Can the New Deal for Fragile States Live Up To its Promise to Significantly Shift Agency to the Local?
Today’s post is by Cedric de Coning, head of the Peace Operations and Peacebuilding Research Group at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and Special Advisor to the Head of the Peace Support Operations Division of the African Union Commission. Tomorrow, Yannick Hingorani of the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate will reply.
On a recent visit to Mogadishu I was reminded again of the overwhelmingly complex set of challenges facing the government and people of Somalia, and their regional and international partners. The legitimacy of the government is challenged and its capacity to deliver is weak. At the same time, this government represents the best chance the people of Somalia have had in decades to benefit from some level of stability, rule of law and provision of basic services.
If it is to succeed, the government will have to go beyond liberating territory with the help of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). It will need to deliver order, justice and livelihood opportunities that out-perform those offered by Al-Shabaab. In a country that is clan-based, governance needs to be hyper-local. Physical security may be imposed, but sustainable order has to emerge and be maintained by local communities. Consequently, a strong federal-local partnership has to be forged.
At the same time, the international community has to face its own demons. Despite efforts at fostering coherence and aligning international support behind government owned plans, dozens of international partners and organizations are still by and large each pursuing their own national or organizational interests. The result is predictably self-destructive: an international community that, despite its stated principles, is unwilling to give its local partners the space they need to take full ownership of their own project, as Peter Fabricius argues. In the process, the international community ends up contributing to the very fragility it was meant to address. These challenges are not new and the consequences are not unknown, but they have proven to be more structural, inherent and resilient than our theories of change assumed.
A new initiative has been underway since 2011, and it now focuses on the specific development challenges and opportunities faced by countries affected by conflict and fragility. It seeks to transform the way international assistance to these countries is managed by placing the countries themselves in the driving seat when it comes to determining what causes their fragility, setting their own priorities, planning their own paths to resilience and managing the relationship with their international partners. The New Deal was agreed in 2011 in Busan, Korea at the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness by donors and self-identified fragile countries that have organized themselves into a grouping called the g7+. The donors and g7+ countries come together in the International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and Statebuilding.
The New Deal is a mutual pact. The g7+ countries take the lead in doing their own Fragility Assessments and based on these, develop their own Peacebuilding and Statebuilding Goals (PSGs) and indicators. In turn, donors align their support behind the agreed PSGs and offer improved predictability and transparency in the assistance they provide. Together, they enter into a Compact that serves as a strategic framework for the government and its international partners.
The New Deal is more than an important step forward – it is a potential game changer. It has the potential to address most of the local ownership and aid coordination challenges I have highlighted above. It acknowledges that local agency is a pre-condition for sustainable peace. It has identified specific mechanisms that serve as vehicles for realizing local ownership, as well as for aligning international support behind these locally-led peacebuilding processes.
Nonetheless, implementing the New Deal has proved challenging. As the Somalia case so clearly demonstrates, early in the recovery process these societies typically lack the individual expertise and institutional capacity to fully engage in the Fragility Assessment and the other New Deal processes they are meant to lead. Yet these governments and donors are under pressure to complete these processes as soon as possible because they serve as precursors for the Compact. Significant aid can only flow once these assessments, goal setting and planning have been done. Because of this time pressure, consultants and other external actors are often brought in to overcome the capacity gap; and while they they do their best, the result is just not as homegrown and locally owned as the New Deal intended.
The fact that the New Deal Compact has to be in place before significant assistance can be disbursed has unintended consequences: most importantly, it reduces the Compact to a resource mobilization tool, when it should be the vehicle for a genuine, locally owned vision and plan for peacebuilding and statebuilding. If the emphasis is on resources, it makes sense for the ministry of planning to bring in external experts to help it get the Fragility Assessment, PSGs and Compact in place as soon as possible. However, if the ambition is truly to shift agency to the local, then, as Helder da Costa argues, the programming needs to reflect the upfront investment needed to build local capacity and the time and patience needed for meaningful political engagement at all levels.
