Inequality

This post features a conversation with Audrey Choi, chief executive officer of Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing and managing director of its Global Sustainable Finance Group. Choi talks about the evolving $20 trillion sector, including important U.S. policy changes and her thoughts on where sustainable investing is headed. 1) What does sustainable investing mean, and how has it evolved in recent years? There has been an evolution in sustainable investing over the past five to ten years in both definition and practice. Investors have moved away from predominately avoiding—or divesting from—industries and companies considered harmful toward taking a more proactive approach as well. They are pursuing positive social and environmental impact while also expecting competitive financial returns. Traditionally, there was a tendency to divide investing and philanthropy, using the first to build wealth and the other to make a positive social difference. Sustainable investing, which includes values-based, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) integration, thematic investing, and impact investing approaches, allows investors to align their values or mission with their investment portfolio. Another shift has been the increase in research addressing the misconception that doing good requires a financial trade-off. Harvard University and Brookings compared a portfolio of companies that performed poorly on sustainability with a portfolio of companies that performed very well on the same issues. One dollar in the low performance portfolio grew to $14.46 between 1993 and 2014. The same dollar in the high performance portfolio rose to $28.36 over the same period. And at Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing, we examined ten thousand mutual funds across seven years of performance, comparing sustainable to traditional investing strategies. We found that 64 percent of the time, sustainable strategies performed either the same, or slightly better, than traditional ones. Meanwhile, volatility for those strategies was the same, or slightly less, 64 percent of the time. Finally, the University of Oxford conducted a meta-analysis of over two hundred studies and found that incorporating ESG business practices resulted in better operational performance, lower cost of capital, and better stock price performance. We’re also seeing a shift in how sustainability factors into stock and company valuations. More and more investors and analysts are asking how to incorporate ESG into existing models of valuation. Whether a multinational company disposes of waste responsibly, monitors its water usage, and recycles increasingly matters. Sustainability efforts are more than corporate reports—they are considerations that can be materially relevant to core business practices and results. 2) How is “sustainability” measured, and what counts as sustainable investing? We take the broad view that sustainable investing encompasses both financial sustainability and environmental and social sustainability. As part of the sustainable investing evolution, there has been a great deal of work in the field to better understand the type of sustainability considerations that can have both real business and investment impact. The United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) and the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB) are two important examples of increasingly-recognized bodies developing standards and frameworks for measuring and reporting on sustainability. UNPRI has not only established what responsible investment should entail, but as a membership organization, it is a platform for signatories (asset managers, owners, and service providers) to express their commitment to a more sustainable global financial system. And SASB has created standards for ESG considerations across eighty industries, helping public corporations disclose material issues to investors.  As part of its standard-setting work, SASB found that climate change alone affects seventy-two of seventy-nine industries—each in specific and different ways. That’s 93 percent of the capital markets, or $33.8 trillion dollars. 3) How does sustainable investing compare to philanthropy or development aid, through NGOs and others? Are there some areas that should be left to private donors rather than investors? Ultimately, driving large-scale positive social and environmental change requires government, philanthropy, and investment dollars to work in common cause. Tax dollars and philanthropy alone are not sufficient to fix the world’s problems. Private investment can play a crucial role in filling that gap. Still, sustainable investing should not be seen as a replacement to philanthropy. Indeed, there are critical situations when philanthropy and government aid should be the first resort, such as when an immediate response is required, as in humanitarian efforts and disaster relief. Aid is critical in these instances where financial returns, cannot, or should not, be expected. But governments and philanthropies also play critical roles as catalytic investors. They provide the visionary risk capital to enable discovery and innovation, setting the stage for future markets. For example, microfinance began as a donor-led space, eventually growing to a robust field where private sector investment has enabled scale and reach. 4) What are the U.S. rules and regulations that have helped, or hindered, sustainable investing? In the U.S. context, one of the most important recent changes was the revision to U.S. Department of Labor guidance around ESG investing for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans, announced late last year by Secretary Thomas Perez. Employee retirement plans, such as pension funds or 401(k)s, are bound by the ERISA, which sets a fiduciary duty, or legal obligation, for managers to act in the interest of plan participants. In October 2015, Secretary Perez and the Department of Labor issued a clarification that “environmental, social, and governance factors may have a direct relationship to the economic and financial value of an investment.”  