Before 1800, just about everybody was poor. You had royalty, you had these huge landowners, but they were a tiny, tiny minority and just about everyone lived in poverty. And everyone lived very much wedded to their land. This was the entire history of humanity. There were some huge changes, of course: agriculture. What happened was that mostly people were hunters and gatherers before agriculture. And then, when agriculture started, food production was then brought to people rather than vice versa. People didn’t go out looking for food. There were places where they knew that a steady supply of food would be created.
But wealth was tied to land, and those who controlled land, controlled much of the world’s wealth. And the difficulty was in shipping or moving anything: things, ideas, people. It was very difficult to move anything, so there wasn’t very much trade. And so, the cost of moving things really mattered and shaped the way societies were formed.
In the 17th century, only 3,000 European ships sailed to Asia. In the 18th century, for the next hundred years, about 6,000 ships sailed. It was very difficult to move anything.
Now, around 1800-1820, some very important things happened. And the two most important ones that most historians will look at are the Industrial Revolution and steam power. So, around 1820, steam power allowed the movement of goods, and the movement of goods fueled industrialization, trade, and economic growth.
But at that time, also was the start of–one of the great economists, Deirdre McCloskey, talked about right around that time, with the advent of the Industrial Revolution and steam, you had the beginning of what she called the great divergence, meaning that certain areas, especially Europe and the United States, grew rich very, very quickly.
She talks about the founding–the formation of the so-called bourgeoisie. And the bourgeoisie were former peasants who were close enough to royalty that they wanted to live like that. And so, she sees the development of the bourgeoisie as a very important development because they were the precursors of the middle class.
Now, in the two centuries from 1820 until now, what happened was that the availability of goods, of services just exploded. It wasn’t a little bit of change, it was just huge amounts of change, because before 1820, people were born and they died in pretty much the same world. The world, from the time they were born to the time they died did not change very much. But starting in 1820, the world started changing very, very quickly.
Two centuries ago, four out of five U.S. adults worked to grow food for their families. Now, one farmer feeds 300 people.
So, the reason I talk about this is because we have to put these things in perspective. We have to put the evolution of sort of human advancement–which is what we work on at the World Bank, development–we have to put it in the perspective of what happened.
You know, Chinese President Xi Jinping talks about having thousands of years of a great success. And truly, it was Asia and the Middle East that were the sources of much innovation before 1800. And then, he often says that the 200 years after 1800 were not so great for China, but of course China is growing very rapidly, now.
And again, before 1800, remember, just about everybody was poor.
Now, this is what I see everywhere I go: Everywhere I go I see young people who may not own a smart phone, but who have access to smart phones. By 2025, many analysts are saying that the entire world will have access to broadband.
Now, when you get access to broadband, when you can see things on the Internet, a couple of things happen. First of all, people are much more satisfied with their lives when they have Internet access. When they have Internet access, they can see how the world works. They can watch movies, television shows. The satisfaction with life goes up.
But the other thing that happens is their reference income goes up, and this is something that we actually study at the World Bank Group. The income to which they compare their own goes up. And when that happens, your income also has to go up or you’re not very satisfied.
Now, technology is going to do us a great service by getting everyone connected, but the other thing that technology is doing at the same time is it is going to eliminate some jobs.
Now, there are a lot of different predictions about how many jobs will be lost. Some will say that just about the jobs will be lost.
Let me just tell you what one person says, this person who I got to know quite well, Jack Ma, who founded the great company, Alibaba, right? He’s the richest man in China. It’s a huge company.
Jack Ma puts it this way: “You know, when my grandfather was alive, he worked 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, and he felt very busy. Me, I work eight hours a day, five days a week, and I feel very busy. My children will work three hours a day, three days a week, and they will feel very busy.”
He says that every single muscle power job will be eliminated by technology. And he goes further and he says that every single knowledge-based job will be eliminated, as well–maybe not as quickly, but it will be eliminated. And he predicts that whenever you have these kinds of ruptures–and he thinks that this is a major rupture, the way that artificial intelligence and technology is moving, there is a major rupture. And when that happens, his interpretation is that when those things happen there are at least 30 years of tremendous difficulty and upheaval.
And so, what do we do? How do we respond to these kinds of upheavals? How do we respond to this phenomenon in which everyone knows how everyone else lives and their aspirations are going up. They want more for themselves while, at the same time, technology potentially could eliminate many, many jobs.
Well, if you look back into the history of how you tackle the problem of inequality, how you tackle the problem of poverty, this man, Andrew Carnegie, is a very important figure. He wrote, in a book called “The Gospel of Wealth”–he said that, “The man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life will pass away unwept, unhonored, and unsung. The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced.”
So, Carnegie helped other, John D. Rockefeller, think differently about their money. And so, philanthropy was started.
The word “philanthropy” entered the English language around the 17th century, translated from the Greek “philanthropia,” which means “love of mankind.”
Excuse me, let me go back a second.
And British Parliament in 1601 passed the Statute of Charitable Uses, the first time when governments were supposed to take care of the poor in any given region.
Around the same time, Islamic leaders endow property to create major educational centers. Shah Abbas–we were just talking with Padideh about this–of Persia, endowed school at the royal mosque, which set a pattern for similar colleges.
And so, there was this tradition of philanthropy. But the point here is that philanthropy, which was our traditional way of thinking about how you tackle the problem of inequality and poverty is not going work anymore.
Let’s look at another example, a very famous one of course is Albert Schweitzer. Now, I always get in trouble when I talk about Albert Schweitzer like this because people, for good reasons, admire him very much. But Albert Schweitzer was part of a different tradition. He was part of the colonialist movement. He was also a missionary. And there was this sense that it was the responsibility of people like Albert Schweitzer to bring civilization to the uncivilized masses. But Albert Schweitzer also portrayed himself as a great physician who was providing care to the poor.
