Three Decades of Neoliberalismo in Mexico: The Destruction of Society

Three Decades of Neoliberalism in Mexico: The Destruction of Society
DEZEMBRO 13, 2015
Asa Cristina Laurell

Neoliberalism has been implemented in Latin America for about three decades. This article reviews Mexico’s neoliberal trajectory to illustrate the political, economic, and social alterations that have resulted from this process. It finds that representative democracy has been perverted through fear, putting central political decisions in the hands of power groups with special interests. The border between the state of law and the state of exception is blurred. Economic structural adjustment with liberalization and privatization has provoked recurrent crisis, but has been maintained, leading to the destruction of the national productive structure in favor of supranational corporations, particularly financial capital. The association between criminal economy and economic criminality is also discussed. The privatization of social benefits and services requires state subsidies and allows the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses. The social impact of this process has been devastating, with a polarized income distribution, falling wages, increased precarious jobs, rising inequality, and extreme violence. Health conditions have also deteriorated and disorders associated with violence, chronic stress, and a changing nutritional culture have become dominating. However, in Latin America, massive, organized political and social mobilization has broken the vicious neoliberal circle and elected progressive governments that are struggling to reverse social and economic devastation.

Clique aqui para baixar artigo completo:

Clique para acessar o 30-years-of-neoliberalism-in-Mexico-IJHS-2015-246-64.pdf

Publicado em Plataforma Política Social

 

Ben Bernanke and the decline of the middle-class

Michael Roberts Blog

Ex-Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke has recently become an adviser to Citadel, a hedge fund management company and to PIMCO, the world’s largest bond fund.  This will make Ben Bernanke a very rich man, instead of just a rich one.  Up to now he has been perhaps earning a mere $1m a year in base salary, plus income from book rights and even more from speaking fees. But now he will be into hundreds of millions.

The revolving door between public office and working for large financial institutions is the way of the world under modern global capitalism.  No wonder, the Fed, the IMF, the World Bank, the ECB etc, supposedly independent institutions, operate to ensure the well-being of the top financial firms and continually forecast the success of capitalist economies.  Actually, strictly speaking, the US Federal Reserve is not independent as it was set up and is still ‘owned’…

Ver o post original 677 mais palavras

Día Mundial de la Salud 2015

Los alimentos insalubres causan más de 200 enfermedades

PAHO/WHO

La OPS/OMS llama a prevenirlas mediante acciones en toda la cadena alimenticia, desde la producción al consumo, y recomienda aplicar cinco medidas claves

Washington, DC, 6 de abril de 2015 (OPS/OMS).-

Los alimentos contaminados por bacterias, virus, parásitos o sustancias químicas nocivas causan más de 200 enfermedades, desde diarreas hasta cáncer. Con el fin de concientizar y promover acciones para prevenirlas en toda la cadena alimenticia, la Organización Panamericana de la Salud/Organización Mundial de la Salud (OPS/OMS) eligió la inocuidad alimentaria como tema del Día Mundial de la Salud 2015, que se celebra el 7 de abril.

Alimento seguro: Del campo a la mesa, haz tu parte es el lema de este día, que recuerda el aniversario de la fundación de la OMS en 1948.

“Las enfermedades causadas por los alimentos contaminados constituyen un serio problema para la salud de la población y pueden poner en riesgo el desarrollo, el comercio y el turismo de nuestros países”, señaló la Directora de la OPS/OMS, Carissa F. Etienne. “En las Américas, con nuestra abundante producción de alimentos, podemos evitar la mayoría de estas enfermedades a través de programas fuertes de control de alimentos”, afirmó.

La salmonelosis, las enfermedades gastrointestinales y la infección por Escherichia coli, entre otras, enferman a más de 582 millones de personas en el mundo y matan a más de 350 mil cada año. Estas enfermedades se deben a la ingesta de alimentos insalubres como carne animal mal cocinada, frutas y hortalizas contaminadas con heces o pesticidas y mariscos crudos que contienen biotoxinas marinas.

Las interconexiones de las cadenas alimentarias mundiales han impulsado el aumento en número, frecuencia y lugar de estas patologías. La urbanización acelerada también ha incrementado los riesgos, ya que las personas consumen más comidas preparadas fuera de casa, que pueden no ser manipuladas o preparadas adecuadamente.