Rather than an external and separate consideration, ESG factors could now be considered relevant in evaluating an investment’s economic qualities. This clarification went a long way in addressing the perception that ESG consideration might be at odds with fulfilling fiduciary duty. Globally, another important development was the Paris Climate Conference (COP21) agreement that set binding targets to limit global emissions. It sent a clear signal of change that may open new conversations on ESG and sustainable investing, as well as the inclusion of climate change-related risk as a material financial consideration. 5) Looking ahead, what is the outlook for sustainable investing, in the short and long term? Within ten to fifteen years, we believe sustainable investing should be perceived as a redundant term. Sustainability considerations will be a part of a best-in-class investing thesis, rather than being a separate analysis. Just as political and cyber risk has become a core part of the risk and return analysis, so too do we believe that sustainability factors will become a core part of risk and return analysis. There has already been impressive growth in the field. In 2012, the U.S. Sustainable Investing Forum reported one out of every nine dollars invested in the United States had some type of sustainable mandate to it. From 2012 to 2014, that figure grew by 76 percent to one out of every six dollars. Though the starting point was small, we are seeing rapid growth, with more than $20 trillion dollars now invested in the sector globally. Another driver of change in sustainable investing is the influence of millennials. Compared to other generations, millennials are three times as likely to pick an employer based on their ESG performance. They are also twice as likely to check product packaging for sustainable sourcing information before they choose a product. And this philosophy carries over to their investing decisions. Millennials are twice as likely to check a mutual fund or equity investment and choose it because of sustainability, and twice as likely to divest—or walk away—because of objectionable corporate activity. As this generation is set to inherit more than $30 trillion in the United States over the next thirty to forty years, it will be significant how they integrate their sustainability priorities into their investment decisions going forward.  

Emerging Voices highlights new research, thinking, and approaches to development challenges from contributing scholars and practitioners. This post is from Dr. D. Michael Shafer, president and founder of Warm Heart Worldwide and professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University. Warm Heart is a community-based development organization dedicated to building socially- and economically-sustainable communities in rural areas of northern Thailand. Though a monumental step forward on climate change, the Paris Agreement fails to recognize one of the biggest climate change issues for developing countries: agriculture. Poor farmers’ dependence on unsustainable planting, cultivating, and harvesting techniques make them unwitting contributors to global warming by emitting black carbon and greenhouse gases (GHGs). This problem extends beyond China and India (the Paris deal’s focus) to places as diverse as Indonesia, Cameroon, and Iran. By burning field wastes, poor farmers release up to twenty-five percent of the world’s total of “black carbon”—clouds of smoke that count as the second-largest warming source after CO2—emitting 330,000 metric tons every year. And rice growers in impoverished and densely-populated areas produce high levels of methane, a hydrocarbon gas twenty-five times as warming as CO2. Traditional flooded paddy techniques account for up to fifteen percent of total GHG emissions from agriculture. These agricultural practices are bad for the environment; they are also bad for people. Degraded soil yields barely enough to feed a family. To double the global food supply by 2050—necessary to avoid shortages and malnourishment, especially in developing countries—traditional farmers will need to improve land use and water management, and adopt new seed, harvesting, and storage technologies. The good news is that solutions to reduce poor farmers’ global warming footprint and improve productivity already exist. First, they can learn to convert their agricultural waste into biochar and then into biochar fertilizer. Agricultural biochar is a “super charcoal” made by pyrolyzing (charring) rice straw, corn cobs, or maize stalks at high heat without any oxygen, a clean process that is also carbon negative—meaning it removes CO2 from the atmosphere and cools the earth instead of warms it. Making biochar is low-cost and low-tech, and its positive effects go beyond climate change mitigation to food security and health more generally. Poor farmers can use biochar as an additive to improve soil’s water penetration and retention—essential as drought conditions spread—to reduce acid levels, and to boost soil fertility. Biochar also aids in decontaminating soil near landfills, toxic waste dumps, and mines—areas where poor farmers are often relegated. For families lacking clean water access, biochar works as a natural water filter. Second, rice growers can switch from standard flooded paddy techniques to a method known as “system for rice intensification,” or SRI. Rather than flooding the paddy for an entire growing season, SRI involves regularly draining and drying out the paddy, refilling it