On June 11th, 2014 the Center for International Private Enterprises hosted a panel discussion entitled “Strengthening Democracy through Economic Reform In Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities.” Last May, the Pakistani Peoples Party (PPP) became the first democratic government to serve out a full term in the country’s 66-year history of independence. This historic accomplishment created a great deal of optimism and speculation about democracy and development in Pakistan. In light of this accomplishment, it may be important to question how successful democracy has been effective in Pakistan and whether or not democracy has promoted development.
The recent terrorist attack at the Karachi Airport, the arrest of Pakistani political leader Altaf Hussain in the UK, and the Karachi Riots in 2010 only highlight a share of the complicated political, economic, and social issues shaking the country’s fragile security. According to the panelists, the outlook for Pakistan is very pessimistic, unless the government recognizes these issues and takes action as soon as possible. According to Dr. Ehtisham Ahmad of the London School of Economics, the Pakistani government must address two core issues: the financing of political parties, and the management of state finances. The PPP and PLMN have both neglected these major issues, hindering institutional and political development.
The lack of a formal mechanism for funding political parties has led to politicians looking for funding from wealthy groups and individuals. As a result, purchasing votes and favors has become a regular occurrence. These factors have created an inefficient and corrupt tax system that does not generate revenue or demographic information. In order for a democratic country to run properly, tax revenue and demographic information is heavily relied upon. According to panelist Moin Fudda of CIPE Pakistan, the government missed its tax collection target by 77% last year, which indicates a need for major reform. The graph below displays tax revenue for Pakistan and similar countries in South Asia. The data shows the decline of tax revenue in Pakistan over the last sixteen years to one of the lowest tax revenue percentages in South Asia.
The population living below the poverty line has been hit the hardest. The central government has given the provinces the responsibility of providing public services for its citizens, such as healthcare and education, but the inefficient tax system has left them without enough funding. The provinces have no way of providing viable public services unless they do not pay taxes, inevitably leading to a tax war within the government. This inability to provide basic services has also hindered development.
Dr. Ahmad stresses that these issues need to be tackled immediately, but Pakistan has quite shockingly done nothing to find a viable solution. If the Pakistani government won’t act, then what else can be done to remedy the situation? Dr. Ahmad believes that foreign investors can press for a level playing field in order to incentivize reform. The Pakistani government needs to implement a strong corporate income tax and provide public services for the poor, especially education. Most importantly, these core issues must be taken seriously by the government, and the population must strongly push for reform and public services. Despite these issues, the economy has performed quite well and has seen solid growth in the past four years according to the data below.
At a time when political and economic unrest is very high, people are wondering whether this growth is due to the development of an informal economy that is quietly keeping the formal economy afloat . This question is of great relevance and will unfold in the near future as the political demographics of the country either stabilize or spin out of control.
China’s Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) sector has long been surveilled, regulated, and suppressed by the central government. But there is now a gleam of hope: the Third Plenum of the 18th Congress Party adopted a reformist decision on November 12, 2013, signaling a possible willingness to extending the role of NGOs under the Xi Jinping administration. The Decision highlighted “social governance” to delineate the country’s governing order, acknowledging the significance of a mutual assistance between the government and the people.
In fact, the gesture of relaxed control over NGOs was looming even before this official pronouncement. In just the past 25 years, over 50,000 officially registered NGOs have emerged, and Karla Simon, an author of “Civil Society in China” expects this number to double in the next two years or so. Until 2011, NGOs were required to have a state sponsor to officially register with the government. Nonetheless, the government has eased this rule, and some even say that they encourage organizations to have a non-state sponsoring agency.In China, all NGOs must, by law, be registered with local governments, but the reality tells a different story. There are approximately 1.5 million unregistered NGOs, constantly mounting in number and influence. Although those that deal with overtly contentious or subversive political issues remain on local governments’ radar, the array of causes the government condones has significantly increased as well.