Se estima que anualmente una de cada cuatro personas sufre un episodio de enfermedad transmitida por alimentos en las Américas. Los niños y niñas, las embarazadas, los inmunosuprimidos y los adultos mayores son los más vulnerables a este tipo de enfermidades.

“Identificar rápidamente los brotes de enfermedades transmitidas por alimentos y responder a ellos en forma oportuna y coordinada es clave para minimizar su impacto sobre la salud de la población, así como sobre la economía de los países”, manifestó Enrique Pérez, asesor principal en Enfermedades Transmitidas por los Alimentos Y Zoonosis de la OPS/OMS.

Si bien no existen datos regionales sobre los costos en salud (atención, medicamentos, horas de trabajo perdidas por el paciente) de estas enfermedades, se calcula que se pierden entre 700 mil a 19 millones de dólares anuales en el Caribe, y más de 77 mil millones de dólares en los Estados Unidos.

Cinco medidas claves para prevenir enfermedades transmitidas por alimentos

Los alimentos pueden contaminarse en cualquier eslabón de la cadena. Por eso, todos los participantes deben tomar medidas para mantener la seguridad de los alimentos, desde el productor hasta el consumidor, pasando por el procesador y el vendedor.

La manipulación adecuada en los establecimientos de comidas y en el hogar es igualmente imprescindible para prevenir las enfermedades transmitidas por los alimentos.

La Organización Panamericana de la Salud recomienda aplicar cinco medidas claves:

  1. mantener la higiene,
  2. separar los alimentos crudos de los cocidos,
  3. cocer totalmente los alimentos,
  4. mantener los alimentos a temperaturas seguras, y
  5. utilizar agua e ingredientes crudos seguros.

Cinco claves para la manipulación segura de los alimentos

Evento Regional: ¿Qué tan segura es tu comida?

Para conmemorar el Día Mundial de la Salud, la OPS/OMS y la Fundación de las Naciones Unidas realizarán el 7 de abril, de 11.15 a 12 horas (hora de Washington, DC), un webcast con expertos que responderán a la pregunta qué tan segura es tu comida.

Participarán el director de la Organización Mundial de la Sanidad Animal, Bernard Vallat; el Comisionado Nacional para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS) de México, Mikel Arriola; la especialista en innovación delInstituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura (IICA) Priscila Henríquez; el director en jefe del Servicio Nacional de Sanidad, Inocuidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASICA) de México, Enrique Sánchez Cruz, y la Directora de la OPS/OMS, Carissa F. Etienne, entre otros. Para conectarse vía Livestream ingresar al siguiente enlace: http://www.livestream.com/opsenvivo

La OPS/OMS colabora con sus países miembros para reforzar los sistemas de vigilancia integrados que velan por la seguridad de los alimentos en toda la cadena alimenticia, contar con sistemas de inspección y control fuertes que eviten incidentes nacionales e internacionales con alimentos contaminados y reforzar sus capacidades de laboratorio para el control de los mismos, entre otras acciones.

##
La Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) trabaja con los países de las Américas desde 1902 para mejorar la salud y la calidad de la vida de su población. Actúa como la oficina regional para las Américas de la OMS y es la agencia especializada en salud del sistema interamericano.

Publicly Funded Inequality – Kemal Dervis

Publicly Funded Inequality

WASHINGTON, DC – One of the factors driving the massive rise in global inequality and the concentration of wealth at the very top of the income distribution is the interplay between innovation and global markets. In the hands of a capable entrepreneur, a technological breakthrough can be worth billions of dollars, owing to regulatory protections and the winner-take-all nature of global markets. What is often overlooked, however, is the role that public money plays in creating this modern concentration of private wealth.

As the development economist Dani Rodrik recently pointed out, much of the basic investment in new technologies in the United States has been financed with public funds. The funding can be direct, through institutions like the Defense Department or the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or indirect, via tax breaks, procurement practices, and subsidies to academic labs or research centers.

When a research avenue hits a dead end – as many inevitably do – the public sector bears the cost. For those that yield fruit, however, the situation is often very different. Once a new technology is established, private entrepreneurs, with the help of venture capital, adapt it to global market demand, build temporary or long-term monopoly positions, and thereby capture large profits. The government, which bore the burden of a large part of its development, sees little or no return.

 Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/publicly-funded-inequality-by-kemal-dervi–2015-03#S4y8r5GtsJF1EDzl.99

A Fair Hearing for Sovereign Debt – Joseph E. Stiglitz and Martin Guzman

Regarding the Argentina debt negotiations, a court in the United Kingdom has decided that ‘Argentina’s interest payments on bonds issued under UK law are covered by UK law, not US judicial rulings”.

Please read which, Joseph Stiglitz and Martin Guzman think, will be the consequences of such decision.

We publish the first three paragraphs and links to the full text   and to court decision.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/argentina-repay-vulture-fund-by-joseph-e–stiglitz-and-martin-guzman-2015-03

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2015/270.html

dialogosessenciais.com

NEW YORK – Last July, when United States federal judge Thomas Griesa ruled that Argentina had to repay in full the so-called vulture funds that had bought its sovereign debt at rock-bottom prices, the country was forced into default, or “Griesafault.” The decision reverberated far and wide, affecting bonds issued in a variety of jurisdictions, suggesting that US courts held sway over contracts executed in other countries.

Ever since, lawyers and economists have tried to untangle the befuddling implications of Griesa’s decision. Does the authority of US courts really extend beyond America’s borders?

Now, a court in the United Kingdom has finally brought some clarity to the issue, ruling that Argentina’s interest payments on bonds issued under UK law are covered by UK law, not US judicial rulings. The decision – a welcome break from a series of decisions by American judges who do not seem to understand the complexities of global financial markets – conveys some important messages.

The Strange Urge to Raise Rates – Paul Krugman

MAR 1 9:12 PM Mar 1 9:12 pm 82
The Strange Urge to Raise Rates

Monetary policy attracts crazy people like moths to a flame; goldbugs, 100-percent-reserve-banking types, amateur historians who think they know exactly what happened when Diocletian ruled Rome but have no idea what happened in Japan in the last decade. One thing that has surprised and depressed me in recent years, however, has been the obsession with raising interest rates among economists who used to seem sensible.

Five or six years ago, this was all about the allegedly imminent risk of high inflation. When that inflation failed to materialize, you might have expected a pause for reflection — an attempt to figure out why they got it so wrong, and maybe even to figure out why some of us basically got it right. But no; instead we got either recapitulations of the original argument, with no acknowledgment of past failures, or new reasons to do exactly the same thing, and raise rates.

The Bank for International Settlements remains tight-money central. But Marty Feldstein is effectively shadowing the BIS position, with added conspiracy theory, and it’s kind of shocking to see.

Up to a point, Feldstein has followed the now-usual arc: first dire warnings that inflation is looming; then, after years of inflation not happening, a quiet segue (or, as young people tend to write it, Segway) to “hey, what’s so bad about below-target inflation and maybe even a bit of deflation.”

You have to wonder: don’t the people making this new-reasons-for-the-same-policy switch feel even a bit embarrassed?

You also have to wonder about cognitive dissonance: in general, we’re talking about conservatives with vast faith in the wisdom of markets, who somehow are completely sure that markets will make terrible decisions due to low interest rates, and require paternalistic monetary policy to keep them on the strait and narrow.

What really strikes me about Marty’s latest, however, is the muttering that there must be some sinister hidden agenda driving the anxiety of central banks about below-target inflation, given that classic deflationary spirals don’t seem imminent.

Um, there have been many explanations of the current worry. The IMF published a very useful piece on why “lowflation” brings many of the same risks as outright deflation. It’s widely understood that the financial crisis and aftermath make the zero lower bound — even if less binding than we used to think — a very real concern, which means that not undershooting inflation targets is important. And the Fed is very much thinking about the example of Sweden, which decided to hike rates out of vague concerns about financial stability, only to find itself staring at the very real risk of deflation.

Instead, however, Feldstein suggests — with not a shred of evidence — that central banks are operating under ulterior motives, notably a desire to help finance budget deficits.

It’s very, very strange, and distressing.

Paul Krugman – The New York Times

Going fossil-fuel free – Stephen Devlin – NEF

FEBRUARY 13, 2015 // BY: STEPHEN DEVLIN

Fossil fuels are going to ruin our world long before they run out. That’s because, by anyone’s estimate, we cannot burn the vast majority of existing fossil fuel reserves if we’re to prevent catastrophic climate change. If we want to avoid a world of frequent natural disasters and horrific human sacrifice we no longer have the luxury of burning through existing reserves.