only when the rice begins to wilt. And instead of transplanting seed bundles from the nursery to flooded paddy mud, rice growers plant individual seedlings in orderly rows. Though SRI requires more labor than traditional rice cultivation, it pays more dividends. Because SRI paddies are mostly dry, they reduce the methane released into the environment. SRI can also increase a farmer’s yields by as much as fifty percent, and reduce water needs by forty percent. Yet many poor, rural farmers are not aware that these solutions exist, for several reasons. They may be skipped over by development programs that test innovative projects in select locations—often those most likely to yield results. Others are distrustful of “development” advice from outsiders, so that even when biochar or SRI programs make it to their villages, they fail to take off. So what can work? Agricultural development in poor, rural farming communities that is spread by example. Farmers are more likely to try something when they see another’s success. Grassroots programs such as Digital Green do this by producing short, instructional videos that film poor farmers using simple, easily-replicated, and low-cost techniques. With little more than a tiny, battery-powered projector, Digital Green then shares the videos with women’s co-ops and other community members—ninety percent of whom adopt the innovation, compared to a ten percent adoption rate for expert-led trainings. From a climate change perspective, the benefits of cleaner, more productive, and more sustainable agriculture in poor, rural areas will be striking and immediate. Switching from burning field waste to making biochar would significantly reduce the amount of black carbon and CO2 equivalent released into the atmosphere each year, as well as their warming effects. And switching from flooded paddy to SRI could cut total methane emissions from rice production by between twenty-two and sixty-two percent. Converting just a quarter of Asian rice growers, who produce roughly ninety percent of the world’s rice, could reduce GHG emissions by 3.8 percent annually—nearly Japan’s annual contribution to global GHG emissions. From a human development perspective, the changes will also be immense, helping to feed the estimated 2.5 to 3 billion people the world will add by 2050. Most importantly, limiting poor farmers’ global warming contribution and improving the health and wellbeing of millions will not require expensive overheads, long-term aid interventions, or complicated, high-tech innovations. But it will require considering agriculture as vital to any climate change solution.    

Central America’s Anticorruption Support The presidents of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras were in Washington to discuss plans for the $750 million that Congress authorized to help their nations take on violence and boost economic development. The outlay comes in the wake of a record uptick in Central American migration to the United States. Nearly 3 million people have fled their homes and neighborhoods, including 100,000 unaccompanied minors who arrived at the southern border between October 2013 and July 2015. The U.S. funding requires Northern Triangle governments to address myriad domestic problems, including strengthening legal systems, protecting human rights, and rooting out corruption. U.S. anticorruption efforts will be met with broad civil society and multilateral support, dovetailing with grassroots campaigns against graft and high-level impunity in Honduras and Guatemala, and furthering the resolve of multilateral-backed bodies such as Honduras’s new Mission Against Corruption and Impunity (MACCIH). The UNDP at Fifty The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the multilateral’s agency dedicated to reducing poverty and inequality, turned fifty on Wednesday. Since its founding, the number of poor dropped from one in three to one in eight people globally. UNDP helped spur these positive changes through its work in 170 countries and by rallying members to make ambitious commitments through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But development aid is changing. Though worldwide government spending reached a $134.7 billion peak in 2013, it is far short of the UN’s 0.7 percent of gross national income (GNI) target, with a rich-country average closer to 0.39 percent. And Western governments are increasingly turning their attention and dollars to security assistance. The OECD recently widened the definition of aid to include military spending in fragile countries, and the United States is allocating more foreign assistance to programs such as Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). UNDP and other believers in traditional economic and social development worry this shift will not only slow, but undermine decades of gains. Foreign Bribery Actions Up Though only settling two Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) cases last year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is ramping up foreign corruption prosecutions. Dedicated staff will rise by 50 percent from nineteen to twenty-nine prosecutors this year, and an assistant attorney general recently announced many pending cases. Meanwhile, foreign authorities are also upping their actions. The UK just convicted its first corporation under the five-year old Bribery Act, finding Sweett Group guilty of paying bribes to secure construction contracts in the UAE. The $3.3 million fine follows a $25.2 million settlement with the British outpost of South Africa’s Standard Bank last December for illegal payments in a Tanzanian infrastructure project. The UK law goes even further than the FCPA in scope, holding companies accountable not just for giving or taking bribes, but also for failing to prevent bribes, as Sweett Group discovered.  

