Session of the Second World Summit for Social Development in Doha

By Isabel Ortiz
DOHA, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

Qatar hosted the Second World Summit for Social Development from 4–6 November. According to the United Nations, more than 40 Heads of State and Government, 230 ministers and senior officials, and nearly 14,000 attendees took part. Beyond plenaries and roundtables, more than 250 “solution sessions” identified practical ways to advance universal rights to food, housing, decent work, social protection or social security, education, health, care systems and other public services, international labor standards, and the fight against poverty and inequality.

In these difficult times for multilateralism, the summit delivered a global agreement, the Doha Political Declaration, that many feared would not materialize. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the text a “booster shot for development,” urging leaders to deliver a “people’s plan” that tackles inequality, creates decent work and rebuilds social trust.

Isabel Ortiz

Even so, veteran voices urged pragmatism. Both the Copenhagen Declaration and Doha’s recommitment are workable texts to advance social justice. While not the ideal many hoped for, the Doha outcome addresses the key issues—and, above all, constitutes an international consensus adopted by all countries amid a crisis of multilateralism.

Juan Somavía, former UN-Under Secretary General and a driving force behind the 1995 Summit, welcomed the Doha’s Declaration as a meaningful foundation to move the agenda forward. Roberto Bissio, coordinator of Social Watch and a lead participant in Copenhagen, added “Let’s revive hope in these turbulent times… Now in Doha our governments are renewing their pledges of three decades ago, and adding new commitments that we welcome, to reduce inequalities, to promote care and to ensure universal social protection, which is a Human Right.”

However, Somavia, Bissio and many UN and civil society leaders in Doha, also stressed the distance between pledges and delivery. The pressure mounted through the week. At the closing, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed said that the message from unions, civil society and youth was unequivocal: people expect results, not rhetoric. “The outcomes of this Summit provide a strong foundation,” she said. “What matters most now is implementation.”

The test now is whether governments will translate the Doha declaration into action: budgets, laws and programs that reach people. Magdalena Sepulveda, Director of UNRISD, called for bold political action: “What we need now is that states are going to take the political will to implement the Doha Declaration in a swift manner with bold measures.”

The trend, however, is moving the other way, as many governments adopt austerity cuts and have limited funding for social development. More than 6.7 billion people or 85% of the world’s population suffer austerity, and 84% of countries have cut investment in education, health and social protection, fueling protests and social conflict. “The concept of the welfare state is being eroded before our eyes in the face of an ideological commitment to austerity and a shrinking state” said Amitabh Behar, Executive Director of Oxfam International. “A wave of youth-led Gen Z protests is sweeping the world. A recurring slogan during the recent protests in Morocco was ‘We want hospitals, not stadiums’… Public services are being dismantled while wealth is hoarded at the top. The social contract will not survive this neglect.”

The good news is that governments do have ways to finance the Doha commitments. Austerity is not inevitable; there are alternatives. There are at least nine financing options for social development: raise progressive taxes (such as on corporate profits, finance, high wealth, property, and digital services); curb illicit financial flows; reduce or restructure debt; increase employers contributions to social security and formalize employment; reallocate spending away from high-cost, low-impact items such as defense; use fiscal and foreign-exchange reserves; increase aid and transfers; adopt more flexible macroeconomic frameworks; and approve new allocations of Special Drawing Rights. In a world awash with money yet marked by stark inequality, finding the funds is a matter of political will. In short: austerity is a choice, not a necessity.

History will not judge Doha by its communiqués but by whether the promises made—on rights, jobs and equity—reach people. Implementation is feasible, as there are financing options even in the poorest countries. If leaders go ahead, Doha will be remembered not as an echo of 1995, but as the moment words gave way to action.

Isabel Ortiz, Director, Global Social Justice, was Director at the International Labor Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and a senior official at the UN and the Asian Development Bank.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Isabel Ortiz
NEW YORK, Apr 24 2025 (IPS)

The Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) will bring world leaders together to forge a new international consensus on how to finance a better future for all. Yet, in practice, the first drafts of its outcome reveal a glaring omission: people. Despite rhetoric about inclusivity, the drafts are strikingly weak on social issues, as if financing and macroeconomic policies exist in a vacuum, detached from the lives they impact.

This is not just an oversight—it’s a continuation of a decades-long mistake in economic policymaking, where abstract macroeconomic principles have been always prioritized over human welfare, inflicting suffering on billions. “Must we starve our children to pay our debts?” asked Julius Nyerere, former president of Tanzania, in the 1980s. Today, 3.3. billion people live in countries that spend more on debt service than health and education, and 6.7 billion endure austerity cuts. For too long, neoliberal economic policies have treated people as an afterthought.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr

The FfD4 outcome risks perpetuating this terrible legacy. While drafts pay lip service to social issues, they generally fail to incorporate them in the recommendations of each of the main sections: domestic public finance; private finance; development cooperation; trade; debt; international financial architecture and systemic issues; science, technology, data and monitoring. Notably, the main beneficiaries of the private finance section are foreign investors and corporations!

The time for excluding people is over. The FfD4 must put people at the center of its agenda to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and becoming irrelevant. Governments and international institutions must recognize that macroeconomic and financial decisions have profound social impacts—and act accordingly. The final outcome should include commitments to:

Isabel Ortiz

2. Domestic finance revenues: Introduce more progressive taxation with effective international tax cooperation. Revenue raising is essential for social priorities but should not rely on taxation of those with lower incomes – such as consumption tax – but on those with the means – such as taxes on wealth, windfall profits and corporate income. End loopholes by eliminating tax havens and illicit financial flows, as well as by adopting the UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation to stop corporate tax dodging. Gender-responsive budgets must be implemented to ensure that both revenues and expenditures accrue to women – half of the world’s population.

3. Private finance: Ringfence social infrastructure and services from private financing. Privatization and Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) of public services have repeatedly failed, leading to higher costs, reduced access, and poorer services. Public investment, not privatization, is the key to equitable and resilient social systems. Mandate human rights due diligence for private investors (binding rules, not voluntarism), with accountability, enforcing penalties for private actors that undermine labor/environmental standards.

4. Trade: Allow policy space to Global South countries to protect local industries and food sovereignty, and subject trade agreements to social impact assessments (SIAs) to evaluate their effects on employment, inequality, gender, and access to goods and services. Abandon investor-state dispute systems (ISDS) that override public interest. Trade policies must maximize social benefits and mitigate adverse impacts.

5. Debt: Establish a fair and transparent UN debt workout mechanism to effectively reduce illicit sovereign debts and incorporating human rights into Debt Sustainability and Debt Restructuring Assessments, ensuring that debt service does not result in social spending cuts.

6. Technology: Tax Big-Tech and address the negative social impacts of Artificial Intelligence (AI), such as job displacement and wealth concentration. Adequate social protection measures must be enacted for those affected by job losses, and AI-driven profits must be taxed to redistribute benefits back to society.

7. International financial architecture: Reform the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to shift voting power to Global South and to end their support to austerity policies: The IMF as well as the MDBs must stop promoting regressive reforms and austerity measures that harm people. Adjustment programs, as well as surveillance policy advice, often cut/rationalize necessary benefits for women, children, persons with disabilities, pensioners, and the unemployed, just for cost-savings, leaving only a minimal safety net for the poorest. These measures violate human rights law, including labor standards, approved by all countries: the IMF and the MDBs should align themselves with them. Additionally, a fairer and periodic distribution of IMF Special Drawing Rights should be allowed, without policy conditionalities, to fund human rights and sustainable development goals (SDGs).

