public�policy�research�–�March-May�200848

© 2

008

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

008

ippr

We know from historythat great internation-al challenges bringwith them greatopportunity. In 1945

the challenge facing the international com-munity was no less than to rebuild the citiesand economies of Europe, shattered by war.Millions had been made homeless; hungerwas widespread across the continent.

The response to that challenge, with theMarshall Plan at its heart, laid the founda-tions for the peace and prosperity thatEurope enjoys today. This was notinevitable; it was the result of humanendeavour and political will.

Yet, in the words of Bill Clinton, theworld remains too unequal, too unstableand too unsustainable. Tackling globalpoverty is undoubtedly one of the greatestchallenges facing this generation of politicalprogressives – both in its scale and its ambi-tion. In this article I will argue that we mustemulate the historical precedents and movebeyond charity to embed social justice inour international institutions.

Our�generation?Internationalism and global inequalityhave, of course, long been at the core ofcentre left politics. This politics foundan articulate expression almost 30 yearsago in the Brandt Commission’s reportNorth-South: A Program for Survival(1980), which made the case for tacklingglobal poverty from both a moralimperative and global self-interest per-spective.

The report made a set of bold recom-mendations to restructure the global econo-my, centred on an emergency programme toeliminate poverty in developing countries.An international phenomenon, it sold morethan a million copies.

Yet, a generation later, leading thinkerscontinue to grapple with many of the sameproblems faced by the Brandt Commission.Paul Collier (2007a) and Jeffrey Sachs (2005)have referred to the ‘traps’ – from conflictand failures of governance to living in alandlocked country – that continue to pre-vent a billion people from escaping the mostextreme poverty.

Beyond�aid:�the�future�of�international�developmentDouglas�Alexander,�Secretary�of�State�for�InternationalDevelopment,�argues�that,�if�we�are�to�tackle�globalpoverty,�then�we�must�address�the�‘failure�of�politicalwill’�to�tackle�the�underlying�causes�of�global�inequality.However,�the�solution�lies�not�with�government�alone,but�in�a�partnership�of�voluntary,�state,�faith�and�privateinstitutions,�and�citizens.

© 2

008

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

008

ippr

public�policy�research�–�March-May�2008 49

So why have we not made more progress?Why is it that 980 million people still liveon less than a dollar a day? Why is it that achild dies every three seconds because theyare poor? Why is it that a woman dies everyminute simply because of complicationsduring pregnancy or childbirth?

I believe that there has been an interna-tional political failure of will, which hasmanifested itself in two main ways. First, theworld has not committed sufficient aid, ofsufficient quality. Second, global efforts havenot been bold enough. Though aid is a nec-essary part of the solution to global poverty,it will not be sufficient to end poverty. To doso we must go beyond aid, to address theunderlying failures of the international sys-tem that continue to make aid necessary.

More�aid,�better�aidThe Brandt Commission identified theneed for a huge increase in aid levels totackle poverty – yet it did not appear in theyears following the report. In fact, aid toSub-Saharan Africa actually fell in realterms from US$32 dollars per person in1980 to just $22 per person in 2001 (2002dollar figures, Sachs 2005). In the UK, aidlevels halved as a proportion of GDPbetween 1979 and 1997 (Department forInternational Development 2007).

The early years of the 21st century haveseen international development return to themainstream of global politics in both thoughtand deed. In September 2000, world leadersagreed the UN Millennium DevelopmentGoals to tackle illiteracy, hunger and disease(United Nations 2000). The Commission for

Africa report in 2005 made the case for a‘big push’ to support the continent’s develop-ment (Commission for Africa 2005).

Aid commitments followed that sameyear from the G8 and EU. The UK’s officialdevelopment assistance had reached nearly£6.8 billion in 2006, and will hit £9.1 billionby 2010 – roughly three times the level of aidin 1997 in real terms. Further, this govern-ment introduced the InternationalDevelopment Act in 2002, which legallyrequires all UK overseas aid to be spent onpoverty reduction, moving us away from thescandals of ‘tied aid’ seen under the previousConservative government.

The increase in aid and reduction of debtsince 2000 have made a tangible differenceto the lives of the world’s poorest people.More than 2.3 million premature deaths havebeen prevented through immunization; thereare 42 million more children in schoolaround the world; and the proportion of theworld’s population living in poverty has fall-en from almost a third in 1990 to a fifthtoday. -Yet while aid is necessary for freeingpeople from the trap of extreme poverty, itwill not be sufficient. Progressive ambitionsmust include increasing aid, but also gobeyond it – to tackle the failures of the inter-national system that make aid necessary.

Beyond�aidAs Kevin Watkins has written, progressivemovements in rich countries cannot directlymake poverty history in other parts of theworld, but ‘what they can and should do ishelp create an enabling global environmentin which the poorest people have a chance toconsign their poverty to history’ (Watkins2007: 97).

The UK’s Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) already holds a repu-tation as a world-class aid agency (DAC2006). I am determined that it expands on itsleading aid role to be an influential actor increating the ‘enabling global environment’ inwhich poverty can be eliminated.