This post features a conversation with Dean Karlan, professor of economics at Yale University, president and founder of Innovations for Poverty Action, and founder of ImpactMatters, a newly-launched organization that assesses how well nonprofits use and produce evidence of impact. 1) How have development economics and the study of poverty evolved in recent years? Until about fifteen years ago, there were two different strands of development work, both with limitations. The first asked a big, monolithic policy question—“does aid work?—and compared how aid affected development outcomes across countries. But the cross-country research lacked the necessary data and an understanding of critical micro-level mechanisms, or the obvious first step of why some countries get more aid than others. It led to big debates, but failed to determine causality. The other strand in academia focused on understanding markets and decision-making at the individual and household-level, an approach that was valuable for understanding the world, but was often fairly removed from policy implications. Then, we saw major shifts with the availability of cheaper and better data, and intensified pressure on development economists to deliver policy prescriptions. These shifts allowed us to rigorously evaluate specific projects to find out what was working, what was not, and what to do about it. Perhaps as a byproduct of the cross-country data debate, development economists started focusing on asking when aid works, not whether aid works. The point being: there is no simple answer. This led to a blossoming of work using randomized control trials (RCTs) to test specific policies on the ground with NGOs, the private sector, and governments. We also began to see academic analysis that was more prescriptive than descriptive, and could help to guide policy.   2) In your randomized control trials (RCTs), what were some surprising findings about what’s working and what’s not? Several hot development debates have led to surprises. But, of course, since these were “hot debates,” some were surprised while others were not. Microcredit is a perfect example. Some oversold microcredit as the tool to fight poverty and to increase income for the world’s poorest, benefiting low-income households, which would ultimately lead to better healthcare and education. On the other side, critics claimed that it led to negative outcomes, such as suicides among poor farmers who could not repay loans. Despite anecdotal evidence, there was equally bad analysis on both sides and neither could establish causality, or prove what would have happened if people had not received the loans. There was no counterfactual, as economists call it. Wading into the debate using evidence, we saw strikingly similar results from seven RCTs across seven countries, several of them conducted by researchers with Innovations for Poverty Action. The punchline: microcredit loans were not typically reaching world’s poorest, and they were not increasing income on average. So, they were not meeting their main goal (though they were not causing much harm either). Once we saw the evidence, we said: “we’re a fan of microcredit, but as it’s currently done, it’s best for private investors, not for donors.” Donors should either look elsewhere or use their charitable dollars to push for more innovation, to figure out how to improve the microcredit model.   3) So what is an effective investment for donors? After we found that microcredit is not reaching the world’s poorest, donors asked us: what might? Through RCTs we found one approach that works quite well to move people out of poverty: a graduation program. At its core is the transfer of a “productive asset”—a way to make a living that has a positive impact on household consumption, savings, income, food security, and other life outcomes even years after the initial asset transfer. We have completed six RCTs on graduation programs in six countries (Ethiopia, Ghana, Honduras, India, Pakistan, and Peru). Other researchers completed a seventh in Bangladesh, and there are several similar studies from Uganda. The program first gave the asset, along with training on how to use it. We also set up a savings account, provided healthcare access, offered life coaching, and supplied food for up to six months (so recipients wouldn’t be forced to kill and eat livestock right away). Because graduation programs are expensive, at around $1,000 per person, our research focused on cost effectiveness. We had no doubt the program would create a bump in income, but would it last? In six of the seven RCTs we found strikingly similar results proving both cost effectiveness and a sustained impact—up to three years after assets were transferred in all of our RCT sites. In one of the sites, India, where we now have seven years of results, the effects are getting bigger over time rather than dissipating. This trend suggests that those in the graduation program were previously stuck in a poverty trap, and that a holistic and integrated approach combining income with social and economic support helped to get them out of it.   4) What have you found on cash transfers, another area of growing interest and investment? The most prominent study Innovations for Poverty Action did on unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) was with GiveDirectly, a nonprofit that does exactly what it says. They donate 91 cents of every dollar to poor households using mobile money for the transfers, which makes for a low-cost, lean operation. People critical of this approach at first were concerned that money would be used for alcohol and tobacco, rather than for food and other necessities. We said, “let’s go get the facts,” and set up a carefully-designed study. Our randomized evaluation found that households receiving cash transfers spent them on food, education, and medical expenses, as well as on family obligations, resulting in higher assets and better psychological well-being. There was no increase on alcohol and tobacco spending. Yet even with evidence of positive outcomes, we are seeing that cash transfers work best for short-run problems—catastrophes or conflicts where the challenge is not long-term development. They work best for helping people in a moment of need.   5) What do you say to RCT critics who argue they are too expensive, or take too long? First, it is critical to note that randomization is not the reason RCTs can be expensive (and I’ll explain why they are not always). Costs are driven by tracking and surveying people over time to see if the program affected lives, which is necessary even for non-randomized studies. While RCTs are more expensive than simple studies that ask beneficiaries—“were you happy with the program?”—I would argue that overall they are far cheaper than non-RCT evaluations, because they allow us to zoom in on what is working and what is not much faster and more accurately, ultimately saving money on bad measurement and ineffective programs. RCTs allow the testing of multiple versions of a program at once, too. For example, in Uganda we tested four variations of a classroom savings program, and found that three that did not work, but one did. The variations shed insight into why the program was working. Regarding timing, it is also critical to point out that an RCT need not be a long-term study, nor does it need to be expensive. We have done cheap, rapid-fire tests on getting people to save more by sending text messages reminding them to save, and a few months later, comparing savings rates for those that received the messages versus those that did not. Many operational questions, such as how to enroll people in a program, can and should be rapid-fire studies to give immediate feedback that improves operations. For example, MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab just released a toolkit that helps organizations run RCTs through data they may already be collecting. Full, long-term RCTs aren’t always appropriate. But when they are, getting good data that both establishes causality and illuminates why something works can put programs on the right track to maximize impact, and save money in the long run.