8. Data, monitoring and follow-up: Strengthen data systems to assess the social impacts and distributional effects of financing policies. This includes disaggregated data by, at least, gender and income group. If analysis reveals that the majority of people are not the primary beneficiaries or that human rights are undermined, policies must be revised to ensure equitable development.

The FfD4 outcome is an opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. Governments must recognize that financing for development is not just about balancing budgets or stabilizing economies —it’s about improving citizens’ lives. If the outcome document fails to prioritize social issues, it will not only betray the promise of the financing for development process but also perpetuate current systemic inequalities.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of international Affairs at The New School in New York, is a former director at the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

Isabel Ortiz, Director of the Global Social Justice, is a former director of the International Labor Organization and UNICEF, and a former senior official at the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Opening of the World Social Forum 2024 in Kathmandu

By Isabel Ortiz
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Feb 23 2024 (IPS)

This week the 2024 annual meeting of the World Social Forum (WSF) was held in Nepal. There were fifty thousand participants from over 90 countries, exchanging strategies to address the multiple global crises, from climate catastrophes to unfettered capitalism, inequality, social injustice, wars and conflict.

The WSF was created in 2001 as a counterbalance to the elitism of the World Economic Forum (WEF). The WEF, founded and chaired by a private financial sector foundation, fosters the influence of the corporate world among governments in the luxury ski resort of Davos (Switzerland).

Isabel Ortiz

By contrast, the WSF was created as an arena for alternative thinking, where the grassroots and social avant-garde could gain a voice, challenging the neoliberal idea that “there is no alternative” (TINA); instead affirming that “another world is possible” built upon peace, human rights, real democracy, equity, and justice.

While Davos is the meeting for the 1%, the wealthiest people in the planet, Kathmandu is the meeting for the rest of us. The UN Secretary-General extended his best wishes for WSF 2024 for “restoring hope and finding innovative solutions for people and the planet.”

Indeed, the WSF 2024 was hotbed of ideas, alternative experiences and strategies. There is no concluding summary or annual declaration because the WSF organizers seek to maintain a plurality and diversity of messages. The following points reflect my personal overview of the key topics discussed:

• Denouncing the genocide in Gaza,

• a demand for an immediate ceasefire and the establishment of a free state of Palestine.

• Refuse militarization and wars: Cut military spending and power, promote peace and democracy. Defense spending is increasing while austerity policies cut social spending, this trend must be reversed.

• Organize against the rise of the far right: Radical right governments around the world have eroded democracy, human rights and civil society. Reports were made of censorship, repression, abuses of justice, unjustified raids and unfair imprisonment of progressive citizens, by the governments of Modi in India, Duterte in Philippines, Orban in Hungary, Duda in Poland, Al-Sisi in Egypt, Trump in the US, Bolsonaro in Brazil, among others There were also many reports of abusive litigation by corporations and politicians against journalists, activist researchers and CSOs, that are silencing critical voices.

• Fight inequality to counter the excessive concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a small elite. Inequality is the result of deliberate political and economic choices, and it can be reversed to build a just, equal and sustainable world.

• End Austerity, illegitimate debt and neoliberal economic policies that have failed citizens resoundingly. These outdated policies, imposed by international financial institutions (IFIs) like the IMF and the World Bank through the Ministries of Finance and G20, mostly benefit corporations and investors in the US and in a few Northen countries, result in real and lasting harm to the lives of ordinary people. There are alternative economic policies, such as the adequate taxation of wealthy millionaires and corporations, that can finance prosperity for people and planet.

• Redress violations of human rights for women, Dalits (the ‘untouchables’) and lower castes, LGBT, persons with disabilities and different ethnicities; demanding enactment and implementation of inclusive policies and strategies to eliminate class, caste, gender and race-based disparities.

• The 2024 Feminist Forum focused on addressing systemic barriers that impede women’s rights, from patriarchy to macroeconomic policies, through transformative feminist action that leads to change.

• Ensure public services, universal social security or social protection, and labor rights for all, including informal workers and migrants, instead of the current austerity driven trend to privatize or corporatize public services, to reduce welfare benefits and to deregulate the labor market.

• Peasant protests and movements: La Via Campesina is the largest movement today with two hundred million peasant members fighting for food security, against agribusiness and GMOs. It is very active, has alliances with unions, indigenous peoples’ movements and it is a good model for other movements.

• Climate Justice: A number of sessions discussed climate catastrophes, the IFIs support for fossil fuels, just transitions, habitat, and sustainable development.

The lack of will of the world’s political and economic elites to resolve today’s multiple crisis fuels discontent among citizens and disillusionment with conventional parties. People everywhere are losing faith in governments, institutions, and economic and political systems. Governments and world leaders would do well to listen and to act upon the ideas coming from the World Social Forum.

Isabel Ortiz, Director of the think-tank Global Social Justice, was Director of the International Labor Organization and UNICEF, and a senior official at the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Anti-Austerity protests in 2006-2020. Credit: World Protests Platform

By Isabel Ortiz and Sara Burke
NEW YORK, Jan 13 2023 (IPS)

This week world leaders meet in Davos to discuss cooperation to address multiple crises, from COVID-19 and escalating inflation to slowing economic growth, debt distress and climate shocks.

Only three months earlier, finance ministers had gathered in Washington DC for the same reason. The mood was grim. The need for ambitious actions could not be greater; however, there were no agreements, evidencing the fragility of multilateralism and international cooperation.

Isabel Ortiz

A recent global report alerts of the dangers of a post-pandemic wave of austerity, far more premature and severe than the one that followed the global financial crisis a decade ago. While governments started cutting public expenditures in 2021, a tsunami of budget cuts is expected in 143 countries in 2023, which will impact more than 6.7 billion people or 85% of the world population.

Analysis of the austerity measures considered or already implemented by governments worldwide shows their significant negative impacts on people, harming women in particular. These austerity policies are: targeting social protection, excluding vulnerable populations in need of support by cutting programs for families, the elderly and persons with disabilities (in 120 countries); cutting or capping the public sector wage bill, this is, reducing the number and salaries of civil servants, including frontline workers like teachers and health workers (in 91 countries); eliminating subsidies (in 80 countries); privatizing public services or reforming state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in areas such as public transport, energy, water; reforming hard-earned pensions by adjusting benefits and parameters, resulting in lower incomes for retirees (in 74 countries); (6) labor flexibilization reforms (in 60 countries); reducing employers’ social security contributions, making social security unsustainable (in 47 countries); and even cutting health expenditures despite COVID-19 is not over.

Sara Burke

In recent years, citizens have protested austerity all around the world. A recent study on world protests shows that nearly 1,500 protests in the period 2006-2020 were against austerity. Citizens demand better public services, social protection, jobs with decent wages, tax and fiscal justice, equitable land distribution, and better living standards, among others. Protests against pension reforms, and high food and energy prices have also been very prevalent. Recently, the jobs and cost-of-living crises have been accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in more protests despite lockdowns.

