You are browsing the archive for economics.

The Case for a Change in Perspective: Global Wellbeing and the MDGs

August 11, 2011 in Economics, Guest Author, International Development, MDGs

Recently the Bellatio Initiative, a new global consultation focusing on well-being and development was launched. But what does this concept of well-being represent and what can we gain from a focus on wellbeing rather than poverty in development?

Introduction

In the face of famine, floods, and fires a focus on “wellbeing” in development can seem misguided at best, cruelly inappropriate at worst. For many years the development sector has talked about the economy, poverty and material goods, not well-being. Historically, economists have seen economic growth as the way to not only raise average incomes but also eliminate absolute poverty; which has been seen by many to be the ideal end goal of the development process. But is this elimination of poverty and focus on material measures really sufficient? Increasing numbers of development experts don’t think so.

So What is Wellbeing?

We all have some intrinsic awareness of what makes us feel “well”. Unsurprisingly, when studying global well-being, Gallup finds that when evaluating their lives, people across the globe tend to give disproportionate weight to income and health; thus these appear to be key constituents of individual well-being.1

The Wellbeing in Developing Countries Network views wellbeing as a process, and argues that what people understand by wellbeing is context-specific. They identify three key aspects of wellbeing; material, relational and subjective. The material aspect refers to factors such as food, bodily health and shelter, which are often closely related to economic measures. The relational aspect concerns social interaction, and involves power, identity and connections. The subjective aspect concerns cultural values, ideologies and beliefs and also people’s own perceptions of their situation.2

For the scientists among us, an instant aversion to so subjective-sounding a concept as well-being may arise. However, Gallup believe they have found an effective measure of wellbeing, which combines two dimensions: evaluative and experienced. The evaluative component asks respondents to assess the overall status of their lives using an 11-point scale, then to predict where their lives will be five years in the future. The experienced component includes more specific questions about respondents’ emotional state. For example, respondents are asked whether they smiled a lot the previous day and whether they were treated with respect all day. Their report on global wellbeing classified respondents as “thriving,” “struggling,” or “suffering,” according to how they rated their current and future lives on a ladder scale based on the Cantril Self-Anchoring Striving Scale.3

Wellbeing is therefore increasingly being understood by different bodies in a way which allows objective measurement alongside a holistic approach.

Wellbeing and Development

But why might a focus on well-being be important? How can such a formulation be justified with regards to international development, and how can this concept be operationalized in a way which will improve aid policy and practice?

The utility of well-being arises in part from key differences in how different stakeholders in international development view poverty. In my work with Afrinspire4 this summer I have seen how the concept of “abject poverty” is used colloquially by Ugandan development experts and communities alike to connote a degrading state of being, in which an individual is unable to fulfil their potential. This is a foreign idea to the western world, which talks about poverty in very different terms, using the more objective concepts of absolute and relative poverty. Thus there frequently seems to be a stark contrast between the western focus on material measures, perhaps prompted by the increasing emphasis on the need for empirical data, and a more holistic approach which focuses on an individual’s quality of life. These differences in view affect communication between countries, and which development strategies work on the ground compared to those which don’t. Perhaps the developing concept of well-being is more reflective of an African viewpoint? Including the relational and subjective components of well-being may allow us to understand an individual’s situation more closely and make more accurate predictions. How people relate to each other and what they feel they can do plays a strong role in what they will actually do.

In addition, the concept of well-being has a number of benefits when compared to current crude economic measures of poverty:

  1. It is positive: focusing on what people can rather than can’t do, be or feel. It is also respectful of the individual due to its focus on self-determination. This contrasts strongly with current themes in development of seeing people and places in terms of their problems, deficiencies or that which they lack.
  2. It is holistic: it sets conventional material indicators in the context of factors that matter to individuals and affect quality of life.
  3. It recognises the importance of social and personal relationships and peoples’ own perceptions, and thus can be considered more person-centred than previous measures.

These broad themes have been eloquently expanded on by James Copestake and Allister McGregor amongst others, to describe how wellbeing can be applied in the aid sector. This had led to a coherent call for a consideration of wellbeing in development, an idea growing increasingly accepted, as evidenced by the Bellatio Initiative.

What is the relevance of this concept with regards to post-2015 development policy?

If the concept of wellbeing is considered relevant for international development, this could have significant implications for development policies after 2015. No longer phrased in terms of lacking capabilities or resources, policies following the well-being paradigm would draw on positive psychology and pay more attention to subjective and relational domains of human wellbeing than the existing MDGs. McGregor and Sumner, (2009)5 suggest future policy would need to particularly consider how these forms of wellbeing relate in the spheres of human values, relationships, norms and behaviours.

