a) I embrace this critique, urging us to think more carefully b) Some of these objections are fair, but they are also true of aid more broadly - it's dangerous to myopically fixate on any indicator - many Development policies are prescriptive & hypocritical [not just inequality]
-
Show this thread
-
c) I think
@MForstater is creating a straw man... While inequality could fall by curbing elite incomes, I doubt DfID can or would actually support this in practice. DfID would more likely support pro-poor social movements, pushing for fairer markets, politics & societies.pic.twitter.com/BPIaLST9NR
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
d) I read Labour's international development policy a little differently: Basically just saying that income inequality is a problem in L/MICs, and we should increase our support for domestic activists, pushing for redistribution & recognition.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Alice Evans Retweeted Alice Evans
e) Like
@MForstater, I am dismayed and horrified that Labour omits the major benefits of immigration. (and i fear this reinforces, rather than challenges, the nasty xenophobia in our country)https://twitter.com/_alice_evans/status/978258538102493184 …Alice Evans added,
Alice Evans @_alice_evansHi@KateOsamor, I've just read Labour's Vision for International Development: a fairer global economy https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/World_For_The_Many.pdf … There's one weird omission: MIGRATION Mutually beneficial - to families here & abroad. Even more so with
co-operation, eg
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/cultivating-new-bargain-migration-three-recommendations-global-compact … pic.twitter.com/GVmAfpdrdmShow this thread1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @_alice_evans
Hi Alice. Thanks for the thread. I don't think i have created a straw man. I read A World for the Many Not the Few, and took what it said in good in good faith and tried to work out what it meant. (1/...)
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
Currently UK aid governed by a law that says that aid spending must be likely to reduce poverty. Below this DFID has four main objectives (+VFM) (2/...)pic.twitter.com/VSoXjAlysZ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
The proposal is to have a new legal requirement that all aid should be aimed at reducing national inequality as well as reducing poverty. It says that the way this will be addressed is the Palma ratio. And there should be a reduced emphasis on economic growth. (3/...)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
A change in the legal framework for aid is a big deal. I don't think its a straw man to suggest that civil servants will respond (and that by design they would be expected to respond). (4/...)
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @_alice_evans
As
@jonathanglennie 's car race shows the difference between poverty reduction and reducing inequality is to focus attention on those w higher incomes not streaking ahead. Palma looks at the top 10% Otherwise could stick w poverty reduction objective & call for greater focus. (5/2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Presumably what would go would be this stuff: private sector investment, large scale energy, infrastructure, urban planning, commercial agriculture, financial services, CDC (6/..)pic.twitter.com/uB1sWYAMPB
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
More broadly it suggests a zero-sum view of development, and an overoptimistic vision of the potential for internal redistribution to deliver prosperity in countries where almost everyone is poor by global standards (7..)
-
-
Conflating 'global elites' & 'people who would be poor by UK standards' doesn't bode well for honest debate on development. The fact that taking the proposal at face value looks like a straw man suggests it wasn't thought through (8/8) (....also what
@CarterPaddy said)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sure. I'm with you. The top 10% in Bangladesh are not the global elite. Does the doc actually say that? If so, I agree, unhelpful. And I'm with you on the dangers of targets. But the blog didn't read to me like just a critique of the target. Maybe I misunderstood.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.