Of course, fossil fuel companies claim to be part of the solution to this problem. British Petroleum is now “Beyond Petroleum” and Shell is investing in carbon capture and storage projects. But these efforts have been less than pitiful. And why would we expect anything more? It’s blatantly not in these companies’ interests to hasten the arrival of a low-carbon world. Make no mistake: BP, Shell and every other fossil fuel company fully intend to burn everything they’ve got. It is becoming clear to more and more people that the business model of these companies requires environmental and human destruction.

No matter how much we individually benefit from oil and gas we must rid ourselves of that dependency, for everyone’s sake. It is for this reason that a surging movement of campaigners are demanding that our public institutions – universities, municipalities, faith groups, etc. – stop funding fossil fuel companies. Some of these institutions have enormous pots of money that they use to invest in stocks and the divestment campaign is asking them to take it out of fossil fuels and reinvest it in something else. Today is Global Divestment Day and thousands of people, from Sydney to Sweden, will be taking action to speak out against fossil fuel investments and make their voices heard.

But is this a reasonable demand?

Financially? The evidence overwhelmingly shows that fossil-free investment portfolios perform no worse than any others.
Legally? Most institutions have ethical investment policies that seem to reject fossil investments, and many universities will not invest in tobacco or arms companies.
Ethically? By pouring their money into fossil fuel companies public institutions implicitly endorse their plans to burn a climate-busting amount of reserves.
It’s already happening. Glasgow University, Stanford University, the World Council of Churches and the Rockefeller Foundation are among the institutions already committed to divestment.
I have been personally involved in UCL’s divestment campaign. This university is a prime example of fossil fuel companies using their links with respected institutions to prop up their legitimacy. Despite aspiring to be ‘a leader across the HE (higher education) sector in terms of environmental sustainability’ UCL has an estimated £21 million invested in fossil fuel companies and maintains a partnership with BHP Billiton, a huge mining company widely credited with a host of crimes against the environment and local peoples, which ironically funds UCL’s “Institute for Sustainable Resources”. All we’re asking is for UCL to start putting its money where its mouth is.

But what will divestment achieve? No one seriously expects to bankrupt fossil fuel companies overnight. But that’s not the point. By divesting from rogue companies whose continued mode of operation requires planetary destruction our institutions can make a powerful statement about the future we want. We can slowly remove fossil fuel companies’ moral licence and build the momentum that will carry us to a sustainable economy and society. It’s time to make a statement.

You can get involved too. Sign up to UCL’s divestment petition, or find out about campaigns happening across the UK.

ISSUES
Energy & Climate Change, Environment
Going fossil-fuel free

LIKE & SHARE WITH FRIENDS: ×

Making Do With More – J. Bradford DeLong

BERKELEY – In the United States, just three out of ten workers are needed to produce and deliver the goods we consume. Everything we extract, grow, design, build, make, engineer, and transport – down to brewing a cup of coffee in a restaurant kitchen and carrying it to a customer’s table – is done by roughly 30% of the country’s workforce.
The rest of us spend our time planning what to make, deciding where to install the things we have made, performing personal services, talking to each other, and keeping track of what is being done, so that we can figure out what needs to be done next. And yet, despite our obvious ability to produce much more than we need, we do not seem to be blessed with an embarrassment of riches. One of the great paradoxes of our time is that workers and middle-class households continue to struggle in a time of unparalleled plenty.

We in the developed countries have more than enough to cover our basic needs. We have enough organic carbon-hydrogen bonds to break to provide us with calories; enough vitamins and other nutrients to keep us healthy; enough shelter to keep us dry; enough clothing to keep us warm; enough capital to keep us, at least potentially, productive; and enough entertainment to keep us from being bored. And we produce all of it for an average of less than two hours a day of work outside the home.

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/abundance-without-living-standards-growth-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-02#rqgcHi8Chs1ZpcKO.99

The Negative Way to Growth? Nouriel Roubini

NEW YORK – Monetary policy has become increasingly unconventional in the last six years, with central banks implementing zero-interest-rate policies, quantitative easing, credit easing, forward guidance, and unlimited exchange-rate intervention. But now we have come to the most unconventional policy tool of them all: negative nominal interest rates.
Such rates currently prevail in the eurozone, Switzerland, Denmark, and Sweden. And it is not just short-term policy rates that are now negative in nominal terms: about $3 trillion of assets in Europe and Japan, at maturities as long as ten years (in the case of Swiss government bonds), now have negative interest rates.