The majority of global protests against austerity and for economic justice have manifested people’s indignation at gross inequalities. The idea of the “1% versus the 99%,” that emerged a decade ago during protests over the 2008 financial crisis, has spread around the world, feeding grievances against elites and corporations manipulating public policies in their favor, while the majority of citizens continue to endure low living standards, aggravated by austerity cuts.

Let’s remember that trillions of dollars have been used to support corporations during the pandemic and to support military spending. Now people are being asked to endure austerity cuts, at a time when they are suffering a cost-of-living crisis. The 2023 meetings in Davos are being faced with new protests and demands to tax the rich.

Unless policymakers change course, we shouldn’t be surprised to see increasing waves of protests all over the world. Clashes in the street are likely to intensify if governments continue to fail to respond to people’s demands and persist in implementing harmful austerity policies. Governments need to listen to the demands of citizens that are legitimately protesting the denial of social, economic and civil rights. From jobs, public services and social security to tax and climate justice, the majority of protesters’ demands are in full accordance with United Nations proposals and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Leaders and policymakers will only generate further unrest if they fail to act on these legitimate demands.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at Joseph Stiglitz’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, former Director at the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF.

Sara Burke is Senior Policy Analyst at Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) New York

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The G20 membership comprises a mix of the world’s largest advanced and emerging economies, representing about two-thirds of the world’s population, 85 per cent of global gross domestic product and over 75 per cent of global trade. The members of the G20 are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

By Matti Kohonen and Isabel Ortiz
LONDON / NEW YORK, Oct 24 2022 (IPS)

Finance ministers of the G20 and the world met in Washington, October 10-16, to discuss how to navigate multiple crises, including rising cost-of-living, broken global supply chains, climate shocks, and the lingering COVID-19 pandemic.

All this weighted heavily on the IMF outlook, pointing to a bleak future ahead.

This is particularly bad news for developing countries. Using IMF data, our research showed that recovery spending in the last two years of the pandemic in the Global South was only 2.4% of GDP on average, a quarter of the level recommended by the UN and a fraction of what rich countries spent.

Meanwhile, only 38% of the total went to social protection, with corporate loans and tax breaks getting the lion’s share.

Things will get worse unless there is a fundamental policy change. This year recovery funds have dried up and, as most countries are heavily indebted, the IMF projects large expenditure cuts.

In 2023, at least 94 developing countries are expected to cut public spending in terms of GDP. Our report estimates that 85% of the world’s population living in 143 countries will live in the grip of austerity measures by 2023, and the trend is likely to continue for years.

Unless these policies are reversed, people in developing countries will suffer as a result cuts to social protection and public services at a time they are most needed, with 3.3 billion people (or nearly half of mankind) expected to be living below the poverty line of US $5.50/day by the end of 2022.

This crisis will affect especially women who received half less COVID-19 recovery funds than their male counterparts.

But the impact goes far beyond women. Elderly pensioners and persons with disabilities will receive lower pension benefits. Workers around the world will see less job security, poorer pay and working conditions as regulations are dismantled.

A recent study on inequality found that the vast majority of countries were making labor markets more flexible to help big corporations. As inflation keeps rising, worsened by higher consumption taxes, families will be much affected while any support they receive will be less due to austerity cuts.

South Africa reflects the crisis of countries falling into the austerity trap. The government provided Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grants of R350 (US$24 in 2021) per month that were instituted at the start of the pandemic, supporting for the first-time low-income individuals who are of working age.

These grants have been extended several times, providing a lifeline for those worst hit by the pandemic.

However, despite the cost-of-living crisis, the government -advised by the IMF- is now considering reducing social expenditures and helping only the most vulnerable, leaving many low-income households without any support. Other austerity measures being discussed include cuts to the salaries of civil servants, and labor flexibilization reforms.

Instead of these austerity cuts, the South African government and the IMF should focus on raising additional revenues to fund social protection and public services, making sure everyone pays taxes, reducing corporate tax loopholes and exemptions, taxing excess profits and wealthy individuals.

Similarly, Ecuador has been shaken by social unrest because of austerity reforms. In 2019, after large riots, the government of Lenin Moreno flew from the capital and had to stop a loan with the IMF that had proposed cuts to subsidies and other austerity reforms.

In 2021, the same austerity policies were proposed again by the IMF, such as cuts to subsidies and public services, reducing social protection and labor regulations.

In 2022, farmers, indigenous men and women, marched again to the capital with pitchforks to join students and workers protesting austerity policies, forcing President Lasso to back down and agree to grant subsidies and other demands.

These are only two examples reflecting the austerity storm gathering around the world. This is extremely unfair and will generate unnecessary social hardship, as populations are struggling with a severe cost-of-living crisis, especially at a time when many countries are losing significant amounts of revenue to tax abuses, illicit financial flows and tax exemptions to large corporates that are wholly unnecessary.

Austerity cuts are not inevitable, there are alternatives even in the poorest countries. Instead of austerity cuts, governments can increase progressive tax revenues, restructure and eliminate debt, eradicate illicit financial flows, and re-allocate public expenditures, among other options.

Policy makers must act on this. All the human suffering and social unrest that austerity inflicts is unnecessary.

Civil society organizations have launched a global campaign to End Austerity, including, among others, ActionAid International, European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), Fight Inequality Alliance, Financial Transparency Coalition and Oxfam International.

Austerity campaign calls on citizens and organizations from all around the world to fight back against the wave of austerity sweeping the globe, supercharging inequality and compounding the effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

Our decision-makers need to wake up and change course. There is no time to lose.

Matti Kohonen is Executive Director of Financial Transparency Coalition; Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at Joseph Stiglitz’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Anti-racism protesters in Brooklyn, New York, demanding justice for the killing of African American, George Floyd. May 2021. Credit: UN News/Shirin Yaseen

By Walden Bello and Isabel Ortiz
NEW YORK, Dec 15 2021 (IPS)

In recent years, the world has been shaken by protests. From the Arab Spring to the social uprisings in Chile and Latin America, the world has seen a dramatic rise in protests. In a polarized world, the COVID-19 pandemic has only accentuated feelings of outrage and discontent.

New research brings evidence of this by analyzing nearly three thousand protests since the beginning of the 21st century, in over a hundred countries covering more than 93 percent of the world population.

Beginning in 2006, there was a steady rise in overall protests each year up to 2020. As the global financial crisis began to unfold in 2007-08, demonstrations increased, and further intensified after 2010 with the worldwide adoption of austerity cuts.

Frustration grew over the lack of decent jobs, inadequate social protection and public services, unfair taxation and a perceived lack of real democracy and accountability of decision makers to the people.

This led to a new and more political wave of protests in 2016, often becoming “omnibus protests” (protests addressing multiple issues) against the political and economic status quo. Polls worldwide reflect dissatisfaction with democracies and lack of trust in governments.

Increasingly, demonstrations are not only the purview of activists and trade unionists, but have become an outlet for the middle classes, women, youths, pensioners, indigenous and racial groups. These citizens do not consider themselves activists and yet they protest because they feel disenfranchised by official processes and political parties.

Decades of neoliberal policies have generated huge inequalities and eroded the incomes and the welfare of both the lower and middle classes, fueling feelings of injustice, disappointment with malfunctioning democracies, and frustration with failures of economic and social development.

