Posts

What is Davos? – The World Economic Forum

What is Davos? - The World Economic Forum
The World Economic Forum is colloquially coined as “Davos”, after Davos, Switzerland, the city in which the conference is housed annually. The WEF is an independent organization, dedicated to improving the economic state of the globe by incorporating leaders in business, politics, academics, and civil society to influence global, national, and industrial decisions.

Founded in 1971, the World Economic Forum started out as a humble group of business leaders, meeting under the umbrellas of the European Commission and the European Industrial Associations. The chair of the first gathering, Klaus Schwab, led 440 participants from over 30 countries in Davos to commemorate the finding of this non-profit organization, and created the building blocks to repeat the forum annually each January.

WEF is designed to be independent from any political, partisan, or national interest. This allows the participants in the forum to develop cross-cultural objectives to fighting economic weakness around the world.

A 1983 Forum document described the meetings as

“One of those increasingly rare international events where formality can be dispensed with, where personal contacts can be made, where new ideas can be tried out in complete freedom, where people are aware of the responsibilities involved in belonging to an international community, where we have time to look at the really important issues rather than everyday pressures. This is what we call the Spirit of Davos.”

The purpose of the WEF annual meetings varies from year to year, but all topics fall under the theme of ensuring that world leaders and attendees of the conference exercise their responsibilities “jointly, boldly, and strategically” to improve the economic state of the world for its future inhabitants.

WEF achieves this goal by collaborating with people, systems, and technologies to created indispensable leadership challenges to cultivate “new models, bold ideas, and personal courage to ensure that this century improves the human condition rather than capping its potential.”

In 1994, the World Economic Forum welcomed its 1,000th member, and decided to cap membership at that number, in order to ensure quality in member conversation and benefits.

– Kali Faulwetter
Source: Weforum, Weforum- Executive Summary
Photo: Business Week

Deciphering the Human Development Index

Katine-family-past-blog_human_development_index_family_health_education_income_africa_family_opt
s The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite measure of health, education, and income which was introduced by the United Nations Development Programme in 1990 as an alternative to purely economic assessments of national progress, such as Gross Domestic Product growth. In the field of international development, the HDI soon became the most widely accepted and cited measure of its kind.

Many developing countries in the 1980s faced strict structural adjustment conditions imposed by financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  To avoid a financial crisis and get the loans they needed, these countries had to undergo massive economic restructuring that involved currency devaluation, government spending cuts, business deregulation, and reducing taxes for the wealthy. Not surprisingly, the social impact was harsh for the average citizen and the human condition worsened. Do you remember the images of people burning money to keep warm? It was in light of this situation that the United Nations advocated for a human development approach, as opposed to a business development approach.

1990 was the beginning of a campaign by the UNDP for a people-focused strategy towards development, and hence the birth of the Human Development Index. The HDI emphasized that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI was designed to reflect average achievements in three basic aspects of human development – leading a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and enjoying a decent standard of living.

The main components used to calculate a country’s HDI are Life Expectancy at Birth, Gross National Income per Capita, Mean Years of Schooling and Expected Years of Schooling. From these, a number between 0 and 1 is produced – with 1 being the best possible HDI and 0 being the worst possible HDI. As of 2012, Norway ranked number 1 out of 187 countries with an HDI of 0.955.  Niger and the Democratic Republic of the Congo tied for last place with an HDI of 0.304.

The HDI can be revealing in other ways as well. For example, how is it that two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with such different human development outcomes? The Bahamas’ GNI per capita is higher than New Zealand’s (by 17%) but because life expectancy at birth is about 5 years shorter, mean years of schooling is 4 years shorter and expected years of schooling differ greatly between the two countries; New Zealand has a much higher HDI value than the Bahamas.

Although the Human Development Index is a more holistic measure of human development in a country when compared to GDP per capita, the HDI is still not all-inclusive. The HDI, for example, does not reflect political participation or gender inequalities. The Inequality-adjusted HDI, Gender Inequality Index and Multidimensional Poverty Index offer other insights into a country’s development status.