At first blush, this seems absurd: Why would anyone want to lend money for a negative nominal return when they could simply hold on to the cash and at least not lose in nominal terms?

Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/negative-nominal-interest-rates-by-nouriel-roubini-2015-02#wr22RMHW2VztwCJH.99

WHO calls for worldwide use of “smart” syringes

WHO calls for worldwide use of “smart” syringes

Press release

23 FEBRUARY 2015 | GENEVA – Use of the same syringe or needle to give injections to more than one person is driving the spread of a number of deadly infectious diseases worldwide. Millions of people could be protected from infections acquired through unsafe injections if all healthcare programmes switched to syringes that cannot be used more than once. For these reasons, WHO is launching a new policy on injection safety to help all countries tackle the pervasive issue of unsafe injections.*

A 2014 study sponsored by WHO, which focused on the most recent available data, estimated that in 2010, up to 1.7 million people were infected with hepatitis B virus, up to 315 000 with hepatitis C virus and as many as 33 800 with HIV through an unsafe injection. New WHO injection safety guidelines and policy released today provide detailed recommendations highlighting the value of safety features for syringes, including devices that protect health workers against accidental needle injury and consequent exposure to infection.

WHO also stresses the need to reduce the number of unnecessary injections as a critical way of reducing risk. There are 16 billion injections administered every year. Around 5% of these injections are for immunizing children and adults, and 5% are for other procedures like blood transfusions and injectable contraceptives. The remaining 90% of injections are given into muscle (intramuscular route) or skin (subcutaneous or intradermal route) to administer medicines. In many cases these injections are unnecessary or could be replaced by oral medication.

“We know the reasons why this is happening,” says Dr Edward Kelley, Director of the WHO Service Delivery and Safety Department. One reason is that people in many countries expect to receive injections, believing they represent the most effective treatment. Another is that for many health workers in developing countries, giving injections in private practice supplements salaries that may be inadequate to support their families.”

Transmission of infection through an unsafe injection occurs all over the world. For example, a 2007 hepatitis C outbreak in the state of Nevada, United States of America, was traced to the practices of a single physician who injected an anaesthetic to a patient who had hepatitis C. The doctor then used the same syringe to withdraw additional doses of the anaesthetic from the same vial – which had become contaminated with hepatitis C virus – and gave injections to a number of other patients. In Cambodia, a group of more than 200 children and adults living near the country’s second largest city, Battambang, tested positive for HIV in December 2014. The outbreak has been since been attributed to unsafe injection practices.

“Adoption of safety-engineered syringes is absolutely critical to protecting people worldwide from becoming infected with HIV, hepatitis and other diseases. This should be an urgent priority for all countries,” says Dr Gottfried Hirnschall, Director of the WHO HIV/AIDS Department.

The new “smart” syringes WHO recommends for injections into the muscle or skin have features that prevent re-use. Some models include a weak spot in the plunger that causes it to break if the user attempts to pull back on the plunger after the injection. Others have a metal clip that blocks the plunger so it cannot be moved back, while in others the needle retracts into the syringe barrel at the end of the injection.

Syringes are also being engineered with features to protect health workers from “needle stick” injuries and resulting infections. A sheath or hood slides over the needle after the injection is completed to protect the user from being injured accidentally by the needle and potentially exposed to an infection.

WHO is urging countries to transition, by 2020, to the exclusive use of the new “smart” syringes, except in a few circumstances in which a syringe that blocks after a single use would interfere with the procedure. One example is when a person is on an intravenous pump that uses a syringe.

The Organization is also calling for policies and standards for procurement, safe use and safe disposal of syringes that have the potential for re-use in situations where they remain necessary, including in syringe programmes for people who inject drugs. Continued training of health workers on injection safety – which has been supported by WHO for decades – is another key recommended strategy. WHO is calling on manufacturers to begin or expand production as soon as possible of ”smart” syringes that meet the Organization’s standards for performance, quality and safety.

“The new policy represents a decisive step in a long-term strategy to improve injection safety by working with countries worldwide. We have already seen considerable progress,” Dr Kelley says. Between 2000 and 2010, as injection safety campaigns picked up speed, re-use of injection devices in developing countries decreased by a factor of 7. Over the same period, unnecessary injections also fell: the average number of injections per person in developing countries decreased from 3.4 to 2.9. In addition, since 1999, when WHO and its partner organizations urged developing countries to vaccinate children only using syringes that are automatically disabled after a single use, the vast majority have switched to this method.