Whist the media often portrays protests as sporadic, disorganized riots, most of the world protests studied were planned, with clearly articulated demands. The main cause of discontent (in 1503 protests) relates to the failure of democracies and political systems, lack of real democracy, accountability and justice; corruption; as well as the perceived power of a deep government or oligarchy, sovereignty and patriotic issues; and protests against wars, the surveillance of citizens, and anti-socialism/communism.

A second cause relates to economic justice, expressing grievance and outrage against unequal austerity cuts and policy reforms (1,484 protests), demanding improved jobs, wages and labor conditions, better public services and housing, agrarian and tax justice; and against corporate influence, deregulation, privatization, inequality and low living standards; as well as against pension reforms, high energy and food prices.

The third main cause of protests is the demand for civil rights (1,360 protests) on indigenous and racial rights; women’s rights; labor rights; LGBT and sexual rights; right to the commons (digital, cultural, atmospheric); immigrants’ rights; freedom of assembly, speech, and press; prisoners’ rights and religious issues.

A last cluster of protests encompases demands for global Justice (897 protests) on issues such as environmental and climate justice; against the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the European Union/European Central Bank; against imperialism (United States, China); against free trade or the G20 – demanding a better and more equitable world order.

Not only has the number of protests increased, but also the number of protestors. Crowd estimates suggest that at least 52 events had one million or more protesters.

The period 2006-2020 has evinced some of the largest protests in world history; the largest recorded was the 2020 strike in India against the government’s plan to liberalize farming and labor, estimated to have involved 250 million protestors.

The second decade of the 21st century has also seen a global rise of the far right, attracting dissatisfied citizens to a radical right “counterrevolution” that typically includes an assault on the tenets of liberal democracy by authoritarian leaders.

Falling into this category were the QAnon protests in 2020 in the United States and globally; opposition to Muslims, migrants, and refugees in Europe; and the protests against the Workers Party in Brazil in 2013 and 2015.

While the rhetoric is anti-elite, far right politics does not seek significant structural power change, rather directing the popular fire and fury against minorities, denying rights to migrants, blacks, gays or Muslims, who are depicted as a threat to the jobs, security and values of the majority.

Other rallying cries include calls for personal freedoms (to carry a gun, not to wear a mask, not to be quarantined), nationalism, and the promotion of traditional values. To counter radical right authoritarianism, societies must fight misinformation and expose the contradictions of far right politics.

Nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of protests have made progressive demands for real democracy, civil rights, economic and global justice. Peaceful protests are a fundamental aspect of a vibrant democracy. Historically, protests have been a means to achieve fundamental rights at the national and international level.

While new research shows that global political instability is increasing, there are solutions. Governments need to listen to the grievances coming from protesters and act upon them. The demands of people around the world have much in common and ask for no more than established Human Rights and internationally agreed UN development goals.

Walden Bello is Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton and co-chair of the Bangkok-based progressive institute, Focus on the Global South.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, and former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Map of countries with projected austerity cuts in 2021-2022, in terms of GDP, based on IMF fiscal projections. Credit: I. Ortiz and M. Cummins, 2021

By Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Cummins
NEW YORK and NAIROBI, Apr 15 2021 (IPS)

Last week Ministers of Finance met virtually at the Spring Meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to discuss policies to tackle the pandemic and socio-economic recovery.

But a global study just published by the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, international trade unions and civil society organizations, sounds an alert of an emerging austerity shock: Most governments are imposing budget cuts, precisely at a time when their citizens and economies are in greater need of public support.

Analysis of IMF fiscal projections shows that budget cuts are expected in 154 countries this year, and as many as 159 countries in 2022. This means that 6.6 billion people or 85% of the global population will be living under austerity conditions by next year, a trend likely to continue at least until 2025.

The high levels of expenditures needed to cope with the pandemic have left governments with growing fiscal deficit and debt. However, rather than exploring financing options to provide direly-needed support for socio-economic recovery, governments—advised by the IMF, the G20 and others—are opting for austerity.

Isabel Ortiz

The dangers of early and overly aggressive austerity are clear from the past decade of adjustment. From 2010 to 2019, billions of people were affected by reduced pensions and social security benefits; by lower subsidies, including for food, agricultural inputs and fuel; by wage bill cuts and caps, which hampered the delivery of public services like education, health, social work, water and public transport; by the rationalization and narrow-targeting of social protection programs so that only the poorest populations received smaller and smaller benefits, while most people were excluded; and by less employment security for workers, as labor regulations were dismantled. Many governments also introduced regressive taxes, like consumption taxes, which further lowered disposable household income. In many countries, public services were downsized or privatized, including health. Austerity proved to be a deadly policy. The weak state of public health systems—overburdened, underfunded and understaffed from a decade of austerity—aggravated health inequalities and made populations more vulnerable to COVID-19.

Today, it is imperative to watch out for austerity measures with negative social outcomes. After COVID-19’s devastating impacts, austerity will only cause more unnecessary suffering and hardship.

Austerity is bad policy. There are, in fact, alternatives even in the poorest countries. Instead of slashing spending, governments can and must explore financing options to increase public budgets.

Matthew Cummins

Second, more than sixty governments have successfully restructured/reduced their debt obligations to free up resources for development. Third, addressing illicit financial flows such as tax evasion and money laundering is a huge opportunity to generate revenue. Fourth, governments can simply decide to reprioritize their spending, away from low social impact investments areas like defense and bank/corporate bailouts; for example, Costa Rica and Thailand redirected military expenditures to public health.

Fifth, another financing option is to use accumulated fiscal and foreign reserves in Central Banks. Sixth, attract greater transfers/development assistance or concessional loans. A seventh option is to adopt more accommodative macroeconomic frameworks. And eighth, governments can formalize workers in the informal economy with good contracts and wages, which increases the contribution pool and expands social protection coverage.

Expenditure and financing decisions that affect the lives of millions of people cannot be taken behind closed doors at the Ministry of Finance. All options should be carefully examined in an inclusive national social dialogue with representatives from trade unions, employers, civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders.

#EndAusterity is a global campaign to stop austerity measures that have negative social impacts. Since 2020, more than 500 organizations and academics from 87 countries have called on the IMF and Ministries of Finance to immediately stop austerity, and instead prioritize policies that advance gender justice, reduce inequality, and put people and planet first.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at Joseph Stiglitz’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, former Director at the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF
Matthew Cummins is senior economist who has worked at UNDP, UNICEF and the World Bank.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The year 2020 is ending with the world caught up in an unprecedented human and economic crisis. The pandemic has contaminated 75 million people and killed 1.7 million. With the lockdowns, the global economy has suffered the worst recession in 75 years, causing the loss of income for millions of people. In such a bleak environment, what will the new year bring? Whilst uncertainty is the only certainty, eight points are likely to be key in the year ahead:

Isabel Ortiz

2. More poverty and inequality in 2021
While a few have benefited from the pandemic such as online shops, remote tools/software, pharmaceuticals and medical services – the majority have not. The International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that 590 million full-time jobs were lost during the last half of 2020. Numerous social protection measures have been implemented, but these are insufficient and poverty is increasing in all countries. With forty percent of the world population (3.3 billion people) living below the international poverty line of 5.5 dollars per day, the World Bank estimates that 150 million additional people will fall into extreme poverty by 2021. More public support and progressive taxation are needed to redress these trends. However, so far large corporations have benefited most from the trillions of dollars of COVID19 financial relief and assistance programs, contributing to growing inequalities. Poverty and inequalities will lead to more protests in 2021.