Behind this increasing tolerance is political and social decay that has almost coerced the government into allowing its people more participation in governance. Politically, it has become difficult for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to legitimatize its monopolistic rule. Since the erection of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, the CCP’s legitimacy depended on its strict adherence to the socialist ideology, a consummation of Chinese culture. Since the party adopted a market economy which contradicted socialist roots during the 1989 reform, it has constantly refurbished its new economic framework as necessary ‘pragmatism.’ Yet, the party’s intensive reinforcement of a capitalist economy has inevitably breached on socialist tenets and jeopardized people’s trust in the government.
The CCP has also failed to provide its people the ‘iron rice bowl.’ China’s breakneck urbanization and dependence on global markets have led to many social problems including environmental pollution, land confiscation, food scarcity, and shortages of labor resources and public services. In response, inclusive and innovative ways to participate in governance have been introduced by a new middle class less confined by the socialist ideology. The government has little ground to push ahead with in its complete clampdown on Chinese civil society, and they also surprisingly believe in NGOs for their ideas, practical, hard-worn knowledge of social problems, and ability to gain local people’s trust. In short, the economic and social problems that have been limiting people’s lives are now, in the new front, a source of liberty to the people and fetters to the government.
There are still more restrictions and limitations than freedom and potentials. Of the 50,000 official NGOs, most are still quasi-government organizations affiliated with government agencies. Organizations committed to politically subversive subjects cannot be officially recognized. In regards to the government’s intentional oversight over unofficial grassroots NGOs, some argue that there are hidden rules of “no recognition, no banning, no intervention” that implicitly manipulate and restrict organizations’ operations. NGOs are largely seen as a temporary tool for the CCP to realize its ends.
The Third Plenum’s edict does mean a thumbs-up for reforms that have been going on in the NGO sector. With no specific blueprint on how the 18th National Congress will implement laws and regulations, however, the future of Chinese civil society still remains a question in the long-run.
Around the world, Brazil is known as the mecca of soccer. The country is loaded with magnificent soccer talent and has an electrifying atmosphere that makes soccer fanatics feel at home. Not to mention that Brazil has won the FIFA World Cup a record five times, and is the only country to have qualified for the World Cup every year since the tournament’s inception. One could not dream up a more soccer obsessed nation to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup that began this week. However, the current tension in the political, economic, and social atmosphere of Brazil has given the rest of the world an apprehensive feeling about this year’s tournament.
Political tension in Brazil has risen in recent years, as a majority of the county is unhappy with the government due to inflation, corruption, and the massive investment of public funds in World Cup preparations instead of Public Programs for the poor, who are in dire need. The estimated cost of the 2014 FIFA World Cup is currently at $11.5 billion. All this unrest comes at a time when Brazil has one of the most unequal wealth distributions in the world, currently entertaining a Gini Index of 54.7, along with a struggling economy. Some Brazilians hope that the World Cup will promote progress, while others worry that the event will push Brazil’s economy over the edge. It also gives rise to the question of whether the World Cup will only benefit the wealthy and further increase the gap between the rich and poor?
According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, 61% of Brazilians believe that hosting the World Cup will be detrimental to the economy as it diverts public spending away from public services. 67% also believe that the economy is in bad shape, which increased from 41% last year. Milton Hatoum, a writer from Manaus, asked: “Why does a city like Manaus need an expensive and luxurious stadium when a few meters away there’s a neighborhood, Alvorada, without sidewalks and treated sewage?”
The long-term social and economic effects of a mega-event such as the World Cup should be analyzed. To predict the path that Brazil may follow, it is helpful to take a look at the economic performance of similar World Cup host countries after the tournament. Their political, social, and economic atmospheres may vary, but this is the most direct and simple way to present the possible future outcomes for Brazil. The figures below display indicator data from the World Bank, showing the economic growth of Argentina, Mexico, France, and South Africa since they hosted the tournament:
It’s worth noting that Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa are more similar to Brazil’s economy and social structure compared to France. Argentina, Mexico, and South Africa all show a sudden rise in GDP Growth Rates, GDP, and GNI following their host year. In all four cases, the indicators suggest a short-term rise in GDP growth, followed by a decline. This gives rise to the heavily debated question of whether or not FIFA World Cup host countries see sustained long-term growth or temporary ripple effect growth following the event.