Modi’s Reforms at Odds A senior official in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is pushing a corruption probe that threatens to derail his own party’s Goods and Services Tax (GST). A linchpin of Modi’s economic platform, the reform would replace numerous local and state taxes with a single nation-wide tax. The government expects GST to boost government revenue, attract foreign investment, and add up to two percent to GDP. With the corruption case’s targets—opposition Congress Party leaders Sonia and Rahul Gandhi—denouncing the investigation as politically motivated, the fallout will likely halt Modi’s tax reform in India’s opposition-led upper house. As the Gandhi case advances, the GST may not, putting Modi’s ambitious pro-business and anticorruption agendas at odds. Does the WTO Still Matter? This week’s failure to advance the Doha Round of trade talks further diminishes the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) clout in setting global trading rules. Stuck for over a decade on issues of market access for poor countries and sharing globalization’s gains more equally, the United States and others have already refocused their energies on bilateral and regional trade agreements (RTAs)—completing nearly two hundred such deals during fourteen years of Doha negotiations, most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman made the shift official this week, publicly calling for WTO members to move beyond Doha. Where the WTO’s strength remains is in trade dispute resolution as businesses and nations still turn to it for arbitration. Last week alone, the WTO ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico against U.S. meat labeling with up to $1 billion in damages, and the United States lodged a formal complaint against China for discriminatory aircraft pricing—reflecting the WTO’s evolution from setting the rules to enforcing them. New United Nations Development Report The 2015 Human Development Index (HDI) released this week reflects on the report’s twenty-five year history, with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) finding that living standards improved for two billion people as dozens of countries climbed the development ladder. Measuring income, life expectancy, and education across 188 countries, Norway leads and Niger lags in the HDI, while Rwanda and China are most improved overall since 1990. Focused on “work for human development,” this year’s report argues for employment’s broader value, offering not only economic but development gains. It also illuminates the still major challenges—the 21 million people in forced labor, 74 million unemployed youth, and the threat to whole categories of workers from technological change.

CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy (CSMD) Program highlights noteworthy events and articles each Friday in "This Week in Markets and Democracy.” Africa’s Governance and Economic Struggles New IMF data and the 2015 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG), both released this week, show stalling or declining economic growth and governance progress across the continent. Despite better health, education, and human development statistics, IIAG found backsliding in accountability and rights, with thirty-one out of fifty-four countries deteriorating. Africa’s business environment—measured as competitiveness, bureaucracy and red tape, and investment climate—scored the lowest and fell the most of any category since 2011. The IMF echoed these gloomy metrics, projecting sub-Saharan growth to slow to 3.8 percent in 2015, hit by an overreliance on commodities. Both sets of data make clear the interdependence of governance and economic growth. The lowest-scoring countries on IIAG’s business indicators—including Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Equatorial Guinea—also ranked among the worst on rights and participation. And Côte d’Ivoire, ranked as IIAG’s “most improved” based on its aggregate governance score is among the few sub-Saharan countries expected to post high growth through 2017. Post-Disaster Aid: When it Works, When it Doesn’t Nearing the six-month anniversary of Nepal’s devastating earthquake that killed more than 8,500 people, comparisons to other natural disaster relief efforts highlight the potential pitfalls of aid delivered in a governance vacuum. Thailand’s post-tsunami recovery fared well relative to others—the country’s centralized (albeit authoritarian-leaning) leadership owned the response, mostly relying on technical rather than financial assistance. In contrast, Haiti remains a cautionary tale—despite some $9 billion in relief aid 150,000 Haitians still live in “temporary” camps and the government remains fragile, as witnessed in the recent chaotic and violent parliamentary contest. Nepal appears to be heading on a similar route with the government yet to draw up a plan for spending $4.1 billion in international donations, even as three million survivors lack shelter, food, and basic medical care in one of the world’s poorest countries. With the new constitution in dispute, a political crisis brewing with India, and