3. More public health but unnecessary austerity cuts
A positive aspect of the pandemic is that the world has realized the need for public health systems – generally overburdened, underfunded and understaffed after a decade of austerity (2010-20). While public health expenditure will continue to rise, many are concerned about the threat of new austerity cuts. The unforeseen costs of the pandemic have caused unprecedented levels of debt and fiscal deficits, and governments may resort to austerity cuts and reforms to public services, instead of looking at alternatives to increase budgets such as wealth taxation, fighting tax evasion and illicit financial flows. Governments choosing austerity in 2021 should expect protests and social unrest, given the negative social impacts.

4. Digitalization and changes in the world of work
The pandemic has accelerated technological change at the workplace. More telework and less office time will prevent women from having to choose between work and family and make fathers more involved in household responsibilities. Studies suggest that 47 percent of US companies will let employees work from home full-time after the pandemic. On the other hand, essential workers such as health workers, cleaning staff, delivery drivers or retail employees, will have more bargaining power in 2021, can press harder for better working conditions.

5. Redressing world disorder
US President-elect Biden will renew multilateralism, the Paris treaty and other international agreements, the defense of human rights and the interests of the Pax Americana. The UN will continue to struggle given low financing. Four years of Trumpism and fake news have left their mark upon the world, and despite democratic attempts to improve world order, 2021 will not yet see a reversal of the trend towards authoritarian nationalist governments – for this, more efforts will be needed to fight polarization, inequality and disinformation. Jihadism will continue to increase in Africa and South Asia.

6. An opportunity on climate change
The world would need to replicate the emissions reductions seen in 2020 during the next decade to curb global warming to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century. However, low oil prices may delay investment in alternative energy sources in 2021, even though these will replace fossil fuels in much of the world in the medium-term.

7. The risk of a new financial crisis will remain high in 2021
With industry and services stagnant, investments went to the under-regulated financial sector, where greater profits were to be made from speculation. Stock markets will remain volatile but likely buoyant, de-linked from the real economy. However, rising bankruptcies means that banking risks will increase significantly in 2021.

8. A new roaring 20s
After a year of lockdowns, people will want to make up for lost time and rush to parties, dinners, festivals, shows, sports and travel as soon as possible. The year 2021 may well flourish into a new summer of love, a creative existential time – carpe diem!

The debate on the possible ways out of the current crisis will continue throughout the year. This is an unprecedented crisis that still could have new turns, and governments are learning by doing. Overall, there are two options. One is the restoration of neoliberal policies, austerity and minimal public services eroding welfare, with limited taxation to the wealthy, that will lead to more inequality and social unrest. The other is a more democratic and socially progressive route, where public policies deliver to citizens, including equitable job-creating economic policies with social protection, financed by progressive taxation, the elimination of tax evasion and illicit financial flows. The coronavirus crisis could be turned into an opportunity to make the world a better, fairer place for all in 2021.

Isabel Ortiz, Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, was Director of the International Labor Organization and UNICEF, and a senior official at the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

This week the world’s Ministers of Finance and Central Bank Governors meet virtually at the 2020 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and decide on the fate of the world.

This year’s gathering is particularly important, given that the world is confronting an unprecedented crisis. Governments are struggling to finance emergency care and urgent socioeconomic support to cope with the COVID19 pandemic.

Isabel Ortiz

While these short-term expenditures are necessary, countries need more than intensive care units, respirators, tests and emergency support. Governments must continue to invest in long-term public health, universal social protection floors, employment-generating activities and other sustainable development goals.

The funding gap remains vast. However, the budgetary capacity or fiscal space is more limited than before COVID19, as pandemic emergency spending has left governments with higher levels of debt and fiscal deficits.

Many countries received support from the IMF’s Rapid Financing Instruments and other arrangements, or obtained additional loans to cope with the COVID19 emergency, leaving them more indebted.

But now the IMF and world financial leaders are talking about “necessary” fiscal consolidation or austerity cuts after the pandemic.

Austerity cutbacks reduce economic activity and worsen living conditions. The pandemic has revealed the weak state of public health systems – generally overburdened, underfunded and understaffed because of earlier austerity policies and privatizations.

Over the last decade, a majority of countries have implemented austerity policies, resulting in negative social impacts. People have suffered inadequate social security reforms that reduced hard-earned benefits; pay cuts and redundancies for teachers, health staff and other civil servants; reductions to subsidies; labor flexibilization reforms that worsened working conditions; privatization of public services; and the targeting and scaling down of social protection benefits, when the world should be scaling up social protection floors.

Sir Richard Jolly

More than 500 organizations and academics from all over the world have signed a statement requesting the IMF to end austerity.

“The IMF has already started locking countries into new long-term austerity-conditioned loan programs in the past few months” says the statement “… and a significant number of the IMF’s COVID-19 emergency financing packages contain language promoting fiscal consolidation in the recovery phase… Instead of austerity cuts, it is critical to create fiscal space and give governments the time, flexibility and support to achieve a sustainable, inclusive and just recovery.”

People are suffering unnecessarily. They were left behind prior to COVID19; they have been severely affected during the pandemic; and, if ministers of finance agree on austerity cuts, they will suffer from the sharp reductions in government expenditure. In the 1980s and 1990s, structural adjustment and austerity became conditions for Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa. The result? Between 1980 and 2000, Latin America had suffered two decades of economic stagnation. In Sub-Saharan Africa, per capita income fell 15 percent.

Poverty and inequality have both increased during the pandemic. Countries now must avoid austerity cuts at all costs, and instead boost social spending. A return to “normal” (pre-COVID19) is not the solution, many were denied a decent living. It is necessary to increase public expenditures and create jobs.

This is feasible. There are alternatives. There are at least eight options for that governments can consider to increase public budgets, instead of austerity.

First, increase tax revenues, in particular -given the growing levels of inequality- increasing progressive income and wealth taxation, corporate taxation including taxes to the financial sector that remains largely untaxed.

Second, increase social security coverage and revenue by bringing workers from the informal economy to the formal sector, thus paying social security contributions – and above all, not cutting employers contributions to social security as sometimes is suggested as this would make social security unsustainable.

Third, fight and claw back illicit financial flows. Substantial public funds are lost to illegal activities such as money laundering and tax evasion. Abating these flows will result in a significant increase in available public funds.

Fourth, if governments need to look at re-allocating public expenditures, austerity cuts to the social sector should be avoided at all costs. Instead, focus must be upon replacing high-cost low-social-impact expenditures such as defense. For example, Thailand have successfully cut military spending to invest in public health.

Fifth, adopt more accommodative macroeconomic frameworks, with some tolerance to inflation and fiscal deficits.

These could be supported by international measures:

Sixth, the IMF should explore reductions in sovereign debt. Given the current high debt levels, it is important to promote debt forgiveness/relief, or at least debt moratoria with restructuring.

Seventh, increases in development aid and transfers, such as the Global Fund for Social Protection Floors.

Eighth, issuing Special Drawing Rights at the international financial institutions, or alternatively issuing fiat money to developing countries via a multilateral consortium under the United Nations to provide liquidity to prevent a global depression.

These policy options are too important to people’s lives to be decided behind closed doors: they must be discussed openly in national dialogue, with all relevant stakeholders, including unions, employers, governments and civil organization.