According to the 2012 HDI, the top ten countries with the best human development are:

1.    Norway

2.    Australia

3.    USA

4.    Netherlands

5.    Germany

6.    New Zealand

7.    Ireland (tied for 7/8 spot)

8.    Sweden (tied for 7/8 spot)

9.    Switzerland

10.   Japan

Out of the 187 countries counted in the 2012 HDI, the bottom ten countries with the least human development are:

177.  Sierra Leone

178.  Burundi

179.  Guinea

180.  Central African Republic

181.  Eritrea

182.  Mali

183.  Burkina Faso

184.  Chad

185.  Mozambique

186.  Democratic Republic of the Congo (tied for last place)

186.  Niger (tied for last place)

– Maria Caluag

Source: UNDP
Photo: Guardian

Pathfinder International

Pathfinder International

Aisha gave birth to her 9th child at home in Nigeria in 2009. Hemorrhaging and in shock, she was immediately rushed to the Murtala Mohammed Specialist Hospital in Kano, northern Nigeria. Upon arrival her blood pressure was very low and she had lost a lot of blood, a leading cause of maternal death in developing countries. Doctors immediately wrapped Aisha in an anti-shock garment that encourages blood flow to all parts of the body. In places like Nigeria, it can take several hours for a patient to receive the blood they need. In Aisha’s case, it took 4 and a half hours. Without this garment, Aisha would likely have died, waiting for blood.

Aisha’s story is all too familiar for millions of women around the world. Access to pre and postnatal healthcare as well as general sexual health resources, in developing nations is limited, if available at all, and women often die during childbirth. Pathfinder International, however, is an organization dedicated to bringing vital, life saving sexual and reproductive health care education and practices to the people that need it most.

222 million women today lack access to contraceptives. They have limited ability to choose when, if, and how often to have children. When women are educated and empowered with the ability to make these decisions, they are happier and healthier. Their children are more likely to stay in school longer and in turn lead longer, more productive lives.

Pathfinder International, founded in 1957, is active in more than 20 countries today in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. They have five key areas of focus in addition to maternal and newborn health. These include education and services for adolescents, HIV, contraception and family planning, abortion, and advocacy. Multi-level collaboration and data are key components of the work they do. They partner closely with NGOs, community and faith-based organizations, local governments, and individuals and emphasize collecting reliable, consistent data to improve programs and provide accountability to donors.

For more information about Pathfinder International and to find out how you can help, visit their website.

– Erin N. Ponsonby

Sources: Pathfinder International
Photo: Hope Ofiriha

,

The Military & Global Health

The Military & Global Health

Kate Almquist Knopf, blogging for the Center for Global Development, notes several problems that could result from the Department of Defense (DoD) getting involved in global health. Her main argument states that the DoD’s priority should be to protect U.S. national security. She goes on to say, if providing humanitarian aid and promoting development is in the United States’ national interest, then it should be done by those best-suited to do the job — civilian development experts. She argues that the DoD should instead focus on the value its participation could add to development practice through providing security so that civilian practitioners can do their jobs.

While there is no single DoD “global health budget” line item, a 2012 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates the DoD budget for such activities was more than half a billion dollars in fiscal year (FY) 2012 – at least $579.7 million. In comparison, this estimated funding “floor” ranks higher than the global health budgets for either the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the National Institutes of Health in FY 2012. For FY 2014, the DoD requests $526.6 billion to protect and advance security interests at home and abroad.

Although this substantial amount of money is being funneled through the DoD towards global health efforts, Knopf argues that the DoD is not the ideal leader for global health initiatives. The DoD does its health projects like its military actions – only for the short-term. Additionally, the DoD health-related activities are often not evaluated for effectiveness, defying the accepted principles of development work. These principles understand that a long-term approach with regular evaluation is more sustainable and effective. Yet the agencies that follow these principles, like the USAID and the Department of State, get less funding for global health than does the DoD. In fact, only one percent of the federal budget goes to these two agencies.

When a military group is present, mixed messages are not uncommon. Knopf stresses that the delivery of health services to civilian populations is a civilian role, not a military one. The appropriate time for the military to step in is when there is an extreme emergency like a natural disaster.

Knopf also points out that more needs to be done to get the different agencies to collaborate. The DoD should not act in isolation from USAID and the State Department. Given the vast budget and influence of the DoD, improved coordination with U.S. government civilian partners in global health may promote more effective use of resources and ensure U.S. government efforts in national security and in global health are not contradicting one another. Given the nature of the organization, the DoD’s national security objectives will at times take precedent over the objectives of the global health and development community, hindering progress toward improving health.

– Maria Caluag

Source: Center for Global Development,U.S. Department of Defense,Kaiser Family Foundation
Photo: Weasel Zippers

Rosling Explores New Facts and Data on HIV

Hans Rosling, a professor of global health at Karolinska Institut, focuses on dispelling common myths about the so-called developing world and its relationship with HIV/AIDS.

