Your search found 2 Results
The global partnership for development: A review of MDG 8 and proposals for the post-2015 development agenda.
Washington, D.C., Center for Global Development, 2013 Jul.  p. (CGD Policy Paper No. 026)The eighth Millennium Development Goal (MDG 8) covered a ‘global partnership for development’ in areas including aid, trade, debt relief, drugs and ICTs. We have seen progress as well as gaps in the areas which were covered: more aid, but with quality lagging and a link to progress in MDG areas that was weak; a better rich world performance on tariffs but one that misses increasingly important parts of trade; broadly successful debt relief but an agenda on the support for private investment left uncovered; mixed progress on drugs access and absence of a broader global public health agenda; and a global ICT revolution with weak links to the MDGs or a global partnership. Migration, non-ICT technologies, the global environment, and global institutional issues were all completely unaddressed in MDG 8. Looking forward, by 2030, a global compact on development progress linking OECD DAC aid and policy reform to low income countries as target beneficiaries (the implicit model of MDG 8) would be irrelevant to three quarters of the world. Half of the rich world will be in non-DAC countries and the share of aid in global transfers will continue to shrink. Global public goods provision will increasingly require the active participation of (at least) the G20 nations. A post-2015 global partnership agenda should involve a mixed approach to compact and partnership issues: binding ‘global compact’ targets under specific post-2015 sectoral goals focused on the role for aid alongside a standalone global public goods goal with time bound, numerical targets covering trade, investment, migration, technology, the environment and global institutions.
Perspectives on Global Development and Technology. 2004; 3(1-2):131-152.This paper considers influences of globalization on three relevant health policy issues in South Africa, namely, private health sector growth, health professional migration, and pharmaceutical policy. It considers the relative role of key domestic and global actors in health policy development around these issues. While South Africa has not been subject to the overt health policy pressure from international organizations experienced by governments in many other low- and middle-income countries, global influence on South Africa's macroeconomic policy has had a profound, albeit indirect, effect on our health policies. Ultimately, this has constrained South Africa's ability to achieve its national health goals. (author's)