Economic growth would no longer be seen as the end-point of development, but instead considered in the context of social and personal factors. The use of economic measurements alone (such as GDP) might well be replaced by composite factors, drawing on  a range of measures, or reports and evaluations might be sub-divided to consider each dimension of wellbeing, with none being seen as more important than the other.

I would even question whether the concept of wellbeing might not be extended even further, away from the wellbeing of the individual towards that of the planet. Perhaps a composite indicator of development should include a consideration of planetary wellbeing, measured by consumption of global goods or generation of carbon. In such a case one could see a situation in which a nation could be considered over-developed, as those nations we now see as most developed would lose “points” for negatively affecting the planet, whilst doing little to advance their own happiness; there is mounting evidence that ever-increasing in advanced consumption does little to enhance societal well-being, and may even impede it.

Conclusion

Whilst the field of wellbeing in development is as yet still rife with controversy, increasing progress in being made in tying down definitions and measurements of well-being. The Bellatio Initiative will produce a range of fascinating reports. However, perhaps of most interest of all will be their work on wellbeing, due to its significant implications for future development policy. I and many others will certainly be looking on with interest.

Felicity

Felicity is a medical student from the UK who is transferring from Cambridge to Kings this year. She is also incoming Joint National Coordinator of Medsin.

Notes:

All those interested in the future of development and the role of philanthropy can contribute to the discussion at www.bellagioinitiative.org.

1 http://gmj.gallup.com/content/126884/five-essential-elements-wellbeing.aspx

2 http://www.welldev.org.uk/wed-new/about/approach.htm#what

3 http://www.gallup.com/poll/122453/understanding-gallup-uses-cantril-scale.aspx

4 http://www.afrinspire.org.uk/ – in the process of being replaced

5http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/IF9.2.pdf)

Find Out More:

Beyond Money; Towards an Economy of Wellbeing, Diener and Seligman, Psychological Science. 2004 (5:1) http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/5_1.cfm

Planetary Wellbeing: Prosperity without Growth; Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson, 2009 ISBN: 9781844078943

Global Wellbeing Initiative: http://www.globalwellbeinginitiative.org/what-we-do.html

LinkedInShare

UN MDG Report 2011… Digested… Part 1

July 30, 2011 in Economics, International Development, MDG 1 (Poverty & Hunger), MDG 2 (Education), MDG 3 (Gender Equality), MDG 4 (Child Mortality), MDGs

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals Report 2011

A Digested Read… in no way sanctioned by the UN.

Each year the United Nations produces its “Millennium Development Goals Report” describing the world’s progress towards the achievement of the MDGs. It’s not an easy read – both the good and the bad a buried amongst dispassionately reported facts, totally emotionless and littered with massive understatement. The way it’s written makes it phenomenally easy to read extraordinary statements like “12,000 fewer children died per day in 2009 than in 1990” and for it to not register.

I know it’s a little delayed, but I’ve been busy setting up Generation Development over the last couple of months, however here I have digested the report for you…

Foreword (Ban Ki-Moon)

Doing well in some areas, but need to do better in many others. Claims MDGs are responsible for lifting millions out of poverty (but really mainly Asian economic growth etc, but a nice idea). However if you’re a woman, or disabled, or another minority, and live in the countryside, faced with rising food prices or flooding or famine: still not much luck. Are we going to make the targets for 2015… You decide…

MDG1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

Economic growth = less poverty, awesome! Extreme poverty projected to fall below 15% by 2015 (even with the economic crisis). Target: met. Instead of being the bottom billion, by 2015 it will be the (arguably less catchy) bottom 900 million. Still problems with surveying the poorest people, with limited data in Africa. However the economic crisis has had its effects: limited job creation, increased number of working poor, and static numbers in vulnerable employment – must do better.

Despite lifting hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty, the same number of people remained hungry, at around 16%. Also 23% children remain undernourished (reduced from 30% in 1990, but generally static). Probably as a result of high food prices. Commodity speculators have a lot to answer for. As does climate change. Target: missed.

For some reason there is a section on displaced people included under MDG1. In 2010 there were 43 million (same population as Tanzania), the highest since 1990. But as it’s not a goal I suppose it was important to fit it in somewhere.