Syringes without safety features cost US$ 0.03 to 0.04 when procured by a UN agency for a developing country. The new “smart” syringes cost at least twice that much. WHO is calling on donors to support the transition to these devices, anticipating that prices will decline over time as demand increases.

Note to editors:

The study cited in this news release, “Evolution of the Global Burden of Viral Infections from Unsafe Medical Injections, 2000–2010”, was authored by J Pépin et al and published in PLoS ONE 9(6): e99677. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099677. The title of the new guideline is “Who guideline on the use of safety-engineered syringes for intramuscular, intradermal and subcutaneous injections in health care”.

  • Corrigenda: This sentence was updated on 24th February 2015.

For further information please contact:

Judith Mandelbaum-Schmid
WHO Communications Consultant
Telephone: +41 22 791 1993
Mobile: +41 7 92 54 68 35
E-mail: schmidj@who.int

Tarik Jasarevic
Communications Officer
Telephone: +41 22 791 5099
Mobile: +41 793 676 214
E-mail: jasarevict@who.int

How The sharing economy can change the world – April Rinne

Two years ago at Davos, the sharing economy was a foreign concept. Whenever I asked anyone I met if they had heard of the phrase, I would receive blank stares. Perhaps 5% of people had heard of Airbnb (though they rarely used it). Quite a few more had heard of Zipcar – maybe around 20% of the people I spoke to – but most of them admitted that their familiarity was due to the company’s acquisition by Avis earlier that month.

The year 2015 was when the sharing economy arrived, full force, in Davos. The majority of people I spoke to were familiar with the term, and many had even used sharing economy services. Moreover, the discussions about sharing as “disruptive innovation” focused on the potential positive benefits. That doesn’t meant to say they ignored the challenges and unknowns, but most people recognized that these new business models are here to stay. Far from being afraid of these services and the changes they would bring, most people were accepting of them. In fact, many were curious to know how to participate in, rather than ban, these new platforms and services.

The sharing economy also provided an ideal lens to explore and contribute to other key Davos themes: trust, the circular economy, urbanization, and global development.

Trust

On the first day, Professor Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, said that trust was the defining issue for the Annual Meeting. Around the world, business and government are suffering from massive trust deficits. However, the emphasis was always on traditional approaches to trust. New notions of trust – and new models of building it, such as platforms like Traity and peer reviews – were rarely featured in sessions. The sharing economy is full of these models and meaningful insights. Looking ahead, what could the Forum community learn from them?

The circular economy

The Circular Economy Award was one of the most talked-about events of Davos, celebrating pioneers in sustainability and zero waste. Several nominees came from the sharing economy, including Lyft, SpareToShare and ParkFlyRent. The nexus between the circular and sharing economies is increasingly robust. In the future, we should expect to see more overlaps and collaboration (zero-waste products designed specifically to be shared, anyone?).

Urbanization

The sharing economy presents significant opportunities for cities: from resource efficiency to local economic investment, community connectedness and resilience. It naturally harnesses hyper-local and citizen-led innovation. Although there were many rich discussions about its role for the future of urban development, it is essential to involve more mayors (and other visionary local leaders) in Davos to reach its full potential. To do otherwise leaves value on the table, for business, policy-makers and residents alike.

Global development and Sustainable Development Goals

Davos this year presented an unprecedented opportunity and venue to bridge trends in the sharing economy with global development issues. A range of insights surfaced, from how peer-to-peer networks could help measure and meet Sustainable Development Goals, to addressing sustainable consumption vis-à-vis the emerging middle class, to the significant (yet largely untapped) role for impact investors. It was incredibly exciting to see – for the first time – the CEOs of large companies, non-profits, consultancies and think tanks finally start to have these conversations.

“Purpose-driven business” was one of the most commonly heard phrases at Davos. We should keep in mind that many sharing economy companies and platforms have social purpose built into their DNA: they exist because of community, and they thrive because of social impact.

Author: April Rinne is Adviser at Sharing Economy, Shareable Cities; she is also a Young Global Leader

Posted by April Rinne – 01:47
All opinions expressed are those of the author. The World Economic Forum Blog is an independent and neutral platform dedicated to generating debate around the key topics that shape global, regional and industry agendas.