In order for the New Deal to live up to its full promise, solutions have to be found for the dilemma caused by this time-capacity deficit: the New Deal Compact should not be a once-off exercise. It should be regularly revisited, and each time there should be a target for significantly increasing input from local expertise. Likewise, Fragility Assessments should be an iterative process, closely linked perhaps to the monitoring of the PSG indicators. The PSGs, their indicators and the Compact need to be regularly reviewed and adapted. The goal should be to progressively build capacity to manage these New Deal processes with local expertise. Similarly, if initially the process has to be rapid and small, it should be expanded over time so that within a few years it can be much moreparticipatory, representative, and inclusive. The New Deal should thus include a clear programme for building-up and phasing-in local expertise, so that it can result in a real shift in agency from the international to the local, underpinned by a significant increase in local capacity to manage and staff the processes needed to operationalize the New Deal.
In doing so, we will have to be sensitive to the inherent tension in the act of building local capacity from the outside. Too much external intervention undermines the ability of a society to self-organise because it inhibits the feedback local institutions need to learn and adapt, and it builds dependence. There is a threshold beyond which influence becomes interference and where it starts to add to fragility. This threshold is much lower than widely acknowledged. Consequently, many external actors make the mistake of interfering too much and endup undermining the ability of local systems to self-organise.We need a code of conduct that will help international actors to self-regulate their tendency to overreach.
The most distinguishing feature of the New Deal is that it recognizes that peacebuilding has to be essentially local. However, for the New Deal to move from an aspiration to a reality there would have to be a significant shift in agency from the international to the local. Achieving this will require nothing less than a paradigm-shift in the way fragile states, international organizations and international development partners understand their respective roles and responsibilities in peacebuilding.
Even if you know nothing about the French Revolution, you’ve probably heard of Marie-Antoinette’s reaction on being told the people had no bread: “Let them eat cake”. In fact, the infamous catch phrase was probably invented by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who attributes it to an unnamed princess in his Confessions, written before the 14 year-old Austrian princess even married the future Louis XVI. As far as the course of events went, it doesn’t matter whether she said it or not, since the people believed that it was the kind of thing she would say. The doomed monarchs could have learned a few lessons in the art of good government from the founder of the Bourbon dynasty. One goal of the reforms instigated by Henri IV, King of France from 1589 to 1610, was a chicken in every pot, on a Sunday at least. This slogan was to reappear in the United States in the 20th century, with “a car in every garage” tacked on to some versions.
Food riots are thing of the past in most OECD countries, but in 2007-08, various places around the world would see people taking to the streets as food prices rose suddenly in response to the interactions among a number of factors, including high oil prices forcing up production costs, drought in major producing areas, diversion of land to biofuels, and a very low level of stocks.
The food price crisis in 2008, the renewed price hikes in 2010, and depressingly regular reports since of people facing famine (the latest in South Sudan) have raised questions about whether agri-food markets could be relied on in future to deliver sufficient quantities of food at affordable prices. And not just in sensationalist media with their love of explosions in food prices and population growth. In 2009, Sir John Beddington, the UK’s chief scientist, warned of “Food, energy, water and the climate: a perfect storm of global events?”
As we pointed out in this article, there have been predictions that the world will face mass starvation ever since Malthus published his famous essays on demography. As Malthus himself put it in An Essay on the principle of population: “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.”
And yet it hasn’t happened. The UK’s population for example doubled over 1750-1800 (the year in which Malthus published The present high price of provisions), and tripled over the next century. This demographic surge couldn’t have happened without the interaction of a number of elements. We often talk about the agricultural “revolution”, suggesting sudden overthrow of the old systems. But even in Britain, the initial changes to agricultural techniques and practices such as enclosing common land and introducing crop rotation were spread over centuries, and what accelerated the pace of change was interaction with the industrial revolution. Improved communications and storage and preservation techniques allowed producers to serve markets far from home. A well-functioning financial system provided capital. And a feedback loop was created whereby improved food supplies supported a bigger population that in turn provided labour for emerging industries and markets for farmers.
