterial Drug Development,” that explored solutions to methodological and regulatory challenges that could make the development process more efficient. This meeting brought together diverse multi-stakeholder experts—including medical product developers, health care professionals, researchers, patient advocates, representatives of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and other groups—to explore the following issues:

• Existing paradigms for antibacterial drug development;
• Novel approaches to further antibacterial drug development, including use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, Bayesian methods, innovative clinical trial designs, new data sources, alternate clinical endpoints, and new regulatory tools; and
• Short- and long-term opportunities to advance the antibacterial drug development enterprise through collaboration among stakeholders, improved regulatory science, and other means.

For more information on FDA’s Antibacterial Drug Development Task Force, click here.

Event Materials

• May 9 Event Summary
• Antibacterial Drug Development Participant List
• Facilitating Antibacterial Drug Development Agenda
• Facilitating Antibacterial Drug Development Discussion Guide
• Panel 1 Brad Spellberg Presentation
• Panel 1 George Talbot Presentation
• Panel 1 John Powers Presentation
• Panel 1 Thomas Fleming Presentation
• Panel 2 George Drusano Presentation
• Panel 2 Scott Emerson Presentation
• Panel 3 Daniel Benjamin Presentation
• Panel 3 Edward Cox Presentation
• Panel 3 John Rex examples
• Panel 3 John Rex Presentation
• Panel 4 Helen Boucher Presentation

       

Event Information

As part of ongoing cooperative work with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform has formed a council to bring together expert perspectives on the challenges facing antibacterial drug development. Designed to include representatives from academia, patient advocacy groups, industry, providers, and government agencies, the Brookings Council on Antibacterial Drug Development (BCADD), will convene twice a year to discuss pressing issues in the treatment of infectious diseases and potential steps to address them.  

The first BCADD meeting, held on August 30, 2012, brought stakeholders together to discuss the following:

• Ongoing antibacterial initiatives at FDA and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative
• Statistical and methodological approaches that could be harnessed to improve the efficiency of antibacterial drug development
• Balancing benefit-risk and uncertainty considerations with public health needs
• Next steps for council action

For more information on FDA’s Antibacterial Drug Development Task Force, click here.

Event Materials

• 30 antibacterial drug development summary
• Presentation Slides
• FINAL BCADD Discussion Guide 20120828
• FINAL May 9 Summary 20120828
• Participant List_Final

       

Event Information

As part of an ongoing cooperative agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings has formed the Brookings Council on Antibacterial Drug Development (BCADD) to identify steps to address the major technical, regulatory, and financial barriers impeding antibacterial drug development. At the first meeting of the BCADD, stakeholders emphasized the importance of concentrating on discrete policy and program areas to revitalize the antibacterial drug development enterprise.

BCADD convened a diverse group of stakeholders, including FDA officials, industry and biotech representatives, payers, providers, clinicians, and academic researchers Wednesday, February 27, 2013, to discuss two of the economic challenges facing antibacterial drug development:

• Better understanding the potential role of incentives in drug discovery and development; and
• Identifying potential reimbursement models that can support both stewardship and expanded investment for antibacterial drug products.

Antibacterial development has moved slower than other therapeutic areas in part due to the challenges of achieving a return on investment under the current reimbursement system. New models are needed to incentivize research and development of antibacterial products and to separate reimbursement from unit sales in order to help preserve the effectiveness of existing and new antibacterial drugs. The workshop’s objectives are to support the development of pragmatic proposals for the larger stakeholder community to consider.

Event Materials

• meeting summary 20130925 FINAL
• Discussion Guide
• Participant List
• Presentation

       

Event Information

Antibacterial drug resistance is a global public health threat poised to worsen due to the combination of the inappropriate use of existing drugs and a marked decline in innovative antibacterial drug development. In order to tackle this problem, stakeholders must consider comprehensive strategies that address both drug development and stewardship.

On February 7, the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform convened an expert workshop, “Modernizing Antibacterial Drug Development and Promoting Stewardship” to explore a two-pronged approach to combating antibacterial drug resistance that includes: 1) the development of pathogen-focused antibacterial drugs that target the most serious public health threats; and 2) stewardship efforts for all antibacterial products in order to preserve their utility. Participating stakeholders included experts from the drug development and health care industries, the clinical community, government, and academia. These stakeholders shared their insights on potential frameworks and evidentiary considerations for pathogen-focused drug development, and efforts underway to promote the appropriate use of commonly used antibacterial drugs in the ambulatory care setting.

Event Materials

• Antibiotic Development Slides
• 07 antibacterial expert workshop discussion guide
• 07 antibacterial expert workshop public agenda
• 07 antibacterial expert workshop meeting summary

       

Event Information

Antibacterial drugs are a critical component of the nation’s public health armamentarium, and have saved millions of lives by preventing and treating a range of bacterial infections. However, antibacterial drug development has been hampered by challenges unique to the antibacterial drug market, which have stifled innovation and left patients and providers with fewer options to treat increasingly resistant infections. One consequence of the dwindling antibacterial drug pipeline has been a reduction in effective oral antibacterial drug treatment options, which are particularly important in the ambulatory and transitional care contexts. Recent proposals to re-invigorate the antibacterial pipeline are geared towards serious infections treated in the inpatient setting, which may lead to a greater focus on intravenous therapies. However, addressing both current and future needs in the infectious diseases space will require a balanced mix of both oral and parenteral antibacterial drugs.

In cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at Brookings held an expert workshop on November 20, 2014, to identify the most promising strategies to support oral antibacterial drug development. Participating stakeholders included experts from the drug development and health care industries, the clinical community, government, and academia. These stakeholders shared their insights on potential regulatory, scientific, and economic strategies to reinvigorate the oral antibacterial drug pipeline. 

Event Materials

• Reinvigorating the Oral Antibacterial Drug Development Pipeline Agenda
• Reinvigorating the Oral Antibacterial Drug Development Pipeline Discussion Guide
• Biographies 20141118
• Reinvigorating the Oral Antibacterial Drug Development Pipeline Slide Deck