a worsening fuel shortage all costing the economy an estimated $1 billion, reconstruction will likely be delayed further. What We’re Reading on the TPP Agreement… This week twelve countries, representing 40 percent of the world’s GDP, signed onto the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Now experts are chiming in on the many potential effects for participants: Kimberly Ann Elliott from the Center for Global Development summarizes the TPP’s impact for developing countries: cutting agricultural subsidies and expanding access to capital controls may help poorer members, but concerns over rules of origin and intellectual property rights linger. Siddhartha Mahanta finds the changes to the heavily-criticized investor-state dispute settlement process important, saying they may “strike a blow to corporate impunity”—especially cases brought by tobacco companies against smoking bans. As the TPP deal closed, the World Bank announced that extreme poverty will drop below ten percent globally in 2015. John Cassidy argues that trade helped lift 1.3 billion people out of poverty, even as it increased inequality within countries. Fellow CFR expert Ted Alden says that a TPP deal reasserts U.S. leadership in global trade negotiations and strengthens its influence over future rules.    

The biggest achievement of the past week’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York was the adoption of a new fifteen-year plan for global development. Replacing the soon-to-expire Millennium Development Goals, seventeen new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will guide UN and domestic development policies through 2030 with an ambitious, and some say overly idealistic agenda. Based on UN member and civil society input over a three-year process, the final set of SDGs aims to eliminate hunger, reduce inequality, promote shared economic growth, and “end poverty in all its forms everywhere.” President Obama, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and Pope Francis all endorsed the new “global goals” during the three-day UN Sustainable Development Summit held in the run-up to UNGA. Here are two major takeaways from the summit: The Global Goal of Good Governance One of the more controversial global goals is SDG 16, which promotes inclusive, accountable institutions and includes twelve specific targets on anti-corruption, representative decision-making, access to information, and the rule of law. With a UN-led global survey of over eight million people ranking governance as a top priority (the second most popular answer in low-income countries), leaders incorporated it into the SDGs despite “adamant resistance.” While many, including U.S. policymakers, support the citizen-led goal, others point to the ambiguity over what “good governance” means, owing to differing perceptions between developed countries and poorer ones. Further, defining and measuring corruption remains difficult, with no standardized cross-country metrics. While polling data propelled governance onto the SDG agenda, citizen participation may also determine whether goal 16’s accountability objectives are achieved. Financing the Global Goals The SDGs now set, the development community must find ways to pay for them as costs are estimated to run $3 trillion a year or more. With private capital as a growing funding source—foreign direct investment (FDI) outpaced government-led assistance by about five times last year—the UN and domestic donor agencies embraced multinationals during the summit. A “UN Private Sector Forum” convened business leaders including Unilever’s Paul Polman, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and MasterCard’s Tim Murphy with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Oxfam International’s Winne Byanyima to discuss SDG priorities. Many pitched a win-win “business for good” model that stimulates domestic economic growth and cuts poverty while expanding the customer base. Yet others highlighted the limits of private investment—UNGA President Mogens Lykketoft pointed to the failure of big corporations and wealthy individuals to pay taxes. Next week rich countries may advance this conversation with new international rules to govern multinationals.

This Week in Markets and Democracy will return on August 28. Until then, here is what CSMD is reading this week. The World Economic Forum identifies ten trends that will shape the future role of civil society—new technology and a focus on inequality topped the list. Economist Dani Rodrik argues that emerging markets are facing a slowdown because they did not follow the fundamental rules of growth, and failed to undertake the necessary political and structural reforms. In light of China’s recent devaluation, Shawn Donnan of the Financial Times looks at currency’s changing role in trade. As economies become more integrated into global supply chains, fluctuations matter less. In a new report, Transparency International concludes that half of the forty-one parties to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Foreign Bribery have not prosecuted any foreign bribery cases since signing the agreement.