Austerity can and must be prevented, it is feasible to increase social expenditures and generate jobs. Governments must not accept damaging austerity cuts. Instead of cuts to budgets that have already been pared to the bone, countries can prevent austerity and have significantly larger budgets to fund employment generating economic activities, and bring health and prosperity to all citizens.

Isabel Ortiz, Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, USA, was Director of the International Labor Organization and UNICEF, and a senior official at the United Nations and the Asian Development Bank.

Sir Richard Jolly KCMG is a leading development economist who was named one of the fifty key thinkers globally in this field of economics, Honorary Professor and Research Associate of the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, UK, and a former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN.

On 27 August the World Bank announced that it will suspend the Doing Business Report over data irregularities, until it conducts a review and audit. The halting of the report was welcomed by trade unions, academics and human rights groups.

The World Bank’s Doing Business Report ranks countries based on business regulations in 190 economies. The more regulations are slashed, the better a country does in the ranking. Most indicators are based on a standardized case study such as the conditions facing a small firm in the largest commercial city -this study characterizes the country.

Isabel Ortiz

Global reports that present comparable international statistics are highly valued. For example, the much acclaimed Human Development Report of the United Nations’ Development Program presents national progress on social development through a set of indications updated annually. The Human Development Report serves to create pressure on governments to perform better on education, health and other social development areas by comparing achievements in the basic dimensions of human development across countries.

In contrast, the World Bank’s Doing Business Report undermines social progress and promotes inequality. Since it was launched in 2003, the Doing Business Report has generated outrage for its anti-regulation bias. Inspired by the “Index of Economic Freedom” at the conservative Heritage Foundation, the report has encouraged countries to take part in the “deregulation experience” including reductions in employment protection, lower social security contributions (denominated as “labor tax”) and lesser corporate taxation.

In the report, a country ranks better when its social security contributions are low, that is, when employees have lesser social protection benefits for their families and retire with low pensions. Countries also get better rankings if corporate tax is low, no matter if this will generate further inequality and starve resources for national sustainable development. For example, India has improved in the reports’ international ranking as the government has eroded environmental and labor protections and reduced corporate taxation, resulting in detrimental social impacts.

After the global economic crisis, the Bank suspended the publication’s labor market flexibility indicator. However, the raw data was still published until attention from the US Congress stopped efforts to revive the indicator.

Leo Baunach

In 2013, an independent review panel established by the World Bank’s executive board and led by Trevor Manuel recommended that the use of rankings be discontinued. The panel also recommended the permanent deletion of the labor market flexibility and tax rate indicators, as the latter penalizes countries that require business to pay taxes or make contributions to pensions and other social protection schemes that support households.

The World Bank’s independent review panel also expressed concerns that the report, “tends to ignore the positive effects of regulation”, highlighting “black box” data gaps and “cherry picking” of background papers. A key source of information for the report are surveys completed by corporate consultants and law firms – not businesses engaged in productive activities whose needs are usually different from the ideological prerogatives of the report, such as benefitting from a social protection floor and tax-financed investment in infrastructure.

Not only did Bank management reject almost all the recommendations made by the 2013 independent panel, it continued to use the report to guide programs and loans in developing countries, a fact denounced by civil society think tanks. Meanwhile, questions began to circle about the integrity of report findings.

In January 2018, Paul Romer, the World Bank’s chief economist, said that “political motivation” of Bank staff may have contributed to a decline in Chile’s ranking under the social democratic President Michelle Bachelet. Romer resigned after Bank leadership disavowed his remarks. An audit commissioned by the Bank in 2018 found no evidence of interference, but detailed constant methodological changes that took the meaning out of ranking changes.

Next, it was discovered that a change in methodology (instead of reforms) explains most of India’s rise in the rankings. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi lobbied for favorable methodology, and when rebuffed sought to “game the system” with reforms chosen to artificially increase their rank.

Last week, the report brought the latest scandal. “A number of irregularities have been reported regarding changes to the data in the Doing Business 2018 and Doing Business 2020 reports,” said the World Bank on August 27. This means that interference is suspected in 2017 but not uncovered in the 2018 audit.

Academics, legal experts and trade unions have pointed how the report’s ideological and technical preferences work against economic and social development. The report is even at odds with the evolving approach of the World Bank, such as the “Balancing Regulations to Promote Jobs” manual.

Regardless of data manipulation, the Doing Business Report has always been an act of ideological interference in policymaking. If the Bank clings to this relic, it should at the very least remove the most regressive elements including those on social security contributions and corporate taxation, and follow the recommendations of the 2013 independent review panel.

These blunt indicators are against the Sustainable Development Goals, human rights and international conventions agreed by all countries. Continuing to use the profile and name of the World Bank to promote less worker protections, less social protection benefits and less corporate taxation will only increase inequality and worsen the effects of the COVID19 pandemic. It is time to end the Doing Business Report.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue in New York, and former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF.

Leo Baunach is Director of the Washington Office of the International Trade Union Confederation and Global Unions group.

Credit: United Nations

By Isabel Ortiz
NEW YORK, Jul 28 2020 (IPS)

Failing to help those in most need

COVID19 is devastating on older persons. The numbers are staggering, more than 80 percent of the fatalities due to coronavirus in the US and East Asia occurred among adults aged 65 and over. In Europe and Australia, the figures are even higher, 94 and 97 per cent of the deaths were persons aged 60 and over.

However, when contagions spread, older persons were denied access to beds and ventilators, despite being the most vulnerable group. Human rights experts were alarmed by the decisions made around the use of scarce medical resources in hospitals and intensive care units, discriminating solely based on age. Despite being helpless and most at risk, older persons were not prioritized; they were de facto sacrificed, denied treatment and emergency support.

“Older people have the same rights to life and heath as everyone else. Difficult decisions around life-saving medical care must respect the human rights and dignity of all,” stated the UN Secretary-General, deeply concerned about events during the pandemic.

The silent massacre in care homes

About half of the coronavirus casualties in high income countries were in care homes, though this is an underestimation because originally official death tolls did not include those who had died outside hospitals without a COVID19 test done.

Most countries reported insufficient protective equipment and testing in care homes for both residents and care workers. Thousands were infected of coronavirus in nursing homes, and while some staff heroically worked in dangerous conditions, others did not. Staff absenteeism added to real horror stories.

Isabel Ortiz

For example, in a nursing home in France, 24 persons passed away in only 5 days; they died alone in their rooms of hypovolemic shock, without food or water, because 40 percent of the staff was absent. In Canada, a criminal investigation was launched after 31 residents were found dead, unfed and unchanged at a Seniors’ Residence; after other disturbing cases, the Canadian military had to be deployed to assist and the government is considering to take over all private long-term care institutions.

In Sweden, protocols discouraged care workers from sending older persons to hospitals, letting them die in the care homes. In Spain, when the military were deployed to disinfect nursing homes, they were shocked to find people “completely abandoned or even dead in their beds.” Spain has launched criminal investigations into dozens of care homes after grieving relatives of thousands of elderly coronavirus victims claimed ‘our parents were left to die’.

Families demand justice, suing care services

In Italy’s Lombardy region, a resolution offering 150 euros (US$175) to care homes for accepting COVID19 patients to ease the burden on hospital beds, accelerated the spread of the virus among health workers and residents. Coffins piled up in nursing homes. Families are filing lawsuits for mishandling the epidemic.