Our commitment to supporting gover-nance and improving basic services indeveloping countries will remain

Progressive�ambitions�mustinclude�increasing�aid,�butalso�go�beyond�it�–�to�tacklethe�failures�of�theinternational�system�thatmake�aid�necessary�

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200850

© 2

008

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

008

ippr

undimmed – for the lives of the poorest livingin Sierra Leone or Rwanda will, for themost part, be determined by their own gov-ernments and institutions, and by theiraccess to education, healthcare and water(DFID 2006).

Yet, beyond these commitments, ourefforts to tackle poverty at the start of the21st century must go further than these tra-ditional areas, to encompass the creation ofinternational trade and governance archi-tectures to create a more conducive globalenvironment for reducing poverty.

We must also assist in creating stable andsustainable prosperity through protectingthe most vulnerable against dangerous cli-mate change, stimulating economic growth,and preventing and responding effectivelyto conflict.

Reforming multilateral institutionsFirst, and as the Prime Minister has recentlyargued (Brown 2008), responding to theglobal challenges of the 21st centuryrequires reform of existing internationalinstitutions.

Many of the existing international insti-tutions were created in the aftermath of theSecond World War and reflected the needsof that time. As such, they must be reformedto deal with the world as it is now (Stiglitz2002).

DFID will spend more through multilat-eral institutions in the coming years – indeedour latest contribution to the World Bank’sinternational development association was, atover £2 billion, our largest ever. But such ris-ing support to multilateral institutions mustbe linked to progress on reforms.

And there are some encouraging signs:Robert Zoellick, as the new President of the

World Bank, has set clear priorities for thebank, including dealing with dangerous cli-mate change (Zoellick 2007).

Dealing with climate changeClimate change is, as I outlined in a recentspeech (Alexander 2008), a defining globalsocial justice issue for our generation.Dangerous climate change – and ourresponse to it – will define internationaldevelopment for years to come. The choicewe face is stark: if we do not take the neces-sary action, we risk condemning the world’spoorest people to generations of poverty(UNDP 2007).

Our priorities must be threefold.First, to agree a global, post-Kyoto,

framework with a clear global limit forgreenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and anagreement that developed countries bearthe greatest responsibility for reducing emis-sions. We hold the greatest responsibility forthe climate change that is already occur-ring, and we have a greater capacity to act.This is why our own domestic ClimateChange Bill is so important.

Second, to build a global low-carboneconomy that includes developing coun-tries. This will require reform of the carbonmarkets, such as the inclusion of mecha-nisms to prevent deforestation – responsiblefor some 20 per cent of all global emissions.It will also require building the capacity ofdeveloping countries to innovate, as well asglobal technology transfers.

Third, to protect the most vulnerableagainst the impact of inevitable climatechange. Developing countries will needaccess to the best efforts of scientists, econo-mists and development experts. Over thenext five years, DFID will spend over £100million on research into the impact of cli-mate change for the most vulnerable devel-oping countries, and on helping those coun-tries to put that information to good use.

Increasing growth and tradeThe best protection against climate changeis prosperity and economic progress – inthe sense that those countries with well edu-cated people and good infrastructure will

We�hold�the�greatestresponsibility�for�the�climatechange�that�is�alreadyoccurring,�and�we�have�a�greater�capacity�to�act�

© 2

008

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

008

ippr

public�policy�research�–�March-May�2008 51

cope with climatic shocks the best. If the need for growth is more urgent in a

changing climate, it is nothing new.Developing countries have long argued theimportance of growth for lifting their peo-ple out of poverty, and history supports theargument. Eighty per cent of the povertyreduction achieved in the last 20 years –with 500 million people lifted out of pover-ty – has been due to growth (Dollar et al2002).

So donor aid policies must recognise thecentrality of economic growth to tacklingpoverty, and prioritise it accordingly. Wemust never forget that the business of aidshould be to make itself irrelevant, andencouraging growth is the surest way tosecure that.

We must also help countries to tradetheir way out of poverty. If Sub-SaharanAfrica enjoyed the same share of worldtrade today as it did in 1980, its exportswould be some US$119 billion higher(Watkins 2007). Our number one prioritymust be to deliver on the Doha round. Butwe also need to ensure that the world’spoorest countries are able to exploit theopportunities presented by fairer traderules. This is why the UK Government is atthe forefront of global efforts promoting ‘aidfor trade’, spending US$750 million a yearby 2010 on helping developing countries tobuild their capacity to trade.

Tackling conflictWe cannot hope to increase prosperityamong the poorest, however, unless we alsotake more action to prevent and tackle con-flict, which not only ruins lives, but alsochokes development. A civil war costs acountry, on average, more than £25 billion,and leads to 20 years in lost development(Collier and Hoeffler 2004).

As International Development SecretaryI have seen the human cost of conflict first-hand. When I visited northern Darfur inJuly, I spoke with families forced from theirhomes. In Afghanistan, I was told how theTaliban pay young people a dollar a day todig up landmines, which they then use toattack NATO forces.