As we look ahead past this year’s FIFA World Cup, it will be interesting to see how Brazil’s economy fares. Our hope is that the result is a positive one, as the country’s economy is in need of repair. Hopefully the World Cup this summer gives the country’s economy a much-needed boost. At this point, the world will just have to wait and see.
On April 30th, one of the major problems plaguing the economic world was partially rectified overnight. The International Comparison Project at the World Bank revised their purchasing power parity (PPP) data for 2011. PPP is a measure to balance the exchange rate between countries based on the purchasing power of of their currencies. PPP is calculated through a basket of goods. For example, if the Thai Baht is able to purchase more food relative to the US dollar, the PPP adjusts accordingly.
One of the geopolitical implications of this change is that China’s economy is now larger than anticipated. The Economist reported that China’s PPP exchange rate is 20% larger than previously considered. This tweak of numbers means that, depending on estimates, China is the largest economy or will shortly be the largest economy in the world. Certain caveats need to be remembered, mostly that numbers self-reported by China always need to be taken with a grain of salt. That being said, the rebalancing is a reminder of what the future holds in store.
China’s inevitable rise is not the only news to come out of the International Comparison Project’s report. PPPs for 199 countries were redone, including most of the world’s developing countries. Sarah Dykstra, Charles Kenny, and Justin Sandefur from the Center for Global Development analyzed the numbers in the report and found an astonishing fact. Based on the new PPPs, global absolute poverty in 2010, defined as living on $1.25 a day, dropped from 19.7% to 11.2%. For example, Bangladesh’s GDP PPP per capita increased from $1,733 to $2,800. This revision caused 247.9 million Indians to no longer be below the absolute poverty line. It also means that more of the world’s absolute poor are now concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa, increasing from 28% of global absolute povery to 39%. The reason for these drastic changes in figures is that inflation rates rose faster than the prices in the baskets of goods used in PPP calculations, which has been adjusted in the new 2011 numbers.
While this may seem incredible, it merely reflects a statistical change in measurement. There is still no consensus on whether $1.25 a day is the right measure to use for determining absolute poverty, even if it is adjusted for PPP. Other indicators have been proposed over the years. The most famous is the UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI), attempting to include health and education along with GDP per capita. After examination, this was considered insufficient because it didn’t fully encapsulate the deprivations that poor people in developing countries face. The UNDP developed the Multidimensional Poverty Index, attempting to include things like the percent of the population that lacks a floor or clean water. As this is based on survey data, only 104 countries are included in the Multidimensional Poverty Index.
Another argument is that the difference between somebody with an income of $1.25 a day and $1.26 a day is not even negligible. Many suggest raising the line at which we measure poverty above the $1.25 a day of absolute poverty and the $2 a day of extreme poverty, with Lant Pritchett suggesting using $15 a day as the international line. What people in poor countries purchase is also vastly different from what people in developed countries purchase, negating some of the benefits of PPP. Poverty lines also vary between countries, so there have been advocates to change the global poverty line to be adjusted more frequently and be comprised of an average of developing countries.
This adjustment through PPP does not change the lives of those who are still living in poverty, whether their measured status changed or not by the new report by the ICP. They will still struggle to buy food and pay for school uniforms for their children, just as before. However, measuring global levels of poverty will remain important, as that which is measured gets fixed.
A new book by French economist Thomas Piketty has been causing quite a stir in academic circles over the past year. Now, with the translated publication of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that fervor is about to spill out of the ivory towers and onto the streets. Piketty’s book ambitiously tackles the topic of economic inequality. His central thesis, in absolute simplest terms, is that the very rich are getting richer and the poor are staying put. Those who rely on wage income for their wealth (the middle class and the poor), Piketty argues, are not likely to see their lot improve in the near future. The very rich, who do not rely on wage income because they have capital in the form of real estate, financial assets, businesses, or patents, will continue to see their wealth skyrocket into the twenty-first century. Ultimately, if capital growth continues to exceed overall economic growth, Piketty worries that this striking imbalance will cause the breakdown of democratic institutions and the social fabric of society.
