Millennium Development Goals: Why They Don't Work Everywhere

http://www.webster.edu/arts-and-sciences/affiliates-events/2015-conference.html

The article linked to above discusses the 2015 conference held to gage where the world was in achieving the UN Millennium Goals. One of the focuses of the article is universal education and points out that though this is the case in more countries since the goal was set, sub-saharan Africa still has a long way to go. Of course, the question becomes why progress is being made in some parts of the world and not in others. As stated in the article, "Many of the obstacles to education are things that Americans would never think of." These obstacles include malnourishment, geography, conflict, and infrastructure. In addition to the obstacles countries have for each goal to be achieved, many speakers also discussed the obstacles to data collection faced by the UN and individual countries. Many of the goals cannot be measured accurately due to societal/social reasons for data not being accurate.

Many of the Millennium Development Goals are intertwined. It is impossible to take one without the other. Too often people think education is the answer to poverty. The problem is that education in many countries means children are not able to work or take care of their siblings. This could end up being a financial hardship their families cannot afford in the short-term. Education should be universal and is a great long-term solution to poverty. However, it is hard for families who are living in survival mode to look at the long-term when they are working to survive the day-to-day life and the challenges it brings. As the article pointed out, many of the reasons that children are not being sent to school or why education is not working for many countries as a way to end poverty, are not even thought of in America or other developed nations. This points back to the problem with the Washington Consensus and other such plans being written and implemented by the developed countries with little to no understanding of or input from the countries being targeted to develop. Not every country has the same goal and certainly not every country is starting from the same place. In order for development goals of any kind to work, they need to be tailored to each country and what the people/government of that country want. This is idealistic, I know, but it is the only way such a plan will work. 

What will Brexit really mean?

I'm doing my first blog on an Economist article titled, "So what will Brexit really mean?" It entailed prime minister Theresa May establishing a new Department for Exiting the EU and what leaving the EU meant for which market Britain will be a part of, how migration and border control laws would change, and whether or not it'll stay in Europol. Furthermore, publications from Japan's foreign ministry advised Mrs. May to retain full access to the single market - which domestic businesses and finanical lobbies want to stay in - on the account that a "hard" Brexit, which involves leaving that single market without free-trade deals with the EU and third-world countries, would lead to a large drop-off in investment and output. Moreover, Japan advised to avoid customs controls on imports, to preserve the "passports" that allows banks in London to trade across and to let employers freely hire EU nationals. All of these decisions are now in the hands of the British government who are pushing and pulling on different opinions regarding these issues.

What I was most interested in regarding this article was the list of policies Japan insisted Britain should implement; it reminded me greatly of of the ten points in the Washington Consensus and Thomas Friedman's five pillars for economic growth. While they're not all the same they revolve around the theme of limited government intervention in the economy, liberalizing the economic environment and trade and policies within it, and keeping borders open to workers and to allow trade. According to traditional economic models, decreasing intervention on things like trade across borders will increase investment and influx of capital in the long run, especially for British financial institutions. Making this choice seems relatively simple until the Brexiteers realize that they have to make a very tough decision that goes against some of their top priorities. Making the decision to stay in the single market is an economically more sound decision for the country but it also means that Britain has to compromise having full control of money, border control, and laws. It's a really intriguing push-and-pull that Brexiteers in what choices they want to make that'll shape this referendum.

G-20 and The Developing World

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/08/31/china-to-push-ambitious-global-agenda-on-wary-world-leaders/#392148634f2b

This article by Forbes discusses the G-20 summit that just happened last week. The article examines possible proposals and stances that China will take/push during the summit. The article basically explains that China will pursue a strong economic plan. They believed that china would cover “consolidation of cross-border investment rules and the industrialization of Africa” as two of their possible points. But the writers believed that China’s plans would not be eagerly accepted because of China’s own economic problems. One point that was made towards the end was that there was a possibility that some leaders would reluctantly accept some of what china wants. This is because currently it is tough for foreign companies, so they are hoping this will soften china’s approach.

I personally found this article interesting because it pointed out largely that China had its sights set on Africa and parts of Asia, with hopes to develop it further. This was similar to what we read about the Washington consensus. The Washington consensus aimed to open up trade and introduce free markets into post-communist countries. But this was critiqued in the reading because as it pointed out this did not always work, and actually hurt some counties. I think this is important for the leaders at G-20 to remember when tackling this issue. It is important that we help the developing world, but we have to go about it carefully. What they think is helping these developing nations, could end up hurting them down the line.