And I’d first heard about this because there was a cardiologist from the hospital that I trained in in Boston who actually, in the 1950s, visited Albert Schweitzer. And when he came back, he wrote a little report saying that he was absolutely appalled at the conditions that he found in Albert Schweitzer’s hospital. He was a cardiologist that specifically looked at rhythm disorders. And he said that so many of the patients there had these things and there were things to be done for the patients but they were not done. A little tiny report, but then it turns out that there was a British journalist named James Cameron who visited Schweitzer in 1953, and here’s what he wrote about the hospital that he found:
“The hospital was a shock. I had been prepared for some unorthodoxies, but not this glaring squalor. The doctor had fenced off all mechanical advance to a degree that seemed both pedantic and appalling. The wards were rude huts, airless and dark, plank beds and wooden pillows, everyone infested with hens and dogs. There was no running water but the rain, no gas, no sewage, no electricity, except, again, in character, for the operating theater and the gramophone.”
Cameron goes on to say, “I said then that the hospital existed for him rather than he for it. It was deliberately archaic and primitive, deliberately part of the jungle around it, a background of his own creation which clearly meant a great deal more philosophically than it did medically.”
Now, part of the criticism here is that what Schweitzer was up to–and he talked about it with great clarity. He talked about it–he was an inspiration to many. He talked about his mission to correct the wrongs that others had instigated in the name of Christianity.
But for 30 years I worked in an organization called Partners in Health, and we tried to do exactly the opposite of what we saw Schweitzer having done. We thought, “Look, this is not about us. It’s about providing the best possible medical care we can out of respect for the fundamental humanity of these others.”
And so, there is so much aspiration, there is so much desire to have access to education, to make sure that your children are not underfed. There is so much aspiration out there, and once people get access to the Internet, the aspiration will continue to go up. How do we possibly respond to this situation?
Well, it gets right to the core of what we are as an institution. The World Bank Group–at the time, it was just one part of the World Bank Group–was founded in 1944 out of the ashes of World War II. In a, I think, just brilliant–what’s the right word? In a brilliant move, leaders in the world, especially of the U.K. and the United States said that, before the war ended, we have to build institutions that, on the one hand can bring stability–because before World War II and during World War II, currency wars were happening. Countries would devalue their currency, would try to do everything they could to gain an advantage, and the status of global currencies was in a mess. So, they needed to bring some stability to the global system.
But also, they thought that there should be an organization that rebuilt Europe, and that is what the World Bank is. The original name was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the purpose was to rebuild Europe.
But then, something happened right around that time, which was in 1946, which was announced in a commencement speech at Harvard in 1946 by General George Marshall called the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan then took over in terms of building back Europe, and the World Bank had to find some other things to do.
The first loan of the World Bank, though, was to France. But since that time, the World Bank has shifted and then focused more on poverty.
The founding principles–the Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, opened the conference and he said that the goal of the World Bank Group, the goal of the meetings, was to create a dynamic world economy–and I quote, “A dynamic world economy in which the people of every nation will be able to realize their potentialities in peace, to raise their own standards of living and enjoy increasingly the fruits of material progress. For freedom of opportunity is the foundation for all other freedoms.”
Now, he also argued that, “…prosperity has no fixed limits. It is not a finite substance to be diminished by division. On the contrary, the more that the other nations enjoy, the more each nation will have for itself.”
So, this was a wonderful vision and I do not think we’ve moved too far away from that, even today.
By the way, the other person that put the conference together in addition to Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, was the great John Maynard Keynes, probably the second most famous economist of all time behind Adam Smith, but he was a very, very important person. And that conference, which was not easy, led to the foundation of this organization.
So, what do we do? Well, over the past 70 years, countries have paid in capital, have given us money. But we don’t take that money and just give it away. Some of it we do, since 1962, but a total of $19 billion has been paid into the World Bank Group, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and also IFC, our private sector group.
Now, with that $19 billion, we’ve made close to a trillion–over $900 billion in loans and grants. So, what happens is that if you actually create a bank and give them capital, they use that capital and then they can go to–we, anyway, can go to capital markets and raise financing. And we have been able to do that to the tune of $900 billion.
In addition, we have been able to put $28 billion directly into an account that we reserve for the poorest countries. And this program is called IDA, the International Development Association. And IDA gives grants to the poorest countries. They can pay it back over 40 years. Right, very hard to get a loan that you pay back over 40 years at zero percent interest, and we do that to help countries grow. Now, that is what we have done over time.
When I first walked into the World Bank, I saw this sign: “Our dream is a world free of poverty.” And I asked, why is this a dream? Who don’t we turn this into a real target and a goal, and we did.
After three to four months of arguing–and that’s what we do at the World Bank, we argue. We argue with data, we argue with politics and ideologies–we argue with many different kinds of tools. We came to a conclusion: We wanted to end extreme poverty, that is, people living under $1.90 a day, by 2030. And we also were committed to boosting shared prosperity, reducing inequality. And we decided that there would be three ways for us to get there.
The first, traditionally, we’ve always focused on economic growth but, in this case, we’re focusing on inclusive, meaning everyone benefits; sustainable, meaning that it doesn’t destroy the planet–inclusive, sustainable economic growth.
The second, because there are so many crises that are affecting the world every day, pandemics, climate change, refugees, fragility, conflict, violence, we wanted to focus on fostering resilience to those kinds of problems in the world that affect more and more people.
And finally, the third pillar was to invest more and more effectively in people. So, inclusive, sustainable economic growth; resilience to the various shocks that are happening in the world today; and investing more and more effectively in people.
Now, we have had to change because the world has changed, and the world has changed pretty dramatically.
In the 1960s, probably 70 percent of all capital flows, of all money going into developing countries, came from official development assistance, of which we’re a part. So, in other words, the money that was going into the developing countries all came from the donor agencies, USAID, those agencies like that, and groups like ours. But look at over here how far it has dropped.
Oh, cool, see that?
So, even in 1990–in 1990–50 percent of all the capital flowing into developing countries was official development assistance. But starting in 1990, it dropped, and now it’s been less than 10 percent. So, we used to be able to tell countries what to do and they would listen to us because we were such a big player. But now, all of official development assistance is only 9 percent.