Whether or not one agrees with his final premise, Piketty has done his fair share of research and is well respected within the economics field. While studying at the prestigious École Normale Supérieure and subsequently while teaching at MIT, Piketty began to collect historical data on income and wealth, something that economists at the time neglected to do. Although Capital in the Twenty-First Century was written for a global audience, Piketty has the data to back up his findings, though it has not gone without criticism. Most of Piketty’s harshest critics paint him as Marxist or Communist, when in reality he is merely challenging certain aspects of the current free market system – the part that contributes to a great deal of economic inequality. But any work that deals with inequality is bound to get political. And as Piketty notes in an interview with the New York Times, he is welcoming the debate.
Piketty’s ideas for solving this rising inequality are perhaps the weakest part of his argument. In his book he calls for a global tax on wealth that is at best impossible and at worst extremely out-of-touch with the political realities that frame any worthy discussion of policy prescriptions in developed countries. But we should not shrug off his work because of his ideas on policy. Piketty succeeds in collecting and presenting decades of historical data on an issue that has come to define the early twenty-first century. Working as an economic archaeologist, Piketty has made some fascinating discoveries. He has dug up a set of evidence that captures in a new light the increasing economic inequality today. His work is best read as a challenge to our current paradigm of economic inequality, not as a revolutionary tale of two cities.
With the end of the Millennium Development Goals in sight, there was much consternation about whether the MDGs would be a success. Even more important, there was more introspection among the the aid community about how to deliver their aid more effectively. From this soul-searching sprang the High Level Fora on Aid Effectiveness. After meetings in Paris, Accra, and Busan, a new agenda was adopted to include more country ownership of development, focus on results, inclusive partnerships, including civil society organizations and the private sector, and transparency and accountability.
These meetings did not end with Busan. Recently in Mexico City, the First High Level Meeting of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) was convened on April 15-16th. For the most part, the GPEDC reaffirmed their goals and principles, along with collaborating with other organizations, such as the United Nations Development Cooperation Forum. A large portion of increased advocating was centered on transparency, civil society organizations, and a stronger emphasis on results-based approaches. The GPEDC increasingly recognizes that Middle Income Countries (MIC) still contain sizable populations of poverty, necessitating plans and strategies to continue aid to MICs in more targeted ways. They also increasingly recognized the importance of South-South cooperation, business, and philanthropic organizations.
Even though this was a two day event, 38 separate voluntary initiatives were agreed upon at the GPEDC. A couple of the voluntary initiatives stand out in particular. The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), proposed a number of initiatives, one of which has been talked about in the past: development impact bonds. Development impact bonds allow investors to invest in development outcomes, with aid agencies compensating investors for meeting goals. While this has largely been the realm of theory, DFID announced that they are going to issue the first development impact bond. This commitment is a £1.5 million deal to design the development impact bond offering. Another organization, Instiglio, is working on a DIB to fund girls’ education in Rajasthan, India, with UBS Optimus Foundation investing, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation paying out, and Educate Girls implementing. These would be the first two instances of these particular products, marking the start of a possible new tool in the development toolbox.