Likewise, when looking at the prospects for food production and consumption today, we have to look at the whole picture. The OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2014-2023 doesn’t expect a Malthusian crisis to materialise. The report argues that the world’s farmers and fishers will be able to satisfy demand over the next 10 years. Rising incomes, urbanisation and new eating habits will reinforce the transition to diets richer in protein, fats and sugar. . In real terms, prices are expected to fall (slightly) but remain higher than the historical lows seen in the early 2000s.
This year’s report has a special focus on India, the world’s second most populous country with the largest number of farmers and also the largest number of “food-insecure” people. The Outlook proposes a relatively optimistic scenario for India, with the expansion in the production and consumption of food both projected to continue, led in particular by higher value added sectors, even for staples, for instance consumers preferring basmati rice rather than inferior varieties.
At least two major issues still need to be addressed though.
First, any rise in food prices can affect the food security of the poor. An OECD working paper shows that developing countries with very different levels of economic development, population size and geographical location have succeeded in reducing poverty and improving nutrition. Despite the significant differences among them, they share some characteristics. During the period when they had the greatest success in reducing poverty, the macroeconomic context became progressively more favourable. Their own governments were lowering export taxes, reducing overvalued exchange rates and dismantling inefficient state interventions in agricultural markets. Meanwhile, the governments of rich country trading partners were reducing the kinds of support to their farmers that distorted production and trade the most.
Second, as argued by the OECD in Climate Change, Water and Agriculture that we featured last month, climate change poses challenges on a different scale from the variations that can affect crops and livestock during the course of a season or even a year or two. Future changes in the climate could have significant impacts on land use, commodity production, and where different activities are viable; and the implications of expanding food production for the natural resource base and climate change.
Former US President, Harry Truman, once said: “It’s a recession when your neighbour loses his job; it’s a depression when you lose yours.” This rings particularly true right now, when in some countries it might not just be your neighbour but your whole street, you included, that has lost their job. In fact, being unemployed has a large negative effect on your physical and mental health, as well as on how happy you are with your life.
There have been many indications that rates of anxiety and depression have been rising since the economic crisis. Europeans reported feeling “more negative” in 2010 than in 2005-06, and one study even linked the rise in suicides to the 2008 downturn, with nearly 5000 suicides above the expected level in the following year. This has severe consequences on the population’s well-being, with mental health being a key determinant of how healthy people are and how satisfied they are with their life. For instance, over the four years to 2012, average life satisfaction declined by more than 20% in Greece and by around 12% in Italy and 10% in Spain, all countries that experienced big rises in unemployment. Looking at the OECD Better Life Index, we see that these three countries now all do poorly in life satisfaction, with Greece coming last.
The OECD’s Making Mental Health Count tells us that mental health has a huge impact on economic productivity. Not only are people with severe mental illness more likely to die younger (up to 20 years), but they are more likely to be unemployed and poor. This translates into very high costs for countries, with the total costs – direct and indirect – of mental ill-health reaching an estimated $2493 billion in 2010. In England, the overall lost earnings due to depression were estimated at £5.8 billion in 2007, and is projected to rise to £6.3 billion by 2026. Being mentally healthy is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as “a state of well-being in which the individual realises his or her abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community.” But if you don’t have a job and you’ve more chance of being depressed, and if you are depressed you probably don’t have job. So what’s the solution?
Unfortunately, despite the enormous health, social and economic costs created by mental illness, mental health care is still not a priority in most countries. Although there has been an initiative by many countries to move people out of mental hospitals towards care in the community, which is better, there is still plenty of room for improvement. The amount of money spent on mental health care is very small. For example, mental illness is responsible for 23% of England’s total burden of disease, but only receives 13% of National Health Service health expenditures. This low spending is mainly due to lack of information on the amount of care provided and the outcomes care produces. This is because mental health problems are completely different from physical problems, and much harder to understand and measure.