And so, in that context, what do we do? How do we play a role? How can we help the billions and billions of people in the world who are being born today, or who are young, who are going to be looking for jobs, how do we help them achieve their goals?
The first thing that I told you about: resilience. So, this is a woman living in a refugee community. There are so many people now living in situations of fragility. Two billion people in the world live in fragile and conflict-affected areas. And by 2030, 46–nearly half of all the people living in extreme poverty will live in fragile and conflict-affected states. We are doubling the work we are doing in fragile and conflict-affected states, but we are also realizing that we do about $60- to $65 billion worth of business every year. We realize that 60- to 65 billion is nothing; it is a drop in the bucket. There is no way that we can solve any of these problems, the refugee crisis, pandemics, famine, all these–we can’t solve them with our capital. We have to find ways of leveraging others.
So, we have created, for example, after the horror of Ebola, we were so worried about why did we wait so long to respond to Ebola that we created an insurance instrument. And so now, for the first time in history, we have an insurance instrument that will release automatically when diseases like Ebola get to a certain stage. It would have released much, much sooner than money actually moved to Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea during the Ebola crisis.
And what we did was pretty straightforward: Instead of putting a bunch of money aside or going to donors and asking for money, we went to the capital markets and said, “Is anyone interested in purchasing a bond, a three-year bond, capital at risk”–meaning if there’s an epidemic you’re going to lose all your money–“but we’ll pay you 8 percent a year.”
There were so many people that were so desperate to get 8 percent a year that we were oversubscribed and now we have $450 million that sits in our accounts, ready to be disbursed if there’s a pandemic. And we had to pay something for it, but a tiny fraction of the overall amount.
We’re now using that same principle and we’re working on developing famine insurance. You know, famines happen all the time, we’re always late in responding. And we thought, “Why not create an insurance instrument that will respond right away so that we catch the famines earlier and literally snuff them out rather than letting them get worse and worse and worse?”
So, we’re doing this and we’re trying to leverage everything we possibly can. We’re now the largest financers of climate change activities in the world. We’re committed to this but, again, we can’t do it with our own financing. We have to leverage others.
This is really the biggest game. So, the size of the global economy is about $78 trillion. There’s about $7 trillion sitting in negative interest rate bonds. That means that you put your money in the bank, but rather than the bank giving you interest, you pay them every year to hold your money.
So, if you gave them $100, at the end of the year, you’d have $98 or $99 instead of $100. And the reason people do that is they’re so scared of risk that they’re willing to pay someone to hold their money, because at least that’s safe.
There’s another $10 trillion sitting in very low yielding government bonds. There’s another 9 trillion in cash. Literally, people take “thousand euro” bills and put them in their safes.
Now, we feel that that is the kind of money we need to be able to give everyone in the world an opportunity, and why not? They’re getting such little return we think we can help them get a higher return while at the same time providing opportunities for everybody, and especially in the area of infrastructure.
So, the idea–this is the Guinean Stock Exchange. And I don’t know why I show you this, but it’s just a cool picture, Guinean Stock Exchange. The notion now is that, instead of seeing ourselves as a lender, seeing ourselves as direct interveners, we see ourselves as facilitators. And the idea that we’re now talking about to everybody is the idea of maximizing finance for development.
How do we mobilize those trillions of dollars sitting on the sidelines for the benefit of the poorest people in the world? We know that the private sector has to be much more involved in development than before, because there are many, many examples of win-win situations. Let me show you one:
The Queen Alia International Airport, if you’ve ever been there, it’s a wonderful airport. The Jordanian Government came to us and said, “We need to build the rebuild the airport and we’d like a loan. And then, if you give us a loan–if you give a loan to the Jordanian Government, then our people will run it.”
We said, “You know, there may be a better way to do that.” And so, without taking a single penny of loan, without paying a single penny in terms of interest payments on loans, we were able to get the private sector to finance this completely.
The Jordanian Government, though, still owns 54 percent and therefore receives 54 percent of the profit. And without putting a penny into this airport, they have received over a billion dollars over the last nine years in revenue from the airport. They were about to go a very different direction, but really, wonderful staff at the World Bank Group said, “Why don’t you try this another way.”
This is a great example of how we can change the way we do business and not only reduce the indebtedness of countries but give them a return. This is the kind of investment that now a lot of people want to make. There’s $5 trillion that’s about to be inherited by Millennials from their Baby Boomer parents. And what I’m hearing every day is that “We don’t want to just sit on this money. We want the money to have an impact on the world.”
So, there is this phenomenon that’s called “impact investing,” very important. What people are saying is, it’s not just risk and return–what’s the risk of the investment; what’s the return. It’s risk, return, and impact. And if the impact is high, we’re willing to take more risk and get less return.
Great idea, but it’s tiny, relatively speaking. It’s about $200 billion a year now, which is very small compared to the needs. The need to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, a UN–the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the global goals, as they’re called, is about $4 trillion a year. So, all of official development assistance is about $140 billion; you throw impact investing on top, another 200 billion. Still, we are nowhere close to the 4 trillion that’s needed to meet the demands of impact investing.
Here, what we’ve done is, instead of saying, “Take a lower return,” instead of saying, “This is an issue of charity,” we have put together a system where we go to African countries and we help them with all aspects of doing a solar auction.
And so, again, without our putting any money in, just helping them technically do it–we have a program called Scaling Solar. And Scaling Solar now has gotten–the latest was 4.7 cents a kilowatt/hour in Senegal. So, Senegal pays 15 to 20 cents per kilowatt/hour of electricity, but the solar auction, because we helped them with it, now they’re only going to pay 4.7 cents. This is a huge victory and we’re now going to take that elsewhere.
Again, we didn’t put any money in; we just helped structure the deal. And, in structuring the deal, we got solar at a low price.
But this is the crisis that I am most concerned about, the human capital crisis. 400 million people lack access to essential services. 100 million people fall into poverty every year from catastrophic health expenses. Only one-third of the world’s poor are covered by safety nets.
All of you are covered by safety nets; the one-third of the world’s poor are not. The worst part of this problem, in my view, is childhood stunting.
