What Happened at the G20 Summit on Saturday?

Some initial thoughts on the emergency summit in Washington DC, held to respond to the financial crisis. First, some positives: it was the first time the G20 have met at heads of state level. Could this mark the start of the eclipse of the G8, as major developing countries take a seat at a larger table? It still leaves serious concerns about the exclusion of the others (for example South Africa is the sole representative from the whole African continent), but it’s undoubtedly an improvement on the G8. Read More …

What needs to happen at the G20 summit on Saturday

Here’s my op-ed linked to today’s launch of a new Oxfam paper prior to the summit. See the end for some other good sources of policy ideas ahead of the meeting. Read More …

Will we ever be able to talk about limits to growth?

Some challenging discussions on this on the New Scientist website. Here’s an extract from an article by Tim Jackson
‘The Ehrlich equation, I = PAT, says simply that the impact (I) of human activity on the planet is the product of three factors: the size of the population (P), its level of affluence (A) expressed as income per person, and a technology factor (T), which is a measure of the impact on the planet associated with each dollar we spend.
Take climate change, for example. The global population is just under 7 billion and the average level of affluence is around $8000 per person. The T factor is just over 0.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per thousand dollars of GDP - in other words, every $1000 worth of goods and services produced using today’s technology releases 0.5 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. So today’s global CO2 emissions work out at 7 billion × 8 × 0.5 = 28 billion tonnes per year.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated that to stabilise greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere at a reasonably safe 450 parts per million, we need to reduce annual global CO2 emissions to less than 5 billion tonnes by 2050. With a global population of 9 billion thought inevitable by the middle of this century, that works out at an average carbon footprint of less than 0.6 tonnes per person - considerably lower than in India today. The conventional view is that we will achieve this by increasing energy efficiency and developing green technology without economic growth taking a serious hit. Can this really work? Read More …

More good stuff to read on the meltdown

Paul Krugman argues in the New York Times that Obama has to think big on reflation: ‘Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.’

China shows how it’s done. When they decide to spend $586bn to boost the economy, it’s on real stuff like infrastructure, not bank bailouts.

The meltdown gets to Brazil, which had previously considered itself invulnerable.

Dani Rodrik ‘leaks’ the G20 communiqué of his dreams ahead of the big summit on Saturday, and shows how Asia has successfully resisted financial globalization (and is now reaping the benefits).

What has Obama said about aid, development and climate change?

I’m in the US for a couple of weeks to promote the book round universities and thinktanks (details here). But an added bonus is to experience the new mood in Obamerica. I won’t add to the mountain of op-eds and blogs on the global and historic significance of seeing a black family in the White House. Or to the gigabytes of ‘advice’ on what the new administration should do first. Instead let’s look at what he’s said so far on aid, climate change and development. Read More …

Meltdowns compared: Financial v Climate Crises

Some highlights from a thought-provoking exchange with my colleague Sarah Best, who works on private sector and climate change issues.

Similar causes
· The roots of the financial crisis lie in a failure to properly assess risk (e.g. of sub-prime loans), an absence of proper oversight and regulation (e.g. of complex financial instruments) and consumption beyond our needs (e.g. credit, mortgages).  The causes of the climate crisis are similar: decision-makers still do not properly understand the climate risks and what it means for people and planet.  Rules for capping emissions and incentivising greener technology are absent or weak.  We have been using up carbon reserves at an unsustainable rate – getting deeper and deeper into nature’s debt. Read More …

The changing understanding of poverty; the latest on growth diagnostics – 2 new papers to read while you’re awaiting the US election result……

I was saddened to see that the wonderfully named Post Autistic Economics Review has presumably succumbed to political correctness in renaming itself the Real-World Economics Review, but the quality is still great and email subscription is still free. The latest issue has a very handy guide by Paul Shaffer of the University of Toronto to the evolving understanding of poverty. Read More …

Advocacy v Service Delivery in Russia

Contrasting case studies from Oxfam GB’s Russia programme, which has tried different ways of supporting Russia’s estimated 5.6 million disabled people. Traditionally, we have run a microfinance programme which has benefited a total of 40,000 people – 5,500 recipients plus other beneficiaries, such as family members. Total expenditure to date some £2m ($3.1m and falling…..). Recently, however, we tried something different – advocacy. Read More …

Recession, development and climate change: the big picture

This article of mine first appeared in the 25th October issue of the Scotsman.

If the 1930s are any guide, the seismic shock hitting the global economy has a long way to go. First came the plummeting stocks on Wall Street, then the social trauma of mass unemployment, soup kitchens and skid row. But they in turn triggered much deeper changes. Read More …