Important: The POPLINE website will retire on September 1, 2019. Click here to read about the transition.

Your search found 4 Results

  1. 1
    323582

    Target the MDGs -- not aid amounts.

    Browne S

    Poverty in Focus. 2007 Oct; (12):6-7.

    Two years ago at Gleneagles, the G8 countries promised to double their aid to Africa. Since then, they have written off a substantial part of the external debt to the largest and oil-richest country, Nigeria. But new aid to the continent has stayed flat. In 2006, while Europe increased its aid, the two largest G8 economies, USA and Japan, reduced theirs. Africa, quite rightly, commands the growing attention of donors. But aid amount targets, both for Africa and globally, are often missed. Does that matter? This article makes four propositions: (i) traditional aid amount targeting is following a false scent in development terms; (ii) supply-driven aid has questionable value; (iii) aid should be more concerned with genuine country-based development goals; and (iv) rich countries should use aid as a means of facilitation, not as patronage. Targeting aid amounts is nothing new. In 1970, the UN set the target of 0.7 per cent of rich countries' Gross National Product (GNP) for Official Development Assistance (ODA). Since then a growing number of donor countries have stated their intention to reach it. The main purpose for setting such targets for aid is to create and sustain a momentum for ODA. While most donors haven't met the target, many have agreed that they should increase assistance to the poor countries. For the politicians of the rich countries and their constituents, therefore, aid volume targeting plays a useful role in reminding governments of their obligations. The two largest donors, however-USA and Japan-are exceptions. (excerpt)
    Add to my documents.
  2. 2
    318922
    Peer Reviewed

    Is G8 putting profits before the world’s poorest children?

    Light DW

    Lancet. 2007 Jul 28; 370(9584):297-298.

    Several affluent countries have announced donations totalling US$1.5 billion to buy new vaccines that will help eradicate pneumococcal diseases in the world's poorest children. Donations from the UK, Italy, Canada, Russia, and Norway launch what many hope will be a new era to ease the burdens of disease and foster economic growth. Yet only a quarter of the money will be spent on covering the costs of vaccines-three-quarters will go towards extra profits for vaccines that are already profitable. The Advanced Market Commitment (AMC), to which the G8 leaders and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have committed, is the difficulty. An AMC is a heavily promoted but untried idea for inducing major drug companies to invest in research to discover vaccines for neglected diseases by promising to match the revenues that companies earn from developing a product for affluent markets. By committing to buy a large volume of vaccine at a high price, an AMC creates a whole market in one stroke. However, no moneyis spent until a good product is fully developed. (excerpt)
    Add to my documents.
  3. 3
    318069
    Peer Reviewed

    Inadequate, but not quite hopeless.

    Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2007 Jul; 7(7):439.

    The 2007 Group of Eight (G8) summit, which took place in Heiligendamm, Germany, on June 6-8, has been described by John Kirton (G8 Research Group, University of Toronto, Canada) as an "emerging centre of democratic global governance". Like many self-appointed elites, the G8 is an idiosyncratic club. The eight started as six in 1975 with a meeting in Rambouillet, France, of the heads of government of France, West Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the USA-the most economically powerful democratic nations. This annual forum for discussion of matters of mutual interest was joined by Canada in 1976, by the European Union in 1977, and by Russia in 1997. Although the G8 nations account for nearly two-thirds of world economic output, the Russian economy is not among the world's top eight, whereas China with the fourth largest economy remains outside the G8 club. (excerpt)
    Add to my documents.
  4. 4
    312909
    Peer Reviewed

    Making G8 leaders deliver: an analysis of compliance and health commitments, 1996 -- 2006.

    Kirton JJ; Roudev N; Sunderland L

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2007 Mar; 85(3):192-199.

    International health policy-makers now have a variety of institutional instruments with which to pursue their global and national health goals. These instruments range from the established formal multilateral organizations of the United Nations to the newer restricted-membership institutions of the Group of Eight (G8). To decide where best to deploy scarce resources, we must systematically examine the G8's contributions to global health governance. This assessment explores the contributions made by multilateral institutions such as the World Health Organization, and whether Member States comply with their commitments. We assessed whether G8 health governance assists its member governments in managing domestic politics and policy, in defining dominant normative directions, in developing and complying with collective commitments and in developing new G8-centred institutions. We found that the G8's performance improved substantially during the past decade. The G8 Member States function equally well, and each is able to combat diseases. Compliance varied among G8 Member States with respect to their health commitments, and there is scope for improvement. G8 leaders should better define their health commitments and set a one-year deadline for their delivery. In addition, Member States must seek WHO's support and set up an institution for G8 health ministers. (author's)
    Add to my documents.