This is a big issue for the well-being of countries, as around 20% of the working-age population suffers from a mental disorder. Being mentally unwell has a major impact on your quality of life, and your ability to be productive at work. Conversely, work organisation and workplace relationships can have a profound effect on your well-being and mental health. So much so, that one of Britain’s leading doctors, John Ashton, has called for the country to switch to a four-day week to reduce high levels of work-related stress, let people spend more time with their families or exercising, and reduce unemployment.
Fortunately, there are initiatives which are trying to shine a light on this hidden issue and improve the services provided in the workplace for mental health problems. One example is the prevention and reintegration services offered by Helsana, the largest private health insurer in Switzerland. They offer companies support to develop a healthy work environment through the assessments of risk factors (including factors that can generate mental health problems) and the development of a prevention plan, as well as helping sick employees return to work. However, despite these initiatives, much more must be done.
In the meantime, if this article has made you depressed, try taking a leaf out of Edgar Allan Poe’s book, when he says: “I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it”.
Mental health and work This series of country reports offers both a general overview of the main challenges and barriers to better integrating people with mental illness in the world of work, as well as a close look at the situation in specific OECD countries.
You’d expect stakeholders in a highly-competitive, high-profit, high-risk, globalised industry to have a clear financial vision, but when the heroes of Irving Welsh’s Trainspotting are discussing what they’d do with the expected profits from a drug deal, only Spud seems to have thought it through. But although “Buy somethin’ for my Ma ” is a lovely reply, it suggests that young Murphy lacks the Financial Literacy Skills for the 21st Century.
If you think you’re smarter than the average 15 year-old, try the test they sat as part of the latest PISA round. Nearly 30,000 students in 18 OECD and other countries took the test, representing around nine million 15-year-olds. The survey was carried out because “Shrinking welfare systems, shifting demographics, and the increased sophistication and expansion of financial services have all contributed to a greater awareness of the importance of ensuring that citizens and consumers of all ages are financially literate.”
The idea was to assess “knowledge and understanding of financial concepts and risks, and the skills, motivation and confidence to apply such knowledge and understanding in order to make effective decisions across a range of financial contexts, to improve the financial well-being of individuals and society, and to enable participation in economic life”.
Of course the 15 year-olds taking the tests are already participating in economic life as consumers and (in far smaller numbers) as savers. Many of them already have a bank card, and some cards are aimed at children as young as 8. This Indian bank shows a complex mixture of nationalism, naivety and opportunism on its website, claiming that: “We strongly believe that Indian kids are the smartest in the world and will use their hard earned savings in the best possible manner.”
Indian students took part in the PISA 2012 tests, but not on financial literacy, which may help explain why the top performers in the results published today are from China. Students from Shanghai score the highest in financial literacy, on average, with a mean score of 603 points, 103 points above the OECD average. There are wide differences in average performance between the highest- and lowest-performing countries and economies: more than 75 points (a full PISA proficiency level) among OECD countries and economies, and more than 225 points across all participants.
Only one in ten students in the OECD area scores at the highest financial literacy proficiency level – Level 5. That means they can solve non-routine financial problems such as calculating the balance on a bank statement, taking into account such factors as transfer fees, and understand the wider financial landscape, including the implications of income-tax brackets.
At the other end of the scale, 15% of students, on average, score below the baseline level of performance. In describing these results, the report makes what looks like one of the most radical claims you’ll ever see in an OECD publication: “At best, these students can recognise the difference between needs and wants.” In my opinion, if we could all do that, whole sections of the economy would collapse. In fact some companies have business models based on trying to convince people with thinking difficulties that there’s no difference between the two.
What Financial Literacy Skills means though is that these students can “make simple decisions about everyday spending, recognise the purpose of common financial documents, such as an invoice, and apply single and basic numerical operations (addition, subtraction or multiplication) in contexts that they are likely to have encountered personally.”