Childhood stunting is very straightforward: If you’re two standard deviations below the height for age–and we know now that all children in the world can grow 25 centimeters in the first year, 12 centimeters in the second year. There is some variation, but every child in the world, if they’re adequately nourished, can grow that much.
So, the numbers are just stunning. There are–38 percent of children in Ethiopia are stunted, and we know that stunted children do not learn as well and definitely don’t earn as well when they get older. In other words, what happens to these stunted children is their brains are actually not formed.
This is a study by a professor at Harvard from Bangladesh. On the left is a stunted child and the right is a healthy child, and the gold is just the neural tracks. In other words, stunted children have fewer neural connections, and so they are just simply not going to do as well, and the percentages are extraordinary.
All of Sub-Saharan Africa averages about 30-35 percent; India, 38 percent; Indonesia, 37 percent; Pakistan, 45 percent.
So, that proportion of the children are likely not going to be able to compete in what will be a surely more digitally demanding economy of the future.
Education, we also have huge problems. And 250 million children cannot read or right. In India, three-quarters of third graders can’t solve a two-digit subtraction. By fifth grade, half of the students in India still could not.
In Brazil, skills of 15-year-olds have improved but at the current rate, they will not reach average wealthy country scores in math for 75 years, and in reading it would take 263 years, at current rates. 260 million children still not in school.
And what is even worse is that even in countries where children are in school, what we found through a project that we’re running–you know, we have some American University grads from the World Bank here.
Where are you guys?
You see, there’s a future.
And we have now done one of the most important learning outcome studies. It is called the Harmonized Learning Outcome Database. And we now know, for any given country, how much learning happened in the years that you were in school. So, even if you were in school for 12 years in Yemen or Malawi, you are only going to get about half the benefit as if you were in school in Singapore. So, Singapore has a great school system. And if Singapore is the standard, then what we found, unfortunately, is that many countries in the world you lose almost five years of education.
So, the education system is not working. So, what happens if you’re stunted to begin with and your educational system is not providing you what you need to compete in the economy of the future?
Well, I have been involved in global health and global education for most of my adult life. And one of the things I recognized is that we had been extremely successful in arguing for more funding for HIV, more funding for TB, more funding for malaria, and even more funding for education. But it created a situation where many heads of state and ministers of finance have become a bit complacent and are waiting for the grants to come, and they’re kind of saying, “Well, if you give us the money to do that, we will. But if not, we have more important things to spend our money on. We have to spend our money on hard infrastructure. We have to spend our money on roads and electricity.” And all that is true, but what we have also found is that human capital may be the most important investment they can make.
This is from a study on the wealth of nations, we call it the changing wealth of nations. And for the first time–and Quentin. Where’s Quentin?
Quentin Wodon earned his Ph.D. in economics here at American University, was the lead economist who brought human capital for the first time into the wealth of nations. And the human capital is the dark part, right? So, that is human capital. So, high-income countries, middle-income countries, low-income countries–even in low-income countries, human capital is a significant proportion of the overall wealth of a nation. And it is the first time we have ever included human capital.
If you, though, look at human capital and wealth per capita, first of all, you see that the high-income countries have so much more wealth per capita than the middle-income or low-income countries.
But then, look at the proportion of human capital, the dark, and see how far the low- and middle-income countries have to go to catch up in terms of their investments in human capital.
So, we made a decision. It worried me that so many countries were just waiting for the grants to come in. There was no urgency in investing in people and their health and education. So, we’re going to come up with a ranking.
Now, rankings are very controversial, but what we know about rankings is, boy, do they get people’s attention. So, we’re actually going to rank the countries, the member countries of the World Bank Group, and we’re going to look at survival, we’re going to look at quality-adjusted years of schooling–so, it is not just the number of years you went to school. We’re going to use the database that we’re developing at the Bank and we’re only going to give you credit for those years of school that you actually learned, the years of school to which you actually learned.
And if you look at two health indicators, adult survival and childhood stunting, you really can bring into the equation the impact of health on where you sit in terms of your overall human capital.
So, we are going to do a ranking. We are going to come up with a productivity number. I can talk more about it later if you’re interested in the details of it. And we’re going to announce this–we’re going to publish this ranking in October at our Annual Meeting, and it is going to be incredibly controversial.
There are many, many leaders who will be very angry with me, especially the countries that come out ranked below countries to which they’ve always felt superior.
And yet, what we know from the Doing Business ranking is that, unless you do a ranking, it doesn’t get people’s attention. We have done study after study after study showing that investing in health and education is important, but those studies haven’t led to the kind of response that we need.
Now, is it possible to do something? Absolutely.
This is Peru. We found that–I worked in Peru for years, and in Peru for years and years and years we tried to reduce childhood stunting but it never happened. And then, finally, in about 2007 or so, the World Bank took some money that it wasn’t using elsewhere, put it into a national project on trying to reduce stunting and, in seven years, they reduced the stunting level in half.
We learned a lot of lessons from that and the point we are going to make to all our clients is we’re not condemning you with this ranking. We are trying to get you to pay attention and then we’re going to do everything we can to help you move up the ranking because, in fact, if you don’t, your people may not be able to compete in the economy of the future.
Now, as I wind down here–oh, my goodness. Okay, we have more time afterwards. I want to talk about, in the context of the history–the history of development that I talked to you about. I really do feel, especially with so much of the controversy that you see today, I think that there has to be a new way of interacting with each other as human beings.
You know, when I say that 200 years ago just about everyone was poor, 50 years ago, when I was a young person–54 years ago when I was still living in Korea, there was a sense that countries like Korea, the poorest countries in the world, would always be poor, you know, the term “Poverty will always be with you.”
And so, there was a huge amount of literature of how rich countries and organizations like the World Bank, how they should think about their mission with respect to poor people. And there was a huge amount of literature created.
And when I as an anthropology grad student read those historical accounts of my country of Korea, I just didn’t recognize what they were writing about.
And so, I read a book in graduate school that was one of the most influential for me. It was a book called “Orientalism,” by Edward Said.
Does anyone know that book? Yeah.