This is a post in a new series on the Development Channel,“This Week in Markets and Democracy.” Each week, CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program will highlight noteworthy events and articles. Calais Crisis: Europe’s Migration Woes The escalating Calais crisis underscores Europe’s serious migration challenges. Thousands of African and Middle Eastern migrants are camping in makeshift shelters on the French side of the Channel Tunnel and risking their lives in desperate attempts to cross into Britain. In response to Calais and similar scenes playing out across Europe, growing anti-immigration rhetoric blames migrants for taking native-born citizens’ jobs and draining government funds. Yet a study by Oxford’s Migration Observatory finds migrants may actually raise average wages for the UK’s medium and high-paid workers. (Those most adversely affected by UK immigration are likely migrants themselves, who tend to be low-wage workers facing increased labor supply). And as the EU ages and birth rates decline, migration will be vital to maintaining GDP growth and standards of living. Europe is expected to lose nine million workers by 2060. In Germany, the IMF warns that starting in 2020, growth will take a hit due to an aging population. From Calais to the Greek islands, governments are struggling to deal with short-term migration costs without losing sight of longer-term economic needs–the balance will require more cohesive EU migration policies. Time for TPP Deal Running Out Domestic interests prevented the twelve Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) members from reaching a final deal last week in Maui, and upcoming elections in two TPP countries threaten further derailment. Who’s to blame? Australia’s farmers want more access to the heavily-subsidized U.S. sugar industry. Mexico, a major auto exporter, made new demands on rules-of-origin for car parts. And the United States is fighting for long-term pharmaceutical patents opposed by all other members, especially developing countries. While U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman is “more confident than ever that the TPP is within reach,” Canada’s eleventh-hour holdout on dairy concessions, coming as the nation heads toward October elections, undermines that bravado. With other TPP members seeing the dairy issue as non-negotiable, Canada could potentially opt-out or be kept out of the agreement. And even if Canada comes around, TPP pessimists–who note that the stalled Doha Round of trade talks broke down over similar agriculture and intellectual property disagreements–worry that looming U.S. elections will push a deal beyond 2016. Post-2015 Agenda – Moving from Rhetoric to Reality One hundred and ninety-three countries reached final agreement on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) this week, sealing the post-2015 development agenda the UN will adopt in September. Many civil society organizations and governments praised UN member states for reaching consensus on seventeen goals that aim to eradicate poverty “in all forms everywhere,” among other ambitious targets. Advocacy groups celebrated the addition of next generation development issues with increasing global relevance, from ending modern slavery and human trafficking to acknowledging the significance of global migration. Still other rights groups are concerned that the SDGs’ monitoring and review process is vague and insufficient, and lacks a meaningful role for civil society. Getting from rhetoric to reality involves both financing and governance challenges. Only together can the private sector, aid donors and domestic governments raise the estimated $3.3-$4.5 trillion a year needed to fund the post-2015 agenda and guide projects necessary to meet SDG goals–these untested arrangements are already showing cracks.  

This is a post in a new series on the Development Channel,“This Week in Markets and Democracy.” Each week, CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program will highlight noteworthy events and articles. Takeaways from Third Financing for Development Conference World economic leaders and civil society groups were in Addis Ababa this week for the Third Financing for Development Conference, discussing how to fund global development for the next 15 years. Most debated was international tax reform. Developing countries advocated two changes: replacing the existing OECD tax-regulating body with a UN agency (to give them more of a say), and cracking down on corporate tax evasion. Unsurprisingly, rich countries blocked the UN proposal. One issue that participants were able to agree on–the need for more accurate, real-time development data. As a first step, the U.S., U.K. and the Hewlett Foundation jointly pledged $5 million to the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, launched in Addis on Wednesday. Pope Francis Takes on Capitalism, Corruption in Latin America Pope Francis sealed his status as champion of the marginalized during an eight-day tour through Bolivia, Ecuador and Paraguay. In public speeches and meetings with civil society, he decried the “globalization of exploitation and indifference,” and the ills of free market capitalism–poverty, injustice and environmental degradation. The Pope openly criticized political leaders for their role in deepening inequality, even as many tried to use his visit to boost their credibility. In Ecuador, the Pope urged President Rafael Correa to forego the short-term economic benefits of resource exploitation, responding to indigenous groups’ concerns over expanded oil exploration. In Paraguay, he called on government officials to banish corruption, the “gangrene of the people,” and to improve rule of law with “rapid, clear trials,” a nod to the country’s flawed judicial system. Though the Pope’s message was well-received in a region facing severe poverty and graft, some question bringing this anti-capitalist rhetoric to U.S. Congress and UN General Assembly speeches this fall. Egypt and China Justify Recent Arrests In the name of countering Islamic State terrorism, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s government is systematically silencing dissent. Last week’s arrests of four journalists add to the eighteen already imprisoned for allegedly “sympathizing” with the banned Muslim Brotherhood. And a new counterterrorism law that would impose draconian jail sentences on journalists who contradict government information was only amended after significant domestic and international pushback. Egypt’s “anti-terror” crackdowns echo China, where this week security services detained more than 50 human rights lawyers and activists, accused of creating “social chaos” as part of a criminal syndicate.  

