as a diaspora scot my most valuable question:what rising ops & threats spun during UN's first 75 years?
source networks-practices of the economist 1993-1843; of james watt & adam smith since 1760?
|to help continue macrae search for sdg generation rsvp firstname.lastname@example.org or partner abeduni.com.|
|can we the peoples design a world in which each next child born has a great chance at life and livelihood. this is why nations met to unite at san francisco opera house 1945.Its a question that involves the design purpose of every market activity from health to education but seemed then and now to require priority clarification on investment and on peace building. because americans had kindly intervened twice to stop the old world from collapsing into wars there was an understanding the old world's empires .needed transforing- none more than btitain and japan the two islands which had taken over how most lives were organised in asia and africa.over the first 18 decades since machines and humans had evolved out of 1760s glasgow university - first engineer watt, first new market imagineer smith - the majority of the world's people still had no access to electricity grids, so little education, poor health, urgent subsistence challenges. instead of financial and public servants designed to help with livelihood and community development.it is reported that the moon race decade waved optimism all over the world- maybe so no human mission will be impossible. what happened next - was there an entrepreneurial way out for|
the majority of asians who were still stuck in one of 3 broken financial systyems - either no banking for their needs, loan sharks or communism. this crisis
|what if every famous speaker using the un platform had to also turn their speech into a max 5 minute video lesson- first audiences to rate these videos could be leading blacklivesmatter sports stars or other celebrities who wanted their young fans to do last mile service solutions...||in our view if you work on implication of poverty museums sdgoal 1 that ever next baby - girl or boy's life matters - merits a chance at making most of life then depending on localities you audit which other goals matter first andjoin in worldwide new education mapping -swap solutions with places/peoples facing similar urgent system transformation needs and startup resources.......|
biggest colab search of 2018 where is damo extending its intercity adcademy; biggest question of 2017:where is Ali Baba University inviting partnerships? Examples:
New Zealand ... Germany ...UN 1 2 3 - Chinese only Aliresearch.com
GirlsWorldBank bids you welcome : happy job creating if you want to study sustainability goals job creation go study poverty first- locally- POP1-2-3 search out/celebrate your profession's world class expert who has 1 lived with poor, 2 as well as innovated her profession with the poor diagnosed system traps of poverty, and 3 sees it as sin not to priorities use of modern tech to end history's -sadly sport charities have been the worst in abusing girls usgynmaistics and maing a few men rich eg fifa instead of community building - will this end at alibaba olympics
Monday, May 10, 2021
in a world of instability guterres has offered a lot of hope - his vision statement issued last week is https://www.un.org/pga/75/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2021/03/Letter-PGA-VS.pdf
Saturday, March 6, 2021
The Pearson Report, published 50 years ago this month, is not much remembered among practitioners, academics and policy wonks who toil in the fields of international development. Too bad. I knew I would remember it because, as an impressionable young CUSO field staff officer home briefly from Nigeria, I had the privilege of meeting the former prime minister just after his report was published.
There are better reasons to remember it than that, not least because it was aimed at ending extreme poverty in developing countries. Since then there has been progress, but five decades later half the world’s population lives on less than $6 U.S. a day, and nearly one billion still live on less than $2.
Partners in Development: Report of the Commission on International Development remains important for many reasons, most notably because it identified almost all of failings of the development enterprise and proposed remedies that remain valid today. It spoke of the necessity of universal primary education, of vast needs in health and nutrition, the importance of food production and research in agriculture — all part of today’s UN Sustainable Development Goals, and all as elusive as ever. It identified the debt burden of developing countries as an issue needing urgent attention — at a time when it was five per cent of what it became. It spoke at length of the need to develop the private sector in the developing world for local investment and manufacturing.
Five decades later, half the world’s population lives on less than $6 U.S. a day, and nearly one billion still live on less than $2.
The Pearson Report saw trade liberalization as a major solution to long-term development, and it may have been the first major development publication to use the term “structural adjustment”:
“The growth of world trade must be accompanied by liberalization. This in turn implies a willingness on the part of industrialized countries to make the structural adjustments which will enable them to absorb an increasing range of manufactures and semi-manufactures from developing countries.”
What actually occurred was the polar opposite: a prescription requiring developing countries to open their economies to the manufacturers of the world, while swallowing medicine that weakened their abilities to invest in the education, health, infrastructure and research required for competition in the global economy.
Pearson talked about a “crisis in aid”: the damage caused by tied aid (requiring procurement in the donor country), the wastefulness of “technical assistance” (sending expensive international experts), aid skewed in favour of some countries while others — often the neediest — were ignored, and low overall volumes of official development assistance (ODA). The report said that “international support for development is now flagging. In some of the rich countries its feasibility, even its very purpose is in question. The climate surrounding foreign aid is heavy with disillusion and distrust” — a cry that rings down the decades as an excuse for rich countries to seek advantage, cut back, do less, do nothing.Pearson set a target: “Each developed country should increase its commitments of ODA … to reach 0.7% of its gross national product by 1975 or shortly thereafter, but in no case later than 1980.” Rhetorically embraced but resisted in deed by most donor countries, including Canada (currently at 0.28%), the clarion cry today is for “blended finance,” a nostrum that will somehow bring the private sector galloping to the rescue of the Sustainable Development Goals.
One wonders what the world might have looked like today had the Pearson recommendations been implemented — even by halves: had trade from developing countries been advanced rather than blocked; had investment in local capacities not been constricted; had debt fallen instead of skyrocketed; had aid been used more intelligently and reached anything like the targets that were set. How many maternal and child deaths might have been prevented? How many famines, pandemics, conflicts and refugees avoided?
If you’re interested, you can find a used copy of The Pearson Report online for a dollar, considerably less than the $2.95 it cost in 1969. Its importance today lies in its dramatic demonstration that very few modern ideas about development are new. And it is a sobering and tragic reminder — if one is needed — of 50 years of lost opportunity and broken promises in the world of international development.
Friday, November 6, 2020
[7:36 AM, 10/23/2020] digitalfinancingtaskforce.org/
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE un club WITH GUTERRES 2019-2020
2. The Government of Canada
3. The Government of Ghana
4. The Government of Italy
5. The Government of the Republic of Korea
6. The Government of Malaysia
7. The Government of Singapore
8. The Government of Slovenia
9. The Government of Switzerland
10. European Union
11. The Government of Brazil
12. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)
13. Article 19
14. Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence
15. Centre for Artificial Research Intelligence (CAIR)
16. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)
17. Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER)
18. Council of Europe
20. Data Protection Commission of Ghana
- DeepMind : google
- Element AI Canada
- Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
- Future Society
- Graduate Institute Geneva
- ICT4Peace Foundation
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
- International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
- Jozef Stefan Institute
- Makerere University
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
- Oxford Internet Institute
- Partnership on AI (PAI)
- Tsinghua University
- Wadhwani Institute for AI
- Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED)
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
- Office of the President of the General Assembly
- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)
- United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI)
- United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, International Trade Law Division
- UN Secretary-General’s Task Force on Digital Financing of the Sustainable Development Goals (DFTF)
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
- GOV OF Brazil