And you know, I have to tell you, everywhere I go in the Middle East, and even in Asia, people have read this book.
Because here’s what Edward Said said–Edward Said made the argument that when you read accounts of the Orient–and for him, it meant the Middle East, Persia, and–you know, the countries of the Middle East, but it extends all the way out to Japan and East Asia. He said that, when you read accounts of those countries, you’re not really reading about those countries. You’re reading about the authors, because the authors are using their accounts of those countries for other purposes than humble description.
And he wrote this: “There is a difference between knowledge of other peoples and other times that is a result of understanding, compassion, careful study, and analysis for their own sakes. And on the other hand, knowledge–if that is what it is–that is part of an overall campaign of self-affirmation, belligerency, and even outright war.”
Now, I–let me suggest to you–I feel like I’m back to being a professor–let me suggest to you that the anthropological mission of doing ethnography, of really trying to understand what the world looks like from the perspective of others, is just as important as all the technical things that I’ve talked to you about. This is a change that fundamentally we need to see.
It all goes back to this: These kids want to have a chance to become whatever they want. And I think about–you know, this is me back in 1963 living in Korea. And this is what Korea looked like in 1963, one of the poorest countries in the world, lower GDP per capita than Ghana, than Somalia, than Kenya.
And this is what the World Bank said: “Korea is so poor, they’re so backward, we’re not going to give them a loan because they would never be able to pay it back.” They were wrong about that, of course, but that’s what they said.
Last year, I was in Tanzania and I was in this classroom. And I like to ask the children, “So, what do you want to be when you grow up?” Two kids raised their hand and said, “I want to be President of the World Bank.”
Just like you, my own staff and the teachers laughed. But I said, in–I stopped them, and I said, “In 1963, when then-President of the World Bank, George David Woods, if he had visited Korea”–and it is plausible that he would visited Korea to see if they were eligible for loans, then–“if he had visited Korea and if he’d visited my preschool, I doubt that he would see–I doubt that he would have thought that one of his successors was sitting in that room.”
So, can we do this? Can we actually create equality of opportunity for everyone? I would argue that if we don’t, we’re in big trouble. About how many years ago–55 years ago, President John F. Kennedy came to American University in June to give the commencement speech, and in that commencement speech, he said this:
“No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man’s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again.”
He was talking about the nuclear test ban treaty, but I think the task we have today is even bigger. Can we give everyone, every child on earth, an equal opportunity to become what they want? Hey, I had that.
I truly believe that every child deserves it. And unless we use the tools of finance to do it, we will not succeed. But it is going to be your problem, because the thwarted ambitions of a young person in Africa and the Middle East is not going to be distant from you. That we know. The world is so interconnected that you’re going to have to think about their prospects, as well as your own.
*World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim 2018 Spring Meeting Positioning Speech, American University Washington, D.C.
Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services
On April 8, St Petersburg hosted the 12th Northern Dimension Forum. This forum, established in 2007, is a major annual corporate business event for cooperative policy and brings business directors and potential investors from Russia and the European Union including the Baltics, and Scandinavia.
The forum was organized by the Northern Dimension Business Council in cooperation with the Association of European Businesses, the Graduate School of Management at St Petersburg State University and the Skolkovo Moscow School of Management.
This forum was devoted to the theme: “Connectivity now. Boosting flows of people, information, energy, goods and services.” It was attended by over 400 representatives of Russian and foreign business circles, government agencies and scientific, education and non-governmental organizations.
Leading business experts of the partnerships of the Northern Dimension, the Institute and the Association of European Businesses discussed topical issues and opportunities for promoting cooperation in environmental protection, the circular economy, energy efficiency, transport and logistics, healthcare digitization, efforts to overcome the aftereffects of the coronavirus pandemic and creative industries.
As expected, the forum helps to take another major step forward in discussing many strategic spheres of business between Russia and those regions. There were plenary meetings as well as sessions working groups. Despite the contradictory signals between Russia and the European Union, it was another opportunity to have some fruitful dialogue, especially in the current difficult conditions, – develop solutions on a wide range of cooperation issues in the North of Europe.
On the other hand, business institutions and the entire system of economic relations are still evolving for these years, indicating that there is no alternative to reasonable cooperation. It is however necessary to find common business language in the fields and other spheres of crucial importance for international cooperation.
Russian Foreign Ministry’s report pointed out to a diversified and multifaceted nature of regional cooperation in Northern Europe. It said the important components include the programs of cross-border and interregional cooperation between Russia and EU countries (Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Sweden), plus Norway.
There are programs underway within the framework of the current budget cycle that involves over 500 Russian project partners, and new programs are being prepared for the next seven-year period.
They reaffirmed their willingness to broaden versatile and mutually beneficial cooperation for the sustainable development of Europe. It emerged from a number of reports during the forum that trade and economic relations are now remarkably expanding between the European Union and Russia.
Over the years, the business growth has been driven by the efforts of the business community. This has also to do with the quality of economic exchanges and investment, businesses’ interest in expanding to new markets, and their confidence that these markets provide drivers for economic growth. Admittedly, trade decreased for various reasons since 2013, it then reached $417 billion, but later shrank to a mere $200 billion.
North Macedonia’s Journey to the EU
Prime Minister Zoran Zaev’s new cabinet is confronted with a number of economic challenges, exacerbated by the economic hit to the global economy caused by the pandemic In 2021, North Macedonia will take economic decisions that will shape the course of the country’s future.
The issues Skopje faces
Despite a modest population of 2-million, North Macedonia repeatedly makes headlines, often due to apparently intractable disputes with neighbouring countries. Athens’s trade embargo imposed on North Macedonia in the 1990s marked the start of a 27 year deadlock between the two countries, which ultimately stalled North Macedonia’s accession to the EU. Only recently did Skopje resolve the dispute with neighbouring Greece over its official name which Greece had previously taken issue with due to the fact that ‘Macedonia’ is also a region of Greece, and the use of this name was interpreted by Greece to be an assertion of territorial ambitions in the region.