In Hans Rosling’s TED Talk, he used very interesting and vivid graphs to explain how HIV spread throughout the past twenty-five years. The rate of those effected by HIV is not about poverty and undeveloped, although there are many reasons why one’s living conditions makes one more susceptible to the virus. An often understated fact, Rosling notes that even countries with a good economy and peaceful environment may be hard to drop the population of HIV-infected persons, because with good healthcare, HIV carriers can live ten to twenty years longer than those living in places with less access to effective healthcare.

– Caiqing Jin (Kelly)

,

World Hunger Day 2013

world-hunger-day-2013
The United States’ foreign aid budget amounts to less than 1% of the total federal budget. And of that, little is spent on improving nutrition globally. Thus the percentage of the U.S. budget earmarked for combating world hunger is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of annual spending.

May 28th was World Hunger Day. A day set aside to raise awareness to the inequality in global food supply. Currently, enough food is being produced to feed the entire population of the planet. And yet one in eight people live their lives undernourished. 2.5 million children die every year due to inadequate nutrition, a number that accounts for one third of preventable childhood deaths. One in four children suffer life-long effects, be it physical or cognitive damage due to malnourishment.

The impact of all other aid provided could be increased by focusing first on malnutrition. Reducing childhood mortality, and providing people with the means to stay healthy leads to a stronger and more able workforce. Research proves that investments in the health and nutrition of children during the first few years of their lives increase national productivity. Despite these benefits, malnutrition persists in part due to lack of funding.

The G8 summit is approaching, and in the week preceding it there will be a pledging conference on global nutrition in London. This event will be a chance for world leaders to address concerns on world hunger and at the same time step up and pledge to do something about it.

There are a lot of issues to address globally when dealing with hunger and poverty, but what really needs to happen is an increase in aid aimed at those first few formative years of a child’s life. Focusing on the health and nutrition of children will have a ripple effect improving conditions in the rest of society.

– David Wilson

Source: Policy Mic
Photo: Facebook

What is Uniject?

uniject
Uniject is a revolutionary new injection method. The idea behind Uniject is that it would be so simple to use, that even untrained health workers would be able to safely and effectively give injections. This idea would allow for prepackaged, low-cost syringes. Not only would Uniject provide a safer and more cost efficient method of administering vaccines, it would also cut down drastically on the amount of wasted vaccines. The new syringes would not be able to be reused, also eliminating the chance of HIV transmission.

Uniject is an autodisable injection system created by PATH in Seattle. It is essentially a small bubble of plastic connected to a needle that contains whatever vaccine is desired. Health workers would be able to learn how to use this within two hours of training. The plastic bubble contains exactly one injection of vaccine, ensuring the correct dosage every single time.

PATH developed Uniject through funding from the US Agency for International Development. The idea has since been licensed to BD, which is the largest producer of syringes in the world. As part of this agreement, the technology must be given to pharmaceutical producers at preferential pricing for use in developing country programs. The development of Uniject has taken twenty years.

While Uniject was developed with the idea of providing low-cost effective syringes for use of vaccinations in developing countries, it also has the potential to help reduce poverty in other ways. Uniject could, down the road, also be used for other life saving drugs, as well as a potential contraception delivery method. The use of Uniject to deliver contraception could have an immense effect on the developing world and provide an extraordinarily important outlet for female empowerment and family planning in the developing world.

-Caitlin Zusy 
Source:

The 21st Century Global Health Technology Act

global-health-technology-act
The Global Health Technology Act amends the Health Technologies Program of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under which the US Agency for International Development supports the development of technologies for global health and other purposes. The bill entered the house committee on Foreign Affairs on April 11, 2013 and was introduced by Congressmen Diaz-Balart of Florida.

The bill describes the importance of research and development in global health and explains how research and development on global health technology help break the cycle of dependency by creating sustainable solutions to long-term problems. The bill describes the progress and advances investments in global health have created. It details that funding global health technology today will save the United States a great deal of money in the long run, as well as how overall, the bill and global health technology can greatly benefit the US in terms of an inflated economy and increased national security.

The purpose of the act is to acknowledge USAID’s role in product development, introduction and up-scale of new global health tools and to authorize USAID’s Health Technologies program to improve global health, reduce maternal, newborn and child mortality rates, lower the incidence of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases, overcome technical, supply and policy hurdles to product introduction and scale-up, and to support research and development.

