http://www.search4dev.nlOnline library for Dutch development cooperationenwww.kit.nldpcmedewerkers-uba@uva.nldpcmedewerkers-uba@uva.nlFri, 17 May 2013 23:10:49 CEST/d/dprn/graphics/bbhead.gifhttp://www.search4dev.nlhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445148http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445148On Wednesday 14 September 2011 the Society for International Development (SID), in cooperation with Amnesty International, PwC, NCDO and the Worldconnectors, organized its annual conference in The Hague. It was the closing event of the 2010-2011 Lecture Series ‘Global Values in a Changing World: Challenging Universality’. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussions.R. Muskenshttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445147http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445147Human rights activists argue that, with respect to rights and obligations at least, we are already global citizens. For them alleviating ‘distant suffering’ is not a matter of charity, but of justice. In terms of the principles underlying human rights, including socio-economic rights, individuals are the bearers of specific, detailed entitlements in international law. But this construction of global citizenship is complicated in practice by the fact that, while individuals are the bearers of human rights, it is principally states that are obliged to guarantee them. This has two consequences for universalising human rights: firstly, the value of human rights is almost invariably constructed in nationalist terms – of various different kinds; secondly, obligations to respect human rights are undertaken by states that are fundamentally unequal in terms of economic, social and political resources. Global citizenship is still a long way off, and requires fundamental transformations in international and national political structures and cultural meanings, just to meet existing human rights standards.K. Nashhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445144http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445144Since 2000, European governments and international development agencies have “discovered” the potential of migration and remittances to stimulate development in poor countries. However, migration and development is anything but a new topic. The debate about migration and development has swung back and forth like a pendulum, from optimism in the post-War period, to deep “brain drain” pessimism since the 1970s towards neo-optimistic “brain gain” views in recent years. While these shifts are rooted in deeper ideological shifts, a review of evidence yields a much more nuanced picture. Although migration often has considerable benefits for individuals and communities, migrants alone cannot remove more structural development constraints and can actually contribute to development stagnation. Despite their development potential, migrants and remittances can therefore neither be blamed for a lack of development nor be expected to trigger take-off development in generally unattractive investment environments. Recent views celebrating migration as self-help development "from below" are driven by neoliberal ideologies and shift the attention away from the vital role of states in shaping favourable conditions for positive development impacts of migration to occur.H. de Haashttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445141http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445141China has made significant progress in addressing global challenges and in abiding by universal norms. However, China can not be understood in all her remarkable complexity by looking only at these global signals. A myriad of other factors have impacted on China’s postures and policies, requiring an assessment based on her particular situation full of dilemmas. The present distance between the “universals” and the “particulars” relating to China is perhaps most noticeable in the security field, whether it be the issue of non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, or severe man-made humanitarian disasters such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. In his lecture, Shi Yinhong will elaborate further on China’s attitude and policy toward North Korea and its nuclear programme given that this is the most prominent example of the discrepancy between international norms and Chinese foreign policy.Y. Shihttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445137http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445137The 2007-2011 global crisis has increased income and wealth inequality in many countries and regions, even as some of the growth poles in the global South – notably China, India, and Brazil – have quickly returned to pre-crisis growth levels. This growing inequality in wealth and income takes place at every level of the global economy and has compromised development strategy: elites are now more numerous and more connected to global markets; and they are often more interested in meeting their individual consumption and saving needs than in “national development” missions. This process, combined with the ideological opposition to government action, has led to growth strategies based on zero-sum logic; and these strategies not only preclude asset/income redistribution but ultimately undercut development itself. To renew the possibility of global development, equity must be restored as an explicit goal of policy. One crucial step in this restoration is denaturalizing the growth of income-wealth polarization. The financial sector shows that unregulated markets and institutions often lead to the spread of market instruments that privilege the rich, while engaging in exploitation and asset-stripping of the poor. Discussion will encompass the US subprime crisis, the EU crisis, and the debate over financial exclusion and inclusion.G. Dymskihttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445135http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445135If it is societies (and people) themselves who should develop by their own authentic way and if, on the road to this process of self rescuing, foreign assistance is needed, than additional questions arise: where is external assistance facilitating, and eventually stimulating? What should be the primary task of the government itself, and where are the worst practices of external interventions of spoiling own initiatives of civil society, taking away responsibilities from governments? The actual debate about relevance and desirability of budget aid is a point in case; the – sometimes dominant and patriarchal – role of western foundations and intermediary institutions another one. Here lies one of the central questions in international cooperation.P. Collierhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445134http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445134P.A. Ashleyhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445131http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445131It often seems that the world is caught in an ever denser web of global crises—climate change, energy insecurity, new and resurgent communicable diseases, excessive financial volatility, war and conflict, with migration, water and land scarcity and other challenges already looming on the horizon, set to grab the political spotlight in not too distant a future. Are policymakers losing control? Yes, national policymaking sovereignty has been squeezed is the answer that will be offered for debate in this lecture. But, the good news is: Policymakers are in the process of regaining control. Policymaking is gradually—too slowly, perhaps, but steadily—adjusting to today’s new policymaking realities, notably to the growing importance of global public goods.I. Kaulhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445129http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445129When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, it was by and large seen as a self-evident framework for the relation between the state, individuals and communities, the core goal of the Declaration being the wish to express what 'human dignity' is all about. In many parts of the world however, political systems as of now present a different view of human rights. To what extent are they challenging the universality of human rights and what would be the best way forward to the realization of human rights worldwide?W. van Genugtenhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445126http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445126If the idea of ‘country ownership’ is to help improve aid for development, it needs to be realistic about the likely political drivers of development effort in poor countries. Too much of the current approach to aid effectiveness is based on wishful thinking. This lecture will discuss reasons for not expecting the early emergence of a social contract of a liberaldemocratic type in the poorest developing countries, and therefore for rejecting a ‘best practice’ approach to governance improvement and so-called democratic ownership. Instead, more effort needs to be devoted to recognising more and less developmental types of neo-patrimonial regime and to supporting development in a politically intelligent way. Research from the Africa Power & Politics Programme (www.institutions-africa.org) will be drawn upon to illustrate what this might mean and why it provides the best basis for directing aid towards country-owned development efforts.D. Booth