This dispute affected the country’s other diplomatic ventures. In 1999, North Macedonia was one of the first post-Yugoslav signatories of the NATO membership action plan, only to have its accession vetoed by Greece in 2008. Ultimately, North Macedonia’s Stabilization and Association Agreement with the EU has not been the diplomatic catalyst that Skopje hoped would ease localised tensions and draw it into a closer relationship with Brussels.
Under the leadership of Nikola Gruveski (2006-2016), corruption and state capture were endemic in North Macedonia. Gruveksi was averse to opening negotiations with mainstream governments in Greece and it was not until the centre-left Social Democratic Union of Macedonia ousted Gruveski out of power, that there was a breakthrough. Gruveski’s successor, Zoran Zaev, capitalised on Greek Prime Minister Tsipras’s reformism to broker the controversial Prespa Agreement which settled the name dispute. Two years later, North Macedonia was finally admitted to NATO, demonstrating that Greece was the final hurdle to NATO membership.
A tamed economy
However, North Macedonia soon found that NATO membership was not a passport to joining the EU. Internal ethnic tensions have created friction with EU member states. Relations with Bulgaria soured during the election campaign for July 2020 during which the campaigns of both main political parties played on anti-Bulgarian sentiment..Zaev managed to gain power by agreeing to a coalition with the main part of the Albanian minority. The new cabinet’s economic hurdles, specifically fiscal redistribution, could be exacerbated by renewed ethnic tensions between the Slav majority and the Albanian minority. Should tensions reach the levels of the 2001 civil conflict, the deepening of this fracture would slow down reforms and deter investments.
Bouncing back after the fall
The Balkan countries suffered greatly during the Great Recession due to their proximity to the Greek economy at a time when Athens navigated the worst slowdown of recent history. As Greece’s second largest export partner, the RNM was particularly hard hit(Figure 3a). The region had barely entered recovery before lockdown measures crippled world economic growth
. In addition, North Macedonia’s small internal market is heavily reliant on external demand which the crisis has depleted. In Q1-Q2 2020, exports fell by 22.3% and industrial production by 14.6% compared to the same period of the previous year. Thus, GDP fell by 14.9% in Q2 of 2020 and another 3.3% in Q3 contrary to the projected 3.2 percent growth (Figure 7). Whilst forecasts suggest growth of 5.5% in 2021, the unpredictability of the pandemic’s economic influence may yet compromise this figure.
Meanwhile, rating agencies downgraded North Macedonia’s national debt, in turn raising financing costs. the RNM’s debt was downgraded by some rating agencies, raising financing costs. Fitch, the American credit rating agency, as well as Moody’s, another US-based credit rating agency, both value North Macedonia’s debt as a non-recommended investment asset to be reserved for short-term gain. Since May 2020 the outlook has been negative, suggesting the situation will worsen. Yet, with one of the comparatively smallest debt-GDPs of the region, these ratings are still the best in South-Eastern Europe after Bulgaria meaning the RNM has a relatively solid economic base (Figure 4).
The country’s effective response to the pandemic is in part the reason that North Macedonia is economically stronger than some of its neighbours. The caretaker government introduced a furlough scheme, worth approximately 5.5 percent of GDP, as well as a helicopter money initiative. Going forward, the government is prioritising policies that will stimulate economic growth such as slashing parafiscal charges and cutting VAT. Yet, since North Macedonia lacks the economic resources to commit to long-term reform, recovery will be slow.
North Macedonia’s Shifting Demographics
North Macedonia is contending with mass emigration in tandem with declining fertility rates (Figure 5) — both of which reduce human capital. The official estimate of two-million residents is dubitable, with some experts hypothesising an actual figure of approximately 1.5 million. Inaccurate projections of a state’s total population jeopardises effective government decision making. In the RNM, where the resources are redistributed amongst ethnic groups pro quota, this makes fiscal management particularly difficult. If, for example, the proportion of Albanians of the total population was lower than estimated, then this group will be receiving more public resources that they are entitled to.
Given that the EU acts in a starkly-protectionist way by restricting trade with third countries, greater cooperation is in the RNM’s interest. In fact, Brussels could reduce trade barriers in the context of a stronger association with Skopje even before the latter formally joins the Union.
There are steps the government can take to encourage citizens not to emigrate . The first and most crucial step would be to improve the education system. Overall, North Macedonia spends much less of its GDP than the average EU country on education. As a result, few people complete their secondary-level education, and therefore either end up in low-paying jobs or unemployed, andare forced to emigrate. Another step would be investment in the underfunded Research and Development (R&D) sector. In fact, North Macedonia’s budget allocates only 0.36% of GDP to R&D, compared to an EU average of 2.2% and neighbouring Bulgaria’s 0.77%. Research and development is essential to creating high-paying jobs, driving productivity, and boosting the economy through innovation and market competition.
Infrastructures as the drive for future growth
The silver lining in North Macedonia’s economic strategy is infrastructure development. This especially true for roads and highways. Grueveski’s administration was instrumental in the investment into road infrastructure, starting works for two new highways in 2014.
Still, roads can be rather useless if they do lead nowhere. Thus come trade infrastructures. In addition to new road, the building of new border checkpoints and crossing points with Greece and Bulgaria, will bolster the trade infrastructure that North Macedonia shares with the EU, thereby driving trade with a global economic powerhouse. These investments will also reduce the RNM’s dependence on the Yugoslav-time north-south arteries, which currently present a barrier for the development of the “functioning market economy” that is a requirement for EU membership. To achieve this goal, the RNM needs to improve, road connections towards the west (with Albania) and the east (with Bulgaria, an important trading partner). Building better connections within the country and with non-Yugoslav neighbours will boost the country’s internal cohesion by making it easier to move from one part of the country to another proving supplemental infrastructures to foster international trade.
Figure 6 Highways represent a key segment of the RNM’s investments.