But I also saw how the UK’s aid is help-ing these communities: through agenciessuch as Oxfam providing water and sanita-tion to the displaced in Darfur, and throughthe Halo Trust in Afghanistan, helping toclear mines and return farming land to thepeople of Afghanistan.

These experiences confirm to me that wemust make our response to conflict moreeffective, and better coordinate our effortsnationally and internationally. As part ofthe latest Comprehensive Spending Review,a new Stabilisation Aid Fund, providingnearly £600 million over the next threeyears, will be established jointly by DFID,the Foreign Office and the Ministry ofDefence to better prevent and respond toconflict (Brown 2008).

ConclusionIn the United Kingdom in the 1860s,Gladstone, then Chancellor, said that theeconomy necessarily functioned with an‘enormous mass of paupers’ (1864).Victorian Britain’s response to the extremepoverty that existed alongside great wealthwas charity.

But that response changed when theinvestigations by Charles Booth (1889) andSeebohm Rowntree (1901) showed the trueextent of deprivation – and the inadequacyof the charitable approach. The reforms thatfollowed at the turn of the century – freeschool meals, pensions and national insur-ance – laid the foundations of the modernwelfare state (Timmins 1996).

While I am not urging that we replicatethese specific reforms on a global scale, weshould seek to emulate their spirit.‘Voluntarism’ is not enough to address theinequalities and imbalances in today’s world.

In the post-war reconstruction of Europe,aid – through the Marshall Plan – was onlypart of the United States’ effort. There wasalso the construction of multinational insti-tutions to tackle the problems of the time;new agreements on security through theformation of NATO; and the GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade to stimu-late economic growth.

public�policy�research�–�March-May�200852

© 2

008

The

Aut

hor.

Jou

rnal

com

pila

tion

© 2

008

ippr

As Paul Collier (2007b) argues, we nowneed to draw upon the ‘same toolkit weused in the recovery of post-war Europe:aid, trade, security and good governance’.This toolkit helped to form the basis of anew European order that paved the way forover half a century of peace and prosperity.The progressive task at the start of the 21stcentury is to repeat this great achievementon a global scale.

To do so will require a great coalition,reaching beyond governments to includethe private sector, NGOs, trade unions, faithgroups and individual citizens. That is whythe Prime Minister has joined Ban Ki-moonin calling for a ‘global partnership for devel-opment’ to be created in 2008. By forgingsuch a partnership, we will take a decisivestep towards the centre-left’s long-heldambition of embedding social justice inter-nationally and tackling global poverty.

Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP isSecretary of State for InternationalDevelopment and Labour MP for Paisleyand Renfrewshire South.

Alexander D (2008) Climate Change and Global SocialJustice, Speech given on 6 February 2008 to the LondonSchool of Economics. Available at:www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/Speeches/alexander-cli-mate-change.asp

Booth C (1889) Life and Labour of the People in LondonLondon: Macmillan

Brandt W (1980) North-South: A Program for SurvivalCambridge, MA: MIT Press

Brown G (2008) Speech given on 21 January 2008 to DelhiChamber of Commerce, available at:www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page14323.asp

Collier P (2007a) The Bottom Billion: Why the PoorestCountries are Failing and What Can be Done About It

Oxford: Oxford University PressCollier P (2007b) ‘Will the Bottom Billion Ever Catch Up?’

Washington Post, 21 October: B03Collier P and Hoeffler A (2004) The Challenge of

Reducing the Global Incidence of Civil War ChallengePaper, Copenhagen Consensus. Available at:www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Files/Filer/CC/Papers/Conflicts_230404.pdf

Commission for Africa (2005) Our Common Interest:Report of the Commission for Africa London:Penguin

Department for International Development (DFID) (2006)Eliminating World Poverty: Making GovernanceWork for the Poor (White Paper) London: TheStationery Office

Department for International Development (DFID)(2007) Statistics on International Development2002/03-2006/07 London: Office for NationalStatistics

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2006) UnitedKingdom (2006), DAC Peer Review: Main Findingsand Recommendations Paris: OECD. Available at:www.oecd.org/document/43/0,3343,en_2649_33721_36881515_1_1_1_1,00.html

Dollar, David and Aart Kraay (2002) ‘Growth is Good forthe Poor’, Journal of Economic Growth 7:195-225

Gladstone W (1864) Budget speechRowntree S (1901) Poverty: a study of town life London:

MacmillanSachs J (2005) The End of Poverty: How We Can Make It

Happen In Our Lifetime London: Penguin Stiglitz J (2002) Globalisation and its Discontents London:

PenguinTimmins N (1996) The Five Giants: a biography of the wel-

fare state London: Fontana PressUnited Nations (2000) Millennium Declaration General

Assembly resolution 55/2 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2007)

‘Fighting Climate Change: Human solidarity in a divid-ed world’ Human Development Report 2007/2008Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

Watkins K (2007) ‘Development and Equity’, in Held Dand Mepham D (eds) Progressive Foreign PolicyCambridge: Polity

Zoellick R (2007) An Inclusive and SustainableGlobalisation Speech given to the National Press Club,10 October 2007. Available at: web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21504730~menuPK:34474~pagePK:34370~piPK:42770~theSitePK:4607,00.html