Governments, civil society groups, and business leaders are gathered this week in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia for the UN’s Third Financing for Development Conference (FFD3). Up for debate is how to fund the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, a new set of global development indicators that the UN will adopt in September. The Addis agenda reflects two major changes since the First Financing for Development conference held in Monterrey, Mexico in 2002. First, the good news–there has been a dramatic reduction in global poverty. Between 2002 and 2015, 28 low-income countries–as classified by the World Bank–made the jump to middle-income status. The second, less-encouraging trend is that foreign aid commitments from developed countries have faltered. Aid spending is far from the UN target of 0.7 percent of gross national product (GNP) established in Monterrey. Instead, the OECD average is closer to 0.39 percent as of 2014, ranging from 1.1 percent in Sweden to 0.08 percent in Poland and the Slovak Republic. In the wake of these trends, the Addis talks will focus on two alternative approaches—private sector investment and domestic reforms. Foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries already far outstrips aid flows, totaling $480 billion in 2012, compared to $90 billion in aid spending. While investment stimulates growth and creates jobs, conference participants want to ensure that FDI contributes to inclusive growth that reaches the poorest populations. One proposal at Addis seeks to end tax evasion by multinational corporations, estimated to siphon $100 billion away from developing economies each year—money that might otherwise be used for health and education, and to modernize agriculture and infrastructure. Another avenue for post-2015 development financing is mobilizing domestic resources. Developing countries can raise revenue through higher taxes–now only 13 percent of their GDPs–and improve collection through automation. Equally important is combating corruption and illicit financial flows, which deprive developing economies of an estimated $1 trillion annually. The policy recommendations adopted at FFD3 will be non-binding. But, they could help set the tone for September, when governments and the development community commit to an ambitious post-2015 agenda that aims to eradicate poverty, end hunger, and ensure water and sanitation for all. Whether the 17 proposed SDGs will be achieved largely depends on financing.            

This is a post in a new series on the Development Channel,“This Week in Markets and Democracy.” Each week, CFR’s Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy Program will highlight noteworthy events and articles. Development Community Debates MDG Report The UN released its final Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) report, hailing the effort as “the most successful anti-poverty movement in history.” Since the MDG’s introduction fifteen years ago, the number of people living in extreme poverty and the global child mortality rate have halved. Yet the development community is split over how much the MDGs mattered for this progress. The Center for Global Development warns that emphasizing goal-setting distracts from policy discussions. On the other side, proponents contend that setting data-based yardsticks and reducing the global agenda to eight priorities helped channel focus and funding. As attention shifts to post-2015 development goals, the UN report recognizes uneven gains–growth in China and India has pulled millions out of poverty while the poor in other countries have been left behind. Modi’s Heavy-Handed Efforts to Control the Indian Narrative The Indian government has delayed release of a UNICEF child welfare survey for months, some believe to avoid political embarrassment for Prime Minister Narendra Modi after his home state of Gujarat–where he served as chief minister until 2014–showed dismal results. These revelations coincide with the public ouster of Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen from Nalanda University. In a televised interview this week, Sen warned of unprecedented government interference in academia under Modi. Modi’s carefully-crafted narrative extends to social media, where his government rolled out a Narendra Modi mobile app. The app awards points for approving government policies through “likes” and sharing flattering articles about Modi–there is no option to disapprove. Reigning in Civil Society in China and Cambodia The Chinese and Cambodian governments are moving forward with proposed laws that threaten civil society autonomy. China’s NGO bill would require both foreign and domestic groups to undergo vetting by state security forces. While framed as part of a broader rule-of-law campaign, NGOs contend that it would allow the government to shut them down. In Cambodia, the draft Law on Associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (LANGO) gives the government broad powers to dissolve any organization deemed a danger to national security or to the “culture, traditions and customs of Cambodian national society.” Cambodian legislators say the bill enables needed regulation of some 5,000 civil society groups. Human rights advocates disagree–32 domestic and international groups demanded the law’s withdrawal, and protestors rallied at Cambodia’s National Assembly to block its passage.