Another subject the article touched upon was consolidation of cross border consolidation. It seems like China wants to model after the EU system but on a global scale. As part of this they want to reduce trade costs and increase its financing. These are things that are very similar to what the EU does. Whether or not this is a good thing is something that had been untested on such a large scale. I think it is important that we see how the Brexit situation works out before we go any further. This could essentially prove to be a domino effect of countries leaving the EU, or the EU could just not be sustainable. I think that it is good that they are looking forward and are being ambitious. They seem to be aware that there is a problem, and are trying to figure out ways to solve them.

The Post Washington Consensus Consensus

http://intldept.uoregon.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Yarris-Joya-5.1.15-Brown-Bag-Article.pdf

 The post Washington consensus discusses the importance of the failures of the Washington consensus, and the failures in understanding the economic structures of developing countries. The Washington consensus failed to recognize the constant change of free markets which consisted of updated technology, and that every state develops differently. "The consensus policies often assumed the worst about the nature and capability of governments and made that one size fit all." (The Post Washington Consensus) A successful developmental strategy cannot be reached in the confinement of Washington alone. Developing countries must be involved just as much as Washington. Each developing country must have their own personalized rules because what might work in one country might not work in another. For example east Asian economies which were successful, and didn't follow the Washington consensus. We also have to succumb to the fact that some areas in the field have not yet been provided by sufficient evidence to result in a direct answer of what countries should do.

John Williamson's ten reforms don't provide specific information on how to deal with certain developing countries. For example Africa put a sufficient amount of belief in the market when referring to liberalization of agricultural prices without paying attention to the elements that make that effective such as functioning markets, credit availability and infrastructure. Allowing the market to let the prices go where they go as Williamson believed, resulted in higher interest rates without improving Africa's credit. If there were positive elements to the Washington consensus they still haven't been enjoyed. Weak financial institutions still existed in the United States and other global north countries which really never gave countries in Latin America a chance. Privatization served as another core problem in Latin American countries that Williamson implemented in his Washington consensus. Privatization led by corruption resulted in a monopoly which generated higher prices for consumers. Instead of still relying on the Washington consensus as a guide for developing countries we must start looking at this issue from a different angle. First we must ask, "What can each country, on its own, do to enhance sustainable, stable, equitable, and democratic development?" (The Post Washington Consensus) Along with asking, "How should the global economic architecture be changed, to make the global economy more stable, to promote equity among countries, and to enhance the ability of developing countries to pursue their objectives," (The Post Washington Consensus) especially in reference to the first question which can result in a movement towards change in achieving the goal to help developing countries.


 

   

A Competitive Economy

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Africa/South-Africa-INTERNATIONAL-TRADE.html

South Africa is one of the five countries (along with Brazil, Russia, India, and China) that are predicted to grow as economic powers in the world. This article discusses the effect of South Africa opening its economy to international trade and relationships and becoming an international competitor in the process. During Apartheid, sanctions were put on trade with South Africa and this severely hurt trade and the economy more generally. Since the end of Apartheid (1994), exports have become an increasing percentage of the countries economy with a large percentage of exports going to the U.S. and Europe. South Africa now has a trade surplus which continues to grow as the country comes further and further out of the Apartheid Era. 

As we started to discuss in class, international trade is an important part of growing economies. Upon reading the list of reforms suggested as a part of the Washington Consensus, I noticed a few that strongly related to the post-Apartheid economy of South Africa. Reordering public expenditure priorities, trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation were among the ones I first noticed. South Africa has worked to liberalize trade with other countries however, it was not all in their hands to trade sanctions. The political reasons for economic sanctions against a country can be seen time and time again throughout the world as the U.S. and Europe sanction countries with large amounts of abuse of workers, child labor, etc. These sanctions proved effective in the case of South Africa though this has not always been the case. Trade is becoming more and more instrumental to having a strong economy in the world and South Africa refuses to be left out of the competitiion. The countries who have closed off their economies or who import substantially more than they export are the ones who are falling behind. This can be seen throughout the developing world as they try (and fail) to compete with industrialized nations low prices.