A secondary and related benefit of improving connectedness with EU trade routes is reduced economic dependence on Russia. This should reduce Moscow’s potential diplomatic leverage in future disputes in the region. As a matter of fact, pulling out of Moscow’s orbit is almost a precondition to full membership in the EU — which would bring in more funding opportunity and increase financial stability. Yet, Russia’s main asset is not trade tout court, but energy. In fact, the Balkans serve as a strategic crossroad for oil and gas coming from Moscow and Baku through Bucharest and Ankara. Thus, North Macedonia should also consider developing its energy infrastructure as a route to closer integration with the EU. In order to reduce the Western Balkan’s dependence on Russian fossil fuels, the region needs investments. For cash-strapped countries, like North Macedonia, the opportunity to make real progress in this field may come from ‘green’ funds the EU has earmarked for energy projects in both current member states and candidate countries . In addition, Greece has established an LNG terminal on the Aegean to which links the RNM is planning to adjoin its grid. There are also talks of an electric-grid link to Albania, through which the RNM could import as much as needed and even export eventual surpluses.
Forecast: The RNM can make it… with some help
Without radical reform, the extant corruption, bureaucracy and public-sector inefficiency will stymy growth in the coming years. Luckily, the EU might be the answer to Skopje’s economic woes. The Union is expected to grant €3.3 billion to Western-Balkan countries to kickstart economic recovery following the pandemic. The package does however come with strings attached: the country will have to accelerate progress towards regulatory harmonisation with the EU. This is a notoriously difficult and resource-consuming task, which may hinder other reforms.
Furthermore, North Macedonia must confront pre-pandemic economic struggles. The government could revert to coalition infightings and therefore prolong the process of economic reform. For investors, a cautious approach is recommended, in preparation for positive economic developments.
Acknowledgments The Author thanks Charlotte Millington, parliamentary researcher at the UK House of Commons specialising in European politics and international security for her suggestions.
How to incorporate the environment in economic ventures for a sustainable future?
We are in the phase of world history where economic development and protection of environment must go side by side. People living in the developed part of the world will hardly want to give up their current lifestyle and people living in the developing part want to be more like the developed but in this process, we cannot separate environment from economy. Environment provides the incentive for economic growth and prosperity; providing the raw materials and resources we need for production of goods, certain climates and temperatures are required for the growth of specific plants and are very crucial to agriculture industry and the environment is what absorbs the pollution and waste we produce from all this industrialization. Protection of the environment means we mark ourselves safe from economic degradation and provide safe space for healthy functioning of economic and social activities. If we preserve the environment we control the risks of drought, heat waves, cold spells and floods, regulate the air quality, the temperature, the climate, the clean supply of water, the contamination of soil, cycling of nutrients in the ecosystem and management of carbon. Since agriculture can be regarded as the primary industry, crucial to feed people, people who then operate other industries, it is very important to safeguard the environment that feeds us and nurtures us and the environment that we live and grow in. Today, the world economy is facing serious environmental hazards. Climate change, loss of biodiversity and ecosystems are some of the global problems that need immediate collective action by states since this issue engulfs the whole of mankind. Therefore, economists and environmentalists have in the recent years taken this subject with full zest. How can economic growth and environmental protection go hand in hand? Environmental policies integrated with economic policies can be implemented and pursued by states to ensure sustained and prolonged environmental human well-being and continued simultaneous economic growth for states both at the national and international level, ending in a win-win situation.
Natural resources are salient to economic development but at present many prime resources and ecosystems are depleting which poses a grave situation for states and their economies. To tackle this concern, natural resources need to be used in a reasonable manner and adopting and improving technology be propagated in such a way that the use of natural resources is made more efficient and long lasting. Use of newer and modern product designing which meets the needs of the current times, needs to inculcated. The consumption of natural resources beyond the point that hampers economic growth also needs to be avoided. The vitality of technology and innovation in limiting environmental hazards is being stressed, this is also beneficial for businesses and industrialization. This is because preservation of environment is itself a form of economic development and growth. People who come up with the ideas and engineering for environmental friendly products; such as the water and air pollution control, treatment and purification technologies, make money and businesses out of these services, thus contributing to the economy. Similarly, wind mills and solar systems are now a multimillion-dollar business themselves. If environment protection is putting some older technologies and practices out of work, it is also creating incentives for modern technologies and creating more job opportunities in the field. States should thus, make an industrial shift to equipment and products that have a low carbon usage and efficiently use resources. In the real estate sector, places with better and healthier environment and surroundings are priced more than other counterparts for example, a building next to a park or green belt will have higher value than a property which is not next to any place green. This points to the concept of “hedonic pricing.” It refers to the difference in pricing due to the associated environmental aspects, in otherwise similar products. Better environment also contributes to the development of human capital. The presence of a green park will not only add to beauty and better air quality but it will also encourage a lot of people to physically exercise.
Due to the growing scarcity of resources, governments of the world should introduce the policy of “common property regime,” which avers that resources such as land, water, certain habitats and the atmosphere be made common property for all. The problem is that there are no property laws for these resources and people use it as a free dump for human waste and waste products from economic activities. This includes various water bodies for example, irrigation systems and canals, forests, fishing areas etc. Concise and clearly enforced rules should be put in place, exercising the limits put on some activities such as excessive fishing or cutting of forests, putting a limit on the accessibility to these resources, keeping a check on the carbon footprint of some groups, organizations or events or even putting some specifications on their use such as tax or making recycling or reuse mandatory. The shift from already existing practices to newer ones that are more environment-friendly will be costly and it will take time but it is more important now than ever and more beneficial for us in the long run. Environment policies of these sorts reframe the economic structure. The cost of using these resources should be closed in according to the social cost of putting the health of the public at risk. Restructuring of the economic and environmental structure helps a country’s economy by lessening the environmental hazards that the country might face and by making the state more buoyant and resilient in the face of these environmental changes and risks. This can also prove to be a powerful driving force for innovations and ideas.