In the US, more than 38,000 older persons have died in residences because of COVID19 and many families have filed lawsuits against nursing homes for wrongful death and gross negligence.

In the UK, families of care home residents who died from COVID19 are suing the Health and Social Care Secretary; the claims accuse the government of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights, National Health Service Act 2006 and the Equalities Act.

The multi-billion care industry lobbying to secure immunity against lawsuits

Long-term care is a lucrative and powerful industry. Europe’s care sector is concentrated in the hands of a few large private groups, often run by pension and investment funds. Also in the US, 70 percent of the 15,000 nursing homes are run by for-profit companies; many have been bought and sold in recent years by private-equity firms.

In the US, nursing homes and long-term care operators have been lobbying state and federal legislators across the US to pass laws giving them broad immunity, denying responsibility for conditions inside care homes during COVID19. Nineteen states have recently enacted laws or gubernatorial executive orders granting nursing homes protection from civil liability in connection with COVID19. Nobody is responsible for the suffering of thousands of older persons that died alone in care homes.

A better future: Redressing the deplorable situation of residences and long-term care

Due to the rapidly ageing population, all countries should invest more on health and long-term care services for older persons.

Health system capacity is strained because austerity cuts in earlier years. It was the shortage of beds, staff and equipment that made doctors discriminate against older persons and prioritize those younger, with more chances of survival to COVID19. Governments and international financial institutions must stop mean budget cuts that have condemned many to die, and instead invest in universal public health and social protection systems.

Countries must also invest in quality long-term care services for older persons. Half the world’s elderly lacks access to long-term care. At the moment, governments spend very little on long term care; instead, they have allowed private care services to develop, with minimal regulation. As a result, most older persons have to pay up to 100 percent of long term care out of their own pocket and most cannot afford quality services – a highly unequal system.

Societies have failed older persons during the COVID19 pandemic. Countries must redress this neglect and support survivors by properly regulating, inspecting and investing in quality care services for all older persons.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University in New York, former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF, and former official of the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations.

A favela in Brazil, where the health system is not ready for coronavirus and social distancing difficult.

By Isabel Ortiz and Walden Bello
NEW YORK and MANILA, Apr 22 2020 (IPS)

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has created an unprecedented human and economic crisis. Governments are taking strong actions, enforcing quarantines to reduce contagion, testing populations, building emergency intensive care units. Governments have also launched large fiscal stimulus plans to protect jobs and the economy, as well as temporary social protection programs such as income/food support, subsidies to utilities and care services.

But in many countries, even stronger actions are needed if we are to protect lives and jobs. States must respond adequately to this public emergency. Citizens must question if the measures implemented by their governments are sufficient and adequate.

The following are important issues for citizens and civil society organizations (CSOs) to watch out at the country level:

1. It is time to invest in universal public health, not only emergency support. Given COVID-19, governments are advised to ramp up public health expenditures. Indeed, respirators, tests and masks are necessary, but countries need more than just emergency support. There is a risk that, as governments will become indebted, they continue with austerity cuts and privatizations that have been eroding public health systems in recent years, returning to a situation where millions are excluded from healthcare.



Isabel Ortiz

2. Stimulating the economy and employment. This is much necessary to support job-generating enterprises during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, citizens need to be vigilant that fiscal stimulus do not go to the wrong hands, to large corporations avoiding taxes, to cronies, to the untaxed financial sector. If public funds are given to companies, it should be with strict conditions to stop tax evasion and share buybacks, undergo adequate regulation, cut obnoxious management bonusses, pay living wages and preserve employment.
3. Providing social protection, income and food support to people. These measures are extremely urgent if people are to be quarantined and are unable to telework. In developing countries, most work precariously in the informal economy and isolation is not possible, households will suffer hunger with no income. Given the low living conditions in most developing countries, policymakers should consider the need for universal social protection floors.
4. Governments need more executive powers to implement these measures. States and public policies have been weakened over the last decades by deregulations, privatizations and budget cuts. Better planning, better resources and better public policies for all citizens are needed, but it is important to ensure that far right and authoritarian leaders do not use the need for decisive executive action to grab more power for their own ends (eg. Brazil, Hungary, India, Philippines, US).

Additionally, it is important for citizens and CSOs to push for the following measures at the global level:

5. Support for global public health, at stake is the survival of the planet. The coronavirus pandemic has revealed the weak state of global public health systems – generally overburdened, underfunded and understaffed because of earlier austerity policies and privatizations. There is urgent need to improve the global governance of health, including the strengthening the WHO and UN agencies that support the extension of public health systems, as well as CSOs monitoring progress.
6. Put pressure on the international financial institutions such as the IMF and the development banks, so their policies support universal public health systems, jobs and social protection floors at present as well as after the COVID-19 emergency, including resources and fiscal space to finance them.
7. Given high sovereign debt levels, continue lobbying for debt forgiveness or radical debt relief to ensure that countries get the needed financing; or at least a debt moratoria, and later debt restructuring/relief.
8. Watch out that new debt and fiscal deficits created to respond to COVID-19 do not result in a new round of austerity cuts with negative social impacts that will undermine public health systems, jobs and social protection.
9. Ensure capital controls. Capital is flying North to safety, to the US, to Europe. Developing countries are going to be hard hit, not only because of the capital drain but also from the fall of commodity prices and others. Capital controls are easy to implement, with immediate results.



Walden Bello

10. A Global Marshall Plan, or a Global Green New Deal. Global problems require global solutions; after the WW2, the US implemented a Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe. This time, no country alone can or should finance a global plan, it can be built as part of a progressive multilateralism. There are many ways to finance it, solidarity taxes to wealth may well be a best way to reduce inequalities and even up world’s development. It can be complemented by other measures such as issuing more Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) at the international organizations.

The coronavirus pandemic has provided stark evidence of the weaknesses and extreme injustices of our world. We must not return to “normality”, a world where half of its population is living below the poverty line of $5.50 a day. We must move away from an inequitable model based on unregulated finance and corporate power, blind to harmful social and environmental impacts. We must back away from a system that disregards the work of health staff, cleaners, garbage collectors, farmers, and instead reward with huge salaries corporate managers, football players, and others who do not perform any essential activity. Now citizens have the opportunity to move forward.

As countries and enterprises recuperate from the crisis, they will have to rethink their economic model, including fewer links with global supply chains, and more links closer to home. It will be an important time for citizens and CSOs to press for “deglobalization”, making the domestic market again the center of gravity of the economy by preserving local production with decent jobs and green investments, and question global supply chains based on taking advantage of cheaper wages, lesser taxes and environmental regulations elsewhere.

Now is the time for citizens to ensure that world leaders forcefully respond to the COVID-19 crisis, in accordance with human rights. This time it cannot be like many earlier crisis experiences, where insufficient support was provided, or ended in the wrong hands, bailing out banks not the population. Citizens and CSOs have a very important role to play to ensure that governments respond to people.

Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University, and former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF.

Walden Bello is senior analyst at the Bangkok-based Focus on the Global South and the International Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton.

Credit: Mohamed Fofanah/IPS

By Isabel Ortiz and Thomas Stubbs
NEW YORK and LONDON, Mar 23 2020 (IPS)

Austerity policies pushed by international financial institutions have weakened public health systems, despite current financial support packages, condemning many people to die.