MDG2: Universal primary education

Sub-Sahara African success story! Doing the best. Numbers increasing across the world, but this increase has slowed recently. No such luck however if your poor, female, a refugee or live in a conflict zone. Literacy still a problem in sub-Saharan Africa, but South Asia and North Africa storming ahead. Target: ? near miss

MDG3: Promote gender equality and empower women

Mixed bag when considering gender parity and education, depending on which level you look at and in which region. Overall: definitely improved since 1990, however some regions need to do better. Target: 50/50

Women in employment: increased a bit since 1990, but stagnated since the economic crisis. Women who became unemployed have found it much more difficult to re-enter employment after the crash. Target: missed.

More women in parliaments around the world than ever before, but far off parity at 19%. Again, although improved, women also do not yet wield the ultimate power of either head of state (10 heads) or head of government (13 heads).  Unsurprisingly, whether you are for or against them, enforcing quotas improves things.

MDG4: Reduce child mortality

“Achieving the goal for child survival hinges on action to address the leading causes of death” – wisdom from the UN. However massive improvements in child mortality:

  • 12,000 fewer children dying every day.
  • Global under-5 mortality declined by a third.
  • Great gains made in Northern Africa and Eastern Asia.

Sub-Saharan Africa still a real problem however, with 1/8 children not reaching age 5, that’s 18x more than the developed world, and a blight on the face of our planet. Here Gates has got it right, children die of TREATABLE diseases: diarrhoea, malaria, pneumonia. Why have we failed to treat them? Again, if your poor and live in a rural area you risk of dying is significantly more than your urban dwelling well off peers.

Measles is a global health success story, with 80% children receiving the vaccine in 2009. The campaign has resulted in a 78% drop in measles mortality worldwide! AWESOME! However it must be sustainable to maintain population immunity.

Target: in reach, if sub-Saharan Africa pulls itself round. 

LinkedInShare

Famine and the Failure of MDG1

July 23, 2011 in Economics, MDGs, Youth

“We can never address these problems through emergency response. We have to solve these problems through prevention.”

Jeffrey Sachs, 19th July 2011

Millenium Development Goal 1 aims to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, with target 1.C stating that we should halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger between 1990 and 2015. We are only 4 years away from that goal. The 2011 Millennium Development Goals Report, produced by the United Nations to evaluate progress towards the goals states, with classic understatement, that “based on current trends, sub-Saharan Africa will be unable to meet the hunger-reduction target by 2015.” Despite overall reductions in poverty levels hunger levels have plateaued at around 16% and so the UN decided to “undertake a comprehensive review of the causes behind this apparent discrepancy to better inform hunger-reduction policies in the future.” 

From : http://kenilworthgeography.blogspot.com/

Patently, this is too little too late. At the moment I am writing this, and the moment you are reading it, 12,000,000 people are starving to death in the region of east Africa known as the Horn of Africa, taking in Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya.

Famine is not an overnight event. Somalia has suffered two years of a significant lack of rain and international food prices have been rising towards crisis level. In 2008 Josette Sheeran, head of the UN’s World Food Programme, warned this region was heading for disaster in an article in the Economist, describing it as “a silent tsunami.” The article is a call to arms to find solutions to the complex economic, political and environmental factors building towards a humanitarian disaster. Yet the international community, facing an unprecedented financial crisis, sat back and waited until the cachectic bodies and bloated bellies of starving children once again flooded our TV screens. Somalia faces an additional synergistic factor creating an even worse situation there, with the Al-Shabab rebel group continuing to prevent aid agencies from providing support.

Whether you blame the environment and climate change, economics and aid, war and violence, or a combination of these toxic factors, this is ultimately a man made disaster and should have been prevented. MDG1 may have focused attention on the world’s starving people and encouraged the development of strategies for the prevention and relief of hunger, however if an entire region of the world is left to starve to death we have failed.

I have no doubt that an enormous aid programme will be launched, and the $300 – $500 million needed to provide food assistance will arrive. However this is not a sustainable situation. It is a band-aid on an amputated leg. This situation also demonstrates the absurd uselessness of the Famine Early Warning System if there is no motivation or drive to reduce the ultimate causes of famine.

We, both as members of the international community and simply as fellow humans, should be ashamed.

We, as youth and the future of international development, must to better.

We must ensure that any international development framework that emerges post-2015 ensures that a famine, such as the one currently ravaging the Horn of Africa, does not happen on our watch. 

In solidarity with my African brothers and sisters.

Tim

[email protected]

LinkedInShare