States are often in the race to increase their GDP. GDP only measures the material values of goods and services and does not take into account the well-being of humans including the health and education quality, living standards, income and environmental conditions. Economic growth, nonetheless, is a prime force for improving human well-being and states incorporate social, political and environmental goals in the well-being domain through these economic activities. The Kuznets curve is a graph to explain the relationship between the growth in economy/GDP and the quality of environment. States can keep this model in mind while reformulating their economic and environmental policies, in accordance to the history of environmental degradation they have endured and the future remodelling they need to follow. It is characterized by an inverted U-shaped relation between GDP per capita and environmental quality. Since we have already crossed the point for environmental degradation, it is now time to think for the decline in the degradation. Initially, when the GDP grows, so does the degradation of environment but after a certain point, the increase in GDP no longer degrades the environment further. This is because at lower income levels, the income is completely spent on meeting the basic survival requirements. When the income increases to a certain point, people and states should start thinking of the bargain that material does with the environment, this should be reflected in their behavioural change. After this point, states should start giving up further unnecessary consumption and focus more on environmental rehabilitation. Another possibility seen through this graph is that industries might see profit in enhancing production quickly, but as demands are met and resources become scarcer, more green, cleaner and resource efficient technology is introduced. Societies, in this way, also go from agriculture-based economy to manufacturing-based economy and finally to service-based economies, releasing the lowest levels of pollution. An example can be of EU rules and regulations. Waste water used to get dumped directly into the streams or rivers, but now it gets treated first before releasing. There are barely any housings left in the EU now that are not connected to solid and water waste disposal and treatment networks.
If states and the firms operating in those states take up eco-innovations and eco-friendly measures, they will actually be at advantage because investors like banks and various funding institutes are more likely to invest in sustainable businesses that will stay operational a long time, than those that are dependent on the environment in these challenging times. Firms that run on eco-friendly terms will also stay ahead of the taxes and regulations charged on using environmental resources. This will prove to be very cost efficient for them and they will not have to change their action plans according to any new regulations or increases in costs. Greener and cleaner practices and equipment can also truly reduce the waste an industry produces, in turn increasing the output and ensuring sustainability. This adaptation to cleaner practices can also lead to innovations and new ideas and practices starting right from the household or individual level. UK is one of the countries that is high on the ranks of eco-innovations, thanks to general understanding and cooperation among firms to pursue sustainable development. Furthermore, statistics show that companies that are currently focusing more eco-innovations are growing at the rate of 15% annually while their counterparts that are not focusing on the same, are not enjoying any climb in their profits. Most of these businesses (based in Europe) are small to medium scaled and they are adaptable in nature. They are benefitting from the European commission’s stance on promoting eco-friendly businesses. Public Relations advantages and marketing superiority is also pretty clear in eco-innovation ventures.
A commendable example of improving the environmental conditions while also not compromising on the GDP and economic development, is that of China. China has been time and again accused of having a huge carbon footprint, which directly impacts the ozone layer which is communal to all mankind. States that are not even at par with the fumes and industrial waste that China produces, are today in the list of states most affected by climate change and global warming, including Pakistan and many of the Gulf nations. China has thus taken the role of global leadership in the field of environmental protection. China has been standing true to its 2015 Paris agreements on cutting down of greenhouse emissions. It was able to do so by spreading awareness and education from the grass-root level. In the period of only a few years, China has drastically improved the air quality in many of its larger cities. Solid waste management and sorting is a major step taken to restrict illegal dumping of garbage. Restrictive policies and heavy fines are imposed if an individual breaks the rules. Renewable energy generators like the wind and solar panels, have been put to use to meet nationwide energy requirements, which ensures cost effective power. In the year 2017, China nationally introduced the concept of “National emissions trading system,” which formed a market for the buying and selling of carbon dioxide emissions allowances. It regulates the quantity of emissions and carbon footprints that an individual, firm or an event is allowed to produce. All of this simultaneously helps China to become more energy sufficient and assists economic reforms while also improving the quality of ground-level air. Some states in the USA are taking up the initiative of green or clean economy with full fervour. California for example, set a target to achieve carbon neutrality by the year 2045, while the clean energy sector is also opening opportunities for jobs. One of the incentive taken in the goal was stricter vehicle exhaust emission rules.Nevada also passed a legislation to increase the energy it makes to up to 50% through renewable energy sources, by the year 2030. Rules and regulations have also bene proposed to reduce the emission of harmful air pollutants including those that are short-lived such as methane, CFCs and HFCs. Developing countries like Pakistan have also addressed the climate issue and the Pakistan Premier launched the “Billion Tree Tsunami” plantation campaign to curb deforestation, an issue rampant in the north of the country. In conclusion of this paper, in light of all the examples and recommendations, I would say that the long term benefits, mutual to all, outweigh the costs of taking a leap from existing economic practices to those that are eco-friendlier.
“Eco-innovation for better business,” Business Green, accessed October 23, 2020, https://www.businessgreen.com/sponsored/2409410/eco-innovation-for-better-business
 “California Air Quality: Mapping the progress,” U.S News. November 6, 2019.https://www.usnews.com/news/healthiest-communities/articles/2019-11-06/california-air-quality-mapping-the-progress
Chandler Green. “7 ways US states are leading climate action,” United Nations Foundation. May 30, 2019, https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/7-ways-u-s-states-are-leading-climate-action/
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation
Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...
Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need
Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...
Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Inmovative Image and Investment Diplomacy
Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...
The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics
The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...
Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks
The aviation industry needs to unify its approach to prevent cybersecurity shocks, according to a new study released today by...
7 Driving Habits That Are Secretly Damaging Your Diesel Engine
When it comes to driving, no one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. But could these habits be costing you...
Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?
On April 6, a protocol collapse occurred during a meeting between President of Turkey R. Erdogan, President of the European...
Economy3 days ago
Future of Work: Next Election Agenda 2022
Economy2 days ago
North Macedonia’s Journey to the EU
Eastern Europe3 days ago
Peace, Problems and Perspectives in the Post-war South Caucasus
Middle East3 days ago
Israel and Turkey in search of solutions
Intelligence3 days ago
COVID-19 As an Agent of Change in World Order
Southeast Asia2 days ago
New Leadership Takes Charge in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects
Economy2 days ago
How to incorporate the environment in economic ventures for a sustainable future?
Africa3 days ago
Scaling Up Development Could Help Southern African leaders to Defeat Frequent Miltant Attacks