The creators of the bill would like to see the introduction of a new Health Technologies Program, which would function as a part of USAID. The program would be aimed at developing, advancing and introducing affordable, available, and appropriate late-stage technologies to the problems listed in the previous paragraph. Additionally, the bill codifies an agreement with USAID for support of the development of technologies for global health.

The act calls for Action Plans to incorporate global health research and development programs with support from coordinating agencies that establish metrics to measure progress. It also calls for Priority Global Health Interventions in order to accelerate the innovation and impact of USAID. The Global Health and Technology Act charges USAID to submit an annual report summarizing yearly research and development activities as well as submit to annual consultation with heads of other Federal agencies to improve alignment of USAID’s health-related research strategy with similar agencies.

-Caitlin Zusy
Source: GovTrack
Photo: Global Health Technologies Coalition

Niger Villagers gather to vow against FGM

Niger Villagers gather to vow against FGM

In discussions about female genital mutilation (FGM), the communities which traditionally engage in the practice are often depicted as unwilling to end it, or unaware of the dangers of it.

Yet recently, in a heartening display of commitment to progress, nearly 14,000 villagers from various communities in Niger gathered to publicly vow to end the tradition. In the ceremony, a pit was dug in the village square and participants threw knives, scissors and blades into it before it was symbolically filled in.

Though Niger officially outlawed FGM in 2003, it remained common in certain communities.

A health issue as well as a social one, FGM leaves women with a myriad of medical problems including infertility, incontinence, pain, cysts, and infections. It is nearly always done on young girls, before the age of 15. It has been decried by the WHO as a practice which “violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”

The issue of FGM is not merely an issue of the practice itself, but is inextricably tied to the status of women within the communities. To ensure success in stopping FGM, women must be elevated through education and increased access to their rights.

While the rate of the practice has decreased – slipping from 5% to 2% of girls in Niger, according to UNICEF – it has proved very difficult to eradicate entirely. It has deep roots and a strong cultural presence, with many seeing it as the proper way to raise a young girl and discourage promiscuity. It also falls in line with local ideas of femininity and chastity, with certain parts of the female anatomy seen as “male” and “dirty”, with removal becoming a necessity. There is also the simple but powerful social pressure of subscribing to tradition.

These are all attitudes which need to be changed within the local communities, rather than coming from international intervention. The very public display of support from ordinary citizens is a great step forward for seeing the end of this primitive practice against the communities’ most vulnerable members.

– Farahnaz Mohammed

Source: Yahoo News
Photo: Tribe

The 10 Worst Countries to Be Born In

Ami_Vitale_Guinea_bissau_life_expectancy_photography_international_Affairs_USAID_disease_global_health_opt

In the United States, the average person will live to be 78 years old. In that time, they’ll likely get married, have children of their own, have a long career and then spend roughly 13 years in retirement. For most of us, this seems like the natural progression of life. In many places around the world however, many people won’t live to see the day they become grandparents and the idea of retirement is just a pie in the sky.

What does low life expectancy tell us?

The World Bank defines life expectancy at birth as the number of years a newborn can be expected to live, assuming no change in the living conditions of the country present at birth. When life expectancy in a country is low, it indicates a lack in some of the basic necessities required to live a long, healthy life.

This often includes things such as clean drinking water, nutritious food, hygienic living conditions and adequate health care. But in some cases, it is far more complicated than that. AIDS related deaths in sub-Saharan Africa for example, have been driving down average life expectancy for decades. Conflict, war and genocide also contribute to a shorter average life span.

The following is a list of 10 countries with the lowest life expectancy numbers on the planet, the 10 worst places to be born. For comparison, life expectancy in the United States was 48 in the year 1900.

10. Mozambique

Life expectancy: 50 years

9. Chad

Life expectancy: 50 years

8. Zambia

Life expectancy: 49 years

7. Afghanistan

Life expectancy: 49 years

6. Swaziland

Life expectancy: 49 years

 5. The Democratic Republic of the Congo

Life expectancy: 48 years

 4. Central African Republic

Life expectancy: 48 years

3. Guinea-Bissau

Life expectancy: 48 years

 2. Lesotho

Life expectancy: 48 years

 1. Sierra Leone

Life expectancy: 48 years

These figures express the importance of global health initiatives undertaken by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and other health actors on the world stage. Many government health ministries and non-governmental health organizations are also stepping up to meet these challenges. These efforts are imperative for global development and their continued persistence can eventually lead to long and healthy lives for people in these countries.

– Erin N. Ponsonby

Sources:World Bank, Washington Post, Berkeley
Photo:Alexia Foundation