Circular Economy Davos 2015 Forum Global Challenges Global Development Innovation New Business Models Sharing Economy Sustainable Development Urbanization Young Global Leaders

THE ECB’s QUANTITATIVE EASING PROGRAMME – NEF

Estamos, no Brasil, presos a uma discussão limitada, mesquinha, voltada para interesses políticos particulares, menores. Receitas de política econômica ultrapassadas não serão capazes de lidar com os problemas que afligem as economias modernas, especialmente as economias dos países Continue lendo “THE ECB’s QUANTITATIVE EASING PROGRAMME – NEF”

FIGHTING FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE IN TIMES OF AUSTERITY – nef


We can not afford doing nothing while conservative politicians and economists destroy people’s lives. We must “speak out against austerity”. It is not the only solution for the world economic problems. NEF – New Economic Foundation has several interesting papers proposing alternative ways of thinking. The article we republish was written by Adrian Bua. Since we are a non-profit blog and think that sharing the alternative ideias  on economy will help changing the politicians and economists minds we decided to share with you all the article and the paper, which is found on a link to NEF’ site. I am sorry for the mistakes writting in English. I am Brazilian, a native Portuguese speaker.

Enjoy and share.
Paulo Martins – dialogosessenciais.com

“NEF is the UK’s leading think tank promoting social, economic and environmental justice. Our purpose is to bring about a Great Transition – to transform the economy so that it works for people and the planet”.

“FEBRUARY 10, 2015 // BY: ADRIAN BUA Austerity policies have put communities and organisations across the UK under intense pressure. While the negative social consequences are well documented, less attention has been paid to the range of creative responses to austerity measures coming from local authorities, housing associations, grant-makers and funders, charitable and voluntary sector, campaigners and activists. Austerity policies While these are difficult times, groups across the UK are finding ways to maintain and even expand their activities. Driven by the aims of promoting wellbeing and tackling inequality, they are taking action to mitigate the effects of austerity, to challenge it, and to imagine alternative responses. The landscape of responses In our new report, out today, we draw together a set of existing examples to map out the range of strategies that communities throughout the UK are using to respond to austerity, building a strong knowledge base to support new groups in their ambitions and catalyse further pursuits that aim to achieve social justice. We show how different groups across the UK have been: • Adapting by making austerity more liveable or workable. Innovative local authorities have taken creative approaches to public spending which foster local economies, and have tried to make the most of existing assets rather than selling them off. Examples include public service reforms intended to build upon and mobilise local assets to improve service delivery, as well as the delivery of services that help people meet basic needs of housing, food and energy. The Monkey project in County Durham was set up by a group of housing associations and charities to provide free support to social housing tenants struggling with the cost of living due to falling wages and benefit cuts. The project can provide one-to-one advice, affordable new and good-quality reused furniture, discounts on new carpets and low-cost home contents insurance. • Challenging by speaking out against austerity. Local authorities, charities, campaigners and activists have used research and evidence to show the negative effects of austerity on people’s lives. Others have developed campaigns that challenge landlords and payday lenders on business practices that capitalise on the desperate conditions of low income families, and have challenged government policies that advance austerity. Psychologists Against Austerity are an example of a new group, formed of community psychologists who are speaking out about the impact of austerity on mental health, using psychological and evidence-based research. Focus E15 Mothers are another example of a strong and articulate challenge to austerity. They challenged the local effects of austerity in Newham and the narrative that young, low income mothers do not have a right to affordable housing within London. • Imagining by becoming advocates of alternatives and wider structural change. A handful of groups are looking beyond present circumstances to envision ways of organising politics, the economy and public services beyond the current era of austerity. This involves a mixture of theory and practice on ideas such as ‘guerilla’ local economic development, investing rather than cutting, and developing services that are able to prevent problems before they occur, rather than curing them at a late stage. Examples include groups such as the Early Action Task Force which have developed a series of recommendations for hardwiring prevention into public budgets, and Preston City Council which is working closely with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES) to spearhead new approaches to community wealth building through employee ownership. Future possibilities Austerity remains, for now, at the heart of the mainstream policy agenda. If cuts continue beyond this year’s election, local authorities’ budgets will be stretched to breaking point. The case against austerity and need for alternatives can only grow clearer”. NEF’ Report:

Clique para acessar o 1ac29da8caad2f83c0_llm6b3u3v.pdf