Another voluntary initiative announced at GPEDC was the Guidelines for Effective Philanthropic Engagement. This initiative, supported by the OECD Global Network of Foundations Working for Development (netFWD), European Foundation Centre (EFC), Stars Foundation, UNDP, and Worldwide Initiative for Grantmakers Support (WINGs) is set of voluntary, non-binding guidelines to aid collaboration between philanthropies and other stakeholders, including governments. These guidelines are grouped under three main themes: dialogue, data & knowledge sharing, and partnering. For dialogues, the initiative focuses on engaging in multi-level dialogues with all stakeholders while focusing on philanthropic foundations’ comparative advantage of risk tolerance and responsiveness. The initiative also emphasizes sharing data and knowledge between philanthropic organizations and governments about spending, inputs, due diligence assessments, impact evaluations, and others. Lastly, the Guidelines for Effective Philanthropic Engagement acknowledges the varied nature of philanthropic organizations, from large foundations like the Gates Foundation to small local foundations. Therefore, the Guidelines emphasize engaging in more partnerships and empowering local partners, utilizing all the tools available to philanthropic organizations to leverage the comparative advantage of each partner.
This was the first of many meetings that should be taking place over the future. 38 voluntary initiatives is a large amount to carry out. Many of them are commendable goals, including the Development Impact Bonds and the Guidelines for Effective Philanthropic Engagement. As these are voluntary and non-binding, only time will tell of the efficacy and sustainability of everything undertaken, but it’s an interesting and promising step forward.
On Thursday, April 17, the Center for Global Prosperity had the pleasure of hosting an event, “Philanthropy for Civil Society in Pakistan”, with CEO of the Aga Khan Foundation, Dr. Mirza Jahani, Chairman of the Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy, Shamsh Kassim-Lakha, and CGP’s Director Carol Adelman. The panelists spoke on topics ranging from the recent growth of civil society in Pakistan to the impact of economic development on future philanthropy.
One very interesting point Lakha made was the pervasiveness of a giving culture in Pakistan and the importance of leveraging that community giving to strengthen civil society. He spoke about how Muslim culture has an ethos of giving that Pakistanis take very seriously. According to Lakha, approximately 80% of Pakistanis participate in some form of philanthropy, whether it be through monetary donations, volunteering, or both. These are levels equal to the US, one of the most philanthropic populations in the world. To further illustrate his point, he spoke of how 28% of those participating in philanthropy live on $2 a day.
Throughout the discussion, Lakha placed special emphasis on the growing role of civil society. He claimed that as Pakistani civil society develops, citizens would increasingly rely on it to fill the government gap in providing social services. Because of this, Pakistan must find a way to leverage the philanthropic culture to promote civil society growth. It is not enough to just participate philanthropy, Pakistan must find a way to develop and apply this philanthropic culture in a systematic and effective way.
Dr. Jahani made an intriguing comment on the current organization of philanthropy in Pakistan. He claimed that it fell into two camps: pure philanthropy and pure investment. He argued that in order to leverage the philanthropic culture, Pakistan must find a way to fill the gap between these two approaches. Both philanthropy and investment are needed in the development of civil society but often seem to be at odds. Philanthropy has the perception of being perfectly altruistic while investment is about the investor’s monetary returns. How can these two approaches that seem at complete odds work in conjunction with one another?
Some argue that impact investment could be the connection between pure philanthropy and pure investment. Simply stated, impact investment is strategic investments companies make for financial gain that also have a social or environmental improvement goal. Impact investment gained popularity last year when it became a focus at the G8 Social Impact Investing Conference and the Aga Khan Foundation has had an impact investment initiative since 2011. In 2012 alone, companies donated more than $8 billion to impact investment. It is a way for companies to increase profits while also earning public goodwill.
Because impact investment primarily occurs through private corporations, the concept connects strongly to the economic development of Pakistan. During the discussion, Lakha pointed out that the economies of developing nations are growing at a faster rate than those in high-income countries. This means an increase in overall philanthropy and investment in Pakistan. He argued that corporate philanthropy is becoming increasingly important and will be critical to the development of a strong civil society. While an increase in philanthropy is a desirable trend, through impact investment Pakistani corporations could scale up the impact and returns of its investments through a single action. If Pakistani corporations catch on to the impact investment trend, Pakistan might see a large increase on its returns on investment, both on the economic and social ends. Now the country must figure out the best approach to encouraging impact investment.
If you would like to listen to the entire discussion on “Philanthropy for Civil Society”, please click here.