Given that being able to count and read is important for understanding bank statements, bills and so on, it may come as a surprise that high proficiency in mathematics and reading does not necessarily signal high performance in financial literacy. Students in some countries score higher in financial literacy than their performance in mathematics and reading would predict, while students in other countries perform worse in financial literacy than you’d predict from their performance in mathematics and reading.
And while PISA has consistently shown a gender gap in mathematics and reading performance, no such difference is observed between boys’ and girls’ average scores in financial literacy in 17 out of the 18 countries and economies that took part in the survey.
Family background is important though. A “more socio-economically advantaged” student scores 41 points higher in financial literacy – the equivalent of more than half a proficiency level – than a less-advantaged student. In Shanghai, family wealth is more strongly associated with financial literacy than with mathematics performance. In Israel, New Zealand, Shanghai and Spain, family wealth is more strongly related to financial literacy than to reading performance.
You can find full details here about PISA Volume VI and the other V volumes (Fibonacci may have introduced Hindu-Arabic numerals to facilitate double-entry bookkeeping at the start of the 13th century, but we’ll stick to Roman for financial literacy in the 21st).
What do teens know about money? By Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills on the educationtoday blog
Today’s post is from Roger Martini of the OECD Fisheries Division
When I tell people I work in fisheries, the first question they ask is: “What fish can I eat?” Concern about the sustainability of fish stocks is widespread, and many people want to be sure they are making responsible choices when they buy fish. Given that most fisheries, especially in OECD countries, are managed by governments committed to their sustainable exploitation, this demonstrates a stunning lack of confidence in current approaches to fisheries management.
They are right to be concerned. It is estimated that about 30% of world fisheries are currently overexploited, with many depleted or recovering from depletion – and this is not specific to any region. Despite their best intentions, fisheries managers often struggle to effectively restrict harvest to sustainable limits. Fishers are often accused of being part of the problem by rushing to catch as many fish as they can, but this is unfair. They respond to the incentives that governments give them as the regulator of the fishery. Some rules encourage responsible behaviour, while others promote getting as much as you can today.
There are many reasons why fisheries become overexploited, but it usually comes down to asking fisheries to be and do too many things. Fisheries are often depended on to provide jobs and support rural communities, notably in developing countries where the sector acts as a buffer of last resort for marginalized populations. Communities seek to preserve fishing’s traditional role, and consumers are reluctant to find alternatives to culturally-important fish. Fisheries often have multiple objectives, not all of which are explicit, feasible or compatible. Something has to give, and usually it is the fish stock that suffers.
Our understanding has advanced greatly about how to manage a fishery sustainably and profitably. For example, we know that fishers are willing to take a long-term view of the fishery if they know they can benefit, even if it involves short-term sacrifices. Establishing individual or community rights to the fishery does this by giving fishers a stake in the health of the stock. Allowing fishers to trade these rights among themselves promotes more efficient fishers and reduces overcapacity and the pressure it places on management.
Half a century ago, the main interest that governments had in fisheries was how to expand them. That seems like a long time ago, but many of the policies developed back then are still around in one form or another. Subsidies for building vessels, or for their modernisation and improvement, once a way to bring economic development to coastal regions, now mainly aggravate problems of fleet overcapacity. Given that governments also spend considerable sums on decommissioning vessels – removing them from the fishing fleet – it seems strange that such policies could continue. But beneficiaries of existing programs can always be expected to resist change. The trick is to show them that the alternatives are even better.
The OECD Handbook for Fisheries Managers describes how to do just that. It demonstrates the importance of putting stock management first, having a sound objective-setting and policy-making process, and making practical changes that encourage progress. The advice put forward in the Handbook can help put fisheries on a sound footing such that one day when my friends see fish in the store they can buy it with confidence, knowing that the fishery it comes from is sustainable and responsible. And that’s what really matters.