As health systems of East Asia, Europe, and the Americas buckle under the strain of coronavirus, developing countries are expecting an even higher human toll. Decades of austerity promoted by international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and regional development banks have weakened public health systems, impeding the ability of governments to respond to the pandemic.

The IMF pledged $1 trillion, and the World Bank a further $12bn, in immediate funds to assist countries to cushion the impact of Covid-19. Yet, these organisations are implicated in decades of brutal austerity and privatizations that damagedpublic health systems in the first place. And it is in regions with fragile health public systems where outbreaks spread the fastest, witnessed most acutely during the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak.

Governments across the globe have implemented spending cuts and the commercialization of health services since the 1980s, advised by IFIs during regular surveillance missions or as part of their lending programmes. Austerity policies are criticised for prioritising short-term fiscal objectives over longer-term social investments such as health.

Isabel Ortiz

What is worse, governments were discouraged from raising alarm to the debilitating impact of scarce funding for public health. With the publication of “From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance Post-2015” and related documents, IFIs reassured governments of a simple solution to declining budgets: private sector delivery of public goods and services. This advice came despite multiple failures in public-private partnerships and privatizations over the last decades – for example, the US private health model is the world’s most expensive health system, but it has low effectiveness, leaving millions of Americans without health coverage.

From Lesotho to Sweden, public-private partnerships on health were costlier to citizens and resulted in poorer service delivery than public health systems.

So who benefits from these policies? IFIs have not prioritized public health issues, but fiscal or private sector objectives instead. Macroeconomic or business interests were often considered over the public good, and people’s welfare was an afterthought. This has already resulted in higher morbidityand millions of avoidable deaths, with many more yet to come.

A recent report shows how IMF-induced austerity cuts are negatively impacting about 75 percent of the world population– a total of 113 countries in 2020 – despite urgent health and developmental needs. Spending cuts apply to 72 developing countries and 41 high-income countries, many of which have already been suffering decades of adjustments. Another study shows how 46 countries prioritised debt service over public health services at the beginning of 2020, when coronaviruswas spreading.

Despite contributing to the crisis, IFIs now aim to become part of the solution by making new funds available. While laudable, the World Bank’s $12bn financial package represents a smokescreen to the public relations disaster related to its flagship Pandemic Emergency Financing (PEF) bonds. PEF bonds were designed with markedly stringent pay-out criteria to reduce the risk of losses for private investors – who have so far made annual yields of up to 14 percent, funded by the aid budgets of Germany, Japan, and Australia. Ultimately the bonds have diverted aid from crucial investments in public health systems of developing countries.

At its core, the reckless actions of IFIs represent the absence of effective global governance for health. Decades of IFIsundermining public health systems highlight how desperately the world needs global leadership and a coordinated response.To that end, the G20 has scheduled a virtual Summit over Covid-19. But will G20 leaders have the foresight to permanently abandon outdated austerity policies and urgently invest in universal public health systems?

Thomas Stubbs

The United Nations, in particular the World Health Organization (WHO), is more capable than IFIs to coordinate universal public healthcare systems, but the WHO currently lacks resources to move beyond monitoring and surveillance. The US Trump Administration recently cut contributions to the organisation, instead funnelling trillions of US dollars on restoring short-term confidence in the markets. European countries could have given meaningful aid in solidarity to East Asia and developing countries, where thousands are infected of Covid-19. But, from the outset of the crisis, they instead adopted inward-looking responses that often entrenched or intensified authoritarian and populist nationalism.

How many more people need to die? While we are now reaping the consequences of austerity policies imposed around the world, the coronavirus pandemic also offers an opportunity to redress public health gaps and do things differently. State intervention is necessary to address the magnitude of the Covid-19 pandemic, develop long-term public health, and realize the right to health of populations everywhere. It is time for world leaders to abandon myopic austerity policies and instead focus on building robust public health systems for all.

Dr. Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University, and former director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and UNICEF.

Dr. Thomas Stubbs is a Senior Lecturer in International Relations at Royal Holloway, University of London, and a Research Associate in Political Economy at the Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.

By Isabel Ortiz and Matthew Cummins
WASHINGTON DC, Oct 11 2019 (IPS)

While this week Ministers of Finance and economists meet in Washington to confront global economic challenges at the IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings, the majority of the world population lives with austerity cuts and see their living standards deteriorating. World leaders must reverse this trend.

Isabel Ortiz

Since 2010, most governments in both high income and developing counties have been implementing austerity policies, cutting public expenditures. Surprisingly, this trend is expected to continue at least until 2024, according to a global study just published by the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, global trade unions and civil society organizations. Austerity has become “the new normal.”

Based on IMF fiscal projections, the study finds that a new fiscal adjustment shock will start in 2020. By 2021, government expenditures as a share of GDP will be declining in 130 countries, nearly three-fourths of which are in the developing world. The reach of austerity is staggering: nearly 6 billion persons will be affected by 2021.

How are governments cutting their budgets and implementing austerity reforms? In practice, the most commonly considered adjustment measures in 2018-19 include: pension and social security reforms (in 86 countries); cutting or capping the public sector wage bill, including the number and salaries of teachers, health workers and civil servants delivering public services (in 80 countries); labor flexibilization reforms (in 79 countries); reducing or eliminating subsidies (in 78 countries); rationalizing and/or further targeting social assistance or safety nets (in 77 countries); increasing regressive consumption taxes, such as sales and value added taxes (in 73 countries); strengthening public-private partnerships (PPPs) (in 60 countries); privatizing public assets/services (in 59 countries); and healthcare reforms (in 33 countries).

All of these measures have negative social impacts. As a result, in many countries older persons have lower pensions; there are not sufficient teachers, medical and care staff, and the quality of public services suffers; there are less jobs, and people work under more precarious conditions; prices increase while wages are stagnant; and the low and middle classes are squeezed and under pressure.

Matthew Cummins

In perspective, the macroeconomic and fiscal choices made by governments over the last decade are alarming. The G20 alone committed US$10 trillion to support the financial sector in response to the global financial crisis, and then passed the costs of adjustment to populations, with millions of people being pushed into poverty and lower living standards.

The worldwide drive toward austerity or fiscal consolidation can be expected to aggravate the growth and employment crisis and diminish public support at a time of high development needs, soaring inequalities and social discontent.

Austerity is also being used as a trojan horse to induce “Washington Consensus” policies to cut back on public policies and the welfare state. Once budgets are contracting, governments must look at policies that minimize the public sector and expand private sector delivery, including PPPs. There are clear winners and losers from this renewed Washington Consensus, and governments must effectively assess and question these policies.

Austerity and budget cuts do not need to be “the new normal.” There are alternatives, even in the poorest countries. Governments can find additional fiscal space to fund public services and development policies through at least eight options, which range from increasing progressive tax revenues, cracking down on illicit financial flows, improving debt management and using fiscal and foreign exchange reserves, to adopting more accommodative macroeconomic frameworks, reprioritizing public expenditures and -for lower income countries- lobbying for greater aid. All these options are endorsed by the United Nations and the international financial institutions.

It is time for world leaders to abandon the myopic scope of macroeconomic and fiscal policy decisions that benefit few and, instead, look for new fiscal space and financing opportunities to foster a robust global recovery and the achievement of long-term global prosperity for all.

Excerpt: